[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 18040-18044]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2965, FEDERAL PRISON INDUSTRIES 
                 COMPETITION IN CONTRACTING ACT OF 2006

  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 997 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows

                              H. Res. 997

       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. 2965) 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 other public service programs, 
     and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall 
     be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration 
     of the bill are waived. 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. The committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     as read. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no 
     amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be in order except those printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. 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. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. GINGREY. 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, this is a structured rule providing for consideration of 
H.R. 2965, the Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act 
of 2006.

[[Page 18041]]

The rule provides 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary. It waives all points of order against 
consideration of the bill. It provides that the amendment in the nature 
of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary which is 
now printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendments and shall be considered as read.
  The rule makes in order only those amendments printed in the Rules 
Committee report accompanying the resolution, and it provides that the 
amendments made in order may be offered only in the order printed in 
the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, 
shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be 
subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the 
Committee of the Whole.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule waives all points of order against the 
amendments printed in the report and allows one motion to recommit with 
or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, today we will debate reforming a government-owned 
corporation called UNICOR, which is more commonly known as the Federal 
Prison Industries. Federal Prison Industries, Incorporated, 
manufactures products and provides services that are sold to the 
executive agencies in the Federal Government. When the Federal prison 
system was established at the turn of the 20th century, factories were 
erected in Federal prisons to manufacture products for the Federal 
Government. President Roosevelt consolidated Federal Prison Industries 
into UNICOR in 1934 to provide training opportunities for inmates, 
control inmate behavior, and diversify production.
  In fiscal year 2005, Federal Prison Industries generated $765 million 
in sales with all revenue reinvested in the purchase of raw materials 
and wages for inmates and staff. As of 2004, there were 102 UNICOR 
factories at 71 different correctional facilities working on operations 
such as metals, furniture, electronics, textiles and graphic arts. 
UNICOR currently employs 19,720 inmates, or 17 percent of eligible 
Federal prisoners, at a rate of 23 cents to $1.15 an hour and, by 
charter, must be economically self-sustaining without any Federal 
appropriations.
  So, Mr. Speaker, the problem with the current system is the adverse 
impact it has had on small businesses which do not have the ability to 
compete with UNICOR's guaranteed market, even if they could provide a 
better deal for our government agencies.
  Mr. Hoekstra introduced H.R. 2965, the Federal Prison Industries 
Competition in Contracting Act of 2005, with the fundamental objective 
of correcting this problem by eliminating the requirement for Federal 
agencies to purchase products from UNICOR under most circumstances.
  H.R. 1829, the Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting 
Act of 2003 passed by a vote of 350-65 in the 108th Congress, and it is 
almost identical to this Federal Prison Industries Competition in 
Contracting Act of 2005, the notable exception being the authorization 
of a new work-based employment preparation program for Federal inmates 
where private sector firms can enter into agreements with UNICOR to 
prepare inmates to reenter society through real-world work and 
apprenticeships.
  The Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act would 
change the 1934 statute of Federal Prison Industries by requiring 
UNICOR to compete, let me repeat, to compete for business opportunities 
instead of relying on a mandatory government purchasing, prohibits 
inmate labor from being sold separate from inmate products, provides 
more remedial education and vocational training opportunities for 
inmates, authorizes alternative inmate work opportunities in support of 
nonprofit community service organizations, and it allows the Attorney 
General oversight and discretion to award individual source contracts 
should UNICOR lose a contract and endanger the safety of a Federal 
correctional institution.
  It establishes a $2.50 per hour minimum wage for prisoners who are 
within 2 years of release. It raises the maximum wage to half of the 
Federal minimum wage for all inmates by September 30, 2008, and equal 
to the Federal minimum wage by 2013.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, it increases the ability for public comment on 
proposed Federal Prison Industries expansions and ensures direct access 
to these comments by the board of directors.
  Considering our Nation's tradition on promoting fair competition and 
with the support of organizations and business interests such as the 
Associated Builders and Contractors, the Coalition for Government 
Procurement, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National 
Federation of Independent Business, the Uniform and Textile Service 
Association, the United States Chamber of Commerce, and the Prison and 
Justice Fellowship, it should be reasonable to apply good business 
practices to prison labor.
  Beyond fair competition, it is important to modernize the Federal 
Prison Industries program for this 21st century. UNICOR has operated on 
the same base model since 1934, despite diverse changes in labor and 
technology.
  Our Federal prisoners are beyond the days of simply stamping a 
license plate for a penny a day. If we are to remain committed to 
rehabilitation and our Federal system of prisons, then we need a 
serious commitment to give prisoners reasonable work skills, reinforce 
acceptable behavior, and reinstate these prisoners to a real world work 
environment.

                              {time}  1045

  Furthermore, we need a system that is business friendly and is cost 
effective to our Federal Government.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for swift passage of this rule, and, of 
course, H.R. 2965, the Federal Prison Industries Competition in 
Contracting Act of 2006.
  I, Mr. Speaker, stand in support for both the rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank Mr. Gingrey for the time, and I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule and to the 
underlying bill. In 1934, Congress had established Federal Prison 
Industries, or FPI, a government corporation that employs inmates in 
Federal prisons to produce goods and services for the Federal 
Government.
  FPI employs nearly 20,000 inmates in more than 100 prison factories 
to manufacture a number of products for the United States Government. 
Prisoners manufacture such items as clothing, textiles, fleet 
management of the vehicle 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 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 if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I claim that it is 
unfair to spend more than half a billion tax dollars to dissolve an 
effective and self-sustaining program. 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 an already 
successful educational and vocational program.

[[Page 18042]]

  This seems to me to be an extraordinarily wasteful way to spend 
American taxpayers' dollars. As a former judge, I know the importance 
of prison employment training programs. I personally witnessed the 
benefits of giving prisoners constructive work while they are 
incarcerated. While the Federal Prison Industries may need reform, I 
propose we seek other options. I propose we first ask the Bureau of 
Prisons what they think about reforming Federal Prison Industries.
  I propose we ask the Federal agencies that receive FPI products and 
services what improvements can be made. I am not convinced that this 
particular bill is necessary or that it is the best solution in 
reforming Federal Prison Industries.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why this bill could not 
have been considered under an open rule. It was in the last Congress, 
and this same measure passed in the last Congress, 350-65, was not 
taken up by the U.S. Senate, is not going to be taken up by the United 
States Senate in the next 2 weeks and probably not even in a lame duck 
session.
  There weren't very many of our colleagues who offered amendments at 
the Rules Committee last night, and of the Members who were not 
permitted to offer their amendments, Mr. Scott from the Judiciary 
Committee and Mr. Rohrabacher, a Democrat and a Republican, each had 
thoughtful amendments, which the full House should have been given the 
opportunity to debate.
  We didn't vote yesterday until 6:30 in the evening, and there isn't 
anything at least firm on the schedule on the floor Friday. So why not 
let the House work its will? Why continue to stamp out democracy here 
in the people's House while feigning to advocate democracy around the 
globe. It really kind of makes you go hmm, and it makes me wonder, Mr. 
Speaker.
  For all of the above reasons, I urge my colleagues to reject this 
rule and the underlying bill
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes 
to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the rule, not due to 
the merits of the bill before us, but because I am compelled to call to 
attention the complete debacle that I think is existing at the Federal 
Bureau of Prisons.
  I rise on behalf of my constituents in a small rural town in Mendota, 
California, to demand that the Federal Government stay true to its 
word, as a focus to the core of this issue, to focus on what I believe 
is smart budgeting in addressing the security demands that evolved with 
our country, as well as the Federal Government's commitment to make 
good on its commitments.
  In May of 2000 the city of Mendota was approached by the Federal 
Bureau of Prisons to build a medium security Federal correctional 
institution. The local elected officials, the community leaders have 
been strong supporters of this project and proud to provide the public 
service to our country, which also has the effect of encouraging 
economic stimulus that this prison would create.
  As you see here, over $100 million has already been spent on the 
facility. It is about 40 percent complete. This photograph was taken 
about a week ago.
  The funding, though, is now in jeopardy. The administration has 
proposed a rescission of $57 million in fiscal year 2002 and 2004 that 
has jeopardized the entire completion of this project. Mendota's 
contract is set to expire in October of this year, which, in this case, 
is anticipated that any new contract that will have to be reissued will 
cost the Federal Government and our budget 20 percent in additional 
dollars.
  Yet the Bush administration refuses the request to add additional 
dollars, dollars to complete this facility. The administration's 
approach to funding in this case, in my opinion, is penny-wise and 
pound foolish. There is no sound reasoning that would support cutting 
off the funding for the completion of this facility. We know what the 
issue is on the Federal level. We have, under the medium security 
facilities, currently over 37 percent over capacity throughout the 
country, 37 percent over capacity. The Federal Bureau of Prisons 
expects that they need to house 7,500 new Federal inmates annually.
  In California, our institutional system is 89 percent over capacity, 
and the Department of Corrections expects an increase of over 4,000 
inmates annually. This Mendota facility would provide 1,522 much-needed 
beds to help address this growing demand. The Federal Government has 
made a long-term commitment to construct and operate this facility.
  To bring this project to a virtual halt would be unfair not only to 
the citizens of Mendota, who have over an 18 percent unemployment 
level, of which 42 percent of the population is living below the 
poverty line. The President would provide good jobs and a major boost 
to the very depressed local economy.
  Now, when we talk about the administration's failure and their fiscal 
year irresponsibility to American taxpayers, I think this continues, 
when you begin to understand that the Bureau of Prisons proposes to 
begin the construction of two new facilities while they want to stop 
this one half completed. What sense does that make?
  That is right, believe it or not, we have a half-built prison in 
California in the city of Mendota. It will cost the Federal Government 
$2 million a year to mothball this facility, to go in and to make sure 
that they flush the toilets and they do the other kinds of things 
necessary to keep it operational.
  In closing, this is an untenable situation. It is an untenable 
situation for the city of Mendota. It is an embarrassment to this 
administration, which finds its credibility being shredded almost on a 
daily basis. It is clear that if the Bush administration refuses to 
provide the promised funding to this ongoing construction of this 
facility, this half-built facility will be standing proof to our 
administration's failure to keep its word and to honor its commitments.
  Ladies and gentlemen, I urge that reconsideration be taken to this 
funding rescission and that, in fact, we offer good common sense as it 
relates to our Federal budget. It is not good fiscal responsibility to 
stop construction of a half-completed prison and begin the construction 
of two new facilities that have yet to be started.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I don't question the gentleman from 
California's right to take an opportunity to advocate on behalf of his 
district and the construction of that Federal facility, and I am sure 
he knows of what he speaks. But getting more to the point of this 
particular bill, the gentleman, my good friend from Florida, wanted an 
open rule.
  Of course, I understand that. I think if I were on the other side, I 
would always want an open rule as well. But in the spirit of openness, 
I want to point out to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that I think there 
were eight or nine amendments submitted. We accepted five. Three of 
those amendments to this bill were Democratic amendments, one was a 
bipartisan amendment. Yes, there was one Republican amendment.
  The last time we passed this bill, there were something like, we had 
an open rule, and there were 14 amendments that were accepted. All of 
those amendments are included now in the text of this bill that we are 
discussing today.
  I just want to point out that the process of bipartisanship and 
openness, Mr. Speaker, let me just tell you, and remind my colleague 
from Florida, and I know he is aware of this, but in the committee, the 
ranking member, Mr. Conyers, supported this bill as did Mr. Watt, Mrs. 
Maloney, Ms. Waters, and Mr. Frank. The main amendment that came 
through committee concerned this issue of training, of better training 
of our current Federal prison population to help them be better 
rehabilitated and have an opportunity, as they go out into the 21st 
century.
  As we point out, we are trying to revise something that started in 
1934 with people stamping license plates.

[[Page 18043]]

There is a lot of modern technology, Mr. Speaker. I know all of our 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle understand that.
  If there is some way that we can give that training to these people 
in the prison system who want to change their lives, and, as soon as 
they get out, they get a good job, maybe even go to work for one of 
these private companies that is helping provide for their training 
through this program, that was a wonderful addition to the bill.

                              {time}  1100

  That, in fact, was new since the last time this bill came up. Again, 
Mr. Conyers, Mr. Watt, Mrs. Maloney, Ms. Waters and Mr. Frank were all 
very supportive of that.
  So the statement that ``if it ain't broke, don't fix it,'' I think it 
was broke, and I think my good friend from Florida's colleagues felt 
that it was broken, and in a bipartisan way we are trying to fix it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume only to respond to my good friend from Georgia that I am 
prepared, as I am sure all Members in this body are, to stipulate that 
this is an important matter. The question that I would ask and answer 
rhetorically is, is this the most important thing that we could be 
doing here? If it is, I am missing something, because I did not see the 
minimum wage, I did not see port security, I did not see the 
appropriations bills. All we have done is two of the 13 up to now.
  So if this is the most important thing, which has already passed in a 
previous session of Congress 350-65, and ain't going to pass the other 
body this week or next or before September 29, when the majority leader 
has said that we will go sine die during that particular weekend, I am 
here to tell you that this is a woeful response, and it is more than 
credible that it will make the suggestion that people make come to 
fruition that this is a do-nothing Congress, when in fact we are taking 
up something that may very well be important, but it sure ain't the 
most important thing to Jane and Joe Lunch Bucket in America.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
for the purpose of closing.
  The gentleman says that is not the most important thing, and I don't 
disagree with him. I think it is very important. It is not the most 
important thing. Of course, a lot of ``the most important things'' that 
he has mentioned this Republican majority has brought to the floor of 
this House and we have passed, some of that, most of it actually, in a 
bipartisan way, with support from the other side.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GINGREY. Of course, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from 
Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Most quickly, have we done the 
appropriations measures, and can the gentleman assure me that between 
now and September 29 we will pass the rest of the appropriations 
measures in the House of Representatives
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Florida knows, we 
have passed I guess it is 10 out of 11. We may have one appropriations 
bill that has not passed the House. All of the rest have. We are 
waiting on the Senate. We are very confident that we will next week, 
given the leader's colloquy for what our schedule is, I can't say for 
sure, but it is my understanding we will be dealing with both the 
Homeland Security appropriation and the Department of Defense 
appropriation next week.
  As I pointed out, we have passed all of these appropriations bills. 
We have done our work and we will continue to do our work. We are ready 
to receive those conference reports.
  In the meantime then, what are we to do? Is the gentleman suggesting 
we sit over here on the leadership majority side and do nothing? 
Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. We are doing our work.
  This is a very important piece of legislation, and I want to thank my 
colleague from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) for sponsoring it and for being 
a tireless champion of reform for Federal Prison Industries.
  As I discussed in my opening statement, it is important to protect 
the interests of business without diminishing the effectiveness of our 
Federal Prison Industries, also referred to as UNICOR. With H.R. 2965, 
the Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act of 2005, 
this Congress has an opportunity to promote fair competition and to 
update UNICOR for the 21st century, as I said earlier.
  This body passed similar legislation with an overwhelming 350-65 
majority. Federal Prison Industries are important for prisoner behavior 
control, for the safety of our Federal prison guards, and, furthermore, 
it serves as an opportunity, and this is most important, for inmates to 
learn skills necessary for life after prison. It helps reduce the 
number of repeat offenders and ultimately reduces the stress of our 
overcrowded prisons. My good friend the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Costa), of course, mentioned that in describing the facility in his 
district that is so needed.
  This current Federal Prison Industries system is outdated and it 
still operates off of the same executive order issued by President 
Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1934. Considering the global economy and 
accounting for further changes and the needs and exchange of goods and 
services in this, the 21st century, it is important to update this 
program in order to preserve its efficiency for rehabilitating 
prisoners.
  The Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act of 2005 
would preserve the successful formula of the current system with the 
checks and balances of a competitive market. It is no longer in the 
best interests of our government or Federal prisons to have a 
guaranteed artificial market. Our current system is not fair to small 
businesses who wish to compete for government contracts, it is not fair 
to the executive agencies trying to work within a tight budget, and it 
is not fair for the education of prisoners who need to learn new job 
skills and the nature of a competitive market.
  Outside of providing competition for outside businesses, H.R. 2965, 
the Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act of 2005 
would prohibit inmate labor from being sold separate from inmate 
products, it would provide more remedial education and vocational 
opportunities for inmates, and it would authorize alternative inmate 
work opportunities in support of nonprofit community service 
organizations.
  So, Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to reiterate the diverse support 
of H.R. 2965, the Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting 
Act of 2005, including businesses, civic organizations and the unions. 
It is important to pass legislation to reform Federal Prison Industries 
in order to sustain the program for the 21st century.
  I ask my colleagues, please support this rule and the underlying 
legislation
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this 
legislation that will end the unfair government-sponsored monopoly 
enjoyed by Federal Prison Industries.
  H.R. 2965 is a good bill that will protect the jobs of American 
taxpayers. According to the National Economic Council, 2.9 million 
manufacturing jobs have been lost since 2001. We should do everything 
possible to keep workers employed.
  FPI is, not competing on a level playing field. It pays its workers 
just 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 the Nation. 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 taxpayer dollars and protecting good jobs. In 
short, the way the free market is supposed to operate.
  H.R. 2965 also provides valuable alternative rehabilitative 
opportunities, including work in support of nonprofit, public service 
organizations, to better prepare inmates for a successful return to 
society.
  The bill enjoys broad bipartisan support, and has previously passed 
the House overwhelmingly. Additionally, H.R. 2965 has support from much 
of the business community and organized labor.

[[Page 18044]]

  I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation and to oppose any 
amendment that will weaken the underlying bill.
  Mr. GINGREY. 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.

                          ____________________