F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the motion to recommit. It is the same point of order that I made on the previous motion to recommit. The motion to recommit violates clause 7 of rule XVI and on page 3, lines 1 and 2, it has the same defect of increasing the number of U.S. marshals who do not have jurisdiction over immigration violations.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I am happy that between the time the gentleman rose to oppose the amendment and the time he started speaking he was persuaded to support the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this manager's amendment would make technical corrections to H.R. 2965. The amendment modifies 13 dates in various provisions of the bill to reflect the passage of time since its introduction, and also corrects one sectional cross-reference, and a reference to an executive branch agency. In addition, this amendment adds a provision to correct an amendment that was accepted during the Judiciary Committee's markup, which would require Federal Prison Industries, Inc., to establish a cost accounting system. This technical change is necessary to implement the amendment. Finally, the proposed amendment makes a grammatical correction. The changes are all technical in nature, but essential to the proper implementation of the bill. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the underlying bill permits sole-source contracts between the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the Federal Prison Industries. This amendment would extend the sole-source authority to the entire Department of Justice. Existing law allows a head of any executive agency to make a sole- source contract award, if the agency head makes a determination that such an award is in the ``public interest.'' Following such a determination, Congress must be notified and the contract award suspended for 30 calendar days. This bill expressly provides the Attorney General to grant a noncompetitive contract whenever it is deemed necessary to maintain prison safety. Additionally, the bill allows the FPI board of directors to exceed the level specified for FPI sales if good cause is shown, which would include maintaining inmate equipment. DOJ operates a number of agencies, and the cost to the private sector in lost jobs and businesses would be extensive. In addition, the Department of Justice contains several law enforcement agencies, and requiring their personnel to utilize products made by inmates may raise safety concerns. Finally, the purpose of this legislation is to ensure that the government corporations do not take away opportunities from private businesses and to ensure that the taxpayers' money is wisely spent. The amendment would undermine that goal by denying the entire Department of Justice access to the benefits of competitive pricing, thereby forcing the taxpayer to bear the burden of higher prices. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. Do either Mr. Conyers or I have the right to close?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. It is the intention of the gentleman from Wisconsin to yield for the closing statement to the gentleman from Michigan, but I would ask the gentleman from Virginia to use up his time and then Mr. Conyers can close.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, it is pretty hard for somebody in the private sector that pays taxes on their manufacturing equipment, that pays property taxes on the building that is used to house the manufacturing equipment, that pays their employees a decent wage, that takes out Social Security and State and Federal income taxes and, hopefully, provides benefits, including health care benefits, to compete against those who are working in the prison where the taxpayers pay for the medical benefits, the taxpayers pay for the room and board, and the land and the prison is completely tax exempt. Now, the gentleman from Minnesota says that what FPI provides is bought by the Department of Defense. What this bill does is to provide the same reforms that were provided a few years earlier with FPI contracting with the Department of Defense. The gentleman from Minnesota says it has worked with the Department of Defense. What we want to do is to have it work with every other Federal agency as successfully as it has done with the Department of Defense.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2965, the Federal Prison Industries Competition and Contracting Act of 2006. This bill is substantially similar to H.R. 1829, which this body passed overwhelmingly during the 108th Congress by a vote of 350-65. As reported by the Judiciary Committee, the bill includes additional bipartisan improvements that resulted from negotiations with the Justice Department, prison fellowship, and other interested parties. Since my early days in the Congress, I have been committed to reforming Federal Prison Industries, or FPI, because I believe the manner in which this program currently operates imposes unacceptable burdens on government agencies, taxpayers, inmates, and private sector businesses. Under the current system, Federal agencies are required by law to purchase FPI products that meet the agencies' requirements and do not exceed current market prices. The mandatory source requirement eliminates competition with the private sector, harming businesses and stifling the creation of new jobs for law-abiding Americans. FPI enjoys a mandatory market for its goods, a facility to produce them in and cheap labor to manufacture them. Despite these advantages, government agencies frequently pay more for FPI products than if they were purchased from the private sector. The Government Accountability Office concluded in a 1988 report that ``The only limitation on FPI's price is that it may not exceed the upper end of the current market price range.'' The GAO report also raised questions about the timeliness of delivery of these products and the quality of FPI products. While the FPI has had serious problems, this legislation does not seek to eliminate it, but would reform FPI to require that it compete for Federal Government contracts in the same manner as other businesses. FPI is well equipped to succeed in the competitive marketplace because it is not faced with the same operating costs as average businesses, such as providing health insurance, retirement benefits, or paying union wages. And the facilities, of course, that FPI does use in the manufacturing process are Federal prisons and not on property tax rolls. In recent years, FPI has demonstrated its competitiveness by obtaining several large, multiyear contracts with the Department of Defense and other Federal agencies, even though government procurement policies have been changed to permit these agencies to determine whether FPI products meet competitive pricing and quality benchmarks. This legislation also helps inmates by establishing a position of Inmate Work Training Administrator to create additional inmate work opportunities, and allows FPI to create a program that will allow inmates to perform jobs that are being performed outside the United States. The bill also addresses concerns about providing meaningful training for inmates by requiring FPI to devote some of its earnings to additional inmate vocational training, education opportunities, and release preparation. The bill increases access to educational opportunities, including remedial and modern, hands-on vocational programs which have been shown to be effective in reducing recidivism. The bill provides alternative inmate work opportunities by authorizing the production of products or services for donation to community service organizations, and allows Federal inmates to perform public service work for units of local government. Finally, the bill addresses concerns about the low wages paid to inmates by requiring the Secretary of Labor to establish an inmate training wage in consultation with the Attorney General for those performing FPI jobs. Mr. Chairman, as Members of Congress, we have a duty to ensure that government corporations do not take away opportunities from small businesses. We have a duty to ensure that the taxpayers' money is wisely spent. Neither of these things can be guaranteed under the current FPI regime. By passing this legislation we will ensure that all Federal Government agencies will have the ability to utilize taxpayer dollars in the most efficient manner possible, and that private industry will have the right to compete with FPI for contracts. H.R. 2965 will also ensure the continued viability of FPI, and provides many avenues for FPI to pursue alternative rehabilitative work and training opportunities for inmates. Mr. Chairman, I am proud of this comprehensive legislation to reform the Federal Prison Industries. I urge Members to support it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a bad one because it would authorize the FPI to sell inmate-furnished services in the commercial market, which it first initiated in August of 1998. In February of that year, FPI obtained a legal memorandum from the Department of Justice Criminal Division stating that the sale of inmate-furnished services was not expressly prohibited by existing law, notwithstanding the fact that 18 U.S.C. section 1761(a) generally prohibits the introduction of results of inmate labor into the commercial market. This view was later adopted as the Department's official position, and though not issued by the Office of Legal Counsel, the then Attorney General offered FPI's new commercial market service initiative based on the Criminal Division's opinion. FPI's 1934 authorizing statute prohibits sales into the commercial market. The Attorney General was persuaded to authorize commercial sales of inmate-furnished services by FPI because neither FPI's authorizing statute nor the generally applicable prohibition, also from the 1930s, specifically mentions services. In the 1930s, services were not a large part of the economy, so they were not specifically mentioned by the legislation. However, the clear intent of the statute was to prohibit such sales in the commercial market, because they would create unfair competition and cause liability concerns. The reinterpretation reversed 75 years of precedent. The bill would clarify that FPI cannot sell either goods or services in the commercial marketplace. It would grandfather all contracts that are operational at the time of the agreement. That for the first time specifically authorized FPI to enter into services contracts with Federal agencies. However, it would not allow new contracts for services in the commercial marketplace. The amendment would permit FPI to continue its 1998 self-authorized expansion into the commercial services marketplace without restriction. It would continue to subject non-inmate workers being paid market driven wages, and the firms that employ them to unfair competition, using FPI workers being paid an average FPI wage of $.90 an hour. If you are for the minimum wage, you would have to be against this amendment, because there is competition. Additionally, telemarketing contracts, which are the most common forms of services provided, might allow inmates access to the personal financial information of individuals, raising significant privacy concerns. If you are for privacy, you ought to be against the amendment. For these reasons, I hope the amendment is defeated. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the author of the bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 2965, to be considered shortly.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of floor consideration of H.R. 2965, the ``Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act of 2006,'' the Committee on the Judiciary sets forth, with respect to the bill H.R. 2965, the following estimate and comparison prepared by the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. This cost estimate is in addition to the one set forth by the Committee in H. Rept. 109- 591. H.R. 2965--Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act of 2006 Summary: H.R. 2965 would amend the laws that authorize the Federal Prison Industries (FPI), a government-owned corporation that produces goods and services for the federal government with prison labor. Under current law, most federal agencies are required to award purchase contracts to FPI on a noncompetitive basis if FPI has products available to meet the agencies' needs and the cost would not exceed current market prices. Such products include office furniture, textiles, vehicle tags, and fiber optics. Under H.R. 2965, this requirement to award noncompetitive purchase contracts to FPI would be phased out over the 2007-2012 period. The bill would authorize the appropriation of $357 million over the 2007-2011 period for new FPI programs. In addition, CBO expects that additional amounts would be needed to pay for security costs at federal prisons. Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 2965 would cost $445 million over the 2007-2011 period. Federal agencies might be able to purchase some goods and services less expensively because of the added contracting flexibility the bill would provide, but CBO has no basis for estimating such savings. The bill would have no significant effect on net direct spending by FPI, CBO estimates. H.R. 2965 contains an intergovernmental mandate as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), but CBO estimates that the cost to state, local, and tribal governments for complying with this mandate would be insignificant and well below the threshold established in the act ($64 million in 2006, adjusted for inflation). The bill contains no new private-sector mandates. Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 2965 is shown in the following table. The cost of this legislation falls within budget function 750 (administration of justice). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--