[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 20]
[House]
[Pages 27292-27295]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1829, FEDERAL PRISON INDUSTRIES 
                 COMPETITION IN CONTRACTING ACT OF 2003

  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 428 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 428

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for 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 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. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate 
     shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider 
     as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 
     five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in 
     the bill. Each section of the committee amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. During 
     consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the 
     Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on 
     the

[[Page 27293]]

     basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has caused 
     it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional Record 
     designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. 
     Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may 
     demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted 
     in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). The gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Committee on Rules met and granted an open 
rule for H.R. 1829, the Federal Prison Industries Competition in 
Contracting Act. Coming from a district that is facing many challenges 
in the manufacturing sector, I am very pleased to see this bill on the 
floor today. Federal Prison Industries, FPI, is a depression-era 
Federal agency that has a special status in the Federal procurement 
process that forces government agencies to buy from FPI without 
competition. Over 300 products and services are produced by Federal 
prisoners that totaled nearly $680 million in sales to the Federal 
Government in 2002. Federal agencies are forced to buy these products 
and services from FPI even though the private sector has proven they 
can better address the needs of Federal agencies by providing higher 
quality products, cheaper and faster. I understand that there is 
concern about prisoners having jobs, et cetera. I have no problem with 
that. I have always supported that. But we are living in an era where 
the Federal Government needs to also save as much money as possible 
when we are looking at procurement, and this is an area we can do that.
  This will simply allow the private sector to compete for contracts 
that are paid for with their own tax dollars. The bill will end the 
monopoly that FPI holds over all government purchases, including office 
furniture and textiles. In my own district in North Carolina, I hear 
from many small business owners who are growing increasingly frustrated 
with the ongoing challenges of dealing with government procurement when 
FPI is involved. If this monopoly was ended, these companies could 
compete on a level playing field. That is all we have ever asked for, 
is just a level playing field to provide the government with their 
products. This bill would help stop the bleeding of jobs from the 
textile and furniture industries. H.R. 1829 will provide protections 
for businesses of all sizes, and also the hardworking, law-abiding 
workers they employ, from FPI's unfair practice.
  As a cosponsor of this bill, I would like to commend the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) for sponsoring this fine piece of 
legislation. As many of you know, this legislation enjoys broad support 
from a somewhat unusual coalition, including majority and minority 
leadership, conservatives and liberals, and business and labor groups. 
To that end, I look forward to a fair, open, and thorough debate on 
this bill. It is a good bill. I urge my colleagues to support this rule 
and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1829, the Federal 
Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act of 2003. In 1934, 
Congress established Federal Prison Industries, a government 
corporation that employs inmates in Federal prisons to produce goods 
and services for the Federal Government. FPI employs 21,000 inmates in 
111 prison factories to manufacture a number of products for the 
government. Prisoners manufacture such items as clothing, textiles, 
electronics, fleet management and vehicular components, graphics and 
industrial products. In return for cheap labor, inmates receive 
valuable job training opportunities that teach them the necessary 
skills that may help them become productive, hardworking citizens once 
they reenter society.
  Under current Federal law, FPI is a mandatory source of goods and 
services for Federal agencies. That means, Mr. Speaker, that any agency 
that wants to buy at least $2,500 worth of goods and services must 
first seek to do so through FPI. If FPI cannot process an order, the 
agency is then given a waiver to make the purchase from another source.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation seeks to phase out, over a 5-year 
period, the preference given to Federal Prison Industries in contracts 
with Federal agencies. Supporters claim that it is unfair to 
exclusively employ prisoners when small businesses and private firms 
want to secure contracts with the Federal Government. However, I claim 
that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I claim that it is unfair to 
spend $587 million tax dollars to dissolve an effective and self-
sustaining program.

                              {time}  1245

  I claim that it is unfair to obligate an additional $75 million a 
year for the next 5 years to implement an educational and vocational 
program to replace the already successful educational and vocational 
program. I say that is a wasteful way to spend tax dollars.
  As a former judge, I know the importance of prison employment 
training programs. I personally witnessed the benefits of giving 
prisoners constructive work when incarcerated. While the FPI may be 
reform, I propose we seek other options. I propose we first ask the 
Bureau of Prisons what they think about reforming FPI. I propose we ask 
the Federal agencies that receive FPI products and services what 
improvements can be made. I am not convinced that H.R. 1829 is 
necessary or that it is the best solution in reforming Federal Prison 
Industries. Mr. Speaker, I will oppose H.R. 1829.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the sponsor of this bill.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1829, the Hoekstra-Frank-Collins-Maloney-
Sensenbrenner-Conyers Federal Prison Industries Competition in 
Contracting Act of 2003 will bring fundamental and necessary 
comprehensive reform to Federal Prison Industries, Incorporated.
  This is a Depression-era authorizing statute that permits it to 
operate in a manner that is detrimental to all participants in the 
Federal procurement process except Federal Prison Industries. Change is 
needed.
  Because of FPI's status as a mandatory source, noninmate workers and 
the firms that employ them are completely precluded from having the 
opportunity to even bid, to even bid, on almost $700 million in Federal 
contracting opportunities, contracting opportunities that are funded by 
the tax dollars of those workers and those firms. Workers are denied 
the job opportunities funded by these Federal contracts.
  That is why the bill is supported by a broad coalition of business 
groups led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and NFIB. That is why the 
bill is concurrently supported by organized labor led by the AFL-CIO 
with the vocal support of its affiliated unions whose members are most 
impacted. They included the IAM, the International Association of 
Machinists and Aerospace Workers; UNITE!, the Union of Needletrades, 
Industrial, and Textile Employees; the UAW, the United Automobile, 
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America; AFSCME; the 
IBT, the International Brotherhood of

[[Page 27294]]

Teamsters; and CJA, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of 
America.
  Because of FPI's mandatory-source status, FPI's captive Federal 
agency customers cannot get the best value for the taxpayer dollars 
entrusted to their care. They are required, required, to purchase from 
FPI. FPI, rather than the Federal agency, determines whether FPI's 
offered product and promised delivery schedule meets the mission needs 
of the buying agency. FPI, rather than the buying agency, determines 
whether FPI's price represents even an approximation of a fair and 
reasonable price.
  That is why H.R. 1829 enjoys the support of Federal managers 
represented by Federal Managers Association.
  The justification for FPI's mandatory-source status is that inmate 
work opportunities help combat idleness and better prepare inmates for 
a successful return to society. Neither of these cited benefits are 
linked to the corrosive manner in which FPI is currently permitted to 
operate in the Federal market.
  Frequently cited is the statistic that inmates participating in 
prison industry programs are 24 percent less likely to return to 
prison. That finding is drawn from the report of a multiyear study by 
the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the ``Post-Release Employment Project.'' 
What the proponents of the status quo forget to mention is that the 
same PREP study demonstrated that inmates participating in remedial and 
vocational education programs were 33 percent less likely to return to 
prison. Such programs better prepare inmates for a successful return to 
society; but FPI does not use one dime, not one dime of its gross 
profits, which were $72 million in fiscal year 2002, to fund such 
educational programs. No. Those gross profits are devoted exclusively 
to FPI's expansion.
  H.R. 1829 provides additional funding to expand the opportunities for 
Federal inmates to participate in remedial and modern hands-on 
vocational training programs, those that are most likely to reduce 
recidivism. H.R. 1829 will require FPI to help fund the broad array of 
alternative rehabilitative programs authorized by the bill.
  Similarly, H.R. 1829 provides alternative work opportunities for 
inmates by authorizing them to do work for nonprofit entities. No one 
is against prisoners working. No one is against prisoners acquiring the 
skills to be successful once they leave. So we offer them additional 
work opportunity; plus we enable them to continue to compete for 
Federal Government business. All 1829 does is say they have to compete 
for the business, and they have to compete successfully if they are 
going to get it.
  I also intend to offer an amendment that will broaden the bill in 
this regard, allowing Federal inmates to perform services in support of 
units of local governments and special-purpose districts like school 
districts. A public service inmate program run by the Ohio Department 
of Corrections now provides more inmate jobs than the Department's 
traditional industries program. Such a program provides no unfair 
competition to the private sector and costs less to operate than the 
traditional prison industry program.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the rule and look forward to what I 
expect will be a spirited debate on the bill tomorrow. This is an 
important issue. My colleague on the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence indicated that there is not a need for change. There is a 
phenomenal need for change around the country. Members have joined in 
this effort to reform Federal Prison Industries because their 
constituents have been negatively impacted. They have lost the 
opportunity to provide goods and services to the Federal Government. 
Even though they can provide them at a better price and a better 
quality and a better delivery schedule, they cannot even compete for 
the business. That is why we have got a broad coalition of business, 
labor, and Federal Government procurement managers who are saying this 
is the way to go. They sense the need for change.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), my good friend.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Prison Industries 
program, or FPI, has been around since the 1930s. Under the law, the 
Federal agencies are required to buy needed products from FPI if they 
can meet the order. The purpose of the program is to teach prisoners 
real work skills so when they are released from prison, they will be 
able to find and hold jobs to support themselves and their families and 
be less likely to commit more crimes.
  And 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 more likely to be employed and 
less likely to commit crimes than others who do not participate in the 
program. And while this certainly benefits the offenders and their 
families, that is beside the point from a public policy perspective. 
The real benefit is that all of us, as a result of the program, are 
less likely to be victims of crimes. We are prepared to spend billions 
of dollars in prison construction and prison upkeep in our efforts to 
reduce crime. This program reduces crime and pays for itself.
  H.R. 1829 will result in fewer inmate jobs, with increased taxpayer 
costs and an increase in crime. The CBO, for example, estimates it will 
cost at least $177 million just in extra security costs to guard the 
inmates made idle by this bill.
  The total revenues of FPI represent a very small percent, 
approximately \1/4\ of 1 percent of Federal agency procurement dollars, 
about the same as it was when it started in 1934. Furniture and apparel 
industries are two industries in which FPI does most of its work; but 
when asked, a representative of these industries conceded that FPI 
sales represent ``insignificant'' and ``negligible'' portions of their 
industries. And if such industries have problems, it is not due to FPI. 
On textiles, for example, I was told that 600,000 jobs were lost over 
the last 10 years. Where there are approximately 7,000 prisoners 
working in textiles in FPI, we certainly cannot blame 7,000 prisoners 
for the loss of 600,000 jobs.
  The program generates almost as much business as it takes in by 
pumping three quarters of the roughly $600 million it takes in back 
into the economy to purchase supplies and whatnot, primarily from small 
minority and women-owned and disadvantaged businesses. The FPI has 
received awards for spending almost 60 percent of its expenditures in 
these small and disadvantaged businesses.
  I am the first to concede that there may be problems with FPI which 
should be fixed. When a small business making a single product such as 
an Army helmet is dependent on the Department of Defense for contracts 
for its operations, FPI should not be able to take away that business. 
But this bill should be fixing the problems not by gutting it by taking 
away all its primary source of contracts. And while the bill suggests 
that the lack of competition is a problem, the bill seeks to 
stranglehold FPI as a competitor not only by strengthening the 
prohibitions against activities in the commercial market but also in 
the government as well. We are already seeing the effects of a 
Department of Defense restriction in FPI passed last year. The 
information I have obtained from the program indicates that it has 
already had to close 13 factories and eliminate over 1,700 inmate jobs 
and expects to eliminate an additional 500 jobs before the end of the 
year.
  We should fix these problems, but we should do so in a way that 
assures the viability of the vital crime-reducing program. With 
additional prisons scheduled to come on line over the next few years, 
we can ill afford to diminish the successful crime-reduction program. 
But for their crimes and imprisonment, they are indistinguishable from 
the rest of us; and treating them as if they are a foreign competitor 
and viewing the work as private businesses, we should not be in a 
position where the policy of the committee with oversight 
responsibility for the safe and efficient operation of our prisons 
should be at risk.

[[Page 27295]]

  Mr. Speaker, these are important jobs. This program reduces crime. We 
can do better than just gut the entire program with a meat ax approach. 
We can improve the program without ending it. So I would hope that we 
would defeat the rule and, if the rule passes, defeat the bill.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time and for his leadership.
  I rise in support of this rule and in support of the bill that will 
protect the jobs of American taxpayers. In a time when 3 million 
workers have lost their jobs, we should be doing everything possible to 
keep workers employed. FPI is not competing on a level playing field. 
It pays its workers pennies and is not required to pay taxes. With its 
predatory practices, FPI has contributed to the closure of private 
companies and the loss of tens of thousands of jobs throughout our 
Nation.
  With its predatory practices, I confronted them in 1997 when they 
tried to close one of my constituent's company, Glamour Glove. FPI 
sought to simply come in and take away all the competitively won 
contracts with the Department of Defense to make military gloves. If 
they had succeeded, Glamour Glove would be out of business and the 
workers of UNITE! would have been out of work. Outraged, I appeared 
before the FPI board with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), 
who was facing similar challenges in his own district, and we were 
successful in negotiating and saving these jobs; but this effort led to 
the bill that we have before us today.

                              {time}  1300

  It has been a 7-year effort. I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Hoekstra) for helping me save the jobs in Glamor Glove and for his work 
on this legislation.
  By passing this bill, we will save thousands of jobs across this 
country, and we will protect competition. We will allow the prison 
industries to compete with hardworking, tax-paying workers in America. 
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, thereby saving not only jobs, but taxpayer dollars; in short, 
the way the free market is supposed to operate.
  The bill has large bipartisan support, over 140 of our colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle, and it has support both from the business 
community, led by the Chamber of Commerce, and organized labor, led by 
the AFL-CIO.
  Passage of this legislation will not mean that inmates will sit idly 
in prison. It also requires and provides for alternative rehabilitative 
opportunities, including work in support of nonprofit public service 
organizations, to better prepare inmates for a successful return to 
society.
  I urge my colleagues to put an end to this unfair, government-
sponsored monopoly, which really would be more at home in communist 
Russia, under Fidel Castro or in mainland China, where people are paid 
pennies for their work, where there is no competition and workers are 
stripped of their jobs and thrown out on the street and not even given 
an opportunity to compete.
  This allows our workers to compete. It will save jobs. It is good for 
America, it is good for workers, and it is good for business. I urge a 
yes vote on the underlying bill and the rule.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), my good friend from Chicago.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, at first blush, I thought that this was a good bill, 
good piece of legislation, that it made some sense. But then I thought 
about the fact that the goal of our prison system really should be to 
try and make sure that individuals are better off when they leave than 
they were when they got there.
  If they cannot read, we need to teach them how to read; if they 
cannot write, we should teach them how to write; if they have got drug 
problems, we should give them counseling and treatment; if they do not 
have job skills, if they have never had a work ethic, then we ought to 
provide opportunities for them to learn what work is all about.
  We ought to provide an opportunity for them to develop a skill, so 
that when they get out, there is something that they can do, other than 
stand on the corner and holler ``crack and blow,'' or ``pills and 
thrills.'' Any diminution of opportunity for these individuals to work 
is not in the best interest of America. It will cause recidivism, and 
those who get out will be right back. So I would urge us to look 
seriously.
  I understand competition. I understand small business. I am an avid 
supporter of small business, but I believe that we would do much more 
harm than good by denying any single person incarcerated the 
opportunity to work and learn a skill.
  I will vote no, and urge that we reject this rule and this bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for 
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________