Jim Sensenbrenner: “this amendment is a bad one because it would authorize the FPI to sell inmate-furnished services in the commercial…”

“this amendment is a bad one because it would authorize the FPI to sell inmate-furnished services in the commercial market, which it first initiated in August of 1998. In February of that year, FPI obtained a legal memorandum from the Department of Justice Criminal Division stating that the sale of inmate-furnished services was not expressly prohibited by existing law, notwithstanding the fact that 18 U.S.C. section 1761(a) generally prohibits the introduction of results of inmate labor into the commercial market. This view was later adopted as the Department's official position, and though not issued by the Office of Legal Counsel, the then Attorney General offered FPI's new commercial market service initiative based on the Criminal Division's opinion. FPI's 1934 authorizing statute prohibits sales into the commercial market. The Attorney General was persuaded to authorize commercial sales of inmate-furnished services by FPI because neither FPI's authorizing statute nor the generally applicable prohibition, also from the 1930s, specifically mentions services. In the 1930s, services were not a large part of the economy, so they were not specifically mentioned by the legislation. However, the clear intent of the statute was to prohibit such sales in the commercial market, because they would create unfair competition and cause liability concerns. The reinterpretation reversed 75 years of precedent.…”