[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.
____________________