Mr. Chairman, Senator Akaka and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Philip W. Glover, and I am the elected President of the Council of Prison Locals. The Council represents over 26,000 employees in the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) system nationwide. We have 100 local unions that represent correctional officers, case workers, food service foremen, Federal Prison Industries (FPI) employees, and various others.

I would like to thank you for holding this oversight hearing on S. 346, a bill that would establish a government-wide policy requiring competition in federal agency procurements from FPI. It is an important topic for the safety and security of federal prisons. This proposed legislation would have real consequences for the men and women who work in federal prisons across the country.

The focus of today’s hearing is on the permanent elimination of the FPI mandatory source preference for the entire federal government. This sounds pretty simple and not too controversial. However, this change, if enacted, would have a devastating impact on the federal prison system.

Before I discuss this change and its impact, I would like to discuss the FPI program and its benefits. I also would like to point out some misinformation that always seems to come out when Congress is dealing with this issue.

FPI was created in the 1930s during the Great Depression. Congress and the President decided to create such a prison industries program to help prison wardens and correctional officers manage inmates and to create some positive rehabilitation inside the federal prison system.

Through the years, as the prison inmate population rose, so did the FPI program. In the 1990s, federal prison inmate populations exploded because of the enactment of minimum mandatory sentencing, elimination of parole, and the “war on drugs.” The FPI program expanded with it, causing certain private industry groups to become increasingly upset. Unfortunately, during the heated debates over FPI, the facts somehow get left out.

FPI receives a half of one percent of the entire federal procurement dollar. FPI’s office furniture sales, which seem to drive most of the debate on this issue, totaled $144,330,467 in 2003 – which was 1.7% of the total U.S. domestic furniture market. A year earlier in 2002, FPI furniture sales totaled $214,287,013 or 2.4% of the total domestic furniture market. This decrease in furniture sales between 2002 and 2003 was due to Section 811 and Section 819 of the National Defense Authorization Acts of 2002 and 2003, respectively. As a result of these declining sales, we have had to close or reorganize 18 factories, idle 2,000 inmates, and eliminate 100 law enforcement FPI positions. 

While we understand that citizens in the United States are experiencing uncertainty in the job market, our concern is the safety of federal prisons and the communities that we work in. Our job as correctional professionals is to keep the public safe from convicted felons, to run prisons in a humane way, and to try to give inmates a chance to become productive citizens.

FPI has been one of the best programs for all of these purposes, and the proposed legislation being discussed today will have a significant impact on it. I have added to my written testimony three memoranda from union leaders at three different federal prisons in Memphis, TN; Talladega, AL; and Bastrop, TX. All three prisons have experienced disruptions at one time or another. The memos I have provided state clearly that FPI inmates not only stayed out of the disruptions, they also actually helped to normalize the prisons once the disturbances were over.  This is our key argument against any legislation that would eliminate the FPI program. The inmates who work in it are less prone to get into trouble and cause disruption at the facility.

In the bigger picture, many people have discussed the issue of “inmate jobs vs. private citizen jobs.”  This does not have to be perceived as a problem. Our union requested information from the BOP under our negotiated contract to examine the issue. This information demonstrates that FPI has many contracts with private companies, mainly small- and minority-owned businesses.  We buy raw materials from textile companies in North Carolina. And the Teamsters would have less routes in small towns if our FPI factories weren’t there because we have contracts with UPS and Roadway Express.

I have attached a complete FPI state-by-state contracting list to my written testimony. In Pennsylvania, for instance, we send $77,987,649 back into local communities through buying materials for production, shipping and related items. In New Jersey, we have contracts with private companies that total $19,536,436. In Michigan, we have contracts totaling $56,107,581. Mr. Chairman, in your state of Illinois, we have contracts with private businesses that are worth $33,226,516.
These numbers all show that we are helping the economies in many states. We are not draining those states. This means that should the Senate approve S. 346, many of the private businesses we have contracts with will be hurt.

My overall concern with the proposed legislation is the lack of other job opportunities that it proposes. In addition, we are concerned that there is no phase-out of the mandatory source preference. The reason mandatory source has been effective is that it keeps work going to the inmates. Without that work, the inmates will become idle. As inmates become idle, they become bored and depressed – both of which increases the chance of inmate violence. That is why we must ask the Subcommittee to address the inmate job opportunity situation. We know that this proposed legislation – as did the DoD changes – will cause inmate idleness and eventually lead to more violence.

We believe if the Subcommittee adopts this proposed legislation without providing other types of inmate work opportunities – such as the repatriation of goods production and service work from overseas – that we will find ourselves in a very difficult situation. Section 1 of the bill eliminates mandatory source while Section 3 eliminates the service work we currently perform so even more FPI factories will close as a result.

We know that one of the S. 346’s sections authorizes the Attorney General to exempt a federal agency from competition requirements and maintain FPI work opportunities prevent “circumstances” that could be expected to “significantly endanger” the safe administration of a federal prison. However, we believe this section will not be used because no prison wardens will want to state that they cannot run their prison safely.

Something we think the Subcommittee needs to be aware of is the actions taken by the FPI Board of Directors. In the last two years, they have modified many issues in FPI. The Board of Directors have passed resolutions to grant all waivers so federal agencies do not have to be locked into FPI. They have passed a 20% rule on mandatory source items where FPI must stay under 20% in the federal market. Additionally, they have passed other resolutions which have dealt with many of the causes of the furor over the FPI program.

Mr. Chairman, I again want to thank you for holding this hearing. For the reasons I have stated, we are opposed to this legislation as written and believe a more comprehensive bill must be drafted. Our health and safety, we believe, depends on it.

I would be happy to answer any questions the Subcommittee may have for me.