Panel frees agencies from prison purchase requirement

Government agencies could shop around for products they have traditionally been required to buy from prison workshops, under legislation passed Friday by the House Judiciary Committee.

Since 1934, items crafted by Federal Prison Industries have essentially enjoyed a monopoly on government contracts. This policy has prompted small businesses that produce similar products to complain that they are shut out of a large potential market.

FPI's preferential treatment is particularly harmful to the garment industry, said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y. Many of the products sold by prison workshops are similar to those produced by textile companies. They also produce furniture. With a stagnant economy, lawmakers should do more to support factories, Nadler said, instead of supporting policies that effectively prevent them from selling their wares to major buyers.

But there is also an argument for giving prison products priority, a number of committee members said at Friday's markup. By forcing FPI to compete with the private sector, the government runs the risk of severely undermining the valuable program, some lawmakers said. Prisoners who work while they are serving time are less likely to cause trouble when they are set free, those supporting FPI said.

Committee Chairman Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., R-Wis., argued that the 2003 Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act, H.R. 1829, strikes a good balance. The legislation would put prison products up for competition, satisfying businesses, but would also establish vocational training programs for prisoners, helping them prepare for jobs upon their release.

Despite the conciliatory measures allowing for alternative training programs, the legislation sparked considerable debate within the committee. It also forged unusual alliances, prompting Rep. Mark Green, R-Wis., to defend several comments made by Rep. Robert Scott, D-Va., in support of FPI.

Reps. Sensenbrenner and John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., offered an amendment that would allow the FPI board of directors to authorize prison workshops to produce certain highly requested products in quantities that exceed the "reasonable share of the market" allowed under the bill. This amendment passed by a voice vote.

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., introduced an amendment that sets a timetable for designing and implementing the vocational programs mandated in the bill and requires follow-up studies to make sure these programs have worked as intended. The committee accepted Schiff's amendment by a voice vote.

The committee also passed an amendment offered by Rep. Robert Scott, D-Va., which would require the comptroller general to complete a study by June 30, 2004, assessing the impact of requiring FPI to compete with the private sector, rather than Jan. 21, 2005.

Committee members defeated an amendment introduced by Green, by a vote of 19 to 8, with 10 committee members not voting. The amendment would have allowed the attorney general to suspend the competition promoted in the bill, if he thought that the competition harmed FPI and put public safety at risk.

Green referred to the amendment as a "safety valve" but Sensenbrenner urged his fellow committee members to vote against it, arguing it would undermine Congress' authority.

"Let's keep the decision-making power here," he said. "I don't want to punt the ball down the street to the Justice Department."

Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-Texas, offered an amendment that expressed lawmakers' intent to study a "good-time" release program to help nonviolent criminals adjust to the world outside prison. This amendment passed by voice vote.

A last amendment presented by Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., did not enjoy similar support. Waters proposed a measure that would require the FPI to pay workers a minimum wage of $2.50 an hour. This would help prisoners save money they could use upon release, she said.

But Sensenbrenner noted that the minimum wage would only make FPI less able to compete with the private sector for government contracts, as the rest of the bill requires. The amendment was defeated by a vote of 22 to 5, with 10 committee members not voting.

Committee members approved the entire bill by a voice vote.