[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 160 (Thursday, November 6, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H10469-H10510]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    FEDERAL PRISON INDUSTRIES COMPETITION IN CONTRACTING ACT OF 2003

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 428 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1829.

                              {time}  1130


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 1829) to amend title 18, United States Code, to require Federal 
Prison Industries to compete for its contracts minimizing its unfair 
competition with private sector firms and their non-inmate workers and 
empowering Federal agencies to get the best value for taxpayers' 
dollars, to provide a 5-year period during which Federal Prison 
Industries adjusts to obtaining inmate work opportunities through other 
than its mandatory source status, to enhance inmate access to remedial 
and vocational opportunities and other rehabilitative opportunities to 
better prepare inmates for a successful return to society, to authorize 
alternative inmate work opportunities in support of non-profit 
organizations, and for other purposes, with Mr. Shaw in the Chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner).
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, Federal Prison Industries, or FPI for short, was first 
authorized in the 1930s to require Federal agencies to buy goods made 
by inmates in Federal prisons. The purpose of FPI was to ensure work 
and training for prison inmates by guaranteeing a market for prison-
made goods. Although Federal Prison Industries may have started with 
good intentions, it has been surrounded by controversy since its 
inception.
  FPI enjoys a mandatory market for its goods, a government facility to 
produce them in, and pays its workers less than the minimum wage to 
manufacture them. A guaranteed market for its products and reduced 
costs for labor and capital clearly amounts to an unfair advantage when 
put in direct competition with private industries. As Members of 
Congress, I believe it is our duty to protect the pocketbooks of 
taxpayers by ensuring that the Federal Government is not misusing 
taxpayer dollars. I believe it is also our duty to protect American 
business and workers from unfair competition by the Federal Government.
  FPI is a large, government-owned corporation. It currently operates 
111 factories at 71 of its correctional institutions where it produces 
goods in over 150 product lines under the trade name UNICOR. It offers 
approximately 150 broad classes of products and services through eight 
business groups. And there is no question FPI hurts private industry. 
For example, in fiscal year 2002, the FPI sold over $210 million in 
office furniture, representing a 17.2 share of the office furniture 
market nationwide.
  Since I was first elected to Congress, I have been working to correct 
the situation with FPI and level the playing field for private 
industry. I became interested in this issue out of concern for small 
businesses in my district in Wisconsin. Two businesses in my district 
were shut down as a direct result of competition from FPI. Other 
businesses sought my help when FPI threatened to come in and begin 
manufacturing small engines. Over the years, I have received dozens of 
letters complaining about FPI and asking Congress to eliminate 
mandatory source in favor of a more competitive market for Federal 
agency business. Because of these concerns, it is not surprising that 
industry and labor have joined Members of this body in seeking reform 
of Federal Prison Industries.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1829, the Federal Prison Industries Competition 
and Contracting Act of 2003, is a bipartisan solution to reform prison 
industries. This legislation would alter the way FPI does business by 
requiring that FPI compete for its business opportunities. Currently, 
all Federal agencies

[[Page H10470]]

must purchase products offered by FPI, which is commonly referred to as 
FPI's ``mandatory source'' status. FPI, rather than the buying 
industry, currently determines if FPI's offered product and delivery 
schedule meet the needs of the buying agencies.
  Now, just stop and think about that. There we have the manufacturer 
rather than the customer deciding whether or not the product and the 
delivery schedule meet the needs of the agency that is supposed to buy 
the product. That does not happen anyplace else in our economy. FPI, 
rather than the buying agency, determines the reasonableness of FPI's 
offered price.
  Now, think about that again. There we have the seller saying this is 
the price you have to pay and the buyer has no choice but to pay that 
price. This is not the way the Federal Government should do business. 
And, it increases our Federal budget deficit.
  This bill would gradually phase out the exclusive right of FPI to 
sell goods to Federal agencies by October 1, 2008. The bill also 
changes the manner in which FPI sells its products and services through 
the various Federal departments and agencies. During the phaseout 
period, FPI would be required to provide the agency with the product 
that meets its needs at a ``fair and reasonable price'' and in a timely 
manner.
  H.R. 1829 would establish new competitive procedures for government 
procurement of products and services that are offered for sale by FPI. 
It would require that FPI sales to Federal agency customers be made 
through contracts won on a competitive basis for both products and 
services. Like other suppliers to the Federal Government, FPI would be 
required to fulfill its contractual obligations in a timely manner.
  In order to ensure that inmates are not idle, there are provisions in 
the bill that provide funds for inmate rehabilitation and training. To 
address any concerns regarding prison safety and the safety of 
correctional officers, there are provisions in this legislation which 
allow the Attorney General to authorize mandatory source contracts for 
prisons where a safety risk exists.
  These common sense approaches to reforming prison industries will 
allow FPI to continue operations, but will not allow it to continue to 
overcharge Federal agencies and American taxpayers, and it will not 
allow it to continue to have an unfair advantage over small business 
with a guaranteed contract, an unfair advantage that throws law-
abiding, tax-paying citizens out of work. FPI will be able to compete 
with the private sector because it will still be able to pay subminimum 
wages and will not be required to provide health insurance or 
retirement benefits for its workers.
  It is time to create a more balanced playing field for business and 
industry when it comes to government procurement and, at the same time, 
give our Federal agencies the ability to use taxpayer dollars in the 
most efficient manner possible.
  The barriers to entry that mandatory source creates prevent the 
establishment of new businesses and new jobs. Reforming this program 
and eliminating mandatory source will help create jobs for law-abiding, 
tax-paying citizens.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the Federal Prison Industries program, or FPI, has been 
around since the 1930s. Under the law, Federal agencies are required to 
buy needed products from FPI if FPI can meet their order. The purpose 
of the program is to teach prisoners real work skills so that when they 
are released from prison, as they ultimately will be, they will be able 
to find and hold a job, they will be able to support themselves and 
their families, and they will be less likely to commit additional 
crimes.
  It is clear that the program works to do just that. Follow-up studies 
covering as much as 16 years of data have shown that inmates who 
participate in prison industries are 14 percent more likely to be 
employed and 24 percent less likely to commit crimes than others who 
did not participate in the program. While this certainly benefits 
offenders and their families, there is a more important public policy 
perspective, and that is that the real benefit for all of us is that as 
a result of the program, they will be less likely to commit crimes. We 
are prepared to spend billions of dollars in prison construction and 
prisoner upkeep in our efforts to reduce crime. This is a program that 
reduces crime while it pays for itself.
  Now, H.R. 1829 will result in fewer inmate jobs with increased 
taxpayer costs and an increase in crime. The CBO estimates that it will 
cost over a half a billion dollars with at least $177 million of that 
in additional security costs to guard the inmates who are made idle by 
this bill. The other part of the half billion dollars is attributable 
to the cost of vocational education and other alternatives to replace 
FPI when those jobs are lost. However, nothing guarantees that the half 
billion dollars will actually be funded, other than the phantom promise 
of an authorization in the bill.
  In addition to the half billion dollars of taxpayer funds for a 
program that now costs taxpayers nothing, there are other big losers in 
the bill. About 75 percent of the roughly $600 million that FPI takes 
in goes back into the purchase of raw materials, equipment, and 
services from the private sector businesses in order to purchase 
supplies for FPI products. There are thousands of these businesses and 
they hire thousands of workers. Over 60 percent of them are small, 
minority- and women-owned, disadvantaged businesses. For many of them, 
FPI is their only client. So a high number of these private sector jobs 
held by law-abiding citizens will be gone immediately with the 
elimination of mandatory source of FPI, since there will be no reliable 
FPI revenues or orders.
  And when these jobs are lost, they will not be made up by the 
business leaving FPI and going into other private businesses. The whole 
of the FPI revenues constitute less than one-quarter of 1 percent of 
Federal agency purchasing, about the same as it was in 1935. With the 
entire private sector market and 99.75 percent of the Federal market, 
spreading the remaining one-quarter of 1 percent of the Federal market 
over all of the private sector businesses is not likely to create any 
jobs. It will simply be absorbed in the existing workforce with little 
effect on work levels. Less than 25 percent of Federal agency purchases 
go to small businesses, so the bulk of the business taken away from FPI 
will go to big business, be absorbed, and not create any businesses to 
offset those that are lost.
  Now, critics say that FPI has resulted in substantial job losses for 
law-abiding citizens. The furniture and apparel industries are two of 
the industries most often cited. But when asked, representatives of 
these industries conceded that FPI sales represent an insignificant or 
negligible portion of their industries, and if such industries are 
having problems, it is not due to the impact of FPI. I have been told 
that 600,000 jobs were lost over the last 10 years in the textile 
industry. There are roughly 7,000 prisoners working in textiles in FPI, 
and certainly we cannot blame a few thousand prisoners for the loss of 
600,000 jobs.
  All able-bodied inmates in the Federal system are required by law to 
work. Few offenders enter prison with marketable work skills. The vast 
majority do not have credible work habits such as showing up for a job 
and working cooperatively and productively with others. Such habits are 
required to maintain an FPI job. These are the same requirements and 
same habits required to be productive in desirable workers anywhere, 
and that is why inmates with FPI experience have been found to be 
significantly more employable than those who do not.
  With the elimination of parole, with the elimination of good conduct 
credits, Pell grants, and the elimination of other incentives, the 
Federal Prison System has little to offer to a prisoner for self-
development. One shining exception is FPI. Non-FPI inmate jobs pay 
about 12 cents an hour to about 30 cents an hour, while FPI jobs pay up 
to $1.25 an hour and are not paid for with any taxpayer money. To hold 
down an FPI job, an inmate must have completed high school or be making 
steady progress toward obtaining a GED, and maintain a record of good 
behavior.

[[Page H10471]]

This is true not only for those already in an FPI job, but also for 
those on the waiting list, as well as those who are trying to establish 
eligibility to be placed on the waiting list.
  Some have suggested that vocational education is a good substitute 
for FPI work experience. While the vocational experience is important 
and ought to be available to all inmates who can benefit, not all 
inmates can benefit, and the timing is important for those who can. The 
average sentence for prisoners in the Federal system is 8 years. The 
average length of a vocational education program is about 2 years or 
less and is generally thought to be better delivered towards the end of 
the sentence, right before release. In any case, the question becomes 
what to do with the other 6 years of the sentence prior to or after 
completion of vocational education. And the next question, of course, 
is who is going to pay for the vocational education. The FPI program 
pays for itself.
  I am the first to concede that there are problems with FPI which 
should be fixed. When a small business making a single product already 
has a government contract and depends on the continuation of that 
contract for its viability, the FPI should not be able to take that 
business away through the use of mandatory source.

                              {time}  1145

  But this bill should be fixing the problem, not gutting it by taking 
away all of FPI's primary business sources all at once. While the bill 
suggests that lack of competition is the problem, it takes away FPI's 
ability to provide services, even though services have to be provided 
on a competitive basis. There is no mandatory source provision for 
services; there is just for products. The bill prohibits FPI from 
providing services to businesses even when there is no business or 
labor in the United States interested in providing the service.
  We are already seeing the effects of the Department of Defense 
restrictions on FPI procurement that we passed last Congress. 
Information from the program indicates that it has already had to close 
13 factories and eliminate over 1,700 inmate jobs. They expect to 
eliminate 500 additional jobs before the end of the year.
  Now, we should fix the problems, but we should do so in a way that 
assures the viability of a vital crime-reducing program. The GAO has 
been asked to study the impact of inmate employment, prison security, 
private and public employment, and public safety. The information will 
be available in April. With these issues at stake, we should not 
demolish a program with a record of contributing significantly to 
prison security, inmate and private job generation and public safety 
without first assessing the study information.
  Congress has the oversight responsibility for the safe and efficient 
operation of our prisons and for the protection of the public from 
crime. Real work opportunities in prison have been shown not only to 
provide for safer, more manageable prisons, but also for substantially 
less recidivism upon release among those inmates who participate in 
FPI.
  It costs the taxpayers nothing. If we are going to eliminate the 
program, we should put viable options in its place and wait for the 
results of the pending GAO study to determine what those options are. 
This program was created in the midst of the Great Depression when jobs 
were at their lowest point. We should not toss it aside just because it 
has a few problems. We should fix the problems.
  Now, we can do better than this bill, Mr. Chairman, and we certainly 
should.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers.)
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1829, 
legislation that has been a very long time in coming. I want to thank 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman, and the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, for moving this bill forward; and I 
particularly want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), 
my colleague and friend, for his steadfast work on this issue.
  This bill will provide much-needed relief for manufacturers in my 
district and across the country that have faced the anticompetitive and 
unfair practices of Federal Prison Industries for too long. By 
eliminating FPI's current status as a mandatory source to various 
Federal agencies and requiring FPI to compete for its contracts, H.R. 
1829 will ensure that all private sector businesses can bid on Federal 
contract opportunities that are funded with their tax dollars, not just 
those companies who first enter into contractual relationships with 
FPI.
  For those who argue that this legislation is inappropriate or that 
Congress should delay action and rely on administrative reforms, let me 
describe one recent incident involving FPI and a business in my 
district that illustrates why we must pass this legislation.
  The fundamental flaws in this mandatory source rule were clearly 
evident during a procurement for office furnishings associated with the 
renovation of the new headquarters of the Federal Aviation 
Administration. Through the GSA, the FAA conducted a fair and open 
competitive bidding process to identify the supplier whose entire 
proposal represented the best value for the FAA. The GSA then selected 
the winning private sector contractor based on the FAA's specific needs 
relating to both types of products and installation schedules.
  As required by FPI procedures, the complete proposal for the winning 
contractor was then sent to FPI for review. FPI took the contract by 
simply matching the price of the winning bid to the penny. The FAA and 
GSA were left with little recourse and, for all practical matters, had 
to accept FPI's decision, despite the fact that they thought the 
private sector bid would better fit the FAA's needs and would be a 
better value than FPI-supplied furniture. Furthermore, FPI planned to 
subcontract much of the work to furniture companies whose products did 
not match the design and quality of the winning bid.
  This contravention of the fair and open competitive bidding process 
was eventually resolved through vigorous congressional intervention, 
and the private sector contractor was awarded the FAA contract. But 
this situation serves as an example of how FPI's unjust procedures 
completely undermine fair and competitive bidding and eliminate a 
purchasing agency's prerogative.
  The reforms in H.R. 1829 are absolutely vital for ending this type of 
abuse and restoring integrity to the bidding system.
  I understand and fully support the need to provide prisoners with 
meaningful work that can help the rehabilitation process. But it should 
not be done in a procedurally flawed manner, and FPI should not 
unfairly compete with private sector bidders.
  It is important to note that FPI is only one of several programs 
within the Bureau of Prisons that provides meaningful work and skill-
developing opportunities to prisoners. The difference is that FPI does 
so at the expense of the jobs of hard-working, law-abiding citizens. 
Finally, I am pleased to note that this bill contains several 
provisions to help inmates transition back into society, including 
enhanced access to vocational training and employment assistance 
programs.
  The FPI program is unfair, wasteful and desperately needs reforming. 
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this critical legislation.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a member of the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, as we look at this bill, it 
certainly appears to respond to an issue that I have great concern with 
and that is, of course, the idea of the promotion and elevation of 
small businesses. I think my record is fairly clear in this House, Mr. 
Chairman, that I support that. But I am concerned as well about the 
substance and purpose of the Federal Prison Bureau Industries.
  Just a couple of months ago I took the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to 
visit one of our Federal detention centers, prison centers, maximum, 
minimum, and medium security, walked through the hallways and looked at 
their facilities. There was not a prisoner there that did not talk to 
me about the value of prison industries, the ability to do something 
with your hands, your mind.

[[Page H10472]]

  I looked at the less-than-sufficient computer stations, if you will, 
and, of course, somebody will say this is not a vacation home, and I 
realize that. But we realize that prisoners are family members. They 
are Americans. And they will be let out.
  There is a distinction, of course, between those who perpetrated 
heinous and horrific crimes. We know that there are some serving 
lifetime sentences. But it is documented, Mr. Chairman, that the prison 
industry is a valuable component to rehabilitation but also a valuable 
component to providing services in the community.
  We also know that the Federal Prison Bureau contract out 
responsibilities to local businesses. So it is a partnership. And what 
I am concerned about is that this particular legislation will find a 
way to undermine that relationship and that infrastructure and further 
deny those who seek to rehabilitate the opportunity to rehabilitate.
  Let me say this, that I appreciate, however, the consensus effort 
that has been made by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), 
chairman of the committee, and the ranking member, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and the chairman of the subcommittee and the 
ranking member of the subcommittee. There has been good work on this 
bill.
  I am grateful to note that there is a provision that asks for a study 
regarding this issue of good time for nonviolent prisoners. Individuals 
whose hands I shook when I went in, parents who asked me about their 
young people who were in simply for drug possession long years because 
they were simply standing on a street corner, not using, but 
possessing. And so there are some elements that I think we can work on.
  But let me remind my colleagues that it is clearly a challenge to 
balance the necessity of over half a million inmates. Rehabilitation, 
education, are key components of them being able to integrate into 
society. You have never seen anything worse than to go into those 
systems, as I did, and walk the hallways and walk the courtyards and 
see large segments of men, mostly standing idly by doing nothing, and 
having them beg you, can we find something to do. They took away the 
exercising equipment in some instances, televisions are coveted. So 
give them something to do.
  And Federal Prison Industries is a very successful entity. It 
provides job training opportunities, and it is valuable.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just say this: I wish we could compromise more. 
I hope we can work through this legislation to balance the needs of all 
who are in need of training and opportunities.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill, H.R. 1829, the 
``Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act of 2003.'' 
In a markup of the full Committee on the Judiciary in July of this 
year, my colleagues on that Committee voted to accept two of my 
amendments that speak to the issues of the bill's elimination of the 
``mandatory source preference'' and inmate ``good time'' for the nature 
of offense and good behavior, and those amendments have been 
incorporated into Sections 15 and 16 of the current bill text 
respectively. Prison reform is an important matter that deserves 
serious attention by the House before it considers passing this 
important legislation.
  Over 2 million offenders are incarcerated in the Nation's prisons and 
jails. At midyear 2002, 665,475 inmates were held in the Nation's local 
jails, up from 631,240 at midyear 2001. Projections indicate that the 
inmate population will unfortunately continue to rise over the years to 
come.
  The Bureau of Prisons of the U.S. Department of Justice administers 
the Federal prison system. Clearly, the Bureau is expanding the 
capacity of the Federal system in anticipation of accommodating an 
inmate population exceeding 178,000 by the year 2006. Clearly, the 
overcrowding of prisons is a serious matter.
  To illustrate the impact that this bill will potentially have on 
Texas, the Federal prison population for the years 2000, 2001, and 2002 
reached 39,679, 36,138, and 36,635 persons respectively; the State 
prison population for the same years reached 20,200, 20,898, and 23,561 
persons. These numbers have grown since 2002, so the impact is indeed 
significant and the State of Texas is an important stakeholder.
  In 1934, Congress established Federal Prison Industries (FPI). FPI is 
a government corporation that employs offenders incarcerated in Federal 
prisons. FPI provides job-training opportunities to Federal inmates in 
the form of goods production and services for Federal agencies. 
Currently, the State of Texas alone employs 7,700 inmates in prison 
industries. Nationally, 25 percent of those held in Federal prisons are 
employed by FPI. Items produced by inmates include furniture, metal 
products, textile items, optical and plastic hardware, and electronic 
cable assemblies. Inmates are also able to use automated systems to 
prepare data and information aids.
  By statute, FPI products and services must be purchased by Federal 
agencies (a requirement referred to as a ``mandatory source'' or ``sole 
source'') and not available for sale in interstate commerce or to non-
Federal entities. Federal agencies can obtain products from the private 
sector through a waiver issued by FPI if the corporation is unable to 
make the needed product or provide the required service.
  FPI is a self-supporting government operation. Revenue generated by 
the corporation is used to purchase equipment and raw materials, pay 
wages to inmates and staff, and expand facilities. Last year, FPI 
generated over $566 million in revenue, $418 million of which went to 
purchasing goods and services from the private sector, 74 percent of 
which went to small and minority owned businesses in local communities 
across this country.
  The Bureau of Prisons clearly appreciates the advantage the program 
can have on inmates and society at large. First, there is some security 
benefit to FPI system because inmates are productively occupied. 
Second, FPI programs are said to provide inmates with training and 
experience that develop job skills and a strong work ethic. This is 
certainly important.

   On the other hand, there are some groups that represent working 
Americans that suggest that job opportunities, particularly jobs needed 
by low-income families, are lost because FPI receives Federal 
contracts. Although current law prohibits FPI from dominating the 
Federal market, and there are currently congressional mandates placed 
on FPI to ``avoid capturing more than a reasonable share of the 
market'' among Federal agencies, departments, and institutions for any 
specific product, determining the appropriate share of the Federal 
market remains contentious. Nevertheless, we must endeavor to take into 
account the concerns by working Americans across the Nation so that we 
can pass a bill that simultaneously protects jobs and keeps inmates 
productive.
   The bill before us today provides for a five-year phase-out of 
mandatory source preference by granting to FPI's Federal agency 
customers authority to first solicit on a non-competitive basis. 
However, at the end of the phase-out period there is no existing 
substitute for the services and program. Looking to the States, there 
simply is not enough program participation to accommodate the 25 
percent that is currently accommodated under FPI.


                  Opposing views to FPI and Responses

   Some who support H.R. 1829 would argue that eliminating the FPI 
mandatory source preference will help small business. However, H.r. 
1829 will have an adverse impact on the many small businesses that 
provide raw materials, equipment, and other services to FPI factories. 
Must of the adverse impact of H.R. 1829 will fall on private sector 
small businesses. FPI would not exist, and certainly could not offer 
quality products and services, without the direct support of private 
sector companies that provide raw materials, equipment, and services 
that FPI needs to produce its products. Each of these private sector 
companies responded to solicitations issued by FPI and were awarded the 
contracts through competitive procedures.
   During FY 2002, FPI spent 74 percent of its $680 million in sales 
revenues (that is, $503 million) on purchases of raw materials, 
equipment, and services from private sector companies. Some 62 percent 
of these purchases (that is, $311 million) were from small businesses, 
including businesses owned by women, minorities, and those who are 
disadvantaged. FPI has consistently received the U.S. Attorney 
General's Small Business Award for its concerted efforts to contract 
with the small business community, far exceeding the 23 percent 
government-wide requirement for contracts with small business. From 
1997-2001, FPI has awarded $851 million in contracts to small business, 
which is a yearly average of 57 percent.
   Those who support this bill from the office furniture and apparel 
industries argue that FPI controls too much of the Federal procurement 
market and is taking away significant levels of Federal government 
business from those two industries. However, FPI is neither a 
procurement giant nor is it taking away significant levels of Federal 
business from the office furniture and apparel industries. FPI's total 
sales revenues ($680 million in FY 2002) represent only a very small 
percentage of the total Federal procurement dollars. FPI revenues 
represent one quarter of 1 percent of total Federal agency procurement 
dollars and only 4.5 percent of the overall Federal market in the 250 
products it produces within the Federal supply--a very small fraction. 
The office furniture and apparel industries are the two industries in 
which FPI produces the highest

[[Page H10473]]

volume of work. In the Dissenting Views section contained in H. Rept. 
108-286, the House Judiciary Committee report concerning this bill (H. 
Rept. 108-286), we see that ``when asked, representatives of these 
industries conceded that FPI sales represent an `insignificant' and 
`negligible' portion of their industries, respectively.''

  Supporters of H.R. 1829 from private sector labor unions argue that 
the elimination of the FPI mandatory source preference authority will 
help labor union workers get back jobs that have been lost over the 
past decade. However, H.R. 1829 will adversely affect both Federal and 
private sector labor union workers, and it will not get back the jobs 
that have been lost. H.R. 1829's elimination of the FPI mandatory 
source preference will adversely affect the 33,000 Federal corrections 
officers and other Federal employees who work at the 101 prison 
facilities in the Federal Bureau of Prisons system. These 33,000 
Federal employees, who are represented by the American Federation of 
Government Employees, AFL-CIO, know that eliminating the FPI mandatory 
source preference authority will undermine the FPI prison inmate work 
programs--and thereby create substantial problems for the safe and 
secure operation of Federal prisons. This bill's elimination of the FPI 
mandatory source preference also will adversely affect the 
approximately 5,000 U.S. workers--many of whom are represented by labor 
unions--who are employed by those private sector companies that provide 
FPI with raw materials, equipment, and other services. It is 
indisputable that certain U.S. industries have lost a great many jobs 
over the past decade. But these industries have lost jobs not because 
of FPI. For example, 600,000 textile jobs have been lost over the past 
10 years. There are only about 7,000 prison inmates working in FPI 
textile factories. Clearly, the blame for the loss of 600,000 jobs 
cannot be placed on a few thousand Federal prison inmates. The same is 
true in the office furniture business. The real blame should be placed 
on the adverse impacts of globalization and unfair trade, not on FPI.
  While there are other initiatives which may accomplish the goal of 
eliminating the mandatory source preference more quickly, I believe we 
can work together to reach a compromise that is both timely and also 
enhances opportunities for U.S. workers. We may not all agree on the 
specific phase-in period but let us try to find a workable solution on 
this critical issue.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Wolf.)
  (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill. Before I 
make some comments, let me say I have great respect for the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra). He is a good person. So we just have 
differences. I think this is not the way to go.
  Secondly, I think the administration and the Justice Department, 
their failure to take a position on this bill is morally reprehensible. 
When they have a fiduciary relationship in running these prisons and 
not to say anything, what can I say.
  Winston Churchill said one of the best tests of whether we are truly 
a civilized people is the temper, the mood of the public in regard to 
the treatment of crime and criminals.
  As somebody who is proud to be a conservative, and a compassionate 
conservative, and somebody who has worked in prisons--before I got 
elected I was involved in a program at Lorton Prison called Man to Man 
where we would go down and counsel people--knowing what this bill could 
do, I think this bill should be defeated.
  You cannot put a man in prison for years and expect him to be 
rehabilitated without work. The Bible says, ``Remember the prisoner as 
though in prison with them.''
  This bill would make it difficult to operate a prison. Inmates 
without work who are idle are prisoners that are going to later come 
back and commit a crime. This bill also has major budget impacts. To 
those on my side of the aisle who talk about balancing the budget, the 
cost of this bill over 5 years will be $500 million.
  Rehabilitation. Inmates who participate in prison work are less 
likely to repeat and less prone to violence.
  Also, at election time everyone wants to be with the Fraternal Order 
of Police. It is sort of amusing. My dad was a policeman in the city of 
Philadelphia, very active in the Fraternal Order of Police. Politicians 
always like to get the FOP's endorsement. The FOP says, ``The FPI is 
the most important correctional rehabilitation program of the Bureau of 
Prisons. Not only does it provide Federal inmates with marketable 
skills,'' then it goes on to say it opposes this bill.
  Lastly, Chuck Colson who runs Prison Fellowship, who I admire, who 
frankly has forgotten more about prisons than anybody in this 
institution on either side knows, sent a letter about this bill where 
he said the following: ``We regret that we must oppose your prison work 
legislation. We applaud you for working to reform Federal Prison 
Industries, and your bill makes many good and important reforms. In 
fact, we did not oppose bringing your bill to the floor because we 
think this important issue needs to be debated. However,'' and they 
underline, ``your bill does not set up an alternative system.''
  That is the key. There is no alternative system ``for replacing the 
jobs that will be lost when your reforms are implemented. That would be 
tragic, and it is for this reason that we must oppose your bill.''
  He goes on to say, ``Prison work programs are an essential part of 
changing prisoners' lives.'' We cannot put a man or woman in prison for 
all of these years and then expect them to come out with a changed 
life. They end by saying, ``We advocate work programs because they are 
beneficial to society.'' How we treat them in prison will determine 
what type of neighbors they will be.
  Mr. Chairman, I will submit these letters for inclusion in the 
Record.
  If this bill is not amended, I believe, and I may be wrong, that this 
bill, as surely as the night follows the day, will make it very 
difficult to operate prisons and will result in men not having the 
rehabilitation and the dignity, which I predict will lead to more crime 
in these United States.
  This bill raises the issue of job loss, but the enemy is China, and 
yet this bill does not deal with China. The enemy here is China. The 
jobs are leaving and going to China. The furniture business took a gun 
and fired it at the FPI when China is really to blame.
  The letters previously referred to follow:

                                                      Grand Lodge,


                                    Fraternal Order of Police,

                                 Washington, DC, November 4, 2003.
     Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
     Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: In light of this week's scheduled vote on 
     H.R. 1829, the ``Federal Prison Industries Competition in 
     Contracting Act,'' I am writing on behalf of the membership 
     of the Fraternal Order of Police to advise you of our 
     position regarding efforts to reform this vital Federal 
     program. While the F.O.P. has in the past supported 
     legislation providing for appropriate reform of the statutes 
     and authorities governing Federal Prison Industries (FPI), we 
     cannot support H.R. 1829 in its current form.
       The F.O.P. believes that FPI is the most important 
     correctional rehabilitation program of the Bureau of Prisons 
     (BOP). Not only does it provide Federal inmates with 
     marketable job skills, it also assists with the efficient 
     operation of correctional facilities. But most importantly, 
     FPI promotes a safer environment for the thousands of 
     correctional officers who work in BOP facilities. Thus, for 
     our organization, any reform proposal must first be viewed 
     from the perspective of its potential impact on both the 
     safety of Federal correctional officers, and the safety of 
     the public from recidivist offenders.
       In addition, any reform proposal approved by Congress 
     should provide for the complete reform of the FPI program--
     addressing the current law's ``mandatory source'' provisions 
     and increasing opportunities for inmates to gain meaningful 
     employment through the prison industries--while guarding 
     against changes which would negatively impact the program's 
     value. For example, in the 107th Congress legislation was 
     enacted which placed certain restrictions on the Defense 
     Department's procurement from Federal Prison Industries. 
     According to the views of some members of the House Judiciary 
     Committee contained in the report on H.R. 1829, `` 
     information obtained from the program indicates that it has 
     had to close 13 factories and eliminate over 1,700 inmate 
     jobs and expects to eliminate 500 additional inmate jobs 
     before the end of this year,'' as a result of this particular 
     reform effort. Clearly, this raises important concerns about 
     the safety of correctional officers and staff in the 
     facilities which have experienced these losses.
       Finally, in order to ensure the continued success of 
     Federal Prison Industries following any major changes to the 
     current program, any reform measure should also contain a 
     provision that provides for the ongoing review of the health 
     of the program. Such a provision should authorize the revival 
     of current law if, after a given number of years following 
     enactment, less than twenty-five percent of eligible inmates 
     are employed by Federal Prison Industries.

[[Page H10474]]

       On behalf of the more than 310,000 members of the Fraternal 
     Order of Police, thank you in advance for your attention to 
     our concerns on this important issue. Please do not hesitate 
     to contact me, or Executive Director Jim Pasco, through our 
     Washington office if we can provide you with any additional 
     information.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Chuck Canterbury,
     National President.
                                  ____



                                 Prison Fellowship Ministries,

                                     Reston, VA, November 3, 2003.
     Congressman Peter Hoekstra
       Dear Congressman Hoekstra: We regret that we must oppose 
     your prison work legislation. We applaud you for working to 
     reform Federal Prison Industries, and your bill makes many 
     good and important reforms. In fact, we did not oppose 
     bringing your bill to the floor because we think this 
     important issue needs to be debated. However, your bill does 
     not set up an alternative system for replacing the jobs that 
     will be lost when your reforms are implemented. That would be 
     tragic, and it is for this reason that we must oppose your 
     bill.
        Prison work programs are an essential part of changing 
     prisoners' lives so that they leave prison better than they 
     enter. Meaningful jobs teach inmates productive skills that 
     will help them make the transition to leading productive 
     lives in the free world, and the wages they receive allow 
     them to pay restitution to the victims they have harmed, 
     support their families, pay some of the costs of their 
     incarceration and save a small amount toward their ``gate 
     money''.
        We advocate work programs because they are a benefit to 
     society. Over 95 percent of the inmates who are currently 
     incarcerated will be released back to our communities. Do we 
     want them unskilled and angry after years of forced idleness? 
     Or do we want them capable of contributing to society with 
     skills they have learned during their confinement. How we 
     treat them in prison will determine what type neighbors they 
     will be.
        Idleness is destructive, and any reform of the current 
     system must also expand the work opportunities for inmates. 
     We suggest that you amend your bill to adopt the thoughtful 
     reforms proposed by the Progressive Policy Institute. If 
     adopted those reforms would result in many more inmates 
     working at productive jobs without unfairly competing with 
     private industry. Without such amendments we must oppose your 
     bill.
        We appreciate the cooperation we have received from you 
     personally as well as from your staff as we have sought 
     middle ground on this very important issue.
           Sincerely,
     Charles W. Colson,
       Chairman of the Board, Prison Fellowship.
     Pat Nolan,
       President, Justice Fellowship.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, yes, the enemy is China but we have no moral high 
ground to complain about China flooding the American market with goods 
made from slave labor in China if we do not reform Prison Industries 
because they are doing the same thing here.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, it is quite unfortunate that we have a bill 
before us that pits the small business community or the business 
community against work opportunities in our prisons. It just should not 
have reached the floor this way.
  It is absolutely obvious that prisoners need to have opportunities 
for work and rehabilitation while they are in prison. And every Member 
of the Congress of the United States has stated or demonstrated one way 
or the other that we support business, we support small business, and 
we have the office of SBA and a lot of other opportunities to show our 
support for small business. So we should not have this kind of tension. 
It really should be worked out.
  I do not know where this bill is going, and whether or not it is 
going to receive the support of the Members of this House; but I know 
one thing, if we are to release prisoners into our community we should 
be releasing them with some kind of work experience. And I am sick and 
tired of prisoners being released with no money, no home, no rental 
opportunities, no health care, no anything. When they hit the street, 
if they do not have money for food, if they do not have money to pay 
rent, if they do not have a reasonable opportunity to have some time to 
find a job, you are going to continue to experience this recidivism 
that we are experiencing. And so my remarks today are a prelude to what 
I am going to do in an amendment.
  My amendment is going to say that prisoners should be released with 
more money; that they should work with whatever the wages are under 
this system that we have; but for the last 2 years of their work, they 
should receive at least $2.50 an hour to be retained in a fund so that 
when they are released they can go and rent a place and have food and 
not be in the position of being tempted to commit crimes in our 
communities, in our neighborhoods, because we let them out of prison 
without anything.
  So if I had my druthers, I would remove this bill from the floor. It 
has no business here creating this tension between business and prison 
opportunities for work, but I do not have my druthers on this, and so 
the bill is going to come up for a vote. And I will have an amendment 
that will deal with the last 2 years of a prisoners' time so that they 
could have a little bit more money to hit the street with the 
opportunity for rent, to pay the rent and to buy food.
  Again, I know that it is important for prisoners to have the ability 
to work, and I would not want to eliminate that. I would want to make 
sure that whatever we do there are some opportunities for prisoners to 
be able to do this work.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, 
Terrorism and Homeland Security.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  While I support our efforts to train inmates to become productive 
citizens of society, I believe such effort should take great care not 
to threaten the job of hardworking taxpayers. This issue is especially 
important to the Sixth Congressional District of North Carolina, home 
to more than 40,000 textile and furniture workers, since two major 
classes of items produced by FPI are textile and furniture.
  FPI's mandatory source status gives it an unfair advantage, it seems 
to me, over private manufacturers contending for Federal contracts. 
Therefore, many of my constituents are deprived of employment 
opportunities in order to give work to Federal inmates.
  The furniture and textile industries in North Carolina are already 
competing with an increasing number of imports arriving in the United 
States from countries such as China as has been previously mentioned. 
From January 2001 to May of 2003, 100,000 furniture and related 
products jobs in the U.S. were lost. In addition, the North Carolina 
textile industry has suffered over 10,000 job losses in the past year. 
For these reasons, I am concerned about FPI's proposal to begin selling 
inmate furniture services in the commercial market.
  It is my belief that the FPI is in need of reform before it is 
allowed to expand. I am a strong proponent of H.R. 1829 because it does 
just that, eliminates the FPI's mandatory source advantage. It also 
limits FPI's ability to enter the commercial market, which I believe 
may have an adverse effect on private companies not able to compete 
with low wages and cost benefits enjoyed by FPI. Further, the bill 
incorporates vocational and educational programs to teach inmates job 
hunting and professional skills and coordinates funding to help inmates 
transition back into society. So this bill does not turn a deaf ear to 
inmate training.
  In my opinion, these are real and necessary reforms that will 
preserve FPI's goal of providing inmates with essential skills while 
allowing for better marketplace for competition.
  Hardworking taxpayers in the Sixth District of North Carolina and 
other districts who are employed in the furniture and textile 
industries can compete with anyone in the world. They should not have 
to compete with their own government which is using their tax dollars 
to train inmates how to become textile and furniture workers.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to voice my support for the Federal Prison 
Industries Competition in Contracting Act of which I am a lead sponsor 
with my colleagues, the gentleman from Michigan

[[Page H10475]]

(Mr. Hoekstra), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  We are living in difficult times, in a tough job market. The Federal 
Government should not be taking actions that put American working men 
and women out of work. But that is exactly what the Federal Prison 
Industries does.
  Federal Prison Industries has established eight business groups 
including the garment industry that use Federal prisoners to 
manufacture goods at cut rate prices. With its predatory practices, FPI 
has contributed to the closure of private companies and the loss of 
tens of thousands of jobs throughout the Nation.
  One of my constituents, Glamour Glove Company confronted FPI directly 
in 1997. FPI sought to simply take Glamour Glove's competitively won 
Defense Department contracts to make gloves for the military. If FPI 
had succeeded, Glamour Glove would have been out of business. And its 
workers, members of UNITE would have been out of work.
  I led a fight to save those jobs in my district and had strong 
support of my colleagues in this Congress. In the forefront was my 
friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra). We won that battle, 
but I recognize that FPI had to be fundamentally changed. It is 
examples like Glamour Glove that have brought us to where we are today.
  This bill will require FPI to compete for contracts while continuing 
to offer rehabilitative work opportunities to Federal prisoners. 
Federal prisoners will be allowed to compete, but it will not allow FPI 
to come in, arbitrarily, and close plants down across this country. 
This legislation will ensure that contracts are awarded to the company 
that will provide the best products, delivered on time, and at the best 
prices.
  Virtually all segments of business community led by the United States 
Chamber of Commerce, organized labor led by the AFL/CIO, and Federal 
managers represented by the Federal Managers Association 
enthusiastically support this bill. Passage of this legislation will 
not mean that inmates will sit idle in prison.
  This bill provides alternative rehabilitative opportunities including 
work in support of nonprofit public service organizations to better 
prepare inmates for a successful return to society. This bill 
authorizes $75 million dollars a year for vocational, education and 
work programs for Federal inmates. I urge my colleagues to put an end 
to this unfair government-sponsored monopoly.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I have enormous respect for the author of this bill 
and, of course, I do for the chairman of this bill, but I must oppose 
this legislation. I oppose it on prison safety grounds, I oppose it on 
fiscal grounds, and I oppose it because I believe it will increase 
recidivism and crime.
  FPI in my view is a critical tool in our justice system. It helps us 
manage prison safety at a time when everyone here knows that prison 
populations are exploding. It helps us increase the chances for 
prisoners to become law-abiding successful citizens upon their release, 
and it does all of this without costing the taxpayers one dime.
  Now, FPI, Federal Prison Industries, has not been a perfect program. 
That is why it is being reformed and improved, and I agree that more 
work should be done. But this bill, the bill before us today would 
essentially destroy FPI and all of the benefits that it provides.
  As a result of recent changes, FPI has already had to lay off over 
1,700 inmates. H.R. 1829 will greatly exacerbate those numbers and 
create a volatile, dangerous situation in our prison system.
  Now, as I said earlier, I oppose this bill also on fiscal grounds. 
According to the Congressional Budget Office, this bill will cost 
taxpayers nearly $590 million over the next 5 years. On the other hand, 
FPI costs taxpayers not a dime. Seventy-three percent of the earnings 
from FPI goes to purchases from the private sector for raw materials, 
parts, and services. These contracts are with businesses all across the 
country, and nearly two-thirds of those are with small, female, 
minority, and disadvantaged businesses. These private contracts keep an 
estimated 5,000 private sector workers employed. Twenty percent of 
FPI's earnings are paid to staff.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, H.R. 1829, on the other 
hand, would cost an additional $177 million over 5 years. That is 
nearly $35.4 million a year just for the extra security that will be 
necessary to supervise prisoners who are no longer working due to the 
elimination of FPI.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill will harm prison safety. It will cost us over 
$100 million a year. It will cost us 5,000 private sector jobs. We 
should be supporting programs that will prevent recidivism. We should 
be supporting programs that will help secure prison and public safety. 
We should be supporting programs that work with small local businesses 
all across the country. FPI does that; H.R. 1829 does not. That is why 
the bill is opposed by Prison Fellowship, by the American Federation of 
Government Employees, and as we heard just a few moments ago, by the 
Fraternal Order of Police.
  Mr. Chairman, these are days in which we have to be looking for ways 
to break the cycle of crime and violence. We know what works. The work 
ethic works. Teaching the work ethic, reinforcing the work ethic, that 
is how we maximize the chances of success for prisoners upon release. 
We have seen it day in and day out. We know that it works.
  I think it is extraordinarily sad that we take up legislation today 
that would destroy that. That would undo the one thing that we know 
works.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
for yielding me time.
  My Fifth Congressional District in Florida is home to one of the 
southeast's largest prison complexes, and that is the prison complex in 
Coleman, Florida. It is a very small rural county.
  At Coleman, working for Federal Prison Industry is a heavily sought 
after benefit that the inmates want. If an inmate misbehaves, he cannot 
work for FPI and they have lost that privilege.
  Inmates who work are proven to be less violent and more able to be 
reintegrated into society.
  We have to remember that these Federal inmates have broken the laws 
governing our land. In turn, we house them, we feed them, we provide 
them with some of the best medical care which our taxpayers very often 
resent. When I say we, I mean the American taxpayer.

                              {time}  1215

  We also offer, but not mandate, the opportunity for these inmates to 
gain some work skills.
  The Federal Government owes it to the taxpayers to utilize Federal 
Prison Industries for efficient and inexpensive government production. 
I regularly hear from the Coleman employees and members of their 
families. They all feel that knowing that an employee is working for 
FPI is a greater safety factor.
  My mama always used to say that an idle mind is the devil's workshop, 
especially in prison; and keeping the prisoners busy to me is a safety 
issue for the prison guards.
  Given the current fiscal crunch that we are having and the estimates 
that we need to fund the ongoing war against terrorism, we should not 
pass a measure that will cost the taxpayers $589 million.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Quinn).
  Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1829, the 
Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act of 2003.
  As a Member from the northeastern part of our country and a district 
with a large labor union constituency, I can tell my colleagues that it 
is not too often that the business community and the union community 
come together and work on an issue. Mr. Chairman, the business and 
labor communities have been working on this issue now for over 8 years 
to try to reform the program.

[[Page H10476]]

  H.R. 1829 balances the need to rehabilitate inmates while at the same 
time protecting our workers and our jobs. Opponents of the bill will 
tell us that the intent of business and labor is to put FPI out of 
business. This is not the case at all, and this legislation does not 
attempt to do that.
  I would ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in 
opposing any amendments that allow FPI to expand its competitive 
advantage over businesses and unions by giving them unfettered access 
to the commercial marketplace.
  Let me just close by saying, Mr. Chairman, this is a broad-based and 
bipartisan bill. This type of agreement shows that it is the right 
approach and that we should act today, not delay any longer. If the 
business community and the union community can work together so closely 
on this issue brought before us today, we should be able to do the same 
thing as Members of the House.
  I say support 1829, support it now. Delay no longer. We should act 
today.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Majette).
  (Ms. MAJETTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. MAJETTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Today, I rise in support of H.R. 1829. This bill addresses two 
important issues, rehabilitation of prisoners and leveling the playing 
field for small businesses. Rehabilitation and fair competition, that 
is what this bill does.
  For prisoners returning to society, this legislation provides more 
vocational and remedial education. It trains them and helps them to 
find jobs. I am a former State court judge, and I presided over 
hundreds of criminal trials. I know firsthand that people who receive 
education and job training are less likely to return to courtrooms and 
return to prisons.
  Federal Prison Industries has a good track record for success, but 
vocational education is shown to be even more effective than FPI. 
Inmates who have vocational education are 33 percent less likely to 
return to prison after their release. They have a viable alternative to 
criminal activity.
  This bill also levels the playing field for small businesses. 
Currently, FPI has a competitive advantage over small businesses. FPI 
is the Federal Government's mandatory source for over 200 products, and 
that effectively shuts out small businesses that make the same 
products.
  Last month, Angie McClure, vice president of a Georgia metal 
manufacturer, testified that in Georgia alone there are more than 600 
manufacturers competing with FPI. Some of these manufacturers are 
unable to compete because FPI is the mandatory source for those 
products. These Georgia manufacturers represent more than 31,000 jobs.
  We need to eliminate FPI's mandatory source status and require FPI to 
compete for Federal contracts just like every other business.
  I support H.R. 1829 because it meets both goals, fair competition and 
rehabilitation. I urge my colleagues to support the bill as well.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the author of this bill.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the Committee on 
the Judiciary for yielding me the time.
  I really want to thank my colleagues who have worked with me I think 
over the last 8 years, the chairman 7 years; my colleague, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), on the other side of the 
aisle; the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney); the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Collins). It was 7 years ago that common interest brought 
us together, and since that time we have been able to expand this 
coalition to bring about real reform, bringing about real reform that 
the business community endorses, that the labor unions endorse and I 
think really moves us into the right step.
  I want to just address some of the concerns that my colleague, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), brought up; and I think we do share 
the same vision, the same objective in the legislation, because it is 
part of a test of civilized people as to how we are in regard to the 
treatment of crime and criminals. That is why we have put a number of 
different factors into H.R. 1829.
  The first thing is we do not take a meat axe to this. What we do is 
we say over a period of 5 years we phase out mandatory sourcing. We 
still allow Federal Prison Industries to compete for the business, but 
we put it on a level playing field for manufacturing organizations in 
America so that taxpayers at least have the opportunity to compete for 
this business. So it is a phase-out of mandatory sourcing over a period 
of 5 years.
  We open up the opportunity, too, for nonprofits. In the State of 
Michigan, our prisoners, they work with organizations like Habitat for 
Humanity. They build the frames of homes. The National Guard delivers 
these frames to the building sites. The prisoners learn the trade 
skills. The National Guard is involved and families receive homes.
  We are going to be working with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott) today to expand the opportunity for prisoners to work for not-
for-profit organizations. So we are looking to fill that void, if there 
is a void.
  For years, we have heard that Federal Prison Industries produces a 
quality product at a competitive price, at a good delivery schedule. If 
that is true, there will be no change in the amount of prison work that 
is performed because all we do is we eliminate the mandatory sourcing. 
We force them to compete.
  Then, finally, we have put in a significant amount of money for 
vocational training. We recognize that when these folks leave prison 
that they need skills to make them competitive and to make them 
employable in the workplace. The one thing we know that does not work 
is to have Federal Prison Industries growing by 20 to 30 percent per 
year and industries that are declining by 20 to 30 percent per year. 
That just does not work. How can we say we are preparing people for 
work in factories and in industries when those industries are 
declining? That is exactly what is happening. The two largest elements 
of prison work, textiles and office furniture, both industries in 
decline in America during the last number of years.
  Support H.R. 1829. It is a balanced and a reasonable approach to this 
problem.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
  Mr. Chairman, before the gentleman speaks, could the Chair advise us 
how much time we have left?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Scott) has 8 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of H.R. 1829.
  Last weekend, my good friend and distinguished colleague from 
Illinois (Mr. Hyde) wrote a piece which appeared in the Chicago 
Tribune. In the article, he argued that the supporters of this bill 
would have criminals just break rocks rather than have a real job 
through Federal Prison Industries. I support this bill, not because I 
want criminals to break rocks, but because it is our job to ensure that 
hardworking, law-abiding citizens do have jobs.
  I understand that prisoners need something to do. Idle hands will 
lead to trouble. The recidivism rate in this country is out of control, 
and the best way to attack the recidivism rate is in this legislation 
dealing with education and vocational training.
  I support educational opportunities for prisoners. If we look at the 
history and we look at the record, it is the lack of education, whether 
it is high school or college or junior college education, that is one 
of the things that is most dominant and common throughout the prison 
population. This is what we need to prepare prisoners, not have them 
compete against law-abiding citizens who do work.
  In fact, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), my friend and 
colleague, said we would outlaw this act in China. We do not support 
what goes on in China, that is, prison population slave wages labor. 
Now, this

[[Page H10477]]

product may be the best option, but we do not know because there is no 
real competition. Our job is to ensure that the taxpayers' money is 
being spent wisely.
  I support H.R. 1829 because it will ensure that the Federal 
Government purchases the best product at the best price and that law-
abiding citizens have the opportunity to compete for manufacturing 
jobs.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Chairman Sensenbrenner) and congratulate him for bringing this bill to 
the floor, and especially to my friend, the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Hoekstra), who has labored long in the vineyards to try to get the 
bill before us so we could debate it.
  Mr. Chairman, as a cosponsor of the Federal Prison Industries 
Competition in Contracting Act, I rise in strong, strong support of 
this legislation. I could take this time perhaps to tell my colleagues 
about all the merits of the legislation, but the Chairman basically has 
done that and the author of the bill. I could also list for my 
colleagues a long list of groups supporting this bill, but that will be 
in the Record, too.
  I would like to tell my colleagues just about the manufacturers in 
the State of Georgia alone that could benefit from this legislation. 
Manufacturers and workers have been hit hard in tough times in our 
economy and because of some of our trade policies. Yes, that is another 
fight for another day, but H.R. 1829 could help now.
  Would my colleagues believe that there are 625 companies with over 
30,000 employees in Georgia alone who need this bill? There are 80 of 
these companies in my district alone. One of these is Habersham Metal 
Products in Cornelia, Georgia. Ironically enough, they make prison cell 
doors.
  In August, I toured this plant; and a few weeks ago, we were lucky 
enough to have Ms. Angie McClure, who is a vice president, testify 
before the Committee on Small Business in strong support of this bill. 
She told us how Habersham Metal worked on a design build project for 
several months in Pollock, Louisiana. This project would have meant 
work for the employees of Habersham Metal Products for 3 months. 
However, when the specification and request for pricing hit the 
streets, the FPI had taken all the prime doors and frames and left them 
with very little to do. This reduced the possibility of Habersham Metal 
employees working for 3 months down to 3 weeks.
  This is not an isolated incident. It has happened in this company 
alone many other times. But beyond the money and the employment 
concerns, where in the world is the logic for allowing inmates to build 
their own prison doors? It makes no sense.
  I have heard on this floor people say, well, if we leave everything 
just like it is, it does not affect the taxpayer. Well, I will tell my 
colleagues, ask the taxpayer who does not have a job and is not paying 
taxes anymore if it affects them because the government factory has a 
monopoly. I have heard people on this floor saying that, well, 
prisoners will not be trained, prisoners should not work. There is not 
a Member here who does not believe they should not be worked and should 
not be trained, and there is not a word in this bill that says they 
cannot work. In fact, there are provisions in this bill to improve 
training for the inmates. It is not work that we are after. It is what 
the work is that they do.
  I ask all of my colleagues, please support this bill. This is 
legislation that is way overdue.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, often in institutions 
unwritten rules get more obedience than written rules. One of the 
unwritten rules that is quite generally followed around here is that 
when one Member begins a set of remarks by speaking highly of another 
Member, the first Member is about to disagree with the second Member. 
So let me adhere to that rule.

                              {time}  1230

  I have enormous respect for the work done by the gentleman from 
Virginia who is leading the opposition to this bill. He is in many 
ways, particularly in criminal justice, the conscience of this House. 
And so I feel it is particularly important to explain why we disagree, 
and I appreciate the comments made by the gentleman from Georgia. This 
is not a debate about whether or not prisoners ought to be given work 
to do which will be socially productive and rehabilitative. The 
question is how will we pay for that work. That is the issue.
  The current system in effect pays for prison rehabilitation by 
putting hardworking, low-wage citizens at a disadvantage and 
exacerbates their problem. What we now have is a subsidized form of 
competition between the prisoners and garment workers, textile workers 
and furniture workers. That is why the AFL-CIO so strongly supports our 
bill. That is why unions, the UAW, UNITE, unions which have been in the 
forefront of the battle for social justice support this bill, because 
it is not a case of saying prisoners should not be given useful, 
rehabilitative work. It is an effort to change the way it is financed.
  Right now a vulnerable section of our population, people who work in 
the textile industry, people who work in the garment industry, people 
who work in the furniture industry, they are the ones who have to bear 
the brunt of financing prison rehabilitation.
  We believe through this bill, that like any other important public 
purpose, we should fund it in a general way with everybody who will 
benefit participating, and that we do not single out not just a segment 
but an economically vulnerable segment, people who are already hurt 
disproportionately by trade policies, people who are already in 
difficulty because of a variety of other factors.
  This bill includes provisions to say that the prisoners can do work, 
make products, but simply not compete commercially. There are plenty of 
these institutions in this society, Habitat for Humanity was mentioned, 
homeless shelters, day-care centers, there are plenty of places that 
have a need for clothing and furniture, draperies, they can be given 
this.
  What is at issue is not whether or not prisoners do work, but what is 
the socially fair and responsible way to pay for it. It is true there 
will be a difference. If we go the way those of us who support this 
bill want, Prison Industries will not be doing much marketing, but I 
would hope marketing is not one of the things that we are not getting 
the prisoners into right away. They do the physical work, they learn 
the vocational skills. The marketing is not something that we ought to 
be introducing them to. This bill is a way to continue rehabilitative 
work for the prisoners in a socially fair manner.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise in support of this legislation, and I rise in support of it 
because I think it is long overdue that we address this problem. 
Approximately 8 years ago, a young man came to my office in Jonesboro, 
Georgia, to tell me about a situation that his small business was in. 
He was being denied a contract with the Air Force for building missile 
containers which he had been doing for several years. He fought it in 
court and won. He spent all of his cash doing so, only to see FPI come 
back again, this time successfully, leading to the demise of his 
business and the loss of about 150 jobs, people working to provide for 
their families, to pay their taxes, and they are playing by the rules.
  They had an unfair competition, a position of having a mandatory 
source that this small business did not have and could not overcome. It 
has been said that China is the enemy, not these inmates. I do not 
consider either an enemy. I consider the inmates having an unfair 
position toward competition with the mandatory source which has been 
long overdue to be changed. I do not see China as an enemy, I see them 
as competition and meeting competition with us with some advantages. 
There are a couple of things where they do not play by the rules as far 
as trade. They do not value their currency as

[[Page H10478]]

they should, and they have tax provisions of tax laws which are much 
different from ours which make our workforce noncompetitive with their 
workforce. Here we are talking about law-abiding citizens competing 
with inmates. It is time to pass this legislation, do a 5-year phaseout 
of the program and get away from the mandatory source and the 
competition of contracting and bidding.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I have listened intently to this 
debate, and it is clear to me that there are a lot of people here who 
do not know much about what goes on in prison, and do not know much 
about what happens to people when they get out of prison. Most of the 
individuals who are incarcerated have no skills. As a matter of fact, 
most of them do not have a high school diploma. They are dropouts. Many 
of them have personal emotional problems and difficulties.
  My mother always told us that an idle mind was a devil's workshop. I 
can tell Members if we do not provide an opportunity for individuals to 
learn and develop a skill, to come out so they are able to go in the 
marketplace and get a job, half of them will end up right back in the 
same prison. We will be paying for them and paying for them and taking 
care of them for the rest of their lives. If that is not utilization of 
tax money, then I do not know what is.
  I agree with my esteemed colleague from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) when he 
wrote the op-ed opinion. It may not be the intent to have them breaking 
rocks, but the results will be that there will be nothing for them to 
do except break rocks. I have heard people talk about the training, all 
of the things that they are going to get. I do not know which prisoners 
these are, and I do not know which prisons these individuals come from. 
They sure do not come from the ones that I meet and know and see.
  This legislation is not good even for small businesses. It is not 
good for the businesses that we intend to protect because any money 
that they can make they are going to have to plow it right back into 
taking care of the inmates who now cannot take care of themselves. I 
would urge that we vote this legislation down. It is not good for 
America.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, if this bill passes, we will very seriously jeopardize 
the viability of the Prison Industry programs that will reduce the 
number of prison jobs. It will actually reduce the number of business 
opportunities because right now we are only talking about one-fourth of 
1 percent of the Federal procurement. In addition to all of the private 
procurement going on, obviously eliminating the prison work and one-
fourth of 1 percent of just the Federal part of the entire market share 
will make no difference to anyone. If they cannot get a contract now, 
they certainly will not be able to get a contract if this bill passes. 
We do know, however, that crime will go up if this bill passes. It does 
not cost the taxpayer any money. It works. I would hope that we will 
defeat the bill.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, listening to the opponents of this bill, one would be 
led to believe if this bill passes, prisoners are not going to have 
anything to do and there will be nothing but prison riots. And when 
they get out of prison, they will go back to a life of crime because 
they do not have the skills. That is not true.
  This bill authorizes $75 million a year for rehabilitation and 
training, vocational training so when they get out of the prisons, they 
will be equipped to compete in the job market.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) said it correctly, the 
question is here who pays for the rehabilitation of prisoners, and who 
pays for giving them vocational training. Vote this bill down, and it 
is on the back of the small business owners and the people who work and 
pay taxes to try to compete in Federal Government procurement. Pass 
this bill, and the taxpayers will pay for it, which they ought to.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to discuss H.R. 1829, 
the Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act of 2003, 
and to discuss a section I added, section 16, which should be left 
intact. In a markup of the full Committee on the Judiciary in July of 
this year, my colleagues on that Committee voted to accept two of my 
amendments that speak to the issues of the bill's elimination of the 
``mandatory source preference'' and inmate ``good time'' for the nature 
of offense and good behavior that have been incorporated in the bill as 
sections 15 and 16, respectively. Prison reform is an important matter 
that deserves serious attention by the House before it considers 
passing this important legislation.
  Section 16 reads:

       It is the sense of Congress that it is important to study 
     the concept of implementing a ``good time'' release program 
     for non-violent criminals in the Federal prison system.

  This provision is extremely important to the rebuilding and 
strengthening of our society with contributors to the economy. 
Furthermore, it helps to alleviate our ever-increasing problem of 
prison overcrowding. In addition, section 16 rewards those inmates who 
have behaved well during their incarceration period, thereby giving 
proof that the criminal justice system does work on occasion.
  It is very important that we respect the lives of those who are 
incarcerated and allow those who do not belong there to exit. Ex-
inmates find it hard to re-adjust to the free community as it is. If 
they have spent any length of time behind bars, they have come to see 
the rules of the free world etiquette as upside-down. They have learned 
in prison, for example, that a smile when greeting someone means you 
are looking for trouble. Being nice or kind to anyone is a sign of 
weakness, and ex-inmates typically overreact to anything that threatens 
to put them down or make them feel hopeless. The most common reason for 
not being able to adjust back into society is an inability to handle 
all the strange, angry emotions and hassles that come up in almost 
every social or interpersonal encounter with people in the free 
community.
  The rights of inmates are restricted, the theory being that they do 
not have the required honesty and proper values to participate in some 
of the things that free people enjoy. These restrictions vary by 
jurisdiction, and some places are slowly lifting them but nevertheless 
remain very behind. I mention this situation to show how those inmates 
who have fully rehabilitated only get harmed by prolonged time in 
prison. This provision respects what the criminal justice system was 
built to do. The criminal justice system was not created to simply 
house the undesirables of the world or to keep them away from 
civilization. It was created to punish, rehabilitate, and to reinstate 
into active society.
  Over 2 million offenders are incarcerated in the Nation's prisons and 
jails. At midyear 2002, 665,475 inmates were held in the Nation's local 
jails, up from 631,240 at midyear 2001. Projections indicate that the 
inmate population will unfortunately continue to rise over the years to 
come. A great number of these inmates have fully rehabilitated and have 
earned the right to exit on ``good time.''
  According to a 1995 Federal Bureau of Prisons study of more than 
7,000 inmates, 72 percent of those who participated in a prison work, 
vocational training or apprenticeship program, or a combination of 
these programs, had found and kept jobs by the end of their first year 
out of prison. Sixty-three percent of those who had not participated in 
these programs were able to find and keep jobs in the same time period. 
Allowing these individuals to exit on ``good time'' only gives our 
economy a much-needed wave of fresh contributors.
  Work programs are an important component of rehabilitation. Most 
prisoners have poor literacy skills and few job skills, and therefore a 
history of unemployment and crime. Programs that reduce illiteracy, 
allow prisoners to earn a high school diploma, and provide vocational 
training and work skills are beneficial to a prisoner's rehabilitation 
and have been shown to be very effective in decreasing recidivism. A 
program that provides real work experience can teach useful job skills 
and good work habits which will be vital to the ex-offender's 
reintegration into the community. With the benefits conferred by 
section 16 of this bill, the prison system will actually serve as an 
institution in which we can have pride.
  FPI runs effective and valuable rehabilitative programs. These 
programs help prisoners gain important life skills, thereby decreasing 
recidivism, and gives prisoners income which they can use to pay 
restitution to victims, fines to the government and money to their 
families. Eliminating the mandatory sourcing program, as mandated by 
H.R. 1829, would severely limit, if not completely destroy, FPI and 
these programs. Currently, 22,560 prisoners are employed in the FPI. 
This accounts for 18 percent of the total Bureau of Prison inmate 
population.
  The Bureau of Prisons of the U.S. Department of Justice administers 
the Federal prison

[[Page H10479]]

system. Clearly, the Bureau is expanding the capacity of the Federal 
system in anticipation of accommodating an inmate population exceeding 
178,000 by the year 2006. Clearly, the overcrowding of prisons is a 
serious matter.
  The Bureau of Prisons clearly appreciates the advantage the program 
can have on inmates and society at large. First, there is some security 
benefit to the FPI system because inmates are productively occupied. 
Second, FPI programs are said to provide inmates with training and 
experience that develop job skills and a strong work ethic. This is 
certainly important.
  On the other hand, there are some groups that represent working 
Americans that suggest that job opportunities, particularly jobs needed 
by low-income families, are lost because FPI receives Federal 
contracts. However, current law prohibits FPI from dominating the 
Federal market, and there are currently congressional mandates placed 
on FPI to ``avoid capturing more than a reasonable share of the 
market'' among Federal agencies, departments, and institutions for any 
specific product; determining the appropriate share of the Federal 
market remains contentious. Nevertheless, we must endeavor to take into 
account the concerns by working Americans across the Nation so that we 
can pass a bill that simultaneously protects jobs and keeps inmates 
productive.
  The most important positive skill taught by FPI is a work ethic. The 
FPI has had a very positive impact on inmates. A major longitudinal 
research study conducted by the Bureau of Prisons concluded that 
inmates who worked in FPI while in custody were substantially more 
likely upon release to be employed and earning higher wages and were 24 
percent less likely to be engaged in criminal behavior. Reductions in 
recidivism can have enormous impact on public safety, criminal justice 
costs, reimbursement to victims and strengthened family ties. Hand in 
hand with this reduction in recidivism is the benefit to be seen from 
giving inmates of non-violent crimes early exist from prison based on 
``good time.'' The success stories that we see in our respective States 
all show that such early release does cut down on recidivism and helps 
the economy.
  Instead of cutting back on prison industry, we must pass legislation 
to provide greater opportunities for prison employment and legislation 
that will improve the safety of those who must live and work in the 
prisons.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1829, the 
Federal Prison Industries Act. I am a proud cosponsor of this sensible 
legislation, and believe that private businesses from my State and 
others can now compete for government contracts that they were barred 
from in the past. The exemption of Federal Prison Industries (FPI), 
Inc. has allowed for higher prices, and fewer choices for Federal 
agencies. With enactment of this bill, Federal agencies will now be 
able to choose the products and services offered by FPI rather than the 
other way around. It is a good bill, a sensible bill that helps 
businesses and workers in my district.
  In these tough economic times, when well paying manufacturing jobs 
are leaving the great State of Michigan, this is an opportunity to help 
unemployed workers get back to work. H.R. 1829 opens to competition 
Federal contracting opportunities reserved for FPI. Private sector 
firms, and their non-inmate workers, will, for the first time, be able 
to bid on these Federal business opportunities.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a bipartisan bill that has the overwhelming 
support of business and many labor unions. I am proud to support this 
bill, and call on my fellow Members to do the same.
   Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my opposition to H.R. 
1829, the Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act of 
2003.
   In my home State of Wisconsin there are many small businesses that 
provide parts for FPI products. These are vital businesses that will be 
hurt if the contracting procedures of FPI are changed. Additional job 
losses would be devastating to an area that has already lost many 
manufacturing jobs.
   The supporters of this bill say that small businesses would be 
helped by its passage. That simply isn't true for the Sixth District of 
Wisconsin, and we will find that it won't be true in many other 
communities.
   There are currently over 145,000 federally incarcerated inmates. It 
is our responsibility to provide meaningful work and job-training 
opportunities for these inmates while balancing the needs of the 
business communities. I have visited the Oxford Prison in my district, 
one of the institutions where FPI contracts are filled. The inmates 
there put together a good product, learn a skill, and importantly, must 
take responsibility and initiative, all of which will serve them well 
upon their release. H.R. 1829 would tie the hands of the Bureau of 
Prisons, preventing them carrying out these goals. Supporters of this 
bill seem to think that this isn't true.
   Passage of this bill would be detrimental to businesses throughout 
the Nation, not to mention the thousands of inmates who benefit form 
the opportunities that FPI provides.
   I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1829.
  Ms. MAJETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1829 Federal 
Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act of 2003. 
Rehabilitation of prisoners is vitally important to society. However, 
when a government corporation becomes a profit center that is removing 
work from small businesses, the process needs to be reviewed and 
changed. That is what this legislature does.
  Today, FPI is the Federal Government's mandatory source for almost 
200 products. That is almost 200 items that small businesses cannot 
make for the Federal Government. FPI has a distinct advantage over 
small businesses. FPI is able to pay much lower wages--$.25-$1.25 per 
hour, which is four to five dollars less than our current minimum wage. 
FPI is exempt from the often overwhelming requirements of OSHA 
compliance. FPI also has the advantage of borrowing funds from the U.S. 
Treasury to purchase equipment, pay wages and invest in expansion of 
facilities. Small businesses do not have that advantage--they have to 
go to banks to borrow money.
  For those prisoners who expect to return to society, rehabilitation 
is important and this legislation makes sure that vocational education 
for inmates is increased, as well as remedial education. It increases 
inmate access to programs that teach job-seeking skills and also gives 
them access to pre-release job fairs.
  I am a former State Court judge and I have presided over hundreds of 
criminal trials. I know that we, as a society, have failed some of the 
individuals who appeared before me and my judicial colleagues. Many 
criminal defendants are people for whom the educational system has 
failed. We have failed to provide early intervention and Head Start for 
many of these individuals. We have failed to help them graduate from 
high school. We have failed to help these individuals develop the job 
skills necessary to be productive members of society and to stay on the 
right side of the law. If we had just made the proper investment in 
education and job training at the beginning, some of these individuals 
would not be in courtrooms and prisons across the country now.
  Now that these individuals are in prison, it is vitally important to 
give them the training they need to be successful once they are 
released from prison, we must do our best to ensure they do not return.
  Federal Prison Industries has certainly given skills and purpose to 
inmates and has a good track record for success. About 24 percent of 
prisoners who take part in FPI do not return to prison.
  However, as I know from my years as a lawyer and judge, there is no 
one program that works for every individual. In fact, vocational 
education is shown to be even more effective than FPI. Those inmates 
who have vocational education are 33 percent less likely to return to 
prison after release.
  This legislation increases funds available for vocational education 
for inmates, including remedial education. But we cannot stop there--we 
need to appropriate those funds as well. Saying we don't have the money 
next year is no excuse, because as a society we will pay.
  We can decrease the likelihood that those individuals will return to 
prison. This is not a handout to prisoners, this is an investment in 
the future of our society. Education, job skills and training are 
investments that we should have made long before these individuals 
ended up on the wrong side of the law. The cost of this bill is a small 
price to pay for returning people to society with the skills they need 
to be productive and increasing the odds of their success.
  But that success cannot come at the expense of law abiding citizens 
who are running small businesses. Small businesses are really the 
backbone of our economy. They give us three of every four jobs created. 
We must not take additional opportunities away from our entrepreneurs.
  Last month a metal products manufacturer from Georgia testified that 
in Georgia alone there are more than 600 manufacturers that compete 
with FPI, or who are unable to compete for Federal contracts because 
FPI has become the mandatory source for those products. These companies 
represent more than 31,000 jobs.
  We need to eliminate FPI's ``mandatory source'' status and require 
FPI to compete for Federal contracts just like every other business. 
Our small businesses need a level playing field on which to compete for 
Federal contracts while we continue to rehabilitate inmates. I support 
H.R. 1829 because it meets both goals--fair competition and 
rehabilitation. I urge my colleagues to do the same.
   Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1829, the 
Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act. This 
legislation is needed to help reform the Federal Prison Industries 
because right now FPI

[[Page H10480]]

unfairly competes with small businesses. FPI is a government-owned 
corporation that employs over 20,000 inmates. FPI has been producing 
approximately 150 types of goods and services that government agencies 
are forced to accept without competition. FPI was created in 1934 in 
order to manage, train, and rehabilitate inmates; unfortunately, FPI 
does not fulfill its mission and many inmates are unprepared to enter 
the workforce when they are released from prison.
   In fact, there has been no evidence any inmates have gained 
meaningful employment upon release when assembly is the primary skill 
required. FPI pays inmates a paltry $.23 to $1.15 per hour, does not 
provide employee benefits, and is exempt from excise taxes. Small 
businesses absolutely cannot compete with this unfair system. Furniture 
manufacturers have had to lay off 30,000 employees nationwide, while 40 
percent of FPI sales in FY 99 came at the expense of the office 
furniture industry. Law-abiding citizens are looking for work; 
nevertheless the FPI is shielded from competition, overcharges for its 
products and services, and is less efficient than many small 
businesses. The bill we are discussing today changes that by allowing 
small businesses to competitively bid on services provided by FPI to 
the government.
   We update FPI in order to improve job-hunting skills and better 
address rehabilitation for inmates. In addition, reform will provide 
opportunities for law-abiding citizens and small businesses. This 
legislation updates and improves this depression-era agency by properly 
training inmates with hands-on vocation combined with remedial 
education.
   I urge my colleagues to support this fair legislation that will help 
level the playing field between this government agency and our small 
businesses.
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer my strong 
support for the Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting 
Act. But before I begin I would be remiss if I did not thank my good 
friend and colleague Representative Pete Hoekstra for introducing and 
working so hard to pass this important measure.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1829 levels the playing field and lets private 
sector businesses compete for Federal Government contracts. 
Specifically it eliminates the mandatory contracting requirement that 
Federal agencies are subject to when it comes to products made by the 
Federal Prison Industries (FPI).
  In a misguided policy, Federal agencies are currently required to buy 
only from FPI. This requirement has transformed FPI from a small 
program focused on rehabilitation into a virtual monopoly power in the 
Federal marketplace. Providing over 300 products and services and 
generating $678 million in sales last year.
  We in Michigan have a keen appreciation of the impact of FPI because 
nearly 35 percent of these sales represent office furniture products 
that are competing directly with the many furniture makers in my home 
State of Michigan. In fact, approximately 5,000 inmates in 17 factories 
within the Federal Prison System are building furniture today. Without 
this bill, FPI will be able to continue its mission creep into new 
marketplaces directly competing with struggling private manufacturers.
  Mr. Chairman, the private marketplace has consistently shown that 
they can provide higher quality products quicker and cheaper than the 
FPI. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill and support 
American manufactures.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1829. 
Let me congratulate my colleague from Michigan for his hard work in 
bringing this bill to the floor of the House today.
  This bill is about fundamental fairness. We are not voting today to 
eliminate the Federal Prison Industries. Rather, we seek to open up the 
federal procurement process to manufacturers who are capable of 
supplying quality products at reasonable prices, but who are by law 
prevented from doing so.
  We have heard a great deal in recent months about the state of 
manufacturing in this country, and, it's true, our manufacturers are 
under severe pressure. As legislators, we should be looking for ways to 
open up markets for our small businessmen and women to sell their 
products, so that factories stay open and jobs stay here.
  The fact of the matter is that the federal government is a market 
unto itself. But for the more than 300 products that the FPI is the 
only entity allowed to sell to the federal government, it is a market 
that is closed to our blue collar workers. This is simply not right.
  It's time to end this unfair monopoly. Let's level the playing field 
for government contracts for our manufactures here at home. We'll save 
the government money, save some jobs, and restore some sanity to this 
part of the federal procurement process.
  The FPI shouldn't be afraid of a little competition. Our 
manufacturers are not.
  I encourage all my colleagues to support H.R. 1829.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). All time for general debate 
has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute printed in the bill shall be considered by sections as an 
original bill for the purpose of amendment, and each section is 
considered read.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered read.
  The Clerk will designate section 1.
  The text of section 1 is as follows:

                               H.R. 1829

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Federal 
     Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act of 2003''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Governmentwide procurement policy relating to purchases from 
              Federal Prison Industries.
Sec. 3. Public participation regarding expansion proposals by Federal 
              Prison Industries.
Sec. 4. Transitional mandatory source authority.
Sec. 5. Authority to perform as a Federal subcontractor.
Sec. 6. Inmate wages and deductions.
Sec. 7. Clarifying amendment relating to services.
Sec. 8. Conforming amendment.
Sec. 9. Rules of construction relating to chapter 307.
Sec. 10. Providing additional rehabilitative opportunities for inmates.
Sec. 11. Restructuring the Board of Directors.
Sec. 12. Providing additional management flexibility to Federal Prison 
              Industries operations.
Sec. 13. Transitional personnel management authority.
Sec. 14. Federal Prison Industries report to Congress.
Sec. 15. Independent study to determine the effects of eliminating the 
              Federal Prison Industries mandatory source authority.
Sec. 16. Sense of Congress.
Sec. 17. Definitions.
Sec. 18. Implementing regulations and procedures.
Sec. 19. Rule of construction.
Sec. 20. Effective date and applicability.
Sec. 21. Clerical amendments.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any amendments to section 1?


 Amendment No. 8 In The Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Green of 
                               Wisconsin

  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Amendment No. 8 in the nature of a substitute offered by 
     Mr. Green of Wisconsin:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE STUDY ON FEDERAL PRISON 
                   INDUSTRIES.

       (a) Requirement.--The Comptroller General shall conduct a 
     study of the effects of eliminating the mandatory source 
     requirements for Federal Prison Industries (as specified in 
     section 4124 of title 18, United States Code). The study 
     shall consider the effects on prison operations, public 
     safety, inmate employment, public and private sector 
     employment, and any other matters the Comptroller General 
     considers relevant.
       (b) Report.--Not later than April 30, 2004, the Comptroller 
     General shall submit to the Committees on the Judiciary of 
     the House of Representatives and the Senate a report on the 
     results of the study required by subsection (a).

  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, a few moments ago my friend, 
the author of this bill, claimed that this bill would not hurt FPI. He 
said it would help Federal Prison Industries. It would strengthen it.
  Well, the truth of the matter is although he may believe that, he 
cannot say that for certain. We simply do not know. The amendment that 
I offer today would help us to find out. This simple amendment is 
grounded in common sense. It simply permits the GAO to study the 
effects of eliminating mandatory source requirements for Federal Prison 
Industries. The proscribed study will consider the effects on prison 
operations, public safety, inmate employment, and public and private 
sector employment.
  A similar study is already underway at the GAO, and we have been told 
that this study will be ready by April 2004,

[[Page H10481]]

in 6 months. In only 6 months, we would have all of the information we 
need, impartial evidence, the evidence that we need to know what the 
effect this legislation would have on our public safety, on our prison 
safety, on recidivism, on prison operations, and local business. It 
seems to me 6 months is not too long to wait. This study will provide 
us with the data to determine the actual effects of eliminating the FPI 
mandatory source authority as this bill would do. The study is critical 
in my view to the proper development of any comprehensive legislative 
solution to the real problems that exist with FPI.
  Currently, FPI has a positive impact upon a number of important 
concerns in the justice system, concerns like prison security and 
correctional worker safety and victim restitution, dependent support, 
recidivism, hundreds of small and minority-owned businesses, not to 
mention the thousands of workers that partner with FPI. And last, but 
not least, public safety. The GAO report will assess the impact of the 
bill on these important areas.
  I believe the consideration of this legislation is premature without 
this analysis and review. There could be many unforeseen and unmeasured 
impacts as a result of this bill. The problem is no one knows for sure.
  It is this type of uncertainty that has caused Chuck Colson's Prison 
Fellowship to oppose this legislation.
  My amendment asks for the study to be forwarded to the House and 
Senate Judiciary Committees for review. Once we have this information, 
then we can act in ways that will truly reform and improve Prison 
Industries. There would be more than enough time in this session to 
take action, action that would strengthen FPI, action that would take 
care of abuses in FPI.
  Mr. Chairman, we should act on the basis of facts. We should wait a 
short 6 months before proceeding with legislation that could harm so 
many people and do so very much damage. I ask Members to vote yes for 
this amendment and vote yes for getting the real facts.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, let us be clear about this. This is an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute. If it is adopted, there will be no more 
amendments in order and the bill will come up for a vote on final 
passage right away. All of the work that has been done relative to 
reforming Prison Industries will be tossed in the waste basket, and we 
will get another study and the Committee on the Judiciary is going to 
have to start over from scratch in terms of putting together 
legislation to reform Federal Prison Industries.
  The Committee on the Judiciary has held hearings on the problems 
relating to Prison Industries. We have had a markup on this bill where 
all views were considered. In the last Congress we did the same. To say 
that all of this work should be tossed in the waste basket and we have 
to start over from scratch is nothing but a means of saying let us keep 
the present system as it is.

                              {time}  1245

  It is a stalling technique, and it really should not be seriously 
considered in the House.
  Let us look at what is in the 48 pages of H.R. 1829. It makes reform 
of the government-wide procurement policy with respect to purchases 
from FPI. It has public participation regarding expansion proposals by 
FPI. It has a transitional mandatory source authority. It gives FPI the 
authority to perform as a Federal subcontractor. It deals with inmate 
wages and deductions. It has additional rehabilitative opportunities 
for inmates, and provides an authorization for it. It restructures the 
board of directors of FPI, which I think is vitally necessary because 
it is the board that determines what Federal Government agencies have 
to buy and what goods they have to buy. It provides additional 
management flexibility for FPI. It requires a report by FPI to 
Congress. It has an independent study to determine the effects of 
eliminating the Federal Prison Industries' mandatory source authority.
  All that is completely obliterated by the amendment that my colleague 
from Wisconsin has offered. He can be against the bill. If he is 
against the bill, he ought to vote against it. But to stop FPI reform 
in its tracks and force everybody to go back to square one is not 
warranted given all of the work that has been put into this. I would 
urge that this amendment be overwhelmingly rejected.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, a couple of comments on remarks made earlier by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts. The unions do not speak with one voice on 
this issue. We have received correspondence from the AFL-CIO locals 
that represent the correctional officers in the prisons who are very 
much against this bill. The prisoners do not have any lobbyists on 
Capitol Hill, and perhaps for purposes of this debate I can appoint 
myself as their lobbyist because I do have a perspective on the prison 
and prisoners and what their future and what their present could be.
  One of the most memorable events in my life was attending a 
graduation ceremony of prisoners in the Cook County jail where these 
young men marched to the tune of ``The Impossible Dream'' in their 
secondhand graduation robes where they were getting an eighth grade 
diploma. Some of them had been taught how to read, something that their 
education had missed. The room was filled with employers who were going 
to see that these people, who tried to put their time in jail to use, 
were going to have some hope instead of despair when they left the 
prison.
  Yes, this is a Federal subsidy of prison industries, but we rush to 
subsidize the farmer, or we rush to subsidize research at universities 
and education. Subsidies are not alien to this body. But the social 
good that comes from prison industries, it seems to me, outweighs any 
distaste for a Federal subsidy.
  One of the great unmet needs of our country is prison reform. 
Currently there are 145,000 federally incarcerated prisoners. I ask 
whether or not we have a duty towards them. I think one of the purposes 
of imprisonment is rehabilitation and one very effective way to 
rehabilitate, especially someone who has never had an education, as 
many of these have not, is to provide work opportunities and training. 
This is a government program that works and that does not cost a dime.
  Since 1934, thousands of prisoners have changed their lives, have 
been better when they left the prison than when they came in. What is 
the result of a functional Federal prisoners program? Restitution to 
the victims, support their families, pay some of the costs of 
incarceration, and some gate money for when they leave. These are all 
highly useful social consequences and ought to be considered. Work is 
constructive. Idleness is destructive. These programs provide 
incentives for good behavior.
  To work in the Federal Prison Industries, you need a general 
education diploma or be working towards it. That is important. The 
other is a record of good behavior. Close them down, curtail them, 
limit them and you only ask for trouble in prison. Small business is 
supported by FPI because over $502 million worth of raw materials and 
other goods were purchased by FPI from private business. Sixty-two 
percent was from small business. Less work and more idleness combined 
with inmate overcrowding and staff shortages is a formula for disaster. 
We should be building, not tearing down. I think we encourage hope, we 
encourage opportunity, not despair, by strengthening and reinforcing 
Federal Prison Industries, not weakening them, as this bill 
unintentionally will do.
  I hope this bill is not supported and we go ahead and get the report 
that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) has asked for so we are 
not legislating in the dark.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak against the amendment. I am always a 
little puzzled when we get amendments that would substitute a study for 
the bill. It seems to me it would ease the strain on the GAO if we just 
killed the bill. Since the purpose of this study is to stop the bill 
from going forward, why drag the poor GAO into it? Why do we not let 
them go about their business and not have them do a study when the only 
purpose of the study is to kill the bill? I say that because I do not 
remember

[[Page H10482]]

any call for a GAO study before we came forward with this bill.
  On the merits, I want to express my disagreement with the former 
chairman of this committee. I appreciate very much his concern for 
prison reform, and there are a number of things I think we ought to be 
doing to reform the prisons. For one thing, we ought to be dealing with 
overcrowding by not locking up as many wholly nonviolent prisoners as 
we do for things that in some cases ought not to be offenses. But I 
have to disagree with him when he says this does not cost anything. It 
extracts a cost, and it extracts it in an unfair way. Obviously, 
somebody has to pay for this. It is now paid for not by the tax system 
in general but by those people who work in a couple of industries, 
industries that are already under economic attack. This takes the cost 
and takes it out of the hides of workers in the garment and textile 
industries. That is why UNITE!, the union of garment and textile 
workers, is so strongly for this bill. It takes it away from small 
businesspeople who would be getting the work otherwise.
  I want to say particularly to many of my friends on the liberal side 
who have a concern for the welfare of prisoners not based on any kind 
of view that the prisoners are such wonderful people who happened to 
fall into prison by accident, but on the perfectly sensible notion that 
most prisoners will someday be out of prison and back in society and it 
is in society's self-interest to help them become the kind of people 
who will not do bad things when they come out.
  But here is what you have to look at this Federal Prison Industries 
system as. It is a way for the prison system of the United States 
Government to escape public judgments and public supervision. It is 
self-financing. Why should it be? What other aspects of the prison 
system do we want to exempt from the appropriations process, do we want 
to exempt from Congress being in control? What this does is to say to 
the prisons, the Bureau of Prisons in our government, you get this 
source of income over which we have no control, and I must say I think 
we have a problem with not just prison overcrowding but what is the 
cause of prison overcrowding. In my view, too many people are in prison 
who should not be there. People who are violent towards other people or 
people who steal from other people ought to be in prison. But we have 
got people who are there for nonviolent drug possession offenses and 
others whom I think should not be in prison.
  I do not understand why some of my liberal friends think we ought to 
be subsidizing prison expansion. That is what you are doing here. When 
you leave this in place, Federal Prison Industries, as this self-
financing entity, you are giving the people in the Bureau of Prisons a 
source of income so that they can do something that everybody agrees is 
important. No one is for having the prisoners be without this kind of 
rehabilitative work. The question is, how do you finance it? I am not 
for allowing that to be self-financed in a way that deprives us of the 
right as elected officials to make choices about what the resources 
ought to be. That is particularly the case because, as I said, it is 
not cost-free.
  We are losing jobs in the garment and textile area. Obviously when we 
subsidize prisoners to produce jeans, to produce clothing, to produce 
draperies, jobs are lost by people in the private sector who would be 
doing that. It is simply inappropriate to say to hardworking, low-wage 
people, you know what, you are going to lose your job because there are 
prisoners we want to rehabilitate. I want to rehabilitate the 
prisoners, but not by taking jobs away from people who have stayed out 
of prison. On the whole, they are better at what they are doing. That 
is the nub of this.
  We have a very large budget. I think that the gentleman from Illinois 
is right about what we ought to be doing. The question is not what we 
should be doing with regard to prisoners but how do you pay for it, how 
do you finance it. Do you do it by taking work away from people in the 
private sector? They are not taking away high-level jobs. They are not 
taking away those jobs where America is expanding. They are not doing 
things that take away from the strengths in the American economy. They 
exacerbate the problem we already have in industries that are already 
under pressure, and that is wholly inappropriate.
  I believe that there are in this society day care centers, homeless 
shelters, and other institutions with a great need for these products. 
Let us in an intelligent and humane way have the prisoners produce for 
that sector and pay for it in a legitimate way, not by taking it out of 
the hides of the weakest and most vulnerable people in the private 
sector.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words. I rise in support of the Green amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I agree with nearly everything my friend from 
Massachusetts has said, but I rise today in support of the Green 
amendment because I think that would give Congress important 
information about the potential effects of H.R. 1829 by requiring the 
GAO to submit to this Congress a study of the effects of eliminating 
Federal Prison Industries' mandatory source requirements. This 
amendment would require that this study be completed within a 
compressed period of time, by April 2004.
  Mr. Chairman, I may be the only Member of this House who has actually 
worked in a prison, in a maximum security prison, as a matter of fact. 
Based on my experience, I believe there are good arguments both in 
support of and in opposition to H.R. 1829, and I feel conflicted today. 
I am inclined to support the underlying bill because I do want to put 
FPI on a more level playing field with other industries that employ 
Americans. I am very sympathetic with the concerns of correctional 
officers, however, who oppose the bill because FPI has been proven a 
successful tool in creating safe prison environments for both staff 
persons, correctional officers, and inmates. I am sympathetic with 
those who believe that FPI provides essential work experience and 
rehabilitation for inmates who will eventually use these skills when 
they are released from prison.
  I strongly believe that the Green amendment gives us an opportunity 
to craft a thoughtful, successful public policy for all involved. The 
Green amendment would simply give Congress more information. The 
amendment gives the GAO a compressed time frame to study the effects of 
the bill on prisons, on public safety, inmates, public and private 
sector employment. I know that I have a lot of questions about the 
effects this bill will have, and it seems to me that we should at least 
have a chance to have all of our questions answered before we make this 
decision. This program has been around nearly 70 years.
  In closing, I want to point out that this is not an issue that we 
should take lightly. Its effects have the potential to reach the core 
of our communities. Yes, correctional officers and inmates, small 
business owners and American workers care about this bill for very 
obvious reasons. But we should not forget that all those who are 
worried about criminal recidivism and the safety of our communities 
also care about this bill. About 98 percent of prisoners currently 
serving time will eventually return to society, and H.R. 1829 will 
potentially have a dramatic effect on our prisons' ability to ensure 
that those prisoners are ready to make the transition. I think we 
should do this right. I would hope we would pass this amendment so that 
when we do make the final decision, we can do it being better-informed 
Representatives and consequently arrive at a more justifiable public 
policy.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words. I rise today to support H.R. 1829.

                              {time}  1300

  I think most Americans would be surprised, and I dare say appalled, 
to know that the Federal Government has been using their tax dollars to 
engage in business which literally takes jobs away from hardworking men 
and women, away from law-abiding citizens who obey the laws of our 
Nation, who pay their taxes, try to raise their families, and the 
Federal Government takes their jobs away to give those jobs to 
convicted felons. Yes, that is the brutal reality of this. The Federal 
Government taking away jobs from taxpayers and giving those jobs to 
prisoners who are housed and fed by those same taxpayers.

[[Page H10483]]

  It sounds too ridiculous to be true, but believe it. Because some 
think we need to put prisoners' rights ahead of the rights of tax-
paying American citizens, and they say that these poor prisoners are 
doing hard time and they need to be taught a skill. Let me say that 
hard time is a time that one is unemployed while they helplessly watch 
goods that they once proudly made now being made by prisoners who can 
produce the same product at a lower price because their overhead is 
being paid for by the Federal Government.
  And some would say what is the harm? Why not keep prisoners busy? 
That is an important thing for us to do, who cares? Well, go to west 
Michigan and talk to the thousands of unemployed workers who have lost 
their jobs because their own government has conspired against them and 
ask them if they mind. A once vital industry in Michigan has been 
decimated, the furniture industry. Not because the workers did not have 
a high degree of productivity, not because the quality of their 
products was inferior, not because their company wanted to ship those 
jobs to China or to Mexico. It has been devastated because the Federal 
Government has totally forgotten what the purpose of government is and, 
in fact, has actually, in the very height of arrogance, declared an 
unfair trade war against its own citizens.
  These companies are not even allowed to competitively compete for 
those contracts. Rather, they are given to criminals because of some 
misguided notion of rehabilitation.
  I am not a corrections expert. I admit that. But I do know that I 
could think of plenty of other rehabilitation outlets rather than 
assisting felons from, one more time, taking advantage of law-abiding 
citizens.
  I urge my colleagues to do the right thing, to do the decent thing, 
to change a law that is un-American, and vote for H.R. 1829.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in opposition to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin's (Mr. Green) amendment and in support of the underlying 
bill, and it may come as a surprise to some people because I cannot 
think of a more difficult position to be in than to be opposing my 
friend from Virginia. My friend from Virginia and I have been debating 
this issue about what the appropriate role of the Federal Prison 
Industries should be for a number of years now, which brings me to the 
first point I wanted to make. When I was in the State legislature, the 
way they would kill a bill would be to send it to a study commission, 
and they would study that bill to death until it went away, and that is 
really what the purpose of this amendment is that the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Green) has offered. He wants to send this back for 
further study as if we have not been studying this for a long, long 
time. That is the first point I want to make.
  The second point I want to make is if they find an issue where the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) is on one side and the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) is on the opposite side, one can almost 
be guaranteed that that is a very difficult issue and that it is not an 
issue of the good guys against the bad guys. This is not a good guy/bad 
guy issue. It is an issue of how we try to define the appropriate role 
that the Federal Prison Industries ought to be playing in the overall 
context of what we are doing here. Federal Prison Industries serves a 
very important role, and I am not adverse to the Federal Prison 
Industries, but it has to have some balances to it, and it should not 
be used solely as a baby-sitting or a prisoner-sitting mechanism. It 
ought to be used for its original purpose, which was to train people 
and get them prepared for reentry into society and prepared to accept 
jobs when they come out of the prison system. And I think the system is 
out of balance now because we have set up a system where we basically 
guarantee contracts to the Prison Industries program rather than 
putting them in a position where they are obligated to compete, and 
they are going to have a competitive advantage just in terms of the 
lower wages that they are paying in the system. But we cannot give such 
an advantage to the Prison Industries that we start to disadvantage and 
be unfair to businesses that are outside the prison system because 
ultimately if we do that, we will do damage to private businesses. They 
will then lay off or terminate people who are employed by them, and 
that will run the risk of cycling them into a life of crime because 
they will have to depend on that as a means of survival.
  So this is a very delicate and difficult issue, and the Committee on 
the Judiciary has been working the issue, debating the issue, trying to 
find the right balance, and I think we have found a reasonable balance 
on this issue. That is why we see Democrats and Republicans on both 
sides of this issue, liberals and conservatives on both sides of this 
issue. It is not a philosophical issue. It is not a bad guy versus good 
guy. It is what is the appropriate balance? And I think this bill 
strikes an appropriate balance, and I would encourage my colleagues to 
defeat the amendment, which would study it to death forever, and to 
support the bill so that we can get on with making the reforms that are 
needed.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that what we are debating is corrections 
policy. The United States of America, our country, has become the most 
imprisoned Nation on the face of the earth. Right now, we have more 
than 2 million people in jails and prisons. We have more than 630,000 
people who return home to neighborhoods and communities each and every 
year. Some communities are impacted a great deal. Other communities are 
impacted not as much.
  If one lives in inner city America where there is the greatest amount 
of impact, there are some neighborhoods where they will go into and 
find that almost a third of the men have some kind of prison record, 
have some kind of association with the criminal justice system. That 
sounds theoretical to people who do not experience it, but if one lives 
in one of those neighborhoods, then they have a large number of 
individuals who cannot get a job, who cannot be employed.
  For example, in my State of Illinois, there are 57 job titles by 
license that a person coming out of prison with a felony cannot hold. 
As a matter of fact, they cannot be a barber. They cannot cut hair 
without a waiver. They cannot be a beautician. They cannot be a nail 
technician. They cannot work in any hospital or health care facility. 
They cannot wash dishes at a nursing home. They cannot work around a 
school. They cannot cut the grass. They cannot mow the lawn. They 
cannot wash the windows. They cannot be a butcher. And, of course, the 
professions, they cannot enter into those.
  So these individuals then come back, and they cannot find anything to 
do. They do not have any resources. And before we know it, most of them 
are back on the streets hollering crack and blow, pills and thrills, 
whatever it was that got them there. As a matter of fact, 67 percent of 
them are more than likely to be rearrested within a 3-year period of 
time, 67 percent. Almost half of them will be back in jail or the 
penitentiary within a 3-year period, almost half, 45, 46 percent.
  So any opportunity that exists for them to get trained is good, even 
if it is only the little bit that they get. As a matter of fact, we 
talk about the impact, and we do need a GAO study, because in one sense 
we are really talking about one-quarter of 1 percent of the procurement 
that we are talking about. That does impact some businesses.
  I consider myself a serious proponent of small businesses. I am an 
advocate for small businesses, and I recognize that they need 
opportunities and agree that they should have them, but the Prison 
Industries really did not send the jobs to Mexico. They did not create 
NAFTA. They did not create GATT. They did not create free trade. They 
did not create any monopolistic trade. All these individuals are, are 
some individuals that have gone afoul of the law and are hoping that 
they would have some opportunity to reclaim themselves rather than be 
in and out of the penitentiary, the penitentiary that we pay for, 
$35,000 a year in many instances. If we can get an individual to get an 
individual to become self-sufficient, that is $35,000 that we could use 
for something else. Support the Green amendment.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.

[[Page H10484]]

  Mr. Chairman, I would first like to start off with an agreement with 
my friend from North Carolina, who indicated when he was in the State 
Senate, as I was in the State Senate in Virginia, often bills would go 
to a study and that would defeat the bill. That is true because after 
they studied an issue, they would find that the bill had no merit. It 
also helped bills because after they studied a bill, they would find 
that it had more merit than they thought. So there is nothing 
inherently wrong with sending it to a study to get the facts. The study 
is already underway. The information will be to us by April, and there 
are a lot of statements that have been made on this floor as to whether 
this bill will hurt or help small business.

                              {time}  1315

  We know right now that FPI spends 75 percent of all of its revenue on 
purchasing supplies from outside of the prison system. Small 
businesses, 62 percent of the 75 percent is spent with small, 
disadvantaged or women-owned businesses. Only 23 percent of Federal 
purchases generally are spent this way. So there is a question of 
whether small businesses will be better or worse off if this bill 
passes. But let us get a study. Let us study the effect.
  Last year we passed amendments similar to the provisions in this bill 
that affected the Department of Defense. What happened as a result of 
those provisions? Thirteen factories have closed, 1,700 jobs have been 
eliminated, 500 more jobs are expected to be eliminated in the near 
future. There has been a temporary upward blip in jobs in Federal 
Prison Industries because of the war in Iraq, but we need to study to 
see what the long-term effect will be.
  Finally, we need to know whether or not we are going to actually 
appropriate the money for on-the-job training programs and the other 
programs in the bill. FPI pays for itself. Are we going to actually 
appropriate the money, or will we just let the crime rate go up? 
Because if we eliminate the jobs without any replacement, crime will go 
up.
  These are the kinds of things we will learn from a study, and that is 
why I am delighted to stand up and support the pending amendment, and I 
hope it is in fact adopted.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment that is before us talking about another 
study, I would like to just hold up the studies that have been done on 
Federal Prison Industries. These are the studies that have been done 
over the last number of years. These are the hearings that have taken 
place: Committee on Small Business, Committee on the Judiciary, 
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  There are plenty of studies that have been completed on this issue. 
The time now is to move forward. If the gentleman proposing the 
amendment is against the bill, he should vote against the bill, but not 
delay it for another 6 months.
  We have seen the impact, we have seen the circumstances of what 
Federal Prison Industries has done. We have a modest proposal for 
reform. We are not putting prisoners out of work. What we are doing is 
providing a 5-year phaseout of the concept called mandatory sourcing. 
We are putting significant amounts of money into vocational training. 
We are going to continue to work with our colleague on the other side 
of the aisle, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), on the issue of 
repatriation. On one part of that, I think we are going to have an 
amendment that we are going to offer together that will expand work 
opportunities for prisoners to do work for not-for-profit organizations 
and these types of things.
  So I think we have much of the framework in place to move forward. We 
share the same vision. We want folks who are in prison to gather the 
skills and the capabilities that they need so that when they leave, 
they will be successful in society. So we share the same vision.
  We share much of the same vision for how we are going to implement 
that, the strategies and the tactics. We have got one major issue 
there, and that is, is there enough work in this bill or is there not, 
and we are committed to working with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott) on other work opportunities to make sure that there is not 
idleness in the prisons, that the people learn the skills and have the 
work; and we are committed to working together. But the one thing we do 
not need, we do not need another study.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, vote ``yes'' 
on the bill, and enable us to go forward.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I find it a bit inconsistent. This is the same body 
that voted for NAFTA, that sent tens of thousands of American jobs to 
Mexico, the same body that voted for permanent normal trade relations 
with the Communist Chinese.
  In the case of NAFTA, we have gone from a trade surplus to a trade 
deficit. We have sent jobs that used to be in Mississippi to Mexico. In 
the case of normal trade relations with China, we have taken it a step 
worse. We have taken jobs that used to be done in Waynesboro, 
Mississippi, that are now done by political prisoners in China.
  To make matters worse, you can trace Chinese defense spending, and 
their weapons modernization has increased on a dollar-for-dollar basis 
with their trade surplus with the United States. So we have not only 
sent them our jobs; we are sending them the money they will eventually 
use to shoot at Americans.
  My colleagues, in the response to the loss of these jobs, say it is 
the prisoners' fault. No, guys, it is NAFTA's fault. It is permanent 
trade relations with China's fault.
  I can tell you one thing that my constituents want, is they want 
prisoners to work. They do not want them sitting on their duffs 
watching television. They want them to work. They want them to do 
something for society, to pay their debt to society. If you are going 
to tell them they cannot make this or that, what can they do? Because 
there is not enough trash on the highways to be picked up. And, by the 
way, no one is hiring people to pick up trash on the highways when they 
get out of prison.
  If you are really serious about the loss of American manufacturing 
jobs, repeal NAFTA. If you really care about the future of this 
country, repeal permanent normal trade relations with the last 
communist superpower that is using that money to buy weapons that will 
eventually be used against our country. But, for gosh sakes, do not 
take two mistakes and compound it with a third mistake of saying 
prisoners cannot work and continue to do something to pay their debt to 
society.
  I urge Members to vote against this bill.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I listened to the gentleman from Mississippi. 
I was walking back to my office. He really made a lot of good points. I 
was going to make them, and I had 4 minutes.
  Let me just say, he is right. You are shooting at American prisoners 
who are trying to be rehabilitated, when China has taken more jobs from 
this country. But somebody said China is not the enemy.
  China has about 11 Catholic bishops in jail today according to the 
Cardinal Kung Foundation, if anybody read, I did a Special Order on 
it--11 Catholic bishops. They have 250 evangelical house church leaders 
in jail today. They have plundered Tibet. Tibet is a wreck. I have been 
to Lhasa. Lhasa is a dirty Chinese city. Lhasa is no longer the Tibetan 
capital. The Muslims. China is pounding the Muslims in the northwest 
portion of the country.
  Spying. The gentleman from Mississippi is right. The FBI comes before 
my appropriations subcommittee. They gave me a classified briefing. I 
can tell you that the Chinese are spying against us more so than the 
Russians were doing it. Yet what does this body do with regard to 
China? Zero. Zip. Not a thing.
  The gentleman is right. I was opposed to granting normal trade to 
China. I am a free-trader. A lot of you rushed down here to give MFN to 
the Chinese. They are spying against us; they sold weapons to Saddam 
Hussein.

[[Page H10485]]

Remember watching that show one day? The shopping center hit in Kuwait 
was from a Chinese missile, sold by China to Iraq.
  I know some members are frustrated because you are losing some jobs, 
and I want to do something to help keep jobs here. Yet you do not deal 
with those who are persecuting fundamentalists, who are persecuting 
Christians, persecuting Catholics and Protestants. I never hear anybody 
here speak about it. I never hear this House speak about that issue.
  Tibet. Many came to see the Dalai Lama, but nobody talks about the 
persecution of the Buddhists. Muslims. Many of you represent large 
Muslim areas. Why do you not speak out when China is persecuting the 
Muslim faith? Spying against us. Why do you not speak out? The 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) is right, China is spying 
against us.
  China is taking high-tech jobs from us. We lost 600,000 jobs. Maybe 
some changes ought to be made in the FPI. The gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Hoekstra) is a good guy, and it pains me to be on the opposite 
side. Hopefully, something can be done.
  There is an amendment that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) 
has about repatriation, but we are fundamentally not dealing with a 
major issue here.
  The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) was right. Generally he 
makes a lot of sense, a lot of times. I know I am using this 
opportunity on a bill dealing with FPI, but we are ignoring--this side 
and that side--are ignoring the persecution of people of faith in 
China.
  Do you know if you need a new kidney, for $50,000 you can get it in 
China? Do you want to see it? Come by my office. They are shooting 
people in the back of the neck. They put the bayonet up high so the 
body goes rigid, they shoot them, they throw the body in a canvas bag, 
they put it in an ambulance, and in a half hour they are doing a 
transplant.
  When does this Congress ever speak out? When does the Congress speak 
out on that issue? The Congress does not. There are more slave labor 
camps in China today than there were in Russia when Solzhenitzyn wrote 
the book ``Gulag Archipelago.'' Does this Congress ever speak out about 
it?
  About the FPI, I know members are frustrated, and want to do 
something. You want to deal with this issue. But we're talking about a 
handful of jobs that are helping to train people so when they get out 
of prison they have some rehabilitation and some dignity. The gentleman 
from Mississippi is exactly right.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, what is America if not a Nation that stands 
up for basic decency and human rights? What is America if it is not a 
people that speaks out for those who cannot speak out for themselves? 
And what will America become if we fail to speak out against dictators 
and despots who oppress and brutalize their own people?
  China has for too long been at liberty to detain and torture and 
intimidate and oppress good men and women for their religious beliefs. 
As the world's greatest democracy and the symbol of hope for millions, 
America has a duty and an obligation to speak out for the oppressed 
people of the world. We fail in our duty if we do nothing.
  It was the British philosopher and statesman Edmund Burke who said 
that Representatives owe you not just their industry but also their 
judgment. As Representatives and beholders of American ideals, we 
should speak out on the issue of the persecution of those of faith in 
China.
  The litany of abuses committed by the Government of China toward its 
own people is long and senseless. I recently held a meeting with a 
number of groups who have spent years in documenting the numerous 
abuses committed by the Chinese Government upon the Chinese people. In 
the coming days, I will be highlighting the plight of different groups 
of long-suffering Chinese people so that colleagues can better 
understand the depth of this problem in China. The material I will be 
submitting today was prepared by the International Religious Freedom 
Commission, and I hope Members will read it.
  As I close, 10 Catholic bishops are in China today under house 
arrest, and this government, our government, our Congress and the 
administration, does not act. The Protestant Church is being abused and 
beaten in China and we have refused to speak out. The Chinese have 
plundered Tibet, and yet the West is quiet. Muslims are being 
persecuted in the northwest portion of China, and yet the West speaks 
out not at all. The Falun Gong are being persecuted almost on a daily 
basis.
  I think this is an opportunity to hear, in their own words, what all 
of these groups have to tell us in the Congress and us in the United 
States and us in the West about what is taking place, so that we know 
we should speak out on their behalf, particularly next year when the 
Geneva resolution with regard to condemning China on human rights comes 
up.
  Depending on the religious organization in question, the Chinese 
government provided various justifications to defend its policy of 
repression. Its action to restrict religious belief and practice, 
however, go far beyond what is necessary to protect legitimate state 
interests.
  Since 2001, the Communist government has engaged in a persistent 
campaign of banning some religious groups while insisting on 
registration for others. Many groups, particularly Christian house 
churches, have refused, understandably fearful that providing 
membership rosters would lead to regular surveillance by party and 
government agencies.
  The government's policy of designating religious or spiritual 
organizations as ``cults'' has led to tragic outcomes for millions of 
religious believers. All too often victims are sentenced to ``re-
education through labor camps,'' administered by the notorious Ministry 
of Public Security, which appears to perpetrate human rights abuses 
with absolute impunity. Persons adhering to ``unacceptable'' faiths 
have been given prison sentences of up to three years without a right 
to a hearing, without counsel and without judicial determination of 
their cases.
  There are at least 30 million Protestant Christians in China. Mostly, 
believers belong to independent house churches. Purely on account of 
their faith, properties belonging to or used by such groups have been 
confiscated, closed, or destroyed and members have been detained, 
tortured, and subjected to other forms of government harassment.
  In June 2003, 12 members of a house church in Guna Village in Yunnan 
province were arrested after they sought registration with the local 
government. On June 6, in response to the government's ``invitation'' 
to complete the registration process, the 12 church leaders were 
arrested for engaging in ``feudalistic superstition.'' Eight of the 12 
were immediately sentenced to three years in ``re-education through 
labor'' camps, while the other four were indicted and are being held 
for trial.
  In late August 2003, local officials arrested 170 house church 
Christians in Nanyang county, Henan province after local police 
reportedly raided the meeting place where the worship service was being 
conducted. The report indicates that the 14 leaders of the group are 
currently being held in detention, possibly facing serious charges, 
while the other members were released after having been fined, 
fingerprinted, and warned against continuing their activities.
  The Chinese Communist state has, since the 1950s, banned the Roman 
Catholic Church, replacing it with the state-approved Catholic 
Patriotic Association. Through this state organization, the Communist 
government has claimed the exclusive right to appoint Chinese bishops. 
Most Chinese clerics, however, have refused to accept the legitimacy of 
government appointees. As a result, many Roman Catholic bishops and 
priests have been harassed, detained, or imprisoned.
  According to the Cardinal Kung Foundation, a number of Catholic 
bishops and priests who refuse to submit to government tutelage remain 
in prison or in detention and the status of other priests and lay 
persons remains unknown. As of August 2003, at least 10 Catholic 
bishops, including Bishop Su Zhimin, whose whereabouts are unknown, are 
imprisoned, in detention, under house arrest, or under surveillance.
  In Tibet, Buddhist monks and nuns serve lengthy sentences for voicing 
their allegiance to the Dalai Lama. In point of fact, the great 
majority of Tibetan political prisoners are monks and nuns.
  The longest-serving Tibetan political prisoner, Tagna Jigme Zangpo, 
was granted a medical parole to come to the United States in summer 
2002 when he was in the middle of a 28-year sentence before his 
``early'' release. Ngawang Sandrol, a member of the famous Tibetan 
``Singing Nuns'' who was released last year, had served over 10 years 
in the infamous Drapchi Prison before her release. According to the 
Tibet Information Network, the State Department, and the testimony of 
former Tibetan nuns like Ngawang Sandrol, many of these prisoners have 
been severely beaten and subjected to other extreme forms of 
punishment. Some have died in prison.
  The Chinese government has denied repeated requests, including from 
the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, for access to the 12-year-
old boy whom the Dalai Lama recognizes as the 11th Panchen Lama. 
Government officials have stated that he is being ``held for his own 
safety,'' while at the same time insisting that another boy is the true 
Panchen Lama.

[[Page H10486]]

  The Chinese government's official ban on the Falun Gong movement, in 
1999, has meant heightened government repression for all religious 
organizations designated by the government as ``cults.'' According to 
Falun Gong practitioners, as many as 100,000 of their members have been 
sent to labor camps without trial. They claim that as many as 700 may 
have died as a result of police brutality either while in prison or 
after their release.
  In largely Muslim Xinjiang, religious freedom is severely curtailed 
by the government, which indiscriminately links Muslim religious 
expression with ``separatist'' or ``terrorist'' acts. The 
indiscriminate repression of the Uighur people is best exemplified by 
the arrest and imprisonment of Rebiya Kadeer, a prominent Uighur 
businesswoman and activist, who was arrested in 1999 after she met with 
a visiting U.S. congressional delegation. Close supervision of all 
mosques in the region by local Communist Party officials is now 
commonplace.
  China repeatedly engages in severe--systematic, egregious--violations 
of religious freedom. If our ideals and what America stands for--both 
at home and abroad--are to mean anything, then we must not shrink from 
this issue. We must not allow human considerations to come secondary to 
the pursuit of trade.
  We must dare to speak out for those who have no voice.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, over the last two weeks I have submitted 
testimony from various groups that I have been meeting with regarding 
China's continual abuse of human rights. Whether it be restrictions on 
religious freedom; the persecution and arrest of Catholics and 
Protestants; the use of barbaric labor camps; the continual 
victimization of members of the Falun Gong; or the abhorrent and 
coercive One-Child policy, China's government continues to show nothing 
but contempt for its citizens and the opinions of the rest of the 
world.
  These offenses alone should be enough to condemn the government of 
China. However, on top of these crimes the People's Republic of China 
poses a great and serious counterintelligence threat to America, the 
extent of which will, I have no doubt, concern our colleagues greatly.


 An Unclassified Report from the FBI on the People's Republic of China 
                    Intelligence Collection Efforts

       The People's Republic of China (PRC) poses a significant 
     counterintelligence threat to the United States (U.S.) via 
     its cadre of professional intelligence officers who collect 
     political, military and economic intelligence, and its 
     network of non-professional individuals and organizations 
     that collect science and technology, high-tech and 
     proprietary information completely outside the direction and 
     control of the PRC Intelligence Services.
       The PRC's professional military intelligence organization, 
     the Military Intelligence Department of the People's 
     Liberation Army (MID/PLA), also known as the Second 
     Department of the PLA (2PLA), relies mainly on intelligence 
     collection through its military attaches. The PRC's military 
     seeks military, science and technology, and some political 
     information through its contacts and agents. In 1987, PRC 
     military attache Hou Desheng was interdicted by FBI Special 
     Agents in Washington, D.C. while receiving and paying for 
     classified U.S. Government information.
       The PRC's professional civilian intelligence, the Ministry 
     of State Security, targets U.S. political and policy 
     information, runs influence operations against Taiwan and 
     other political targets, attempts to penetrate the U.S. 
     Government, and directs a growing number of covert science 
     and technology collection operations. Collection operations 
     from this civilian segment of the PRC Intelligence Services 
     are difficult to counter because the Chinese typically insist 
     that the physical transfer of documents or items take place 
     in the PRC. PRC civilian intelligence officers in the U.S. 
     direct part of their efforts toward developing as many 
     Americans of Chinese ancestry into what the PRC terms 
     ``patriotic Overseas Chinese.''
       An example of the Ministry of State Security's success in 
     penetrating the U.S. Government was the Larry Wu-tai Chin 
     case. Chin, a U.S. Government employee of 30 years, was an 
     actual agent of the Ministry of State Security. While 
     residing in the U.S. and during his employment with the 
     government, Chin provided information to the Ministry of 
     State Security for over 40 years. Chin was arrested for 
     espionage activities in 1985 and was subsequently convicted 
     of those charges in 1986. Chin committed suicide prior to 
     being sentenced.
       Like most countries operating intelligence services within 
     the U.S., the PRC employs a number of commonly-used 
     collection techniques. Their intelligence services attempt to 
     gain access to sensitive foreign facilities, try to meet 
     individuals with access to classified information, and 
     attempt to photograph military installations and equipment. 
     However, the PRC employs several non-traditional methods and 
     unlike most other countries, the PRC makes extensive use of 
     non-intelligence personnel.
       Consumers of intelligence such as China's production 
     facilities, laboratories and research institutes often bypass 
     professional intelligence services in favor of direct 
     intelligence collection efforts. Opportunities to accomplish 
     direct collection within the U.S. are facilitated through the 
     very large number of temporary visitors in private companies, 
     academic institutions, and U.S. Government facilities. A 
     significant number of these delegation members are science 
     and technology experts, often characterized by their American 
     hosts as aggressive and extremely knowledgeable in their 
     professional fields. In many cases, Chinese-Americans 
     employed by these entities and institutions are sought out by 
     members of the PRC delegations as persons who might be 
     willing to assist them.
       In 1997, Peter Lee pleaded guilty to transmitting U.S. 
     national defense information to the PRC. The consumer of 
     Lee's information was a PRC institute, not a traditional PRC 
     intelligence service. In 2002, a PRC national was arrested 
     for attempting to steal proprietary seismic-imaging software 
     from a Silicon Valley company. This was the second 
     unsuccessful attempt by an employee of a PRC based company to 
     obtain this proprietary software within a span of five years. 
     Later in 2002, two PRC nationals were indicted for economic 
     espionage related to their attempted theft of trade secrets 
     from several Silicon Valley companies. These two individuals 
     were subsequently linked to a PRC based high-technology 
     research and development program.
       As the PRC's varied presence in the U.S. continues to grow, 
     more PRC nationals find themselves in positions of direct or 
     indirect access to items of intelligence interest to China. 
     If they can find the right consumer, PRC nationals involved 
     in intelligence collection may be in a position to profit 
     from their services. These individuals do not operate under 
     the direction or control of either the military or civilian 
     PRC intelligence services.
       In 1994, two PRC nationals were indicted on computer fraud 
     and fraud by wire in connection with the theft of $950,000 of 
     proprietary computer source code developed by a U.S. firm. 
     The end-user of the code was a Chinese machinery import and 
     export company. Evidence collected in the investigation 
     indicated that the two perpetrators had shopped the computer 
     source code around for the best price.
       Whether directed by one of its intelligence services, 
     manufacturing sectors or research institutes, the PRC threat 
     to U.S. policy, intelligence, military, national security and 
     proprietary/economic information is growing. In response to 
     this expanding PRC threat, the FBI, in conjunction with the 
     U.S. Intelligence Community, continues to pursue an 
     aggressive and focused counterintelligence program.

  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman is worried about China and as the 
gentleman is also worried about FPI, I think it is fair to note that a 
number of us have been with him on the issue of China. I voted against 
PNTR, both again for the jobs and because of the persecution that is 
going on there and because of their military intervention.
  I believe that we need to protect American jobs here, both from the 
Chinese; and we need to allow those folks at least to have the 
opportunity to try to keep their jobs if they are competing against 
Federal Prison Industries. We are going to make sure that there is 
plenty of work and rehabilitative services for those in our prisons.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I came to this floor earlier, and my opening remarks in 
this debate were to acknowledge the hard work that had taken place in 
the Committee on the Judiciary and our other committees on this 
particular legislation. In fact, I had complemented the chairman and 
ranking member of the full committee and the chairman and ranking 
member of the subcommittee dealing with the Committee on the Judiciary. 
I know other committees had jurisdiction as well, and I see a lot of my 
good friends from the Committee on Small Business, so I know this is a 
very sensitive and emotional issue. I applaud the work and compromise 
that has already taken place.
  But I would like to have taken away the suggestion that any of us are 
trying to gut this bill, or to make frivolous the issues that are seen 
in this bill. In fact, my good friend from Michigan, I almost wish I 
could carve out for him a separate response to some of the very vital 
concerns that he has mentioned. But I want to cite just an example, 
because I have heard a line of reasoning dealing with this whole 
question of trade agreements, that we are mired down in trade 
agreements, and that may be another issue.

[[Page H10487]]

  But I do want to cite a figure, and I am saddened by this number. We 
have lost 600,000 textile jobs over the last 10 years; but as we stand 
here today, only 7,000 inmates are doing anything dealing with the 
issue of the loss of textile jobs. Only 7,000 of them are doing textile 
work, but we have lost 600,000 jobs.
  I raise this point to suggest that the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) makes sense because what it is 
saying is it is not trying to be another study. The Green amendment 
specifically directs itself to the language of this bill, asking for 
the study on the impact of this legislation.

                              {time}  1330

  What will happen as we drastically modify prison industries? So we 
cannot compare apples and oranges. Frankly, we have the data that 
suggests that this Nation has lost 600,000 textile jobs. My friends in 
the South have told me that this is an anguish with them. But of those 
600,000, even if it is included, we know that there are 7,000 inmates 
doing something with textiles. This amendment asks to look at these 
issues along with safety and management and other issues.
  But, Mr. Chairman, I want to get to the heart of the matter, and that 
is who is in these prisons. When I walked through the Federal prison in 
Beaumont just a few months ago, recognizing many of my constituents, 
seeing people who were both remorseful but, as well, certainly had a 
number of other bases for their presence there, many nonviolent 
offenders, all of them desiring another life, all of them desiring to 
get out to be with their families and to be a provider. In this 
instance, all of them were men. And the idleness, Mr. Chairman, was 
tragic. It was absolutely tragic. They were begging for things to do. 
They were standing in line to do kitchen duty. There were not enough 
hours for them to do this kind of work. And if my colleagues have not 
visited, I would ask my colleagues to take some time to realize that 
lives may have gone awry and astray but, frankly, these are Americans 
who want to have their lives rehabilitated.
  The real tragedy of those incarcerated, and in this instance I speak 
to those having perpetrated nonviolent crimes, and there are many who 
are looking for a better life who, unfortunately, perpetrated a violent 
crime, is their family members. Those dollars that they gain, Mr. 
Chairman, from being in a prison industry go home to support those 
children, that elderly parent, or maybe even that spouse. And if anyone 
wants to tell a tale of woe that we document in our high schools today, 
in our schools today, the child who is performing poorly, the child who 
seems to always get in trouble, the child who seems distressed and 
disturbed, one can be assured that, in many instances, it is the child 
of an incarcerated parent.
  Mr. Chairman, it is time now that we support an initiative that will 
allow us to study the overall impact, negative impact of this 
legislation. I support the Green amendment, and I ask that my 
colleagues support it.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The question is on the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Green).
  The amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there further amendments to section 1?
  If not, the Clerk will designate section 2.
  The text of section 2 is as follows:

     SEC. 2. GOVERNMENTWIDE PROCUREMENT POLICY RELATING TO 
                   PURCHASES FROM FEDERAL PRISON INDUSTRIES.

       Section 4124 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``Sec. 4124. Governmentwide procurement policy relating to 
       purchases from Federal Prison Industries

       ``(a) In General.--Purchases from Federal Prison 
     Industries, Incorporated, a wholly owned Government 
     corporation, as referred to in section 9101(3)(E) of title 
     31, may be made by a Federal department or agency only in 
     accordance with this section.
       ``(b) Solicitation and Evaluation of Offers and Contract 
     Awards.--(1) If a procurement activity of a Federal 
     department or agency has a requirement for a specific product 
     or service that is authorized to be offered for sale by 
     Federal Prison Industries, in accordance with section 4122 of 
     this title, and is listed in the catalog referred to in 
     subsection (g), the procurement activity shall solicit an 
     offer from Federal Prison Industries, if the purchase is 
     expected to be in excess of the micro-purchase threshold (as 
     defined by section 32(f) of the Office of Federal Procurement 
     Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 428(f))).
       ``(2) A contract award for such product or service shall be 
     made using competitive procedures in accordance with the 
     applicable evaluation factors, unless a determination is made 
     by the Attorney General pursuant to paragraph (3) or an award 
     using other than competitive procedures is authorized 
     pursuant to paragraph (7).
       ``(3) The procurement activity shall negotiate with Federal 
     Prison Industries on a noncompetitive basis for the award of 
     a contract if the Attorney General determines that--
       ``(A) Federal Prison Industries cannot reasonably expect 
     fair consideration to receive the contract award on a 
     competitive basis; and
       ``(B) the contract award is necessary to maintain work 
     opportunities otherwise unavailable at the penal or 
     correctional facility at which the contract is to be 
     performed to prevent circumstances that could reasonably be 
     expected to significantly endanger the safe and effective 
     administration of such facility.
       ``(4) Except in the case of an award to be made pursuant to 
     paragraph (3), a contract award shall be made with Federal 
     Prison Industries only if the contracting officer for the 
     procurement activity determines that--
       ``(A) the specific product or service to be furnished will 
     meet the requirements of the procurement activity (including 
     any applicable prequalification requirements and all 
     specified commercial or governmental standards pertaining to 
     quality, testing, safety, serviceability, and warranties);
       ``(B) timely performance of the contract can be reasonably 
     expected; and
       ``(C) the contract price does not exceed a current market 
     price.
       ``(5) A determination by the Attorney General pursuant to 
     paragraph (3) shall be--
       ``(A) supported by specific findings by the warden of the 
     penal or correctional institution at which a Federal Prison 
     Industries workshop is scheduled to perform the contract;
       ``(B) supported by specific findings by Federal Prison 
     Industries regarding why it does not expect to win the 
     contract on a competitive basis; and
       ``(C) made and reported in the same manner as a 
     determination made pursuant to section 303(c)(7) of the 
     Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 
     U.S.C. 253(c)(7)).
       ``(6) If the Attorney General has not made the 
     determination described in paragraph (3) within 30 days after 
     Federal Prison Industries has been informed of a contracting 
     opportunity by a procurement activity, the procurement 
     activity may proceed to conduct a procurement for the product 
     or service in accordance with the procedures generally 
     applicable to such procurements by the procurement activity.
       ``(7) A contract award may be made to Federal Prison 
     Industries using other than competitive procedures if such 
     product or service is only available from Federal Prison 
     Industries and the contract may be awarded under the 
     authority of section 2304(c)(1) of title 10 or section 303(c) 
     of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 
     1949 (41 U.S.C. 252(c)(1)), as may be applicable, and 
     pursuant to the justification and approval requirements 
     relating to such noncompetitive procurements specified by law 
     and the Governmentwide Federal Acquisition Regulation.
       ``(c) Offers From Federal Prison Industries.--A timely 
     offer received from Federal Prison Industries to furnish a 
     product or service to a Federal department or agency shall be 
     considered for award without limitation as to the dollar 
     value of the proposed purchase.
       ``(d) Performance by Federal Prison Industries.--Federal 
     Prison Industries shall perform its contractual obligations 
     under a contract awarded by a Federal department or agency to 
     the same extent as any other contractor.
       ``(e) Finality of Contracting Officer's Decision.--(1) A 
     decision by a contracting officer regarding the award of a 
     contract to Federal Prison Industries or relating to the 
     performance of such contract shall be final, unless reversed 
     on appeal pursuant to paragraph (2) or (3).
       ``(2) The Chief Executive Officer of Federal Prison 
     Industries may appeal to the head of a Federal department or 
     agency a decision by a contracting officer not to award a 
     contract to Federal Prison Industries pursuant to subsection 
     (b)(4). The decision of the head of a Federal department or 
     agency on appeal shall be final.
       ``(3) A dispute between Federal Prison Industries and a 
     procurement activity regarding performance of a contract 
     shall be subject to--
       ``(A) alternative means of dispute resolution pursuant to 
     subchapter IV of chapter 5 of title 5; or
       ``(B) final resolution by the board of contract appeals 
     having jurisdiction over the procurement activity's contract 
     performance disputes pursuant to the Contract Disputes Act of 
     1978 (41 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
       ``(f) Reporting of Purchases.--Each Federal department or 
     agency shall report purchases from Federal Prison Industries 
     to the Federal Procurement Data System (as referred to in 
     section 6(d)(4) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy 
     Act (41 U.S.C. 405(d)(4))) in the same manner as it reports 
     to such System any acquisition in an amount in excess of the 
     simplified acquisition threshold (as defined by section 4(11) 
     of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 
     403(11))).
       ``(g) Catalog of Products.--Federal Prison Industries shall 
     publish and maintain a catalog of all specific products and 
     services that it is authorized to offer for sale. Such 
     catalog shall be periodically revised as products and 
     services are added or deleted by its board of directors 
     (in accordance with section 4122(b) of this title).
       ``(h) Compliance With Standards.--Federal Prison Industries 
     shall comply with Federal occupational, health, and safety 
     standards with

[[Page H10488]]

     respect to the operation of its industrial operations.''.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Toomey

  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Toomey:
       Page 7, line 17, strike the period and insert the 
     following: ``, unless the contract opportunity has been 
     reserved for competition exclusively among small business 
     concerns pursuant to section 15(a) of the Small Business Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 644(a)) and its implementing regulations.''.

  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me we have had considerable 
debate about the substance of this bill today, and there is substantial 
evidence that the mandatory source status that is enjoyed by FPI is a 
policy that is harmful to a variety of American industries and workers, 
including the furniture manufacturers and the garment-makers in my 
district. The core objective of this bill is to eliminate the status, 
the FPI status as a mandatory source supplier and, thereby, require the 
FPI to compete for Federal contracts rather than have the opportunity 
to simply claim them. I am a cosponsor of this bill, and I applaud this 
effort and I support the bill.
  What my amendment would do would further define the FPI's role in 
competing with private sector small businesses. Specifically, my 
amendment would prohibit the FPI from bidding on any contracts that are 
intended to be exclusively set aside for small business concerns.
  This Congress and many Congresses before us have established, for a 
variety of reasons, that a certain percentage of Federal Government 
procurements should be made through small businesses, and we call those 
small businesses set-asides. The whole idea has always been to ensure 
that small businesses, mom-and-pops, local people struggling, in all of 
our districts and in all of our communities, to get a business off the 
ground and to employ some people, that they get a shot at some of the 
business that their tax dollars pay for.
  It seems abundantly obvious to me that the Federal Prison Industry 
does not in any way qualify as a small business nor fit the 
descriptions that most of us have in mind when we think about small 
businesses. With $500 billion in annual sales, with 20,000 employees, 
with this network within the Federal penitentiaries in America, that is 
not what we mean when we talk about small business. It was never the 
intent of Congress that the Federal Prison Industry should be able to 
compete for the contracts that are intended to be set aside for small 
businesses.
  Yet, last year, when we repealed the mandatory source status for the 
FPI with respect to DOD procurements, unfortunately, regulations were 
promulgated that specifically allowed the Federal Prison Industry to 
compete for small business set-asides within DOD. My amendment would 
correct this error with respect to DOD, but it also would apply to the 
other Federal agencies, and it is based on a simple premise: that small 
business set-asides should in fact be for small businesses, not for the 
FPI. It is tough enough for small businesses to compete against large 
businesses. I do not think they should have to compete against the 
Federal Prison Industry. This is a good bill.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TOOMEY. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. 
This is a good bill and this is also a good amendment, and I am pleased 
to support it.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the 
support of the Chairman. I appreciate the support of the author of the 
bill. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and the underlying 
bill.
  Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I too agree that the Toomey amendment is a good addition to this 
bill. Business spends what it makes, government spends what it takes, 
and government should not take taxpayers' money and go into business 
against them and put these hardworking, tax-paying Americans out of 
business. The Toomey amendment will help curb this repugnant practice 
of harming our small businesses.
  Of course, rehabilitation of prisoners is a worthy goal, but 
rehabilitation is not the exclusive aim of incarceration. After all, 
Dostoevsky did not write Crime and Rehabilitation. Thus, we must now 
write and pass a law to stop government from rehabilitating prisoners 
by punishing productive Americans. So I urge support of the Toomey 
amendment.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Toomey amendment. The 
amendment offered by my good friend and Committee on Small Business 
subcommittee chairman makes perfect sense. The amount of competition 
that the FPI would bring against small business in set-aside 
procurements goes against the very intention of having a small business 
set-aside in the first place. Common sense tells us that the small 
businesses will have to unfairly lower their prices to match the levels 
that the FPI can offer.
  Also, knowing how Federal procurement works, I can predict that 
contracting officers will tailor their acquisitions in such a way as to 
guarantee that FPI will win when that is the outcome the contracting 
office wants, even though they may still carry it out under a small 
business set-aside.
  With specifications written for products the FPI has experience and 
economy of scale in making, of course, they will undercut the small 
businesses and win such an unfair competition. A small business cannot 
survive by buying in on a contract at a loss, but the FPI could do 
business indefinitely by using such a strategy.
  The final irony of all this is that the administration is valiantly 
trying to increase opportunities for small businesses by unbundling 
large procurements and giving them a chance to win a contract of a size 
they can handle. Turning around and letting the FPI get into the small 
business-sized contracts would negate whatever progress we would be 
making on that front, and we would end up right where we started. I 
would remind my colleagues that the government has not obtained its 23 
percent goal for contracting with small businesses for several years.
  With a workforce of over 20,000, FPI is a large business, and FPI 
should be competing with other large contractors. Let us keep them out 
of the sort of procurements we set aside for mom-and-pop small 
businesses.
  I do not want to be holding hearings investigating why the FPI is 
winning one small business set-aside after the other. Let us solve this 
problem once and for all and support the Toomey amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Smith of Michigan

  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Smith of Michigan:
       Page 7, after line 12, insert the following:
       (8) A contract award may be made to Federal Prison 
     Industries using other than competitive procedures by the 
     Federal Bureau of Prisons.

  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, part of our goal is to keep 
prisoners working, especially if they are working to take care of 
themselves. This amendment simply provides that the law would stay as 
it is now for the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The Federal Prison System, 
should have prisoners in prison industries produce the products they 
need.
  I chaired the Department of Corrections budget in the State of 
Michigan for years, and in terms of the gentleman from Michigan's (Mr. 
Hoekstra) idea that we should have competitive bids, that is what we 
have done in Michigan. I mean the prison industry competes with the 
private sector. If they cannot beat the bid, or the quality of the 
product, they do not get the bid.
  But what is happening in the State of Michigan is that our prison 
industries is still making a great deal of money. The incentive has 
been there to be productive; and, in terms of recidivism,

[[Page H10489]]

there has been a greater interest by these workers to do a better job. 
That means they are more likely to get a job on the outside. We 
instigated provisions in Michigan that prisoners have to pass drug 
tests before they are even allowed to work. So working has become a 
privilege. It gives them an advantage over other prisoners. That is 
what we should seek to do in our federal system.
  In fact, when I first went into the Michigan legislature, the 
prisoners produced farm products. They produced the fruits and the 
vegetables and the milk and the butter and they did maintenance as well 
as prison industries sales. It reduced the cost to State government of 
taking care of those prisoners, and that is the way it should be at the 
federal level.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Let me just make it clear that what the gentleman is proposing is 
that Federal Prison Industries can have a mandatory source contract for 
procurement by the Bureau of Prisons. In other words, what is used in 
the prisons can be made by FPI on a mandatory source contract. Am I 
correct in that impression?
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct on 
that. Actually, ``may'' is the exact language of the amendment. So it 
is a decision of the Federal Prison System whether they do the sole 
source contracting for their own use. So it still leaves flexibility, 
but it allows the prison system to require prisoners to make more of 
the things that are going to be required by the Bureau of Prisons.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, with that understanding, I am happy 
to support the amendment. I believe it makes a significant improvement 
to the bill.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
supporting the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there further amendments to section 2?
  If not, the Clerk will designate section 3.
  The text of section 3 is as follows:

     SEC. 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REGARDING EXPANSION PROPOSALS BY 
                   FEDERAL PRISON INDUSTRIES.

       Section 4122(b) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (12); and
       (2) by striking paragraphs (4) and (5) and inserting the 
     following new paragraphs:
       ``(4) A decision to authorize Federal Prison Industries to 
     offer a new specific product or specific service or to expand 
     the production of an existing product or service shall be 
     made by its board of directors in conformance with the 
     requirements of subsections (b), (c), (d), and (e) of section 
     553 of title 5, and this chapter.
       ``(5)(A) Whenever Federal Prison Industries proposes to 
     offer for sale a new specific product or specific service or 
     to expand production of a currently authorized product or 
     service, the Chief Operating Officer of Federal Prison 
     Industries shall submit an appropriate proposal to the board 
     of directors and obtain the board's approval before 
     initiating any such expansion. The proposal submitted to the 
     board shall include a detailed analysis of the probable 
     impact of the proposed expansion of sales within the Federal 
     market by Federal Prison Industries on private sector firms 
     and their non-inmate workers.
       ``(B)(i) The analysis required by subparagraph (A) shall be 
     performed by an interagency team on a reimbursable basis or 
     by a private contractor paid by Federal Prison Industries.
       ``(ii) If the analysis is to be performed by an interagency 
     team, such team shall be led by the Administrator of the 
     Small Business Administration or the designee of such officer 
     with representatives of the Department of Labor, the 
     Department of Commerce, and the Federal Procurement Data 
     Center.
       ``(iii) If the analysis is to be performed by a private 
     contractor, the selection of the contractor and the 
     administration of the contract shall be conducted by one of 
     the entities referenced in clause (ii) as an independent 
     executive agent for the board of directors. Maximum 
     consideration shall be given to any proposed statement of 
     work furnished by the Chief Operating Officer of Federal 
     Prison Industries.
       ``(C) The analysis required by subparagraph (A) shall 
     identify and consider--
       ``(i) the number of vendors that currently meet the 
     requirements of the Federal Government for the specific 
     product or specific service;
       ``(ii) the proportion of the Federal Government market for 
     the specific product or specific service currently furnished 
     by small businesses during the previous 3 fiscal years;
       ``(iii) the share of the Federal market for the specific 
     product or specific service projected for Federal Prison 
     Industries for the fiscal year in which production or 
     performance will commence or expand and the subsequent 4 
     fiscal years;
       ``(iv) whether the industry producing the specific product 
     or specific service in the private sector--
       ``(I) has an unemployment rate higher than the national 
     average; or
       ``(II) has a rate of unemployment for workers that has 
     consistently shown an increase during the previous 5 years;
       ``(v) whether the specific product is an import-sensitive 
     product;
       ``(vi) the requirements of the Federal Government and the 
     demands of entities other than the Federal Government for the 
     specific product or service during the previous 3 fiscal 
     years;
       ``(vii) the projected growth or decline in the demand of 
     the Federal Government for the specific product or specific 
     service;
       ``(viii) the capability of the projected demand of the 
     Federal Government for the specific product or service to 
     sustain both Federal Prison Industries and private vendors; 
     and
       ``(ix) whether authorizing the production of the new 
     product or performance of a new service will provide inmates 
     with the maximum opportunity to acquire knowledge and skill 
     in trades and occupations that will provide them with a means 
     of earning a livelihood upon release.
       ``(D)(i) The board of directors may not approve a proposal 
     to authorize the production and sale of a new specific 
     product or continued sale of a previously authorized product 
     unless--
       ``(I) the product to be furnished is a prison-made product; 
     or
       ``(II) the service to be furnished is to be performed by 
     inmate workers.
       ``(ii) The board of directors may not approve a proposal to 
     authorize the production and sale of a new prison-made 
     product or to expand production of a currently authorized 
     product if the product is--
       ``(I) produced in the private sector by an industry which 
     has reflected during the previous year an unemployment rate 
     above the national average; or
       ``(II) an import-sensitive product.
       ``(iii) The board of directors may not approve a proposal 
     for inmates to provide a service in which an inmate worker 
     has access to--
       ``(I) personal or financial information about individual 
     private citizens, including information relating to such 
     person's real property, however described, without giving 
     prior notice to such persons or class of persons to the 
     greatest extent practicable;
       ``(II) geographic data regarding the location of surface 
     and subsurface infrastructure providing communications, water 
     and electrical power distribution, pipelines for the 
     distribution of natural gas, bulk petroleum products and 
     other commodities, and other utilities; or
       ``(III) data that is classified.
       ``(iv)(I) Federal Prison Industries is prohibited from 
     furnishing through inmate labor construction services, unless 
     to be performed within a Federal correctional institution 
     pursuant to the participation of an inmate in an 
     apprenticeship or other vocational education program teaching 
     the skills of the various building trades.
       ``(II) For purposes of this clause, the term `construction' 
     has the meaning given such term by section 2.101 of the 
     Federal Acquisition Regulation (48 C.F.R. part 2.101), as in 
     effect on June 1, 2002, including the repair, alteration, or 
     maintenance of real property in being.
       ``(6) To provide further opportunities for participation by 
     interested parties, the board of directors shall--
       ``(A) give additional notice of a proposal to authorize the 
     production and sale of a new product or service, or expand 
     the production of a currently authorized product or service, 
     in a publication designed to most effectively provide notice 
     to private vendors and labor unions representing private 
     sector workers who could reasonably be expected to be 
     affected by approval of the proposal, which notice shall 
     offer to furnish copies of the analysis required by paragraph 
     (5) and shall solicit comment on the analysis;
       ``(B) solicit comments on the analysis required by 
     paragraph (5) from trade associations representing vendors 
     and labor unions representing private sector workers who 
     could reasonably be expected to be affected by approval of 
     the proposal to authorize the production and sale of a new 
     product or service (or expand the production of a currently 
     authorized product or service); and
       ``(C) afford an opportunity, on request, for a 
     representative of an established trade association, labor 
     union, or other private sector representatives to present 
     comments on the proposal directly to the board of directors.
       ``(7) The board of directors shall be provided copies of 
     all comments received on the expansion proposal.
       ``(8) Based on the comments received on the initial 
     expansion proposal, the Chief Operating Officer of Federal 
     Prison Industries may provide the board of directors a 
     revised expansion proposal. If such revised proposal provides 
     for expansion of inmate work opportunities in an industry 
     different from that initially proposed, such revised proposal 
     shall reflect the analysis required by paragraph (5)(C) and 
     be subject to the public comment requirements of paragraph 
     (6).
       ``(9) The board of directors shall consider a proposal to 
     authorize the sale of a new specific product or specific 
     service (or to expand the volume of sales for a currently 
     authorized product

[[Page H10490]]

     or service) and take any action with respect to such 
     proposal, during a meeting that is open to the public, unless 
     closed pursuant to section 552(b) of title 5.
       ``(10) In conformity with the requirements of paragraphs 
     (5) through (9) of this subsection, the board of directors 
     may--
       ``(A) authorize the donation of products produced or 
     services furnished by Federal industries and available for 
     sale;
       ``(B) authorize the production of a new specific product or 
     the furnishing of a new specific service for donation; or
       ``(C) authorize a proposal to expand production of a 
     currently authorized specific product or specific service in 
     an amount in excess of a reasonable share of the market for 
     such product or service, if--
       ``(i) a Federal agency or department, purchasing such 
     product or service, has requested that Federal Prison 
     Industries be authorized to furnish such product or service 
     in amounts that are needed by such agency or department; or
       ``(ii) the proposal is justified for other good cause and 
     supported by at least eight members of the board.''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any amendments to section 3?
  If not, the Clerk will designate section 4.
  The text of section 4 is as follows:

     SEC. 4. TRANSITIONAL MANDATORY SOURCE AUTHORITY.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding the requirements of 
     section 4124 of title 18, United States Code (as amended by 
     section 2 of this Act), a Federal department or agency having 
     a requirement for a product that is authorized for sale by 
     Federal Prison Industries and is listed in its catalog 
     (referred to in section 4124(g) of title 18, United States 
     Code) shall first solicit an offer from Federal Prison 
     Industries and make purchases on a noncompetitive basis in 
     accordance with this section.
       (b) Preferential Source Status.--Subject to the limitations 
     of subsection (d), a contract award shall be made on a 
     noncompetitive basis to Federal Prison Industries if the 
     contracting officer for the procurement activity determines 
     that--
       (1) the product offered by Federal Prison Industries will 
     meet the requirements of the procurement activity (including 
     commercial or governmental standards or specifications 
     pertaining to design, performance, testing, safety, 
     serviceability, and warranties as may be imposed upon a 
     private sector supplier of the type being offered by Federal 
     Prison Industries);
       (2) timely performance of the contract by Federal Prison 
     Industries can be reasonably expected; and
       (3) the negotiated price does not exceed a fair and 
     reasonable price.
       (c) Contractual Terms.--The terms and conditions of the 
     contract and the price to be paid to Federal Prison 
     Industries shall be determined by negotiation between Federal 
     Prison Industries and the Federal agency making the purchase. 
     The negotiated price shall not exceed a fair and reasonable 
     price determined in accordance with the procedures of the 
     Federal Acquisition Regulation.
       (d) Performance of Contractual Obligations.--
       (1) In general.--Federal Prison Industries shall perform 
     the obligations of the contract negotiated pursuant to 
     subsection (c).
       (2) Performance disputes.--If the head of the contracting 
     activity and the Chief Operating Officer of Federal Prison 
     Industries are unable to resolve a contract performance 
     dispute to their mutual satisfaction, such dispute shall be 
     resolved pursuant to section 4124(e)(3) of title 18, United 
     States Code (as added by section 2 of this Act).
       (e) Limitations on Use of Authority.--
       (1) In general.--As a percentage of the sales made by 
     Federal Prison Industries during the base period, the total 
     dollar value of sales to the Government made pursuant to 
     subsection (b) and subsection (c) of this section shall not 
     exceed--
       (A) 90 percent in fiscal year 2005;
       (B) 85 percent in fiscal year 2006;
       (C) 70 percent in fiscal year 2007;
       (D) 55 percent in fiscal year 2008; and
       (E) 40 percent in fiscal year 2009.
       (2) Sales within various business sectors.--Use of the 
     authority provided by subsections (b) and (c) shall not 
     result in sales by Federal Prison Industries to the 
     Government that are in excess of its total sales during the 
     base year for each business sector.
       (3) Limitations relating to specific products.--Use of the 
     authorities provided by subsections (b) and (c) shall not 
     result in contract awards to Federal Prison Industries that 
     are in excess of its total sales during the base period for 
     such product.
       (4) Changes in design specifications.--The limitations on 
     sales specified in paragraphs (2) and (3) shall not be 
     affected by any increases in the unit cost of production of a 
     specific product arising from changes in the design 
     specification of such product directed by the buying agency.
       (f) Duration of Authority.--The preferential contracting 
     authorities authorized by subsection (b) may not be used on 
     or after October 1, 2009, and become effective on the 
     effective date of the final regulations issued pursuant to 
     section 18.
       (g) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section--
       (1) the term ``base period'' means the total sales of 
     Federal Prison Industries during the period October 1, 2001, 
     and September 30, 2002 (Fiscal Year 2002);
       (2) the term ``business sectors'' means the eight product/
     service business groups identified in the 2002 Federal Prison 
     Industries annual report as the Clothing and Textiles 
     Business Group, the Electronics Business Group, the Fleet 
     Management and Vehicular Components Business Group, the 
     Graphics Business Group, the Industrial Products Business 
     Group, the Office Furniture Business Group, the Recycling 
     Activities Business Group, and the Services Business Group; 
     and
       (3) the term ``fair and reasonable price'' shall be given 
     the same meaning as, and be determined pursuant to, part 15.8 
     of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (48 C.F.R. 15.8).
       (h) Finding by Attorney General With Respect to Public 
     Safety.--(1) Not later than 60 days prior to the end of each 
     fiscal year specified in subsection (e)(1), the Attorney 
     General shall make a finding regarding the effects of the 
     percentage limitation imposed by such subsection for such 
     fiscal year and the likely effects of the limitation imposed 
     by such subsection for the following fiscal year.
       (2) The Attorney General's finding shall include a 
     determination whether such limitation has resulted or is 
     likely to result in a substantial reduction in inmate 
     industrial employment and whether such reductions, if any, 
     present a significant risk of adverse effects on safe prison 
     operation or public safety.
       (3) If the Attorney General finds a significant risk of 
     adverse effects on either safe prison management or public 
     safety, he shall so advise the Congress.
       (4) In advising the Congress pursuant to paragraph (3), the 
     Attorney General shall make recommendations for additional 
     authorizations of appropriations to provide additional 
     alternative inmate rehabilitative opportunities and 
     additional correctional staffing, as may be appropriate.


            Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia:
       Page 17, strike line 16 and all that follows through page 
     18, line 19.
       Page 18, line 20, strike ``(2)'' and insert ``(b)'' (and 
     align the margin with subsection (a) and redesignate 
     subsequent subsections accordingly).
       Page 19, lines 7 and 8, strike ``subsection (b) and 
     subsection (c) of''.
       Page 19, lines 15 and 16, and lines 21 and 22, strike 
     ``subsections (b) and (c)'' and insert ``this section''.
       Page 20, line 7, strike ``preferential''.
       Page 20, line 8, strike ``subsection (b)'' and insert 
     ``this section''.

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, this is a ``truth-in-
legislating'' amendment. We have been told that the underlying bill 
phases out mandatory source. This amendment would actually provide for 
a 5-year phaseout of the mandatory source law, which is what the 
proponents say the bill does. Unfortunately, the bill, in fact, 
immediately eliminates the mandatory source program and replaces it 
with an agency preference program where an agency may be required to 
make a purchase or may not, and there is no way to know whether it will 
actually replace the number of jobs without significant erosion of the 
program. After the 5 years, agencies under the bill do not even have to 
go through a preference process, and if one reads the language left 
after my amendment strikes out the agency preference program, we still 
have the bill, but with a 5-year phaseout of the mandatory source rule 
now in effect.
  Now, if anybody believes that there is a 5-year phaseout of the 
current mandatory source rule under the bill, rather than an immediate 
elimination, just read the bill. Page 4 of the bill, starting on line 
20, says ``agencies shall solicit an offer'' from FPI. Nothing wrong 
with that.

                              {time}  1345

  But note that the words no longer require a purchase, which is the 
current mandatory source law.
  Proponents of the bill would have you believe that the public wants 
agency bureaucrats to have the option of buying furniture or office 
supplies with all the bells and whistles and all the colors, shapes, 
and sizes that the private sector can muster, rather than having them 
promoting the proven public policy of promoting meaningful work 
experience for inmates, most of whom would not be imprisoned in the 
first place if they had the work place skills and knew how to hold down 
a job.
  Now, FPI was created in 1934. And the point of the 1934 law was, as a 
matter of sound public policy, that we should carve out a little 
minuscule portion of Federal agency purchases to provide marketable 
work skills and productivity to prisoners so that they will be 
productively occupied while in prison and be able to get a job when

[[Page H10491]]

they get out. Now, this program has been shown that it works. Not only 
has it shown that inmates who participate in FPI are significantly more 
likely to find productive employment, but they have shown that they are 
24 percent less likely to commit a new crime upon release. That means 
24 percent fewer victims.
  The program and developers are aware that inmates constitute the 
least educated, least disciplined, least trained, least skilled, and 
least productive workforce around. The program requires an emphasis on 
manual work to employ as many people as possible. And as a result of 
all of those factors, the FPI estimates that it takes four inmates to 
do the work of one properly trained private sector employee.
  That is clearly not the intent of the developers of the program to 
have inmates compete with the private sector, or that inmates be 
prevented from doing any work that could be done by the private sector. 
In 1934, any FPI work could have been done by the private sector, and 
that is still the case today.
  The whole of the FPI revenues constitute less than one-quarter of 1 
percent of Federal agency purchasing. And with the entire private 
sector market and 99.75 percent of the Federal market, spreading the 
remaining one-quarter of 1 percent of the Federal market over the 
entire private business sector is not likely to create any new jobs. So 
it would simply be absorbed in the existing workforce.
  On the other hand, almost 80 percent of the revenues that FPI takes 
in goes back to purchase raw materials through the Federal procurement 
process and a subcontractor with private sector businesses producing 
FPI products for agencies. Now there are hundreds of these businesses. 
They hire thousands of workers. Over 60 percent of them are small, 
minority, women-owned or disadvantaged businesses, and for many of them 
FPI is their only client. A high number of these private sector jobs 
are held by law-abiding citizens, and they will be immediately gone 
with the elimination of the mandatory source of FPI since there will be 
no reliable orders or revenues.
  When we put restrictions on the mandatory source program in the 
Department of Defense last year, we saw a significant erosion of inmate 
jobs without any indication that industry jobs in the private sector 
would increase as a result.
  We should not be gutting this proven crime-reduction program that 
does not require taxpayer funding, suddenly, without knowing the 
consequences and without giving the prison system a realistic period to 
try to develop something to replace it. We should certainly not be 
doing this to give agency bureaucrats just a few more choices in 
furniture purchases.
  Several of us have asked the GAO to study the impact on the prison 
system, FPI, the businesses, and the public from eliminating the FPI 
mandatory source provision. This will provide a meaningful transition. 
And I would hope that we would adopt the amendment.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment puts the fox back to guarding the 
chicken coop, at least during the phase-out period in this legislation, 
and it is another attempt to buy time. The way it does it is to 
eliminate the competitive procedures that are in section 4 of the bill, 
which is the transitional mandatory source authority.
  Now, what section 4 of the bill does, what the amendment of the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) tries to eliminate is to phase out 
FPI's dependence upon the narcotic of mandatory source procurement. And 
it eliminates the requirements that, during the phase-out of mandatory 
source for all products still being provided under this authority, that 
FPI provides a product that meets the agency's specific needs in a 
timely manner and at a fair price.
  So the adoption of the Scott amendment would mean that FPI decides 
what the agencies need, not the agencies themselves; and the FPI 
decides when the agencies need the goods, not the agencies themselves; 
and FPI decides that the price is fair, not the agencies themselves. 
And there is not any competition at all when FPI makes all of these 
decisions. This basically is another stall that rolls back the changes 
in the bill and leaves the decision on whether to grant a waiver and 
allow competitive sourcing to the FPI rather than the buying agency.
  It is time we get the fox away from this chicken coop because the 
taxpayers are going to end up much further ahead and the agencies are 
going to get better goods in a more timely manner without the amendment 
and with the bill as written.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge that the amendment be voted down.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I respect the principled opposition of the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Scott) to this bill. It is in this context we should 
see his amendment. He argues that he has a better transition, but it is 
a transition to a goal which he opposes.
  So I would ask Members to consider if you are trying to find a path 
to a certain destination, whose guidance will you select: the people 
who are trying to get to the destination or the people who think that 
destination would be a terrible thing?
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) has said this 
accurately, that this is a second chance to vote ``yes'' or ``no'' on 
the bill. I want to reiterate I will be strongly supportive of efforts 
to continue giving prisoners the work. There are specific sections in 
this bill that we are bringing forward that talk about donation 
programs, that say that we want the inmates to be making things for 
daycare centers, for homeless shelters, for drug rehab clinics. All of 
us know in every one of our districts there are very worthy facilities 
that provide services to people in great need, and they do not have 
enough of a budget to buy what they need. Let us give them the 
furniture. Let us give them the clothing. Let us give them the drapery. 
Let us give them the other things that can be made.
  The issue is not whether or not the prisoners should be engaged in 
rehabilitative work; it is whether rehabilitative work should be 
financed by the whole society or whether it should be financed by 
competing with the most economically vulnerable sectors of our society. 
The bill says the former; the opposition to the bill and the amendment 
essentially say the latter.
  The amendment says a while longer, a vote against the bill says 
never, but they came to the same result.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  The amendment was rejected.


                   Amendment Offered by Mrs. Maloney

  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Maloney:
       Page 22, insert after line 3 the following:
       (i) Procedural Requirements for Civilian Agencies Relating 
     to Products of Federal Prison Industries.--Title III of the 
     Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 
     U.S.C. 251 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 318. PRODUCTS OF FEDERAL PRISON INDUSTRIES: PROCEDURAL 
                   REQUIREMENTS.

       ``(a) Market Research.--Before purchasing a product listed 
     in the latest edition of the Federal Prison Industries 
     catalog under section 4124(d) of title 18, United States 
     Code, the head of an executive agency shall conduct market 
     research to determine whether the Federal Prison Industries 
     product is comparable to products available from the private 
     sector that best meet the executive agency's needs in terms 
     of price, quality, and time of delivery.
       ``(b) Competition Requirement.--If the head of the 
     executive agency determines that a Federal Prison Industries 
     product is not comparable in price, quality, or time of 
     delivery to products available from the private sector that 
     best meet the executive agency's needs in terms of price, 
     quality, and time of delivery, the agency head shall use 
     competitive procedures for the procurement of the product or 
     shall make an individual purchase under a multiple award 
     contract. In conducting such a competition or making such a 
     purchase, the agency head shall consider a timely offer from 
     Federal Prison Industries.
       ``(c) Implementation by Head of Executive Agency.--The head 
     of an executive agency shall ensure that--
       ``(1) the executive agency does not purchase a Federal 
     Prison Industries product or service unless a contracting 
     officer of the agency determines that the product or service 
     is comparable to products or services available from the 
     private sector that best

[[Page H10492]]

     meet the agency's needs in terms of price, quality, and time 
     of delivery; and
       ``(2) Federal Prison Industries performs its contractual 
     obligations to the same extent as any other contractor for 
     the executive agency.
       ``(d) Market Research Determination Not Subject to 
     Review.--A determination by a contracting officer regarding 
     whether a product or service offered by Federal Prison 
     Industries is comparable to products or services available 
     from the private sector that best meet an executive agency's 
     needs in terms of price, quality, and time of delivery shall 
     not be subject to review pursuant to section 4124(b) of title 
     18.
       ``(e) Performance as a Subcontractor.--(1) A contractor or 
     potential contractor of an executive agency may not be 
     required to use Federal Prison Industries as a subcontractor 
     or supplier of products or provider of services for the 
     performance of a contract of the executive agency by any 
     means, including means such as--
       ``(A) a contract solicitation provision requiring a 
     contractor to offer to make use of products or services of 
     Federal Prison Industries in the performance of the contract;
       ``(B) a contract specification requiring the contractor to 
     use specific products or services (or classes of products or 
     services) offered by Federal Prison Industries in the 
     performance of the contract; or
       ``(C) any contract modification directing the use of 
     products or services of Federal Prison Industries in the 
     performance of the contract.
       ``(2) In this subsection, the term ``contractor'', with 
     respect to a contract, includes a subcontractor at any tier 
     under the contract.
       ``(f) Protection of Classified and Sensitive Information.--
     The head of an executive agency may not enter into any 
     contract with Federal Prison Industries under which an inmate 
     worker would have access to--
       ``(1) any data that is classified;
       ``(2) any geographic data regarding the location of--
       ``(A) surface and subsurface infrastructure providing 
     communications or water or electrical power distribution;
       ``(B) pipelines for the distribution of natural gas, bulk 
     petroleum products, or other commodities; or
       ``(C) other utilities; or
       ``(3) any personal or financial information about any 
     individual private citizen, including information relating to 
     such person's real property however described, without the 
     prior consent of the individual.
       ``(g) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) The term `competitive procedures' has the meaning 
     given such term in section 4(5) of the Office of Federal 
     Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403(5)).
       ``(2) The term `market research' means obtaining specific 
     information about the price, quality, and time of delivery of 
     products available in the private sector through a variety of 
     means, which may include--
       ``(A) contacting knowledgeable individuals in government 
     and industry;
       ``(B) interactive communication among industry, acquisition 
     personnel, and customers; and
       ``(C) interchange meetings or pre-solicitation conferences 
     with potential offerors.''.
       Page 17, line 15, strike the period and insert the 
     following: ``or in accordance with section 2410n of title 10, 
     United States Code, or section 318 of title III of the 
     Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (as 
     added by subsection (i)).''.

  Mrs. MALONEY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I 
have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure which section this 
amendment is in. I would hope that it would not prejudice amendments in 
previous sections.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Section 4 will remain open to further 
amendment after the consideration of this amendment.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of 
objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, the amendment extends to the new 
contracting officer of the various civilian agencies, including the new 
Department of Homeland Security, the same powers available to 
contracting officers of the Department of Defense in their dealings 
with the Federal Prison Industries. It will better enable them to get 
the best value for the taxpaying dollars being expended with FPI.
  Under FPI's 1934 authorizing statute, FPI is a mandatory source to 
all Federal agencies. Federal contracting officers must purchase 
products offered by FPI unless FPI authorizes, through the granting of 
a so-called waiver, the solicitation of competitive offers for the 
private sector.
  In making the unilateral determination to grant a waiver, FPI, rather 
than the buying agency, determines whether FPI's offered product and 
delivery schedule meet the mission's needs of the buying agency. FPI, 
rather than the buying agency, determines the reasonableness of FPI's 
offered price.
  While comprehensive FPI reform was being advanced in both Chambers, 
several Members of the other body devised a means to provide some 
modest interim relief to DOD's procurement professionals by including 
interim relief in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 
year 2002. That provision added a new section 2410(n) to title 10 of 
the U.S. Code which governs DOD.
  My amendment adds a new section to title III of the Federal Property 
and Administrative Services Act of 1949, which governs procurement by 
the civilian agencies. This new provision mirrors exactly the test of 
section 2410(n) in title 10.
  Specifically, my amendment will make explicit that a contracting 
officer is fully empowered to determine if a product offered by FPI is 
comparable to products available from the private sector that best meet 
the Department's needs in terms of price, quality, and time of 
delivery; provide a contracting officer access to the full range of 
market research tools to make the required determination and full 
discretion on how to use such tools; empower contracting officers to 
ensure that FPI performs its contractual obligations to the same extent 
as any other contractor; and prohibit inmate workers from having access 
to classified data, critical infrastructure data, and personal or 
financial data under any service contract.
  The text of the amendment being offered today was offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and accepted by the Committee on 
Government Reform during its consideration of H.R. 1837, the Services 
Acquisition Reform Act, earlier this year.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MALONEY. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, let me say that I support her 
amendment because what her amendment does is it applies the DOD 
contracting rights that were passed in last year's defense 
authorization bill to procurement by the other Federal agencies that 
would be covered by this bill. So there is a uniform standard of agency 
contracting rights. And we would not have one set of rules for the 
Defense Department and another set of rules for the rest of the 
government agencies.
  I believe that this amendment is a constructive addition, and I am 
pleased to support it.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MALONEY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts, the 
distinguished ranking member.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, we do not have the usual 
situation here where there are Democratic and Republican managers who 
might come to an agreement on this one. I would say, though, that as 
one of the Democrats who has been supportive of this bill, I certainly 
would concur with what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) 
has said and would also urge its acceptance.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to add that the U.S. Chamber 
of Commerce and the AFL/CIO join my distinguished colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle in support of this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1400


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Green of Wisconsin

  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Green of Wisconsin:
       Page 21, strike line 21 and all that follows through page 
     22, line 3, and insert the following:

[[Page H10493]]

       (3) If the Attorney General finds a significant risk of 
     adverse effects on safe prison management, prison 
     rehabilitation opportunities, or public or prison safety, he 
     shall so advise the Congress before the end of the fiscal 
     year in which the finding is made, and such finding shall 
     serve to postpone for one year any further percentage 
     limitation under subsection (e)(1).
       (4) Any percentage limitation postponed under paragraph (3) 
     shall take effect in the fiscal year immediately following 
     the fiscal year for which it is postponed, if not later than 
     60 days before the first day of such following fiscal year 
     the Attorney General makes a determination under paragraph 
     (2)--
       (A) that such limitation is not likely to result in a 
     substantial reduction in inmate industrial employment; or
       (B) that any such reduction will not present a significant 
     risk of adverse effects on safe prison operation or public 
     safety.

  Mr. GREEN from Wisconsin (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, the proponents of this 
legislation, H.R. 1829, said earlier that they share our vision, they 
share the concerns that many of us have. The proponents of this bill 
have claimed that this legislation, H.R. 1829 will actually strengthen 
FPI, Federal Prison Industries. Unfortunately, close observers of the 
system, like the American Federation of Government Employees and the 
Fraternal Order of Police, disagree. Who shall we believe?
  This amendment that I offer right now offers us a safe way for us to 
provide and to find out the answer and determine who it is that we 
should believe.
  Now, earlier it was said that my study amendment was an amendment to 
kill, an amendment to delay. Well, this legislation is very different. 
It allows us to proceed while also creating a mechanism to make sure 
that we do not do the damage that some have said, some fear will be 
done. It provides a safety valve in case this bill does not work out as 
its proponents claim.
  It would require the Attorney General to make a determination each 
year about whether phasing out of fiscal procurement preference has 
resulted in a reduction of the number of inmates who are provided 
employment. If the numbers are substantially lower, if the numbers are 
substantially lower, then the Attorney General will be required to 
determine whether or not this reduction poses a significant threat to 
prison operations or general public safety. If the Attorney General 
determines that this has occurred, if there is a threat to public 
safety, then he may postpone the phasing out for a year. It could begin 
again once the Attorney General has determined that it is safe to 
proceed. The current bill provides no mechanism for reviewing the 
effect of the preference phaseout.
  Let us understand the effect of this amendment very carefully and why 
it is so important. If proponents of the bill are correct in assuming 
that their reforms will, in fact, make FPI more competitive rather than 
putting it out of business as I would suggest, then the safety valve 
provisions in this amendment will never come into play. It will be as 
though this amendment was never adopted, never considered. But if the 
proponents are wrong, and they just might be wrong, and if our highest 
law enforcement official determines, as I believe, that this would 
present a significant risk to prison safety or public safety, then this 
safety valve will be critically needed. It will be terribly important. 
It will save lives. It will save the working conditions in prisons. It 
will make prison operations safer.
  Now, again, in the past with my previous amendment, the study 
amendment, it was argued that I was trying to kill H.R. 1829, to kill 
this legislation. I would argue that those who oppose this amendment, 
given that this amendment does not delay the phaseout of the mandatory 
preference, I would argue that any who oppose this amendment really do 
want to kill FPI.
  Again, if their claims are accurate, if their assumptions are 
correct, then this amendment will have no effect. But if they are 
wrong, as many of us fear, we will at least have some mechanism, some 
small way to stop this damage from occurring. I ask support for this 
amendment.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, my colleague from Wisconsin wants to 
stall FPI facing the music in being reformed by this amendment. And he 
cloaks his argument by saying there has to be a safety valve in case 
the reduction in work that FPI may or may not get as a result of having 
to compete, ends up causing a problem in prison safety.
  The provision of the bill that the gentleman from Wisconsin proposes 
to strike does provide a safety valve, but it provides a safety valve 
where the ultimate determination is made by the Congress. In other 
words, we have to make a decision on whether the determination is a 
correct one or an incorrect one.
  Let me outline what this amendment proposes to strike. It says, a 
finding by the Attorney General with respect to public safety within 60 
days after the end of every fiscal year, which means by December 1, the 
Attorney General shall make a finding with respect to public safety and 
whether the reduction in the percentage of mandatory sourcing will have 
a likely effect on public safety during the next fiscal year.
  The Attorney General's findings shall include a determination on 
whether such determination has resulted or is likely to result in a 
substantial reduction in inmate industrial employment and whether such 
reductions, if any, present a significant risk of adverse effects on 
safe prison operation or public safety.
  If he finds that, he shall advise the Congress. And if he advises the 
Congress pursuant to this section, the Attorney General shall make 
recommendations for additional authorizations of appropriations to 
provide additional alternative inmate rehabilitative opportunities and 
additional correctional staffing as may be appropriate.
  Now, what this means is that the Attorney General gets $75 million 
authorized every year to provide for additional rehabilitation and 
industrial employment within the prison. If the $75 million dollars is 
not enough or is not used effectively enough, then the AG has got to 
come back to Congress and say, okay, I either need more money, I need a 
change in the law, or I need more people to provide for more prison 
guards. And then the Congress can make this determination as a part of 
the ordinary authorization appropriations process.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Green) amendment is kind of a 
guillotine, the death penalty, if you will, because it says that if the 
AG finds a significant risk of adverse effects on either safer prison 
management or public safety, he shall so advise the Congress before the 
end of the fiscal year in which the finding is made and such finding 
shall, shall, not may, postpone for 1 year any further percentage 
limitation under the subsection e(1) and the transitional title which 
is under debate now.
  Now, there are over 70 prisons that have got Federal prison 
industries programs. And the way the gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. 
Green) amendment is drafted is that if the Attorney General finds that 
there is a public safety problem in just one of those prisons, then FPI 
is able to continue doing business as usual for another year.
  That is a stall. That is why this amendment should be rejected, and I 
hope it is rejected overwhelmingly.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I was listening to my good friend, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and looking to the section in which he 
was referring and as well to which this amendment is referring. I join 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) as a cosponsor of this 
amendment, and I do so because I think that what we are doing today is 
a work in progress and that we are responding to a ground yet explored.
  None of us will and can determine two things, Mr. Chairman. We can 
not determine that if this bill is passed whether we will soon open up 
the windows of Heaven, and I do not make light, in helping small 
businesses. And that is our intent, of course. We want

[[Page H10494]]

to be generous and recognize that small businesses should not be 
disadvantaged as competitors because I believe that small businesses 
are the backbone of America and they create jobs.
  At the same time, we do not want to deconstruct or undermine our 
prison structure and the goals of prisons, which are to punish and, I 
believe, to rehabilitate. And this amendment that we are offering 
together is a triggering amendment. It allows the Attorney General to 
proceed with a study that deals with the issues of public 
rehabilitation, management, that is key, Mr. Chairman, public or prison 
safety.
  We know that there are documented studies of years past that suggest 
that we have problems when there is an idleness in our prisons. We have 
gone past that to a certain extent. We went through a crisis where no 
one wanted television sets or they did not want physical fitness rooms, 
and we have gone through that, and we do not have much of that.
  So what do we have for the inmates? We have work. We try to have 
study, and we try to have factors that will rehabilitate their lives. 
This amendment speaks to a delaying process, not a process that 
eliminates, and it gives us a sense of information that will be 
instructive.
  One of the more, I think, enlightened aspects of the amendment is 
that if a limitation is proposed under paragraph 3, and it takes effect 
in the fiscal year immediately following the fiscal year for which it 
is postponed, is not less than 60 days before the before the first day 
of such following fiscal year, the Attorney General makes a 
determination. And so it gives another action item, that such 
limitation is not likely to result in a substantial reduction of inmate 
industrial employment, or that any such reduction would not present a 
significant risk of adverse effect on safe prison operation or public 
safety, we go forward.
  So it gives limitations. It is not an elimination. It is a 
limitation.
  I would like to pose a question to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Green) because my understanding of what we intended, and as the 
gentleman offered the amendment and as I am very pleased to join the 
gentleman, what the gentleman intended, the gentleman intended to be 
thoughtful, to give a moment of study, to then allow to come back again 
and to state that there is no injury; and if there is no injury, we can 
go forward.
  Am I understanding what our thought processes were?
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Yes, the reason this amendment is drafted as 
it is, is we are, I think as the gentlewoman said very eloquently, 
treading into new territory here.
  What I want to do is make sure that we have an opportunity, if just 
by that small chance the proponents are wrong, as you and I believe 
that they may well be, that we have a mechanism to stop irreparable 
harm from being done.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Well, I thank the gentleman for his 
thoughtfulness. I might just ask one quick question. Does the gentleman 
think we are in a crisis point where thoughtfulness and study is not 
appropriate? When I say crisis, we are all supporters of small 
businesses, but we are working with a collective body of opportunity 
for small businesses which we both support. Are we at a crisis where we 
just absolutely are collapsing and we can not study this thoughtfully?
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. I think there is no reason why we can not 
study this thoughtfully. We can look at ways of reforming the FBI to 
make sure it works better to protect all of the interest. I want to 
make sure, as the gentlewoman does, that we have that time.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Let me just say, Mr. Chairman, I believe 
that we are working to be, if you will, constructive. And this is only 
an amendment that provides guidance, that allows us to be thoughtful. 
And if there is a problem, if this is devastating to the prison 
industries, we are allowed to cease and desist temporarily. If we find 
that we have overcome the problems, the Attorney General could move 
forward. I would ask my colleagues to move forward on this very 
constructive amendment.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. What this 
amendment does is it seeks to reverse an action that was taken by the 
committee during its markup of the bill in the 107th Congress, and that 
was on a Roll Call vote this amendment was defeated 18 to 9.
  The bill already requires the Attorney General to closely monitor the 
effects of the 5-year transition period in which FPI adapts to selling 
Federal agencies on a competitive basis rather than the noncompetitive 
process that it currently has under mandatory source.
  Annually, during the 5-year transition period, the Attorney General 
is required to determine whether there has been a reduction in inmate 
industrial employment; and if such reduction presents ``a significant 
risk of adverse effects on safe prison operation or public safety,'' 
report to the committee any ``adverse effects on either safe prison 
management or public safety,'' and to make recommendations for 
corrective action.
  Under the bill the committee and the Congress would determine the 
appropriate remedial actions to be taken, if any. Remember, this is a 
5-year gradual phaseout.
  Under the Green amendment, the Attorney General would be unilaterally 
empowered to suspend FPI's statutorily specified transition to 
competition simply on the basis of his own findings.
  As was reflected in the debate during the 107th Congress, the 
committee is fully capable of evaluating the Attorney General's 
findings and recommendations and of taking appropriate remedial action 
as needed.

                              {time}  1415

  Modification of statutorily specified timetables lies with the 
legislative branch and should not be subject to unilateral change by an 
individual officer of the executive branch.
  In keeping with the provision's intent for the Attorney General to 
make and report to the Congress findings that are very broadly drafted, 
``has resulted or is likely to result, substantial reduction in inmate 
industrial employment and significant risk of adverse effects.''
  They are insufficiently clear bases on which to authorize the 
Attorney General to unilaterally suspend the implementation of this 
statute. I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. It allows the 
Attorney General to protect public safety. If the Attorney General 
concludes that, in order to protect public safety, he needs the 
continuation of the prison industries program, he ought to be able to 
respond to that crisis in a way that responds to the crisis and not 
just send a letter to Congress to hope something might get done while 
the crisis is going on.
  The warden apparently can do this now in the bill, but that is fairly 
unrealistic because the warden would have to report to the Attorney 
General that he cannot do his job in order to trigger that element of 
the bill. That is obviously not a realistic thing to think that a 
warden would volunteer to the fact that he cannot do his job as a 
condition to protect public safety.
  I would hope that this safety valve amendment would be adopted so 
that our public safety can, in fact, be protected.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Green) will be postponed.
  Are there further amendments to section 4?
  If not, the Clerk will designate section 5.
  The text of section 5 is as follows:

[[Page H10495]]

     SEC. 5. AUTHORITY TO PERFORM AS A FEDERAL SUBCONTRACTOR.

       (a) In General.--Federal Prison Industries is authorized to 
     enter into a contract with a Federal contractor (or a 
     subcontractor of such contractor at any tier) to produce 
     products as a subcontractor or supplier in the performance of 
     a Federal procurement contract. The use of Federal Prison 
     Industries as a subcontractor or supplier shall be a wholly 
     voluntary business decision by the Federal prime contractor 
     or subcontractor, subject to any prior approval of 
     subcontractors or suppliers by the contracting officer which 
     may be imposed by the Federal Acquisition Regulation or by 
     the contract.
       (b) Commercial Sales Prohibited.--The authority provided by 
     subsection (a) shall not result, either directly or 
     indirectly, in the sale in the commercial market of a product 
     or service resulting from the labor of Federal inmate workers 
     in violation of section 1761(a) of title 18, United States 
     Code. A Federal contractor (or subcontractor at any tier) 
     using Federal Prison Industries as a subcontractor or 
     supplier in furnishing a commercial product pursuant to a 
     Federal contract shall implement appropriate management 
     procedures to prevent introducing an inmate-produced product 
     into the commercial market.
       (c) Prohibitions on Mandating Subcontracting With Federal 
     Prison Industries.--Except as authorized under the Federal 
     Acquisition Regulation, the use of Federal Prison Industries 
     as a subcontractor or supplier of products or provider of 
     services shall not be imposed upon prospective or actual 
     Federal prime contractors or a subcontractors at any tier by 
     means of--
       (1) a contract solicitation provision requiring a 
     contractor to offer to make use of Federal Prison Industries, 
     its products or services;
       (2) specifications requiring the contractor to use specific 
     products or services (or classes of products or services) 
     offered by Federal Prison Industries in the performance of 
     the contract;
       (3) any contract modification directing the use of Federal 
     Prison Industries, its products or services; or
       (4) any other means.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any amendments to section 5?
  If not, the Clerk will designate section 6.
  The text of section 6 is as follows:

     SEC. 6. INMATE WAGES AND DEDUCTIONS.

       Section 4122(b) of title 18, United States Code (as amended 
     by section 3 of this Act), is further amended by adding after 
     paragraph (10) a new paragraph (11) as follows:
       ``(11)(A) The Board of Directors of Federal Prison 
     Industries shall prescribe the rates of hourly wages to be 
     paid inmates performing work for or through Federal Prison 
     Industries. The Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons 
     shall prescribe the rates of hourly wages for other work 
     assignments within the various Federal correctional 
     institutions.
       ``(B) The various inmate wage rates shall be reviewed and 
     considered for increase on not less than a biannual basis.
       ``(C) Wages earned by an inmate worker shall be paid in the 
     name of the inmate. Deductions, aggregating to not more than 
     80 percent of gross wages, shall be taken from the wages due 
     for--
       ``(i) applicable taxes (Federal, State, and local);
       ``(ii) payment of fines and restitution pursuant to court 
     order;
       ``(iii) payment of additional restitution for victims of 
     the inmate's crimes (at a rate not less than 10 percent of 
     gross wages);
       ``(iv) allocations for support of the inmate's family 
     pursuant to statute, court order, or agreement with the 
     inmate;
       ``(v) allocations to a fund in the inmate's name to 
     facilitate such inmate's assimilation back into society, 
     payable at the conclusion of incarceration; and
       ``(vi) such other deductions as may be specified by the 
     Director of the Bureau of Prisons.
       ``(D) Each inmate worker working for Federal Prison 
     Industries shall indicate in writing that such person--
       ``(i) is participating voluntarily; and
       ``(ii) understands and agrees to the wages to be paid and 
     deductions to be taken from such wages.''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any amendments to section 6?


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Waters

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Waters:
       Page 24, line 7, insert after the period the following: 
     ``In the case of an inmate whose term of imprisonment is to 
     expire in not more than 2 years, wages shall be earned at an 
     hourly rate of not less than $2.50, but paid at the same rate 
     and in the same manner as to any other inmate, and any amount 
     earned but not paid shall be held in trust and paid only upon 
     the actual expiration of the term of imprisonment.''.
       Page 24, after line 10, insert the following new 
     subparagraph (and redesignate succeeding subparagraphs 
     accordingly):
       ``(C) The Board of Directors of Federal Prison Industries 
     shall--
       ``(i) not later than September 30, 2004, increase the 
     maximum wage rate for inmates performing work for or through 
     Federal Prison Industries to an amount equal to 50 percent of 
     the minimum wage prescribed by section 6(a)(1) of the Fair 
     Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1));
       ``(ii) not later than September 30, 2009, increase such 
     maximum wage rate to an amount equal to such minimum wage; 
     and
       ``(iii) request the Secretary of Labor to establish, not 
     later than October 1, 2004, an `inmate training wage' 
     pursuant to that Act.

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I have sat here and listened to this debate 
today on this very important legislation, H.R. 1829, and it is clear to 
me listening to the very thoughtful debate that has been held on this 
floor today that people care an awful lot, both about small business 
and about opportunities for inmates in our prison system to be able to 
work and earn money that can be helpful to them upon their release.
  It is also clear to me that people are torn about the way that this 
bill has been presented. They want to make sure that they protect small 
businesses and not have them disadvantaged because we have our Federal 
Prison Industries able to produce goods without having to compete in 
the open market, and we really do not know how to fix this. We really 
do not have all of the answers.
  We have people that are attempting all kinds of amendments. Some of 
the amendments are to study this, to slow it down and perhaps give us 
another opportunity to take a look at it. Some of the other amendments 
are a bit clearer than that, simply trying to make sure that we do not 
expand the opportunity for the Federal Prison Industries to expand and 
to continue to operate perhaps in the way that it is doing.
  We heard some very interesting debate about NAFTA and about the 
exportation of jobs to Third World countries for cheap labor and some 
pointed references to China; and I was struck by the references that 
were made to labor that has been done in China by prisoners in China, 
and could not help but think if, in fact, we limit the opportunities 
for Federal Prison Industries to operate as it is doing, whether or not 
we are going to find small businesses who would get this work and then 
export it to Third World countries for cheap labor, and we find that 
prisoners in other countries are doing the kind of work that we are 
prohibiting our prisoners in this country from doing.
  All of these questions certainly, I think, are on our minds. However, 
this is what I have attempted to do. I have attempted to find a way to 
recognize that prisoners are being released and that when they are 
released, if they have no money, if they have no resources, they are 
more likely to find their way back into the system. Recidivism is a 
real problem.
  I would like to see those prisoners that are being released have at 
least enough money to rent a place to live, to have some food, maybe to 
have some transportation, to be able to be supported by their earnings 
until they can find a job. I do this by allowing the last 2 years of 
their wages to be increased to $2.50 per hour and then to be held in a 
special fund; and while they are working, they get no more than any 
other prisoner would get working in this industry, but the additional 
dollars would be available to them, held in this fund so that when they 
are released, they will have an opportunity to have money to do those 
things that I have alluded to.
  I think my chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman 
Sensenbrenner), thought there may be some conflict between my amendment 
and the amendment by my colleague from California. I do not think so, 
but this amendment now incorporates my thought about the $2.50 and the 
thoughts of my colleague from the State of California about giving the 
authority to the board of directors to increase the wages if they 
desire to do so. I suppose before they can do it they at least need to 
be told that if they desire to increase wages up to the minimum they 
can do that. So that is included in this bill, and I am sure that she 
will better explain that and that authority that has been given to 
them.
  So these two ideas are combined here, and the idea simply is $2.50, 
an opportunity to have a special fund, inmates able to make more money 
so

[[Page H10496]]

that when they are released, they can have money for food, clothing, 
job, transportation, and of course, the other idea of authorization to 
the board of directors so that they could, over a period of time, 
increase the pay up to the minimum wage if they so desire.
  That is the essence of my amendment. I would ask an ``aye'' vote on 
the Waters amendment number 62.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that this amendment is a good one for a number 
of reasons, but I just would like to make it very clear what the 
amendment does.
  First, it requires that during the last 2 years of incarceration the 
inmate would be paid not less than $2.50 an hour; and, secondly, it 
would have a cap on how much inmates could be paid regardless of 
whether they were within 2 years of release or not within 2 years of 
release to 50 percent of the minimum wage by September of 2004 and the 
minimum wage by September 2009.
  Additionally, the amendment would save the funds for a prisoner in 
trust which would be paid to them upon their release, which would mean 
that when the prisoners are released, they would have some gate money 
in their pocket to be able to begin their lives anew and hopefully lead 
a crime-free rest of their lives.
  Now, with these two provisions this amendment is a very good one 
because it addresses two things. First of all, it helps level the 
playing field in terms of wages paid to FPI employees who are inmates 
with those of private sector employees who are making goods that are 
competing with the Federal Prison Industries. Secondly, it does give 
the prisoners an amount of money that has been held in trust for them 
so that they do not walk out of the prison with very little money in 
their pocket and perhaps are given a greater temptation to commit a 
crime in order to be able to put more money in their pocket to live.
  So I think that this is really a win-win situation. I would hope that 
the committee would approve this amendment because I do believe it 
deals with some of the concerns in this bill that are legitimate and 
which have been expressed by people who have some doubts over how this 
bill has been put together.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that will join with 
the congresswoman from California, along with the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Davis) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), 
and offering this amendment would direct the board of directors of 
Federal Prison Industries to increase its maximum rate of pay to 
inmates participating in its programs.
  Specifically, our amendment would require the FPI board to increase 
the maximum wage that an inmate participating in its programs could 
receive, half the current Federal minimum wage by September 30, 2004. 
Our amendment also requires that the FPI board would increase the 
maximum wage rate for inmates in the program to a full Federal minimum 
wage by September 30, 2009.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment was offered for two very important 
reasons. First and foremost, individuals who are working in any type of 
environment deserve a fair and decent wage. Currently, inmates 
participating in the Federal Prison Industries program earn anywhere 
from 25 cents per hour to just over $1 per hour. So, Mr. Chairman, I 
believe it is unfair to ask any person, including those who are 
incarcerated, to work for wages that are abysmally low. Raising inmate 
wages, I believe, will give these individuals a desperately needed 
boost to their self-esteem and confidence as they seek to rehabilitate 
themselves while they finish their sentences and return to society as 
contributing members.
  Raising the hourly wages of these inmates has additional benefits. As 
an inmate earns more, increased deductions from their wages can be used 
to pay applicable State, local and Federal taxes, fines and restitution 
pursuant to court costs, and contribute to a fund in the inmate's name 
to help them assimilate back into society once the inmate is released.
  Secondly, the Committee on Small Business, Subcommittee on Tax, 
Finance and Exports and the Subcommittee on Workforce, Empowerment, and 
Government Programs held a joint hearing October 1, 2003, to hear 
firsthand how FPI maintains a competitive advantage in the Federal 
contracting market and how FPI and small businesses can compete on an 
even playing field.
  I do feel that these amendments joined together will be a win-win for 
those who we are trying to help in rehabilitation and to go back into 
society ready for work and for assimilating into that society.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask that all Members support the amendment.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I thank my colleagues for working on this amendment and allowing me 
to be a cosponsor. They did all the work. They worked out the 
differences to put their two amendments together in a single amendment; 
and, again, I think it is an amendment that improves the overall 
quality of the final bill.
  So I rise in support of the amendment. I thank my colleagues for the 
spirit in which we have worked together to put this amendment together 
and to put the whole bill together.

                              {time}  1430

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  The agreement was agreed to.
  Are there further amendments to section 6?
  If not, the Clerk will designate section 7.
  The text of section 7 is as follows:

     SEC. 7. CLARIFYING AMENDMENT RELATING TO SERVICES.

       (a) In General.--Section 1761 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended in subsection (a), by striking ``any goods, 
     wares, or merchandise manufactured, produced, or mined'' and 
     inserting ``products manufactured, services furnished, or 
     minerals mined''.
       (b) Completion of Existing Agreements.--Any prisoner work 
     program operated by a prison or jail of a State or local 
     jurisdiction of a State which is providing services for the 
     commercial market through inmate labor on October 1, 2002, 
     may continue to provide such commercial services until--
       (1) the expiration date specified in the contract or other 
     agreement with a commercial partner on October 1, 2002, or
       (2) until September 30, 2005, if the prison work program is 
     directly furnishing the services to the commercial market.
       (c) Approval Required for Long-Term Operation.--A prison 
     work program operated by a correctional institution operated 
     by a State or local jurisdiction of a State may continue to 
     provide inmate labor to furnish services for sale in the 
     commercial market after the dates specified in subsection (b) 
     if such program has been certified pursuant to section 
     1761(c)(1) of title 18, United States Code, and is in 
     compliance with the requirements of such subsection and its 
     implementing regulations.


            Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia:
       Page 25, strike section 7 (line 11 and all that follows 
     through page 26, line 12).

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, section 7 limits the ability of 
FPI and State Prison Industries programs to do services and reflects 
the reality that promoting competition is not what proponents of FPI 
want. Presently, there is no mandatory source on services as opposed to 
products, and so straight competition is the only way that FPI can get 
a service contract. The bill will limit the ability of FPI to get 
service contracts and actually eliminate the ability of State prison 
service programs in State prisons.
  The mandatory source in products is being eliminated in the bill. 
Restricting FPI's ability to continue to perform service contracts as 
it does now with no particular replacement will only serve to further 
replace inmate work opportunities. There appears to be no justification 
for prohibiting States from continuing their service contracts in a 
bill designed to reform the Federal Prison Industry program.
  I am told by Delco Remy, an international company which contracts 
with State and Federal inmates to break down auto parts for reusable 
materials to produce new auto parts, I have been told by that company 
that

[[Page H10497]]

600 law-abiding Virginians, along with 300 State and Federal inmates, 
will lose their jobs as a direct result of this bill, and about the 
same number of law-abiding citizens and State and Federal inmates in 
South Carolina will lose their jobs. Ironically, the likelihood is that 
the jobs will not go to other law-abiding citizens in the United 
States, but will go to Delco Remy plants outside of the United States.
  Other States have service contract programs as well, so it is likely 
that thousands of law-abiding citizens, as well as inmates, will lose 
their jobs as a result of this gratuitous, unrelated provision 
attacking State programs in a bill designed to restructure the Federal 
Prison Industry programs.
  One of the major problems of the bill is we are taking actions 
without full knowledge of the consequences. That is why several of us 
have requested a GAO study of the potential impact of this bill, 
including the impact of the provision outlawing service contracts. The 
information will be available in April, and that is why we should wait 
for that information and in the meantime adopt this amendment.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Scott 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, in order to put this amendment in context, it is 
important that we have a history lesson. When the Federal Prison 
Industries law was created in 1934, there was a compromise that was 
struck by President Roosevelt between the advocates and business and 
labor who objected to Federal Prison Industries that the results of 
inmate labor, whether it was Federal, State or local, would be 
prohibited from interstate commerce which meant the commercial market. 
This statutory prohibition is now codified in 18 United States Code 
1761(a). Fifty-five years went by, and the statute was always 
interpreted to prohibit the commercial sale of the results of inmate 
labor products as well as services, even though the statute that was 
passed in 1934 did not explicitly mention services.
  In 1998, Federal Prison Industries got a legal interpretation that 
did not come from the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel as most opinions come 
from, but in a legal memorandum from a special counsel in the Office of 
Enforcement Operations in the criminal division of the Department of 
Justice which supervises both FPI and the Bureau of Prisons. The new 
interpretation provided that FPI and the prison industries of the 
States and their local governments could sell inmate-furnished 
services, either directly or in partnership with the private sector, 
without restrictions; and those restrictions included restrictions 
against the displacement of noninmate workers or the payment of wages 
comparable to wages being paid outside the prison to noninmate workers 
of private firms that provide the same type of services.
  With this new interpretation that came about as a result of a 
Department of Justice learned legal opinion in 1998, subminimum-wage 
prison inmates could compete directly in the services market, but not 
in the goods market, against people on the outside who have to receive 
minimum wage and also have to pay taxes on their wages.
  The business community raised very strong objections in 1998 to this 
legal interpretation, and the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigation of the Committee on Education and the Workforce held a 
hearing on this issue on September 20, 2000. What section 7 does is to 
make it explicit that the prohibitions that have been in the law since 
1934 against goods entering the commercial market also covers services.
  This, I guess, brings the law up-to-date as our economy has gradually 
evolved from a manufacturing and goods-oriented economy to a service-
oriented economy.
  The amendment of the gentleman from Virginia strikes section 7, and 
if his amendment is adopted, that means that Federal Prison Industries, 
as well as State and local prison industries organizations, can 
directly compete in the commercial market in the services sector of the 
economy.
  When the compromise was struck during the Roosevelt administration, 
that door was supposedly slammed shut. This will make sure that the 
door is slammed shut so that the playing field is equal and FPI and 
State and local inmates cannot compete in the services market for 
subminimum wage. I hope that the amendment is defeated.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  The amendment was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there further amendments to section 7?
  If not, the Clerk will designate section 8.
  The text of section 8 is as follows:

     SEC. 8. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.

       Section 4122(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``production of commodities'' and inserting 
     ``production of products or furnishing of services''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any amendments to section 8?
  If not, the Clerk will designate section 9.
  The text of section 9 is as follows:

     SEC. 9. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION RELATING TO CHAPTER 307.

       Chapter 307 of title 18, United States Code, is further 
     amended by adding the following:

     ``Sec. 4130. Construction of provisions

       ``Nothing in this chapter shall be construed--
       ``(1) to establish an entitlement of any inmate to--
       ``(A) employment in a Federal Prison Industries facility; 
     or
       ``(B) any particular wage, compensation, or benefit on 
     demand, except as otherwise specifically provided by law or 
     regulation;
       ``(2) to establish that inmates are employees for the 
     purposes of any law or program; or
       ``(3) to establish any cause of action by or on behalf of 
     any inmate against the United States or any officer, 
     employee, or contractor thereof.''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any amendments to section 9?
  If not, the Clerk will designate section 10.
  The text of section 10 is as follows:

     SEC. 10. PROVIDING ADDITIONAL REHABILITATIVE OPPORTUNITIES 
                   FOR INMATES.

       (a) Additional Educational, Training, and Release-
     Preparation Opportunities.--
       (1) Program established.--There is hereby established the 
     Enhanced In-Prison Educational and Vocational Assessment and 
     Training Program within the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
       (2) Comprehensive program.--In addition to such other 
     components as the Director of the Bureau of Prisons deems 
     appropriate to reduce inmate idleness and better prepare 
     inmates for a successful reentry into the community upon 
     release, the program shall provide--
       (A) in-prison assessments of inmates' needs and aptitudes;
       (B) a full range of educational opportunities;
       (C) vocational training and apprenticeships; and
       (D) comprehensive release-readiness preparation.
       (3) Authorization of appropriations.--For the purposes of 
     carrying out the program established by paragraph (1), 
     $75,000,000 is authorized for each fiscal year after fiscal 
     year 2003, to remain available until expended. Funds shall be 
     allocated from the gross profits within the Federal Prison 
     Industries Fund, and, to the extent such amounts are 
     inadequate, from the General Treasury.
       (4) Schedule for implementation.--All components of the 
     program shall be established--
       (A) in at least 25 percent of all Federal prisons not later 
     than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act;
       (B) in at least 50 percent of all Federal prisons not later 
     than 4 years after such date of enactment;
       (C) in at least 75 percent of all Federal prisons not later 
     than 6 years after such date of enactment; and
       (D) in all Federal prisons not later than 8 years after 
     such date of enactment.
       (b) Inmate Work Opportunities in Support of Not-for-Profit 
     Entities.--
       (1) Proposals for donation programs.--The Chief Operating 
     Officer of Federal Prison Industries shall develop and 
     present to the Board of Directors of Federal Prison 
     Industries proposals to have Federal Prison Industries donate 
     products and services to eligible entities that provide goods 
     or services to low-income individuals who would likely 
     otherwise have difficulty purchasing such products or 
     services in the commercial market.
       (2) Schedule for submission and consideration of donation 
     programs.--
       (A) Initial proposals.--The Chief Operating Officer shall 
     submit the initial group of proposals for programs of the 
     type described in paragraph (1) within 180 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act. The Board of Directors of 
     Federal Prison Industries shall consider such proposals from 
     the Chief Operating Officer not later than the date that is 
     270 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (B) Annual operating plan.--The Board of Directors of 
     Federal Prison Industries shall consider proposals by the 
     Chief Operating Officer for programs of the type described in 
     paragraph (1) as part of the annual operating plan for 
     Federal Prison Industries.
       (C) Other proposals.--In addition to proposals submitted by 
     the Chief Operating Officer, the Board of Directors may, from 
     time to time, consider proposals presented by prospective 
     eligible entities.
       (3) Definition of eligible entities.--For the purposes of 
     this subsection, the term ``eligible entity'' means an 
     entity--
       (A) that is an organization described in section 501(c)(3) 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of

[[Page H10498]]

     1986 and exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of such 
     Code and that has been such an organization for a period of 
     not less than 36 months prior to inclusion in a proposal of 
     the type described in paragraph (1), or
       (B) that is a religious organization described in section 
     501(d) of such Code and exempt from taxation under section 
     501(a) of such Code.
       (4) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated $7,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 
     2004 through 2008 for the purposes of paying the wages of 
     inmates and otherwise carrying out programs of the type 
     described in paragraph (1).
       (c) Maximizing Inmate Rehabilitative Opportunities Through 
     Cognitive Abilities Assessments.--
       (1) Demonstration program authorized.--
       (A) In general.--There is hereby established within the 
     Federal Bureau of Prisons a program to be known as the 
     ``Cognitive Abilities Assessment Demonstration Program''. The 
     purpose of the demonstration program is to determine the 
     effectiveness of a program that assesses the cognitive 
     abilities and perceptual skills of Federal inmates to 
     maximize the benefits of various rehabilitative opportunities 
     designed to prepare each inmate for a successful return to 
     society and reduce recidivism. The demonstration program 
     shall be undertaken by a contractor with a demonstrated 
     record of enabling the behavioral and academic improvement of 
     adults through the use of research-based systems that 
     maximize the development of both the cognitive and perceptual 
     capabilities of a participating individual, including adults 
     in a correctional setting.
       (B) Scope of demonstration program.--The demonstration 
     program shall to the maximum extent practicable, be--
       (i) conducted during a period of three consecutive fiscal 
     years, commencing during fiscal year 2004;
       (ii) conducted at 12 Federal correctional institutions; and
       (iii) offered to 6,000 inmates, who are categorized as 
     minimum security or less, and are within five years of 
     release.
       (C) Report on results of program.--Not later than 60 days 
     after completion of the demonstration program, the Director 
     shall submit to Congress a report on the results of the 
     program. At a minimum, the report shall include an analysis 
     of employment stability, stability of residence, and rates of 
     recidivism among inmates who participated in the program 
     after 18 months of release.
       (2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated $3,000,000 in each of the three fiscal 
     years after fiscal year 2003, to remain available until 
     expended, for the purposes of conducting the demonstration 
     program authorized by subsection (a).
       (d) Prerelease Employment Assistance.--
       (1) In general.--The Director of the Federal Bureau of 
     Prisons shall, to the maximum extent practicable, afford to 
     inmates opportunities to participate in programs and 
     activities designed to help prepare such inmates to obtain 
     employment upon release.
       (2) Prerelease employment placement assistance.--Such 
     prerelease employment placement assistance required by 
     subsection (a) shall include--
       (A) training in the preparation of resumes and job 
     applications;
       (B) training in interviewing skills;
       (C) training and assistance in job search techniques;
       (D) conduct of job fairs; and
       (E) such other methods deemed appropriate by the Director.
       (3) Priority participation.--Priority in program 
     participation shall be accorded to inmates who are 
     participating in work opportunities afforded by Federal 
     Prison Industries and are within 24 months of release from 
     incarceration.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any amendments to section 10?


            Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia:
       Page 29, insert after line 5 the following new subsection 
     (and redesignate subsequent subsections accordingly):
       (b) Additional Inmate Work Opportunities Through Public 
     Service Activities.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 307 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is further amended by inserting after section 4124 the 
     following new section:

     ``Sec. 4124a. Additional inmate work opportunities through 
       public service activities

       ``(a) In General.--Inmates with work assignments within 
     Federal Prison Industries may perform work for an eligible 
     entity pursuant to an agreement between such entity and the 
     Inmate Work Training Administrator in accordance with the 
     requirements of this section.
       ``(b) Definition of Eligible Entities.--For the purposes of 
     this section, the term `eligible entity' means an entity--
       ``(1) that is an organization described in section 
     501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt 
     from taxation under section 501(a) of such Code and that has 
     been such an organization for a period of not less than 36 
     months prior to inclusion in an agreement under this section;
       ``(2) that is a religious organization described in section 
     501(d) of such Code and exempt from taxation under section 
     501(a) of such Code; or
       ``(3) that is a unit of local government, a school 
     district, or another special purpose district.
       ``(c) Inmate Work Training Administrator.--
       ``(1) The Federal Prison Industries Board of Directors 
     shall designate an entity as the Inmate Work Training 
     Administrator to administer the work-based training program 
     authorized by this section.
       ``(2) In selecting the Inmate Work Training Administrator, 
     the Board of Directors shall select an entity--
       ``(A) that is an organization described in section 
     501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt 
     from taxation under section 501(a) of such Code; and
       ``(B) that has demonstrated, for a period of not less than 
     5 years, expertise in the theory and practice of fostering 
     inmate rehabilitation through work-based programs in 
     cooperation with private sector firms.
       ``(3) With respect to the formation and performance of an 
     agreement authorized by this section, the Director of the 
     Bureau of Prisons and the Chief Operating Officer of Federal 
     Prison Industries shall be responsible only for--
       ``(A) maintaining appropriate institutional and inmate 
     security; and
       ``(B) matters relating to the selection and payment of 
     participating inmates.
       ``(d) Proposed Agreements.--An eligible entity seeking to 
     enter into an agreement pursuant to subsection (a) shall 
     submit a detailed proposal to the Inmate Work Training 
     Administrator. Each such agreement shall specify--
       ``(1) types of work to be performed;
       ``(2) the proposed duration of the agreement, specified in 
     terms of a base year and number of option years;
       ``(3) the number of inmate workers expected to be employed 
     in the specified types of work during the various phases of 
     the agreement;
       ``(4) the wage rates proposed to be paid to various classes 
     of inmate workers; and
       ``(5) the facilities, services and personnel (other than 
     correctional personnel dedicated to the security of the 
     inmate workers) to be furnished by Federal Prison Industries 
     or the Bureau of Prisons and the rates of reimbursement, if 
     any, for such facilities, services, and personnel.
       ``(e) Representations.--
       ``(1) Eleemosynary work activities.--Each proposed -
     agreement shall be accompanied by a written certification by 
     the chief executive officer of the eligible entity that--
       ``(A) the work to be performed by the inmate workers will 
     be limited to the eleemosynary work of such entity in the 
     case of an entity described in paragraph (1) or (2) of 
     subsection (b);
       ``(B) the work would not be performed but for the --
     availability of the inmate workers;
       ``(C) the work performed by the inmate workers will not 
     result, either directly or indirectly, in the production of a 
     new product or the furnishing of a service that is to be 
     offered for other than resale or donation by the eligible 
     entity or any affiliate of the such entity.
       ``(2) Protections For non-inmate workers.--Each proposed 
     agreement shall also be accompanied by a written 
     certification by the chief executive officer of the eligible 
     entity that--
       ``(A) no non-inmate employee or volunteer of the eligible 
     entity (or any affiliate of the entity) will have his or her 
     job abolished or work hours reduced as a result of the entity 
     being authorized to utilize inmate workers; and
       ``(B) the work to be performed by the inmate workers will 
     not supplant work currently being performed by a contractor 
     of the eligible entity.
       ``(f) Approval by Board of Directors.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each such proposed agreement shall be -
     presented to the Board of Directors, be subject to the same 
     opportunities for public comment, and be publicly considered 
     and acted upon by the Board in a manner comparable to that 
     required by paragraphs (6) and (7) of section 4122(b).
       ``(2) Matters to be considered.--In determining whether to 
     approve a proposed agreement, the Board shall--
       ``(A) give priority to an agreement that provides inmate 
     work opportunities that will provide participating inmates 
     with the best prospects of obtaining employment paying a 
     livable wage upon release;
       ``(B) give priority to an agreement that provides for 
     maximum reimbursement for inmate wages and for the costs of 
     supplies and equipment needed to perform the types of work to 
     be performed;
       ``(C) not approve an agreement that will result in the 
     displacement of non-inmate workers or volunteers contrary to 
     the representations required by subsection (e)(2) as 
     determined by the Board or by the Attorney General (pursuant 
     to subsection (i)); and
       ``(D) not approve an agreement that will result, either 
     directly or indirectly, in the production of a new product or 
     the furnishing of a service for other than resale or 
     donation.
       ``(g) Wage Rates and Deductions from Inmate Wages.--
       ``(1) In general.--Inmate workers shall be paid wages for 
     work under the agreement at a basic hourly rate to be 
     negotiated between the eligible entity and Federal Prison 
     Industries and specified in the agreement. The wage rates set 
     by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons to be paid 
     inmates for various institutional work assignments are 
     specifically authorized.

[[Page H10499]]

       ``(2) Payment to inmate worker and authorized deductions.--
     Wages shall be paid and deductions taken pursuant to section 
     4122(b)(11)(C).
       ``(3) Voluntary participation by inmate.--Each inmate 
     worker to be utilized by an eligible entity shall indicate in 
     writing that such person--
       ``(A) is participating voluntarily; and
       ``(B) understands and agrees to the wages to be paid and 
     deductions to be taken from such wages.
       ``(h) Assignment to Work Opportunities.--Assignment of 
     inmates to work under an approved agreement with an eligible 
     entity shall be subject to the Bureau of Prisons Program 
     Statement Number 1040.10 (Non-Discrimination Toward Inmates), 
     as contained in section 551.90 of title 28 of the Code of 
     Federal Regulations (or any successor document).
       ``(i) Enforcement of Protections for Non-inmate Workers.--
       ``(1) Consultation With Secretary of Labor.--The Attorney 
     General shall carry out this subsection in consultation with 
     the Secretary of Labor.
       ``(2) Prior to board consideration.--Upon request of any 
     interested person, the Attorney General may promptly verify a 
     certification made pursuant subsection (e)(2) with respect to 
     the displacement of non-inmate workers so as to make the 
     results of such inquiry available to the Board of Directors 
     prior to the Board's consideration of the proposed agreement. 
     The Attorney General and the person requesting the inquiry 
     may make recommendations to the Board regarding modifications 
     to the proposed agreement.
       ``(3) During performance.--
       ``(A) In general.--Whenever the Attorney General deems 
     appropriate, upon request or otherwise, the Attorney General 
     may verify whether the actual performance of the agreement is 
     resulting in the displacement of non-inmate workers or the 
     use of inmate workers in a work activity not authorized under 
     the approved agreement.
       ``(B) Sanctions.--Whenever the Attorney General determines 
     that performance of the agreement has resulted in the 
     displacement of non-inmate workers or employment of an inmate 
     worker in an unauthorized work activity, the Attorney General 
     may--
       ``(i) direct the Inmate Work Training Administrator to 
     terminate the agreement for default, subject to the processes 
     and appeals available to a Federal contractor whose 
     procurement contract has been terminated for default; and
       ``(ii) initiate proceedings to impose upon the person 
     furnishing the certification regarding non-displacement of 
     non-inmate workers required by subsection (d)(2)(B) any 
     administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions as may be 
     available.''.
       (2) Authorization of appropriation.--There is authorized to 
     be appropriated $5,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2004 
     through 2008 for the purposes of paying the wages of inmates 
     and otherwise undertaking the maximum number of agreements 
     with eligible entities pursuant to section 4124a of title 18, 
     United States Code, as added by paragraph (1).
       (3) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
     307 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 4124 the following new 
     item:

``4124a. Additional inmate work opportunities through public service 
              activities.''.

       Page 36, insert after line 5 the following (and redesignate 
     subsequent subsections and clerical amendments accordingly):

     SEC. 11. ADDITIONAL PILOT AUTHORITIES FOR INMATE WORK 
                   OPPORTUNITIES.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 307 of title 18, United States 
     Code, as amended by section 9, is further amended by adding 
     at the end the following new section:

     ``Sec. 4131. Additional pilot authorities for inmate work 
       opportunities

       ``(a) Pilot Authorities.--Federal Prison Industries may 
     contract with private or public sector entities for Federal 
     inmates to produce products or perform services for those 
     entities. Under these pilot authorities, and pursuant to the 
     terms and conditions specified in section 4122, Federal 
     inmates may, under the direct supervision of Federal Prison 
     Industries staff--
       ``(1) produce products or perform services for commercial 
     companies which have been otherwise produced or performed for 
     the companies by foreign labor outside the United States for 
     at least 3 years before the proposed effective date of the 
     business agreement;
       ``(2) produce products or perform services for commercial 
     companies which would otherwise be performed for the 
     companies by domestic labor, if available; or
       ``(3) produce products or perform services for not-for-
     profit agencies in support of the charitable activities of 
     those agencies.
       ``(b) Limitations on Use of Authorities.--(1) Federal 
     Prison Industries is prohibited from directly offering for 
     commercial sale products produced or services furnished by 
     Federal inmates, including through any form of electronic 
     commerce.
       ``(2) The number of Federal inmates working under the pilot 
     authority provided in subsection (a)(1) shall not exceed--
       ``(A) 4,000 during fiscal year 2005;
       ``(B) 8,000 during fiscal year 2006;
       ``(C) 12,000 during fiscal year 2007;
       ``(D) 16,000 during fiscal year 2008;
       ``(E) 20,000 during fiscal year 2009; or
       ``(F) 25 percent of the work-eligible Federal inmate 
     population in any fiscal year beginning after September 30, 
     2008.
       ``(3) The number of Federal inmates working under the pilot 
     authority provided in subsection (a)(3) shall not exceed--
       ``(A) 2,000 during fiscal year 2005;
       ``(B) 4,000 during fiscal year 2006;
       ``(C) 6,000 during fiscal year 2007;
       ``(D) 8,000 during fiscal year 2008;
       ``(E) 10,000 during fiscal year 2009; or
       ``(F) 10 percent of the work eligible Federal inmate 
     population in any fiscal year beginning after September 30, 
     2009.
       ``(c) Inmate wages.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each Federal inmate worker participating 
     in industrial operations authorized by the Corporation shall 
     be paid at a wage rate prescribed by the Board of Directors. 
     The Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons shall prescribe 
     the wage rates for other Federal inmate work assignments 
     within the various Federal correctional institutions. The 
     Board shall give priority to approving Federal inmate work 
     opportunities which maximize inmate earnings. Inmate wage 
     rates shall be reviewed by the Board at least biannually.
       ``(2) Work pursuant to subsection (a)(1).--For Federal 
     inmate work performed for commercial companies pursuant to 
     subsection (a)(1), the wage rate paid to Federal inmates must 
     be the Federal Prison Industries wage rate in effect on the 
     date of the enactment of this section or twice the rate paid 
     for work of a similar nature in the foreign locality in which 
     the work would otherwise be performed, whichever is higher.
       ``(3) Work pursuant to subsection (a)(2).--For work 
     performed by Federal inmates pursuant to subsection (a)(2), 
     the wage rate paid to inmates shall be not less than the rate 
     paid for work of a similar nature in the locality in which 
     the work is to be performed, but in no event less than the 
     minimum wage required pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards 
     Act (29 U.S.C. 201 et seq). The determination of this wage 
     rate shall be approved by the Secretary of Labor or by the 
     State or local government entity with authority to approve 
     such determinations.
       ``(d) Deductions From Inmate Wages.--Inmate wages paid by 
     commercial companies shall be paid to the Corporation in the 
     name and for the benefit of the Federal inmate. Except as 
     specified in subsection (e), the Corporation may deduct, 
     withhold, and disburse from the gross wages paid to inmates, 
     aggregate amounts of not less than 50 percent and not more 
     than 80 percent of gross wages for--
       ``(1) applicable taxes (Federal, State, and local);
       ``(2) payment of fines, special assessments, and any other 
     restitution owed by the inmate worker pursuant to court 
     order;
       ``(3) payment of additional restitution for victims of the 
     inmate's crimes (at a rate not less than 10 percent of gross 
     wages);
       ``(4) allocations for support of the inmate's family 
     pursuant to statute, court order, or agreement with the 
     inmate;
       ``(5) allocations to a fund in the inmate's name to 
     facilitate such inmate's assimilation back into society, 
     payable at the conclusion of incarceration;
       ``(6) such other deductions as may be specified by the 
     Board of Directors.
       ``(e) Exception for Higher Deductions.--The aggregate 
     deduction authorized in subsection (d) may, with the written 
     consent of an inmate, exceed the maximum limitation, if the 
     amounts in excess of such limitation are for the purposes 
     described in paragraphs (4) or (5) of that subsection.
       ``(f) Conversions.--Commercial market services authorized 
     by the Federal Prison Industries Board of Directors and being 
     provided by Federal Prison Industries on the date of 
     enactment of this section may be continued until converted to 
     a private sector contract pursuant to the authority in this 
     Act. The Board of Directors of Federal Prison Industries 
     shall ensure these conversions occur at the earliest 
     practicable date.
       ``(g) Proposals From Private Companies.--Federal Prison 
     Industries may solicit, receive and approve proposals from 
     private companies for Federal inmate work opportunities. 
     Federal Prison Industries shall establish and publish for 
     comment criteria to be used in evaluating and approving such 
     proposals. In developing criteria, priority shall be given to 
     those proposals which offer Federal inmates the highest 
     wages, the most marketable skills, and the greatest prospects 
     for post-release reintegration.
       ``(h) Approval of Proposals.--The Board must approve all 
     proposals in advance of their implementation.
       ``(i) Content of Proposals.--Any business or eligible not-
     for-profit entity seeking to contract with Federal Prison 
     Industries for Federal inmate workforce participation shall 
     submit a detailed proposal to the Chief Operating Officer of 
     Federal Prison Industries. Each such proposal shall specify--
       ``(1) the product or service to be produced or furnished;
       ``(2) the proposed duration of the business agreement, 
     specified in terms of a base period and number of option 
     period;
       ``(3) the number of Federal inmate workers expected to be 
     employed during the various phases of the agreement;
       ``(4) the number of foreign workers, if any, outside the 
     United States currently performing for the proposing entity 
     the work proposed for performance by Federal inmate workers, 
     and the wage rates paid to those workers;

[[Page H10500]]

       ``(5) the wage rates proposed to be paid to various classes 
     of Federal inmate workers, at not less than the rates 
     required by subsection (c); and
       ``(6) the facilities, services and personnel (other than 
     correctional personnel dedicated to the security of the 
     inmate workers) to be furnished by the Federal Prison 
     Industries or the Bureau of Prisons and the rates of 
     reimbursement for such facilities, services, and personnel, 
     if any.
       ``(j) Written Certification for Proposed Commercial 
     Business Agreement.--Each proposed commercial business 
     agreement shall be accompanied by a written certification by 
     the chief executive officer of the business entity proposing 
     the agreement that--
       ``(1) no noninmate employee of the business (or any 
     affiliate) working within the United States will have their 
     job abolished or their work hours reduced as a direct result 
     of the agreement;
       ``(2) inmate workers will be paid wages at rates in 
     accordance with subsection (c); and
       ``(3) any domestic workforce reductions carried out by the 
     business entity affecting employees performing work 
     comparable to the work being performed by inmates pursuant to 
     the agreement shall first apply to inmate workers employed 
     pursuant to the agreement.
       ``(k) Written Certification for Proposed Agreement with 
     Not-for-Profit Entity.--Each proposed agreement with an 
     eligible not-for-profit entity shall be accompanied by a 
     written certification by the chief executive officer of the 
     eligible entity that--
       ``(1) the work to be performed by the inmate workers will 
     be limited to the eleemosynary work of such entity;
       ``(2) the work would not be performed on a compensated 
     basis but for the availability of the inmate workers;
       ``(3) the work performed by the inmate workers will not 
     result, either directly or indirectly, in the production of a 
     product or the furnishing of a service that is to be offered 
     for commercial sale by the eligible entity or any affiliate 
     of such entity;
       ``(4) no noninmate employees of the eligible entity (or any 
     affiliate of the entity) will have their job abolished or 
     their work hours reduced as a result of the entity entering 
     into an agreement to utilize inmate workers; and
       ``(5) the work to be performed by the inmate workers will 
     not supplant work currently being performed by a contractor 
     of the eligible entity.
       ``(l) Public Notice and Comment.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Board shall make reasonable attempts 
     to provide opportunities for notice and comment to the widest 
     audience of potentially interested parties as practicable. At 
     a minimum, the Board shall--
       ``(A) give notice of a proposed business agreement on the 
     Corporation's web site and in a publication designed to most 
     effectively provide notice to private businesses and labor 
     unions representing private sector workers who could 
     reasonably be expected to be affected by approval of the 
     proposed agreement, which notice shall offer to furnish 
     copies of the proposal (excluding any proprietary 
     information) and chief executive certifications and shall 
     solicit comments on same;
       ``(B) solicit comments on the business proposal from trade 
     associations representing businesses and labor unions 
     representing workers who could reasonably be expected to be 
     affected by approval of the proposal; and
       ``(C) afford an opportunity, on request, for a 
     representative of an established trade association, labor 
     union, or other representatives of private industry to 
     present comments on the proposal directly to the Board of 
     Directors.
       ``(2) Copies.--The Board of Directors shall be provided 
     copies of all comments received on the proposal.
       ``(3) Revised proposal.--Based on the comments received on 
     the initial business proposal, the business or nonprofit 
     entity or Federal Prison Industries Chief Operating Officer 
     may provide the Board of Directors a revised proposal. If the 
     revised proposal presents new issues or potential effects on 
     the private sector which were not addressed in the original 
     proposal and comments received thereon, the Board shall 
     provide another public notice and comment opportunity 
     pursuant to paragraph (1).
       ``(4) Open meeting.--The Board of Directors shall consider 
     all inmate work opportunity proposals submitted and take any 
     action with respect to such proposals, during a meeting that 
     is open to the public, unless closed pursuant to section 
     552(b) of title 5.
       ``(m) Board approval.--(1) In determining whether to 
     approve a proposed business agreement for Federal inmate work 
     opportunities, the Board shall--
       ``(A) not approve any agreement that would result in the 
     displacement of noninmate workers contrary to the 
     certifications required in subsections (j) and(k) or pay less 
     than the wages required by subsection (c).
       ``(B) not approve an agreement which the Board determines 
     contains terms and conditions which would subject domestic 
     noninmate workers to unfair competition;
       ``(C) request a determination from the International Trade 
     Commission, the Department of Commerce or such other 
     Executive Branch entities as may be appropriate, whenever the 
     Board questions the representations by a commercial company 
     or a not-for-profit entity regarding whether a particular 
     product or service has been produced by foreign labor outside 
     the United States for the commercial company or not-for 
     profit entity for at least 3 years before the proposed 
     effective date of the business agreement;
       ``(D) not approve an agreement which would cause Federal 
     Prison Industries sales revenue derived from any specific 
     industry to exceed 50 percent of Federal Prison Industries 
     total revenue.
       ``(E) not approve any agreement which provides for direct 
     supervision of Federal inmate workers by non-Federal Prison 
     Industries employees; and
       ``(H) not approve any agreement which would provide for 
     products or services produced by Federal inmates to be sold 
     to agencies of State government without the written consent 
     of the Governor or designee.
       ``(n) Review and Enforcement.--(1) The Attorney General 
     shall carry out this subsection in consultation with the 
     Secretary of Labor.
       ``(2) Upon request of any interested person, the Attorney 
     General may promptly verify a certification pursuant to 
     subsection (j)(1) with respect to the displacement of 
     noninmate workers or a certification with respect to the 
     wages proposed to be paid Federal inmate workers pursuant to 
     subsection (j)(2) so as to make the results of such inquiry 
     available to the Board of Directors prior to the Board's 
     consideration of the proposed agreement. The Attorney General 
     and the person requesting the inquiry may make 
     recommendations to the Board regarding modifications to the 
     proposed agreement.
       ``(3) Whenever the Attorney General deems appropriate, the 
     Attorney General may verify whether the actual performance of 
     the agreement is resulting in the displacement of noninmate 
     workers and whether the wages being paid the Federal inmate 
     workers meet the standards of subsection (c).
       ``(4) Whenever the Attorney General determines that 
     performance of the agreement has resulted in the displacement 
     of noninmate workers or the payment of Federal inmate workers 
     at less than the required wage rates, the Attorney General 
     may--
       ``(A) direct the Chief Operating Officer of the Corporation 
     to terminate the agreement for default, subject to the 
     processes and appeals available to a Federal contractor whose 
     procurement contract has been terminated for default;
       ``(B) direct that the Federal inmate workers be 
     retroactively paid the wages that were due; and
       ``(C) initiate proceedings to impose upon the person 
     furnishing the certifications made pursuant to subsection 
     (j), any administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions as may 
     be available.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
     307 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new item:

``4131. Additional pilot authorities for inmate work opportunities.''.

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, the first item of this amendment 
was developed and agreed to recently with the proponents of the bill. 
It is a proposal to authorize FPI to develop a specific program for 
inmates to produce goods and provide services for charitable 
organizations. Although I fear that the funds authorized to develop the 
project may not be ever appropriated, if the funds are appropriated, I 
see it as a way of providing, for some of the inmates, work 
opportunities to compensate for the jobs lost by the passage of this 
bill.
  So I have included that provision along with other pilot projects 
that I believe should be examined for their potential to make up for 
the job loss as well.
  Mr. Chairman, the other parts of the amendment are as follows. There 
is an offshore repatriation, there is a Federal Prison Industry 
enhancement, and a not-for-profit provision. These provisions are not 
new to the proponents of the bill. In the last Congress, the supporters 
of the bill and the opponents of the bill, along with their staffs and 
along with the staff of FPI, worked to develop a compromise proposal on 
various parts of the bill restructuring FPI to present to the rest of 
us.
  A compromise proposal was developed and many of the elements agreed 
to are reflected in the bill before us. These pilot authorities would 
complete the rest of the compromise proposal that we appeared to agree 
on last year.
  Specifically, on the offshore repatriation provision, FPI would be 
authorized to produce commercial market items for private companies to 
sell and distribute which have been produced offshore for at least 3 
years, provided inmates are paid at least twice the foreign market wage 
for producing the product. This is to ensure that the lower wage is not 
the focus of the pilot, and also provides for protections for any 
businesses or workers engaged in the production of these products in 
the United States, including a challenging procedure which would halt 
production

[[Page H10501]]

if any product that a business or worker could show is actually being 
produced, or has been produced in the United States in the past 3 
years.
  The other provision is Federal PIE. FPI would be authorized to 
produce items for the domestic commercial market provided inmates are 
paid prevailing domestic market wages. This would allow FPI to pilot a 
program similar to the Federal Prison Industries Enhancement programs, 
or PIE, already in operation under Federal law for State Prison 
Industries programs but not for the Federal Prison Industry program. 
Under this program, FPI would be allowed to pilot the production of 
products or services for which there is not a domestic labor force 
available. There are also strong protections against American worker 
displacements in this pilot. And again, the language is the language 
developed by representatives of three Members working with FPI staff.
  There is a not-for-profit provision. This involves producing goods or 
services for not-for-profits at a negotiated rate that would not 
otherwise be paid for by nonprofits or done by noninmate workers for 
pay.
  During the pilot programs this amendment would authorize, there would 
be extensive input from the International Trade Commission and the 
Department of Labor. Any activity under them would be reported to the 
public and any potential affected parties for comment. All actions 
taken by FPI relative to the projects would be done in public meetings.
  We are talking about pilot programs for proposals. If the pilots do 
not work or create programs, as some have expressed, then we could 
simply put a stop to them. But if we are going to take away jobs, if we 
are going to take away the only reliable basis the prison system has 
had to ensure real work opportunities for prisoners because one-fourth 
of 1 percent of the Federal procurement expenditures are deemed too 
much of a market share for a program which has been proven to reduce 
crime, it would be irresponsible for us to not at least test other ways 
to give the program some actual continued reliability. I would hope 
that my colleagues would support the amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Scott 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, it could really make all of the difference in the world 
with regard to this bill. So Members understand what it is, basically 
these are goods that are no longer made in the United States. For 
instance, television sets. There are no television sets made in the 
U.S., or the automatic car locker that we have. Most of them, I have 
been told, are made in China.
  This would say only goods that are made outside of the United States 
would be repatriated back and could be made in prisons. This would 
create additional jobs and competition with foreign companies, and also 
create jobs for Americans, such as the truck drivers who bring the 
supplies to the prison, the people who supply the plastics and the 
wire, whatever the case may be.

                              {time}  1445

  This would create jobs, and it would be almost like the 
reintroduction of these companies and these industries that have long 
ago left the United States, to bring them back in. This could be a 
very, very powerful amendment that would help our economy create jobs, 
rehabilitate prisons, but create jobs by the people who make the 
supplies and make whatever. There are none. If you go out today and 
search, you cannot find a television set that is made in the United 
States. Maybe the prisoners could make television sets not in 
competition with any American company, which would really make a 
tremendous difference.
  I strongly urge the support of the Scott amendment which would really 
make a big difference in rehabilitation, both with regard to our 
economy and also helping prisoners and helping create jobs here in the 
United States.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Reluctantly I rise in opposition to the amendment. This is something 
that my colleagues and I have been working on for a long period of 
time. The chairman and I were talking as the debate was going on. We do 
believe that there is some way to work through this process. The 
amendment as it is structured right now we are not comfortable with, 
but we want to work with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), and 
we want to work with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) on fully 
exploring this. We believe that there is a reasonable expectation that 
as this bill moves through the Senate, whatever, we are going to be 
able to reach some kind of an accommodation that we can all feel good 
about. Because, again, as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and I 
and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and I have talked, I really 
appreciate the tone and the tenor of the debate today, because we do 
share the same vision, we do share a lot of the same strategies for 
where we want to go. We do have a lot of things in common in this bill. 
You can see that by the different people that have been working 
together and have been participating in the debate.
  As the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) said, reaching an agreement 
on this really would make a world of difference if we can reach an 
accommodation. We would not have some of the disagreements we are 
having today. I am committed to working with these gentlemen on getting 
a resolution to this.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, my goal is to make sure that we have the provision of 
significant job opportunities for prisoners that will reduce crime. FPI 
does it with no cost. The gentleman from Michigan has suggested by his 
assurances that we might be able to come up with alternatives that will 
actually provide jobs another way and reduce costs. It might cost 
something. But I think the main focus ought to be the provision of jobs 
so we can reduce crime. It has been proven that these programs reduce 
crime.
  With the gentleman's assurance that we can work together and possibly 
come up with some accommodation to replace the jobs that may be lost in 
the underlying bill, I will ask to withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Without objection, the 
amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Hoekstra

  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hoekstra:
       Page 29, after line 5, insert the following new subsection 
     (and redesignate subsequent subsections in section 10 
     accordingly):

       (b) Additional Inmate Work Opportunities Through Public 
     Service Activities.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 307 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is further amended by inserting after section 4124 the 
     following new section:

     ``Sec. 4124a. Additional inmate work opportunities through 
       public service activities

       ``(a) In General.--Inmates with work assignments within 
     Federal Prison Industries may perform work for an eligible 
     entity pursuant to an agreement between such entity and the 
     Inmate Work Training Administrator in accordance with the 
     requirements of this section.
       ``(b) Definition of Eligible Entities.--For the purposes of 
     this section, the term `eligible entity' means an entity--
       ``(1) that is an organization described in section 
     501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt 
     from taxation under section 501(a) of such Code and that has 
     been such an organization for a period of not less than 36 
     months prior to inclusion in an agreement under this section;
       ``(2) that is a religious organization described in section 
     501(d) of such Code and exempt from taxation under section 
     501(a) of such Code; or
       ``(3) that is a unit of local government, a school 
     district, or another special purpose district.
       ``(c) Inmate Work Training Administrator.--
       ``(1) The Federal Prison Industries Board of Directors 
     shall designate an entity as the Inmate Work Training 
     Administrator to administer the work-based training program 
     authorized by this section.
       ``(2) In selecting the Inmate Work Training Administrator, 
     the Board of Directors shall select an entity--
       ``(A) that is an organization described in section 
     501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt 
     from taxation under section 501(a) of such Code; and
       ``(B) that has demonstrated, for a period of not less than 
     5 years, expertise in the theory

[[Page H10502]]

     and practice of fostering inmate rehabilitation through work-
     based programs in cooperation with private sector firms.
       ``(3) With respect to the formation and performance of an 
     agreement authorized by this section, the Director of the 
     Bureau of Prisons and the Chief Operating Officer of Federal 
     Prison Industries shall be responsible only for--
       ``(A) maintaining appropriate institutional and inmate 
     security; and
       ``(B) matters relating to the selection and payment of 
     participating inmates.
       ``(d) Proposed Agreements.--An eligible entity seeking to 
     enter into an agreement pursuant to subsection (a) shall 
     submit a detailed proposal to the Inmate Work Training 
     Administrator. Each such agreement shall specify--
       ``(1) types of work to be performed;
       ``(2) the proposed duration of the agreement, specified in 
     terms of a base year and number of option years;
       ``(3) the number of inmate workers expected to be employed 
     in the specified types of work during the various phases of 
     the agreement;
       ``(4) the wage rates proposed to be paid to various classes 
     of inmate workers; and
       ``(5) the facilities, services and personnel (other than 
     correctional personnel dedicated to the security of the 
     inmate workers) to be furnished by Federal Prison Industries 
     or the Bureau of Prisons and the rates of reimbursement, if 
     any, for such facilities, services, and personnel.
       ``(e) Representations.--
       ``(1) Eleemosynary work activities.--Each proposed -
     agreement shall be accompanied by a written certification by 
     the chief executive officer of the eligible entity that--
       ``(A) the work to be performed by the inmate workers will 
     be limited to the eleemosynary work of such entity in the 
     case of an entity described in paragraph (1) or (2) of 
     subsection (b);
       ``(B) the work would not be performed but for the --
     availability of the inmate workers;
       ``(C) the work performed by the inmate workers will not 
     result, either directly or indirectly, in the production of a 
     new product or the furnishing of a service that is to be 
     offered for other than resale or donation by the eligible 
     entity or any affiliate of the such entity.
       ``(2) Protections For non-inmate workers.--Each proposed 
     agreement shall also be accompanied by a written 
     certification by the chief executive officer of the eligible 
     entity that--
       ``(A) no non-inmate employee or volunteer of the eligible 
     entity (or any affiliate of the entity) will have his or her 
     job abolished or work hours reduced as a result of the entity 
     being authorized to utilize inmate workers; and
       ``(B) the work to be performed by the inmate workers will 
     not supplant work currently being performed by a contractor 
     of the eligible entity.
       ``(f) Approval by Board of Directors.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each such proposed agreement shall be -
     presented to the Board of Directors, be subject to the same 
     opportunities for public comment, and be publicly considered 
     and acted upon by the Board in a manner comparable to that 
     required by paragraphs (6) and (7) of section 4122(b).
       ``(2) Matters to be considered.--In determining whether to 
     approve a proposed agreement, the Board shall--
       ``(A) give priority to an agreement that provides inmate 
     work opportunities that will provide participating inmates 
     with the best prospects of obtaining employment paying a 
     livable wage upon release;
       ``(B) give priority to an agreement that provides for 
     maximum reimbursement for inmate wages and for the costs of 
     supplies and equipment needed to perform the types of work to 
     be performed;
       ``(C) not approve an agreement that will result in the 
     displacement of non-inmate workers or volunteers contrary to 
     the representations required by subsection (e)(2) as 
     determined by the Board or by the Secretary of Labor 
     (pursuant to subsection (i)); and
       ``(D) not approve an agreement that will result, either 
     directly or indirectly, in the production of a new product or 
     the furnishing of a service for other than resale or 
     donation.
       ``(g) Wage Rates and Deductions from Inmate Wages.--
       ``(1) In general.--Inmate workers shall be paid wages for 
     work under the agreement at a basic hourly rate to be 
     negotiated between the eligible entity and Federal Prison 
     Industries and specified in the agreement. The wage rates set 
     by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons to be paid 
     inmates for various institutional work assignments are 
     specifically authorized.
       ``(2) Payment to inmate worker and authorized deductions.--
     Wages shall be paid and deductions taken pursuant to section 
     4122(b)(11)(C).
       ``(3) Voluntary participation by inmate.--Each inmate 
     worker to be utilized by an eligible entity shall indicate in 
     writing that such person--
       ``(A) is participating voluntarily; and
       ``(B) understands and agrees to the wages to be paid and 
     deductions to be taken from such wages.
       ``(h) Assignment to Work Opportunities.--Assignment of 
     inmates to work under an approved agreement with an eligible 
     entity shall be subject to the Bureau of Prisons Program 
     Statement Number 1040.10 (Non-Discrimination Toward Inmates), 
     as contained in section 551.90 of title 28 of the Code of 
     Federal Regulations (or any successor document).
       ``(i) Enforcement of Protections for Non-inmate Workers.--
       ``(1) Prior to board consideration.--Upon request of any 
     interested person, the Secretary of Labor may promptly verify 
     a certification made pursuant subsection (e)(2) with respect 
     to the displacement of non-inmate workers so as to make the 
     results of such inquiry available to the Board of Directors 
     prior to the Board's consideration of the proposed agreement. 
     The Secretary and the person requesting the inquiry may make 
     recommendations to the Board regarding modifications to the 
     proposed agreement.
       ``(2) During performance.--
       ``(A) In general.--Whenever the Secretary deems 
     appropriate, upon request or otherwise, the Secretary may 
     verify whether the actual performance of the agreement is 
     resulting in the -displacement of non-inmate workers or the 
     use of inmate workers in -a work activity not authorized 
     under the approved agreement.
       ``(B) Sanctions.--Whenever the Secretary determines that 
     performance of the agreement has resulted in the displacement 
     of non-inmate workers or employment of an inmate worker in an 
     unauthorized work activity, the Secretary may--
       ``(i) direct the Inmate Work Training Administrator to 
     terminate the agreement for default, subject to the processes 
     and appeals available to a Federal contractor whose 
     procurement contract has been terminated for default; and
       ``(ii) initiate proceedings to impose upon the person 
     furnishing the certification regarding non-displacement of 
     non-inmate workers required by subsection (d)(2)(B) any 
     administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions as may be 
     available.''.
       (2) Authorization of appropriation.--There is authorized to 
     be appropriated $5,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2004 
     through 2008 for the purposes of paying the wages of inmates 
     and otherwise undertaking the maximum number of agreements 
     with eligible entities pursuant to section 4124a of title 18, 
     United States Code, as added by paragraph (1).
       (3) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
     307 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 4124 the following new 
     item:

``4124a. Additional inmate work opportunities through public service 
              activities.''.

  Mr. HOEKSTRA (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, this amendment again addresses the issue 
that we have been working with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and others on to ensure that 
workers are engaged in productive and constructive work activities. 
What this amendment does is it further expands the inmate work 
opportunities in conjunction with not-for-profit organizations. As I 
explained earlier today, the bill allows for some partnering, but what 
this does now is it expands the partnership capabilities and also 
provides funding for those activities to take place.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support this 
amendment. There has been a program that has been operational in the 
State of Ohio that has worked out very well, and I think we ought to 
expand that success to the Federal prison system. This amendment makes 
a constructive addition to the bill.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank the chairman for that endorsement.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, as I indicated in my remarks, this would be part of the 
amendment that I just withdrew. This would actually provide meaningful 
job opportunities for inmates. It would therefore reduce crime. It has 
the added advantage, it would help nonprofit charitable organizations 
get goods and services they may not be able to get. It does not have 
the advantage that it is paid for by itself. We would have to 
appropriate funds. But because it accomplishes all of the goals that we 
all have stated as goals for the prison industries program, I would 
hope that we would adopt this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).

[[Page H10503]]

  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there further amendments to section 10?
  If not, the Clerk will designate section 11.
  The text of section 11 is as follows:

     SEC. 11. RESTRUCTURING THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS.

       Section 4121 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``Sec. 4121. Federal Prison Industries; Board of Directors: 
       executive management

       ``(a) Federal Prison Industries is a government corporation 
     of the District of Columbia organized to carry on such 
     industrial operations in Federal correctional institutions as 
     authorized by its Board of Directors. The manner and extent 
     to which such industrial operations are carried on in the 
     various Federal correctional institutions shall be determined 
     by the Attorney General.
       ``(b)(1) The corporation shall be governed by a board of 11 
     directors appointed by the President.
       ``(2) In making appointments to the Board, the President 
     shall assure that 3 members represent the business community, 
     3 members represent organized labor, 1 member shall have 
     special expertise in inmate rehabilitation techniques, 1 
     member represents victims of crime, 1 member represents the 
     interests of Federal inmate workers, and 2 additional members 
     whose background and expertise the President deems 
     appropriate. The members of the Board representing the 
     business community shall include, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, representation of firms furnishing services as 
     well as firms producing products, especially from those 
     industry categories from which Federal Prison Industries 
     derives substantial sales. The members of the Board 
     representing organized labor shall, to the maximum 
     practicable, include representation from labor unions whose 
     members are likely to be most affected by the sales of 
     Federal Prison Industries.
       ``(3) Each member shall be appointed for a term of 5 years, 
     except that of members first appointed--
       ``(A) 2 members representing the business community shall 
     be appointed for a term of 3 years;
       ``(B) 2 members representing labor shall be appointed for a 
     term of 3 years;
       ``(C) 2 members whose background and expertise the 
     President deems appropriate for a term of 3 years;
       ``(D) 1 member representing victims of crime shall be 
     appointed for a term of 3 years;
       ``(E) 1 member representing the interests of Federal inmate 
     workers shall be appointed for a term of 3 years;
       ``(F) 1 member representing the business community shall be 
     appointed for a term of 4 years;
       ``(G) 1 member representing the business community shall be 
     appointed for a term of 4 years; and
       ``(H) the members having special expertise in inmate 
     rehabilitation techniques shall be appointed for a term of 5 
     years.
       ``(4) The President shall designate 1 member of the Board 
     as Chairperson. The Chairperson may designate a Vice 
     Chairperson.
       ``(5) Members of the Board may be reappointed.
       ``(6) Any vacancy on the Board shall be filled in the same 
     manner as the original appointment. Any member appointed to 
     fill a vacancy occurring before the expiration of the term 
     for which the member's predecessor was appointed shall be 
     appointed for the remainder of that term.
       ``(7) The members of the Board shall serve without 
     compensation. The members of the Board shall be allowed 
     travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, 
     at rates authorized for employees of agencies under 
     subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code, to 
     attend meetings of the Board and, with the advance approval 
     of the Chairperson of the Board, while otherwise away from 
     their homes or regular places of business for purposes of 
     duties as a member of the Board.
       ``(8)(A) The Chairperson of the Board may appoint and 
     terminate any personnel that may be necessary to enable the 
     Board to perform its duties.
       ``(B) Upon request of the Chairperson of the Board, a 
     Federal agency may detail a Federal Government employee to 
     the Board without reimbursement. Such detail shall be without 
     interruption or loss of civil service status or privilege.
       ``(9) The Chairperson of the Board may procure temporary 
     and intermittent services under section 3109(b) of title 5, 
     United States Code.
       ``(c) The Director of the Bureau of Prisons shall serve as 
     Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation. The Director 
     shall designate a person to serve as Chief Operating Officer 
     of the Corporation.''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any amendments to section 11?
  If not, the Clerk will designate section 12.
  The text of section 12 is as follows:

     SEC. 12. PROVIDING ADDITIONAL MANAGEMENT FLEXIBILITY TO 
                   FEDERAL PRISON INDUSTRIES OPERATIONS.

       Section 4122(b)(3) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``(3)'' and inserting ``(3)(A)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(B) Federal Prison Industries may locate more than one 
     workshop at a Federal correctional facility.
       ``(C) Federal Prison Industries may operate a workshop 
     outside of a correctional facility if all of the inmates 
     working in such workshop are classified as minimum security 
     inmates.''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any amendments to section 12?
  If not, the Clerk will designate section 13.
  The text of section 13 is as follows:

     SEC. 13. TRANSITIONAL PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY.

       Any correctional officer or other employee of Federal 
     Prison Industries being paid with nonappropriated funds who 
     would be separated from service because of a reduction in the 
     net income of Federal Prison Industries during any fiscal 
     year specified in section 4(e)(1) shall be--
       (1) eligible for appointment (or reappointment) in the 
     competitive service pursuant to title 5, United States Code;
       (2) registered on a Bureau of Prisons reemployment priority 
     list; and
       (3) given priority for any other position within the Bureau 
     of Prisons for which such employee is qualified.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any amendments to section 13?
  If not, the Clerk will designate section 14.
  The text of section 14 is as follows:

     SEC. 14. FEDERAL PRISON INDUSTRIES REPORT TO CONGRESS.

       Section 4127 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``Sec. 4127. Federal Prison Industries report to Congress

       ``(a) In General.--Pursuant to chapter 91 of title 31, the 
     board of directors of Federal Prison Industries shall submit 
     an annual report to Congress on the conduct of the business 
     of the corporation during each fiscal year and the condition 
     of its funds during the fiscal year.
       ``(b) Contents of Report.--In addition to the matters 
     required by section 9106 of title 31, and such other matters 
     as the board considers appropriate, a report under subsection 
     (a) shall include--
       ``(1) a statement of the amount of obligations issued under 
     section 4129(a)(1) of this title during the fiscal year;
       ``(2) an estimate of the amount of obligations that will be 
     issued in the following fiscal year;
       ``(3) an analysis of--
       ``(A) the corporation's total sales for each specific 
     product and type of service sold to the Federal agencies and 
     the commercial market;
       ``(B) the total purchases by each Federal agency of each 
     specific product and type of service;
       ``(C) the corporation's share of such total Federal 
     Government purchases by specific product and type of service; 
     and
       ``(D) the number and disposition of disputes submitted to 
     the heads of the Federal departments and agencies pursuant to 
     section 4124(e) of this title;
       ``(4) an analysis of the inmate workforce that includes--
       ``(A) the number of inmates employed;
       ``(B) the number of inmates utilized to produce products or 
     furnish services sold in the commercial market;
       ``(C) the number and percentage of employed inmates by the 
     term of their incarceration; and
       ``(D) the various hourly wages paid to inmates employed 
     with respect to the production of the various specific 
     products and types of services authorized for production and 
     sale to Federal agencies and in the commercial market; and
       ``(5) data concerning employment obtained by former inmates 
     upon release to determine whether the employment provided by 
     Federal Prison Industries during incarceration provided such 
     inmates with knowledge and skill in a trade or occupation 
     that enabled such former inmate to earn a livelihood upon 
     release.
       ``(c) Public Availability.--Copies of an annual report 
     under subsection (a) shall be made available to the public at 
     a price not exceeding the cost of printing the report.''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any amendments to section 14?
  If not, the Clerk will designate section 15.
  The text of section 15 is as follows:

     SEC. 15. INDEPENDENT STUDY TO DETERMINE THE EFFECTS OF 
                   ELIMINATING THE FEDERAL PRISON INDUSTRIES 
                   MANDATORY SOURCE AUTHORITY.

       (a) Study Required.--The Comptroller General shall 
     undertake to have an independent study conducted on the 
     effects of eliminating the Federal Prison Industries 
     mandatory source authority.
       (b) Solicitation of Views.--The Comptroller General shall 
     ensure that in developing the statement of work and the 
     methodology for the study, the views and input of private 
     industry, organized labor groups, Members and staff of the 
     relevant Congressional committees, officials of the executive 
     branch, and the public are solicited.
       (c) Submission.--Not later than June 30, 2004, the 
     Comptroller General shall submit the results of the study to 
     Congress, including any recommendations for legislation.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any amendments to section 15?
  If not, the Clerk will designate section 16.
  The text of section 16 is as follows:

     SEC. 16. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that it is important to study 
     the concept of implementing a ``good time'' release program 
     for non-violent criminals in the Federal prison system.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any amendments to section 16?
  If not, the Clerk will designate section 17.
  The text of section 17 is as follows:

     SEC. 17. DEFINITIONS.

       Chapter 307 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new section:

[[Page H10504]]

     ``Sec. 4131. Definitions

       ``As used in this chapter--
       ``(1) the term `assembly' means the process of uniting or 
     combining articles or components (including ancillary 
     finished components or assemblies) so as to produce a 
     significant change in form or utility, without necessarily 
     changing or altering the component parts;
       ``(2) the term `current market price' means, with respect 
     to a specific product, the fair market price of the product 
     within the meaning of section 15(a) of the Small Business Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 644(a)), at the time that the contract is to be 
     awarded, verified through appropriate price analysis or cost 
     analysis, including any costs relating to transportation or 
     the furnishing of any ancillary services;
       ``(3) the term `import-sensitive product' means a product 
     which, according to Department of Commerce data, has 
     experienced competition from imports at an import to domestic 
     production ratio of 25 percent or greater;
       ``(4) the term `labor-intensive manufacture' means a 
     manufacturing activity in which the value of inmate labor 
     constitutes at least 10 percent of the estimate unit cost to 
     produce the item by Federal Prison Industries;
       ``(5) the term `manufacture' means the process of 
     fabricating from raw or prepared materials, so as to impart 
     to those materials new forms, qualities, properties, and 
     combinations;
       ``(6) the term `reasonable share of the market' means a 
     share of the total purchases by the Federal departments and 
     agencies, as reported to the Federal Procurement Data System 
     for--
       ``(A) any specific product during the 3 preceding fiscal 
     years, that does not exceed 20 percent of the Federal market 
     for the specific product; and
       ``(B) any specific service during the 3 preceding fiscal 
     years, that does not exceed 5 percent of the Federal market 
     for the specific service; and
       ``(7) the term `services' has the meaning given the term 
     `service contract' by section 37.101 of the Federal 
     Acquisition Regulation (48 C.F.R. 36.102), as in effect on 
     July 1, 2002.''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any amendments to section 17?
  If not, the Clerk will designate section 18.
  The text of section 18 is as follows:

     SEC. 18. IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS AND PROCEDURES.

       (a) Federal Acquisition Regulation.--
       (1) Proposed revisions.--Proposed revisions to the 
     Governmentwide Federal Acquisition Regulation to implement 
     the amendments made by this Act shall be published not later 
     than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act and 
     provide not less than 60 days for public comment.
       (2) Final regulations.--Final regulations shall be 
     published not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act and shall be effective on the date that 
     is 30 days after the date of publication.
       (3) Public participation.--The proposed regulations 
     required by subsection (a) and the final regulations required 
     by subsection (b) shall afford an opportunity for public 
     participation in accordance with section 22 of the Office of 
     Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 418b).
       (b) Board of Directors.--
       (1) In general.--The Board of Directors of Federal Prison 
     Industries shall issue regulations defining the terms 
     specified in paragraph (2).
       (2) Terms to be defined.--The Board of Directors shall 
     issue regulations for the following terms:
       (A) Prison-made product.
       (B) Prison-furnished service.
       (C) Specific product.
       (D) Specific service.
       (3) Schedule for regulatory definitions.--
       (A) Proposed regulations relating to the matter described 
     in subsection (b)(2) shall be published not later than 60 
     days after the date of enactment of this Act and provide not 
     less than 60 days for public comment.
       (B) Final regulations relating to the matters described in 
     subsection (b)(2) shall be published not less than 180 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act and shall be 
     effective on the date that is 30 days after the date of 
     publication.
       (4) Enhanced opportunities for public participation and 
     scrutiny.--
       (A) Administrative procedure act.--Regulations issued by 
     the Board of Directors shall be subject to notice and comment 
     rulemaking pursuant to section 553 of title 5, United States 
     Code. Unless determined wholly impracticable or unnecessary 
     by the Board of Directors, the public shall be afforded 60 
     days for comment on proposed regulations.
       (B) Enhanced outreach.--The Board of Directors shall use 
     means designed to most effectively solicit public comment on 
     proposed regulations, procedures, and policies and to inform 
     the affected public of final regulations, procedures, and 
     policies.
       (C) Open meeting processes.--The Board of Directors shall 
     take all actions relating to the adoption of regulations, 
     operating procedures, guidelines, and any other matter 
     relating to the governance and operation of Federal Prison 
     Industries based on deliberations and a recorded vote 
     conducted during a meeting open to the public, unless closed 
     pursuant to section 552(b) of title 5, United States Code.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any amendments to section 18?
  If not, the Clerk will designate section 19.
  The text of section 19 is as follows:

     SEC. 19. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

       (a) Agency Bid Protests.--Subsection (e) of section 4124 of 
     title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 2, is not 
     intended to alter any rights of any offeror other than 
     Federal Prison Industries to file a bid protest in accordance 
     with other law or regulation in effect on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (b) Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act.--Nothing in this Act is 
     intended to modify the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46, 
     et seq.).

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any amendments to section 19?
  If not, the Clerk will designate section 20.
  The text of section 20 is as follows:

     SEC. 20. EFFECTIVE DATE AND APPLICABILITY.

       (a) Effective Date.--Except as provided in subsection (b), 
     this Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take 
     effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Applicability.--Section 4124 of title 18, United States 
     Code, as amended by section 2, shall apply to any requirement 
     for a product or service offered by Federal Prison Industries 
     needed by a Federal department or agency after the effective 
     date of the final regulations issued pursuant to section 
     18(a)(2), or after September 30, 2004, whichever is earlier.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any amendments to section 20?
  If not, the Clerk will designate section 21.
  The text of section 21 is as follows:

     SEC. 21. CLERICAL AMENDMENTS.

       The table of sections for chapter 307 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) by amending the item relating to section 4121 to read 
     as follows:

``4121. Federal Prison Industries; Board of Directors: executive 
              management.'';

       (2) by amending the item relating to section 4124 to read 
     as follows:

``4124. Governmentwide procurement policy relating to purchases from 
              Federal Prison Industries.'';

       (3) by amending the item relating to section 4127 to read 
     as follows:

``4127. Federal Prison Industries report to Congress.'';

     and
       (4) by adding at the end the following new items:

``4130. Construction of provisions.
``4131. Definitions.''.


             Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

     SEC. 22. SUNSET.

       If the Attorney General makes a written determination 
     before the end of the 3-year period beginning on the date of 
     the enactment of this Act that the implementation of this Act 
     creates a significant risk or adverse effect on public or 
     prison safety, prison management, or prison rehabilitation 
     opportunities, then this Act, and the amendments made by this 
     Act, shall not be in effect on and after the date occurring 3 
     years after such date of enactment (and the law shall read as 
     if this Act were not enacted).

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have repeatedly said in my 
debate and discourse on this bill that many of us have worked to put 
together aspects of this legislation that will respond to a number of 
concerns. I do not have an attitude, Mr. Chairman, that this bill is 
totally without merit, and I respect the gentleman from Michigan's 
issues as relates to certain areas of this Nation that have been 
impacted as many of my friends have come to the floor on a trade policy 
that some would call in disarray. We have lost jobs in America. We have 
lost 3 million manufacturing jobs. We have small businesses that are 
clamoring to find ways to provide health care for their employees.
  I would be the first to say that the role of this Congress is to be a 
problem solver. I have stood with my colleagues as relates to job 
creation and to emphasize the importance of providing tax incentives to 
small businesses and also ways to assist them in securing good health 
insurance.
  Frankly, I believe several amendments that have passed today are good 
amendments. The Waters/ Millender-McDonald amendment I support provides 
for increasing the minimum wage to help those inmates who are 
incarcerated have, in essence, a trust fund when they leave the Bureau 
of Prisons from their incarcerations to make a difference. But I think 
this bill is all about the competition, the loss of jobs.
  I want to cite a number of figures that might speak to that issue. It 
relates to the number of prisoners that we have in the Federal prison 
population for years 2000, 2001 and 2002: 39,679, 36,000, and 36,000 
persons respectively would lose opportunities to work. The State prison 
population for the same years is 20,200, 20,898, and 23,561. I believe 
that the crux of the

[[Page H10505]]

issue is whether or not this bill will answer the concerns and how long 
it should be implemented. The bill has in it a 5-year phase-out of the 
prison industries' effort.
  What my amendment will simply do, Mr. Chairman, is put our money and 
our mouth and our concerns right where they should be. If the Attorney 
General determines that we will impact prison management, safety, the 
rehabilitation of prisoners, control, if that is impacted, then this 
will be sunsetted in 3 years. That is the crux of what this particular 
amendment will attempt to do.
  It does not attempt to do it in a vacuum. It does not attempt to do 
it because there is dispute over which direction we should take. It 
asks the Attorney General to have a large role. Mr. Chairman, we are 
talking about an Attorney General that the majority knows, because this 
is in the context of 3 years, and right now we are suggesting that if 
this legislation undermines the running of our prisons, with a large 
number of inmates, where they do not have the opportunity to work and 
if we find that that opportunity supersedes the good intentions of this 
bill, which is to bring relief to some areas where large prisons are 
that are run by the Federal Government that use and have resources and 
that it is impacting in the area small businesses, then the Attorney 
General will not act. But he or she will act if he finds in good faith 
that public or prison safety, prison management, prison rehabilitation 
opportunities will be impacted negatively by this particular 
legislation.
  This is a thoughtful amendment in that it is an amendment that is 
used in many of our legislative initiatives and, that is, to sunset, to 
bring an end to it until we can assess where we are. I simply say to my 
colleagues that we cannot have it all, that is, incarcerate individuals 
who perpetrated offenses, expect for them to be contributing members of 
our society, and do nothing to help that occur. If you live in 
communities where I live, if you live in poor rural areas, you will 
find many of these young men returning home to empty opportunities. 
Every job application, Mr. Chairman, requires an incarcerated person to 
note whether they have been convicted or incarcerated. Many of them are 
paying because they are not allowed to vote. They are not allowed to 
mainstream into our communities.

                              {time}  1500

  And so we are looking for a chance in this legislation and we do not 
give them a chance if we allow the crux of their survival to be taken 
away from them, Mr. Chairman. Sunset this bill on the basis of the 
Attorney General's recommendation and do what is right not only for 
small businesses, but for inmates who are trying to rehabilitate.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 1829, the 
``Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act of 2003.'' 
The specific language of JACKSO.166 reads:

       If the Attorney General makes a written determination 
     before the end of the 3-year period beginning on the date of 
     the enactment of this Act that the implementation of this Act 
     creates a significant risk or adverse effect on public or 
     prison safety, prison management, or prison management, or 
     prison rehabilitation opportunities, then this Act, and the 
     amendments made by this Act, shall not be in effect on and 
     after the date occurring 3 years after such date of enactment 
     (and the law shall read as if this Act were not enacted).

  This amendment offers a safety net for an otherwise certain end to 
the Federal Prison Industries program, which has clearly demonstrated 
itself to be a positive thing for our federal inmate population. 
Sunsetting H.R. 1829 will give the expansion of competition in the 
federal prison procurement industry a fair chance to operate. Opponents 
of FPI who argue that it kills small businesses will have an 
opportunity to demonstrate whether or not FPI does impact their ability 
to compete. However, the important thing about this amendment is that 
it ensures that there is protection of the inmate population in case 
these opponents are wrong.
  When FPI allows federal inmates to earn money to send to their wives, 
elderly parents, and small children, we see that the negative impact 
that H.R. 1829 will have is local and hard-hitting. The amendment that 
was offered by my colleague Ms. Millender-McDonald would have enhanced 
this ability to give family support by creating a trust fund mechanism 
for these inmates. The conclusiveness of this bill as drafted threatens 
the lives and livelihood of many American families. My amendment 
ensures that these families won't have the doors of justice slam in 
their faces. If the FPI program's elimination is shown to have a 
negative impact on these families, we will see an immediate return to 
the plan that has demonstrated its viability. This is a true case of 
``if it isn't broken, don't fix it.'' I would ask that my colleagues at 
least follow a middle ground by voting to accept my amendment, which 
would change that saying to ``if it isn't broken after trying something 
else, let's not allow it to break.''
  Furthermore, this bill threatens the safe environment of the federal 
prisons and the fight against recidivism. With the elimination of 
mandatory source preferences for FPI, we will take activities away from 
a large number of former prison employees. What will these individuals 
do once their jobs have been taken away from them? For many of them, 
the jobs were a very important diversion from anger, hate, and 
violence. The jobs that will be taken away from them will invite 
violence in the prisons as well as in the workplace for the Federal 
Bureau of Prisons. Moreover, the job training that will be lost will 
create a situation ripe for recidivism. The Jackson Lee Amendment will 
ensure that we can correct this situation after we have educated 
ourselves on the alternatives offered by the removal of mandatory 
source preferences.
  Over 2 million offenders are incarcerated in the nation's prisons and 
jails. At midyear 2002, 665,475 inmates were held in the Nation's local 
jails, up from 631,240 at midyear 2001. Projections indicate that the 
inmate population will unfortunately continue to rise over the years to 
come. Without the protection that is offered by my amendment, these 
numbers can represent cultures of violence, cultures of recidivism, and 
cultures of liabilities to our society rather than positive 
contributors.

  FPI is a self-supporting government operation. Revenue generated by 
the corporation is used to purchase equipment and raw materials, pay 
wages to inmates and staff, and expand facilities. Last year, FPI 
generated over $566 million in revenue, $418 million of which went to 
purchasing goods and services from the private sector, 74 percent of 
which went to small and minority owned businesses in local communities 
across this country.
  The Bureau of Prisons clearly appreciates the advantage the program 
can have on inmates and society at large. First, there is some security 
benefit to FPI system because inmates are productively occupied. 
Second, FPI programs are said to provide inmates with training and 
experience that develop job skills and a strong work ethic.
  The bill before us today provides for a five-year phase-out of 
mandatory source preference by granting to FPI's Federal agency 
customer's authority to first solicit on a non-competitive basis. 
However, at the end of the phase-out period there is no existing 
substitute for the services and program. Looking to the states, there 
simply is not enough program participation to accommodate the 25 
percent that is currently accommodated under FPI.
  During FY 2002, FPI spent 74 percent of its $680 million in sales 
revenues (that is, $503 million) on purchases of raw materials, 
equipment, and services from private sector companies. Some 62 percent 
of these purchases (that is, $311 million) were from small businesses, 
including businesses owned by women, minorities, and those who are 
disadvantaged. FPI has consistently received the U.S. Attorney 
General's Small Business Award for its concerted efforts to contract 
with the small business community, far exceeding the 23 percent 
government-wide requirement for contracts with small businesses. From 
1997-2001, FPI has awarded $851 million in contracts to small 
businesses, which is a yearly average of 57 percent.
  Clearly, the existing FPI program has positive effects on the 
economic viability of the prison inmate community by way of jobs and 
job training, the small, minority-, and women-owned business 
communities by way of offering equal access to federal procurement 
contracts, and to the community by way of reducing incidence of 
recidivism. H.R. 1829 will phase these benefits out potentially, unless 
my amendment is included that will provide a necessary protection 
mechanism.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the Jackson-Lee Amendment.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, not only does this amendment have the potential of 
tossing into the wastebasket many years of work by the Congress and by 
those who were contracted to do work on this issue by the Congress, but 
it also sets the unprecedented provision that allows an officer of the 
executive branch, the Attorney General, to wipe a law off the books. 
Article 1 of the Constitution gives the exclusive legislative authority 
in this country to the elected Congress of the United States, and 
Congress makes the laws; Congress amends the laws; and Congress repeals 
the

[[Page H10506]]

laws. And no officer of the executive branch should have the authority 
to make a determination that wipes the a law off the books. And that is 
what this amendment does. It gives the Attorney General of the United 
States, whether it be Mr. Ashcroft or one of his successors, the 
authority to actually change the statutes that have been passed by 
Congress. And for that reason alone, this amendment should be rejected.
  But I would like to talk about the work that has been done on Prison 
Industries over the years. In public law 101-515, the Commerce, 
Justice, State Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1991, there was a 16-
month review done under contract by Deloitte & Touche, 500 pages of 
reporting to Congress on study findings and recommendation and 
appendices. No action. Then there was a 2-year Federal Prison 
Industries summit process, from 1991 to 1993, that was led by the 
Brookings Institution and brought together all of the stakeholders to 
develop practical implementation strategies for the recommendations of 
the Market Survey just referred to. Nothing happened.
  And then this has been studied and studied and studied. I have three 
recent General Accounting Office reports from 1998. Federal Prison 
Industries Limited Data Available on Customer Satisfaction, ignored 
because we did nothing. Federal Prison Industries Information on 
Product Pricing, ignored because we did nothing. Federal Prison 
Industries Delivery Performance is Improving but Problems Remain, 
ignored because we did nothing. And look at all the hearings that have 
been held in various committees of the Congress to reform Federal 
Prison Industries. Literally here almost ten inches of hearing 
transcripts that have been held before the Committee on the Judiciary, 
the Committee on Small Business, the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce. And if we do not do anything to reform Prison Industries, 
all of the testimony that was given on the fact that this system is 
broken will be ignored.
  The time has come for Congress to take some action, and this bill has 
been the result of infinite negotiations and compromises that have been 
made, improvements that have been made to the legislation, including 
amendments adopted here on the floor today. And for the gentlewoman 
from Texas to propose an amendment that says that all of this work can 
be abolished at the stroke of the pen of the Attorney General in 3 
years really does no business to our doctrine of separation of powers, 
as well as to all of the work that the legislative branch has either 
done or sponsored. For this reason, this amendment should be 
overwhelmingly defeated.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the work that my colleague from Texas does 
on this and other issues, but in this case we disagree. I think it 
would be a grave error to sunset.
  Sunset is a legitimate tool, but when we adopt a sunset, I think we 
need to calculate what incentive we are setting in motion. For example, 
the gentleman from Wisconsin played a very useful role here. We in the 
House Committee on the Judiciary, on which I then served, insisted on a 
sunset to the Patriot Act because a lot of new powers were being 
granted affirmatively, and we felt that it was important that, as we 
started these brand new powers, the people exercising the powers should 
know that they would have to come and get them renewed. There was an 
incentive in that sunset to the people given the grant of new authority 
to exercise it in a reasonable way.
  Here, though, a sunset would create, I believe, perverse incentives. 
We know on good faith people in the Bureau of Prisons do not like this 
bill. The people in the Federal Prison Industries do not like the bill. 
The people who are now working to provide rehabilitative employment 
efforts to inmates, which all of us support, like the current system 
and do not want to have to go to a new system. For the new system to 
work well, we have provisions in this bill that say there will be 
additional training for the inmates, there will be donation programs, 
and that is being strengthened, there will not programs whereby we in 
this bill mandate the people who run the Federal prisons to find 
alternatives to the sale of these products. We want them to continue 
working, but we want a variety of things to be done so that there can 
be donations to charitable groups, et cetera. It is going to be more 
work for the people who now run the prisons. It will be the course of 
least resistance for them to go with the status quo. That is why, I 
think, a sunset creates a perverse incentive, because the people who do 
not want this program to work are the people who are in charge of 
making it work, and if they know that if we have not been able to find 
other work, if they can simply sit and let some of these provisions for 
alternative sources of employment go unused, they will make their case 
for getting rid of this.
  So it is one thing if we give a grant of power to people and tell 
them, look, go use these powers wisely because they have to come back 
to us. It is another thing to say to a group of people who do not like 
what we are doing, if, in fact, the efforts to make work what they do 
not want to work are not very effective, then they will have achieved 
their goal.
  So I really believe that a sunset goes in the wrong direction here. I 
think we need to give the Federal Prison Industries every incentive to 
make this work. I do not want them to have the benefit of saying we 
cannot find 100 day-care centers and shelters; if we cannot set up 
these alternatives, if we cannot do all these new jobs that have been 
put on us, then we will have a good argument to the Attorney General to 
abolish it.
  I also agree with the argument made by the chairman, who is a very 
strong and thoughtful defender of the role of elected Representatives 
in our democracy. He is quite right to object to this on separation of 
powers grounds. This is far too great a delegation of power to the 
Attorney General. But there is also, I think, what I believe to be a 
perverse incentive. So for both reasons, because I believe we should go 
to a new system in which the inmates are given work but we finance that 
work differently, and that is going to be a complicated task to put on 
people in the prisons. I do not want the bureaucrats, the 
administrators of this, to have any incentive not to do their very 
best.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, for the reasons I have already articulated, I think 
this would be a good amendment, and I yield to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the very 
distinguished gentleman from Virginia for yielding and for his 
leadership on this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, the debate today shows that good friends can agree to 
disagree on policy, and I rise to offer some commentary and support of 
my amendment to sunset and to suggest that I in no way have 
disagreement or would want to override the distinctiveness between the 
three branches of government. I am a zealot, if you will, as it relates 
to the responsibility of Congress to be both in the position of 
oversight, giving oversight to the executive, and as well to be 
independent. There are three independent branches of government.
  But I want to speak particularly to this bill and all of the pages of 
research and hearings again to emphasize to my colleagues that there is 
no crisis here, and even though we may have worked on this for years 
and years, there is no crisis. My recollection is that in the course of 
many legislative initiatives that we have had, such as the Voter Rights 
Act of 1965 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, those were hundreds of 
years in the making. That is a crisis. This is not.
  And let me share with my colleagues these numbers. Seventy-four 
percent of the Federal Prison Industries, $680 million in sale 
revenues, that is $503 million they spend on purchases of raw 
materials, equipment, and services from private sector companies. Some 
62 percent of these purchases, that is, $311 million, were from small 
businesses, including businesses owned by women, minorities, and those 
who are disadvantaged. FPI, the Federal Prison Industries, has 
consistently received the U.S. Attorney General's Small Business Award 
for its concerted efforts to contract with the small business 
community, far exceeding the 23 percent government-wide requirement for 
contracts with small businesses

[[Page H10507]]

from 1997 to 2001. FPI has awarded $851 million in contracts to small 
businesses, which is a yearly average of 57 percent.
  I would have wanted to offer an amendment that would give us precise 
information continuously about the procurement process and how we can 
encourage more small businesses to be engaged. I will not offer that 
amendment. On the other hand, I think this has to do with the safety, 
the management, the rehabilitation aspects, and the control of our 
Federal prisons. With over 2 million Americans and others in the United 
States jails and prisons, I cannot be told that the Attorney General's 
involvement in determining whether this legislation in its enactment 
will undermine the management and control and the survival and 
existence and the sanctity of these prisons, with this huge number of 
inmates, so that he or she can determine that we should sunset this 
bill because it does generate a crisis of control. Then I would ask my 
colleagues what then is our role? Our role is to be thoughtful and it 
is to be instructive and it is to ensure the safety of the American 
people and our communities, and a disruptive prison system because we 
do not have order, because we have people who are without resources, 
without work, without ability to contribute into their trust funds to 
provide for their families, I think that is disruptive.
  So I would say to my colleagues that this is a concertedly thoughtful 
amendment that deals with trying to solve the problem. It does not tell 
the Attorney General to do so. It gives he or she criteria, and those 
are: A significant risk or adverse effect on public or prison safety, 
prison management, or prison rehabilitation opportunities. Then this 
Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall not be in effect after 
3 years.
  This is giving discretion. This is reasonable. This is thoughtful 
because we are concerned about the balance of our small businesses and 
the order of our prison system. And I believe when we are on the floor 
of the House, Mr. Chairman, that is the task of all of us, to be able 
to work in a thoughtful process because legislation leaving this body 
becomes final. It goes to the Senate and ultimately to the President's 
desk. Where then should we do our work to provide a reasonable response 
to what may be a crisis? And I do not know if anyone can manage two 
million of those in our prisons and jails when they do not have the 
opportunity to have a future and to look forward to being trained and 
to be able to get out and be deemed a responsible and contributing 
adult to this society.
  I ask my colleagues to consider this amendment and to vote for the 
Jackson-Lee amendment that is a thoughtful way of handling this 
challenge that we have but not yet a crisis.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. This bill, I am 
sometimes a little surprised by how it is described. Sunsetting the 
bill after 3 years, it is a 5-year phase-out of mandatory sourcing, so, 
as we are implementing the bill, midway through the process the 
Attorney General arbitrarily could declare the bill null and void and 
go back to the legislation that we have today.
  The bill allows for the Attorney General under certain circumstances, 
if there are concerns about prison safety or the performance of the 
prisons, to take action in regard to mandatory sourcing and sole-source 
suppliers to make sure that we do not have unsafe conditions in the 
prisons.
  It is interesting that the Attorney General is offering awards for 
``small business companies of the year'' and identifying Federal Prison 
Industries as one of those. If you go to government procurement 
managers, government procurement managers are in favor of H.R. 1829 
because they have clearly through their experience not had that kind of 
outstanding service by Federal Prison Industries. What they want is the 
ability to get the best product. We ask them to do more for less.
  Business and labor support this. It is not a crisis to us perhaps, 
and it is perhaps not a crisis to the AFL-CIO in its entirety, or to 
the Chamber of Commerce or to NFIB or to the Teamsters. But what each 
of these organizations has experienced is that certain of their 
members, certain of the companies that they represent, have experienced 
the crisis, because the crisis has been their businesses have closed 
and their employees have lost jobs because they have been unable to 
compete for Federal contracts.
  We have the protections in place. This amendment is not necessary. 
Give H.R. 1829 the opportunity to be implemented, to be monitored; and 
if there are changes that need to be made after it is implemented and 
after it is working, it is the responsibility of Congress to make those 
changes, to fine-tune it, not the responsibility of the Attorney 
General to deep-six the whole program.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee) will be postponed.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there further amendments to section 21?


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. Strickland

  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Strickland:
       Add at the end of the bill the following new section:

     SEC. 22. PROCUREMENT OF GOODS AND SERVICES MANUFACTURED IN 
                   THE UNITED STATES.

       In any case in which a procurement activity proceeds to 
     conduct a procurement for a product or service as described 
     in paragraph (6) of section 4124(b) of title 18, United 
     States Code, as added by section 2, the procurement must be 
     of goods or services manufactured in the United States.

  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, I want to say a word about this debate 
today. In my judgment, it has been one of the most thoughtful, 
substantive debates that I have witnessed in this Chamber, and I think 
the reason for it is it is not based upon being a liberal or 
conservative or Republican or Democrat; but it is an attempt to deal 
with a serious matter, and I think there are people of differing 
opinions who want to do the right thing and are trying to do the right 
thing.
  I intend to vote for this bill. But one of the concerns that I have 
had and one of the concerns that has been expressed here today is that 
we simply do not want to deprive work from being undertaken in our 
prisons and then allow that work to be performed outside of our 
country.
  This amendment is very simple. It just simply says under those 
circumstances where the Federal Bureau of Prisons is permitted to bid 
on a procurement activity, those competing private bidders must provide 
whatever goods and services they are seeking to provide which are 
manufactured within the United States of America. I think that will 
solve a lot of concerns that many of us have.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STRICKLAND. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for 
yielding. I am happy to accept the amendment, and I hope it is adopted.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank my friend.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for working with us in structuring 
this amendment in a way that, again, improves the bill.
  I just want to take a moment to thank a number of my colleagues, as 
we are coming to the conclusion of this debate. We have been down a 
long road to get here, but the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Frank), the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), and the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) have been great partners on the other side 
of the aisle. We have been working at this effort for almost 7 years.
  On this side of the aisle, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman 
Sensenbrenner), the gentleman from

[[Page H10508]]

Georgia (Mr. Collins), and I have worked with these and other Members 
to craft this legislation.
  As we found out today, we still have some disagreements, but we are 
intent on continuing to work with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), and a few others to 
take this bill and, hopefully, put the final pieces together. But it 
has been a very constructive process to get where we are today.
  As the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) said, we had a great 
debate and great discussion. Part of it is because we have had 
different folks coming together from different ways, but also we worked 
together for 7 years in bringing this bill together. As we have gone 
through that process, we recognized the need for compromise, we 
recognized that in certain areas we have not reached there; but at all 
times, we have never let our disagreements impact the personal 
relationships and the trust we have built over the last 7 years.
  So I would like to thank my colleagues for the work that we have had, 
for the tone and the tenor of the debate today, which has really, I 
think, brought credit to the House.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there further amendments to section 21?


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, 
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further 
proceedings were postponed in the following order: An amendment offered 
by Mr. Green of Wisconsin and an amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee 
of Texas.
  The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. 
Remaining electronic votes will be conducted as 5-minute votes.


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Green of Wisconsin

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Green) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 91, 
noes 325, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 610]

                                AYES--91

     Baca
     Berry
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Case
     Chabot
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     Delahunt
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doggett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frost
     Gilchrest
     Goodlatte
     Green (WI)
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jones (NC)
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kline
     Lampson
     Larson (CT)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Marshall
     McHugh
     McNulty
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Mollohan
     Payne
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Rahall
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (KY)
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherwood
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Wamp
     Waters
     Weller
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Woolsey

                               NOES--325

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Bell
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blackburn
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Castle
     Chocola
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Herger
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Majette
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Ackerman
     Bachus
     Bishop (UT)
     Deal (GA)
     Fletcher
     Gephardt
     Gutknecht
     Hastings (FL)
     Jones (OH)
     Kilpatrick
     Lipinski
     McInnis
     Neal (MA)
     Paul
     Quinn
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Towns


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla) (during the vote). Members are 
advised there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1547

  Ms. LINDA SANCHEZ of California, and Messrs. BARTLETT of Maryland, 
TURNER of Ohio, OTTER, LEVIN, SMITH of Washington, HOEFFEL, TOOMEY, Ms. 
ESHOO, Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon, Mr. WEXLER, Mr. OWENS, Ms. SLAUGHTER, Mr. 
GORDON, and Mrs. NORTHUP changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. HAYWORTH, Mr. DELAHUNT, Ms. HARRIS, and Messrs. ROSS, PAYNE, TOM 
DAVIS of Virginia, and RUSH changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Announcement by the Chairman pro tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). Pursuant to clause 6 of rule 
XVIII the next vote will be conducted as a 5-minute vote.

[[Page H10509]]

             Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Jackson-Lee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 100, 
noes 313, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 611]

                               AYES--100

     Abercrombie
     Baca
     Ballance
     Bell
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Brady (TX)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Case
     Chabot
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Doggett
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frost
     Gilchrest
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Grijalva
     Harman
     Hinchey
     Holt
     Honda
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Marshall
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McHugh
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Napolitano
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne
     Petri
     Rahall
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (KY)
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (MS)
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Wolf

                               NOES--313

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Castle
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Evans
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Ackerman
     Bachus
     Bishop (UT)
     Capps
     Deal (GA)
     Fletcher
     Gephardt
     Gutknecht
     Hastings (FL)
     Jones (OH)
     Kilpatrick
     Kolbe
     Lipinski
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     Neal (MA)
     Paul
     Quinn
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Towns


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised that 
2 minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1558

  Mr. GILCHREST and Mr. ABERCROMBIE changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  Mr. MEEHAN changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Ms. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I was not able to be present for the 
following rollcall vote and would like the Record to reflect that I 
would have voted as follows: Rollcall No. 611--``no.''
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there other amendments?
  The question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Simmons) having assumed the chair, Mr. Bonilla, Chairman pro tempore of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
1829) to amend title 18, United States Code, to require Federal Prison 
Industries to compete for its contracts minimizing its unfair 
competition with private sector firms and their non-inmate workers and 
empowering Federal agencies to get the best value for taxpayers' 
dollars, to provide a five-year period during which Federal Prison 
Industries adjusts to obtaining inmate work opportunities through other 
than its mandatory source status, to enhance inmate access to remedial 
and vocational opportunities and other rehabilitative opportunities to 
better prepare inmates for a successful return to society, to authorize 
alternative inmate work opportunities in support of non-profit 
organizations, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 428 
he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the 
Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted in the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.

                              {time}  1600

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simmons). The question is on the passage 
of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-

[[Page H10510]]

minute vote on the passage of H.R. 1829 will be followed by a 5-minute 
vote on the motion to instruct on H.R. 2660 by the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the motion to instruct on H.R. 1308 by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), the motion to instruct on H.R. 
1 by the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 350, 
nays 65, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 612]

                               YEAS--350

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Bell
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blackburn
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Chocola
     Clay
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Janklow
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Olver
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--65

     Berry
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Clyburn
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Farr
     Filner
     Frost
     Gilchrest
     Green (WI)
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Lampson
     LaTourette
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lucas (OK)
     McCollum
     McHugh
     McNulty
     Mollohan
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Owens
     Payne
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Rahall
     Renzi
     Rogers (KY)
     Ross
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Saxton
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Smith (NJ)
     Spratt
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (MS)
     Turner (TX)
     Waters
     Wolf

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Ackerman
     Bachus
     Bishop (UT)
     Deal (GA)
     Fletcher
     Gephardt
     Gutknecht
     Hastings (FL)
     Jones (OH)
     Kilpatrick
     Lipinski
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     Neal (MA)
     Ortiz
     Paul
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Towns


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simmons) (during the vote). Members are 
advised 2 minutes remain to cast their votes.

                              {time}  1617

  Ms. Roybal-Allard and Mrs. Napolitano changed their vote from ``nay'' 
to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________