H.Res. 428

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.

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.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

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.)

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?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

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. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

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.

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. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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.

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

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. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Chairman, I am not sure which section this amendment is in. I would hope that it would not prejudice amendments in previous sections.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

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.

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

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. 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

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. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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.

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.

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).

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

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. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers.)

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. 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. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the author of this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).

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.

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.

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. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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. 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. Chairman, with that understanding, I am happy to support the amendment. I believe it makes a significant improvement to the bill.

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. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

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. 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.

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.

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.

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. 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

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. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding. I am happy to accept the amendment, and I hope it is adopted.

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

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,

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. 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.

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. 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.

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. 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.

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

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.

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. 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. 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. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

I thank the chairman for that endorsement.

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.

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

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.

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.

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. 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

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. 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.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

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.

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.