| October 2, 2003 | Contact: Michael Wilson, Director of Government Affairs |
| FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE | 877/770-9274 mwilson@trsa.org |
Bipartisan Support, Need for Level Playing Field Cited
The Textile Rental Services Association (TRSA) submitted comments October 1 in support of H.R. 1829, Hoekstra-Frank-Collins-Maloney-Sensenbrenner-Conyers “Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act of 2003”, which is designed to protect workers and businesses from unfair competition from the Federal Prison Industries, Inc. (FPI), a Government owned corporation. Under its current authorizing statute, the FPI can force its captive Federal agency “customers” to buy an FPI manufactured product on a non-competitive basis.
In remarks presented to the House Workforce, Empowerment and Government Programs Subcommittee and the Tax, Finance and Exports Subcommittee of the House Small Business Committee which held a hearing on the impact of Federal Prison Industry on small business and the economy, TRSA President/CEO Richard Ekfelt voiced the organization's strong support for H.R. 1829, which was introduced March 12 by Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI).
b “Rep. Hoekstra's proposed legislation enjoys broad bipartisan support of the Competition in Contracting Coalition, made up of business, labor, and federal managers who are actively seeking a level playing field with FPI to ensure a fair and efficient federal procurement process”, said Ekfelt in his remarks.
While TRSA strongly supports H.R. 1829, Ekfelt urged the subcommittees to ensure H.R. 1829 or similar legislation includes a strong provision regarding services. “Without strong Congressional action, FPI will precede full throttle into these small-business dominated service sectors,'” said Ekfelt.
The textile rental industry is particularly concerned with FPI’s assertion that it possesses the authority to sell services in the commercial market, without limitation. FPI’s position is based on a questionable 1998 Department of Justice (DOJ) determination that inmate-furnished services provided by FPI are not explicitly prohibited by the broadly applicable 1934 statutory prohibition on the sale of the results of inmate-labor in interstate commerce. The statute specifically includes a prohibition on the sale of inmate-produced goods/products, but makes no specific mention of services. As such, FPI has aggressively marketed services in the commercial market since 1998, reversing 64 years of practice.
Ekfelt further remarked that FPI enjoys significant advantages in any competition with small businesses in the private sector. The FPI pay inmates less than two dollars per hour, far below the minimum wage and a small fraction of the wage paid to most private sector workers in competing industries. “While damaging to all businesses, the effects of government subsidized competition is particularly harmful to small businesses,” said Ekfelt.
Click here to view TRSA's comments. (MS Word Format)
| ### |