PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 12, 2003
Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act of 2003 - Amends the Federal criminal code to replace provisions regarding the purchase of prison-made products by Federal departments with provisions establishing a Government-wide procurement policy relating to purchases from Federal Prison Industries (FPI), which shall generally require the use of competitive procedures.Requires that an analysis of the probable impact of a proposed expansion of sales within the Federal market by FPI on private sector firms and their non-inmate workers be made whenever FPI proposes to authorize the sale of a new specific product or service or to expand production of a current product or service.Authorizes FPI to enter into a contract with a Federal contractor to produce products as a subcontractor or supplier in the performance of a Federal procurement contract. Establishes within the Bureau of Prisons: (1) the Enhanced In-Prison Educational and Vocational Assessment and Training Program; and (2) the Cognitive Abilities Assessment Demonstration Program. Directs: (1) the Chief Operating Officer of FPI to develop proposals to have FPI donate products and services to eligible entities that provide goods or services to low-income individuals who would likely otherwise have difficulty purchasing such products or services; (2) the Director of the Bureau to afford to inmates opportunities to participate in programs and activities designed to help prepare such inmates to obtain employment upon release; (3) the Attorney General to establish the Federal Reentry Center Demonstration Project; and (4) the Comptroller General to undertake to have an independent study conducted on the effects of eliminating FPI's mandatory source authority.
People & committees
Rep. Hoekstra, Peter [R-MI-2] · R–MI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 350 - 65 (Roll no. 612).
House roll call 612 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 350 - 65 (Roll no. 612).
House roll call 612 · Individual votesThe House adopted the amendment in the nature of a substitute as agreed to by the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
The House rose from the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to report H.R. 1829.
DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with debate on the Strickland amendment under the five-minute rule.
POSTPONED ROLLCALL VOTE - At the conclusion of debate on the Jackson-Lee amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the noes had prevailed. Ms. Jackson-Lee demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until later in the legislative day.
DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with debate on the Jackson-Lee amendment under the five-minute rule.
DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with debate on the Hoekstra amendment under the five-minute rule.
DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with debate on the Scott (VA) amendment under the five-minute rule.
DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with debate on the Scott (VA) amendment under the five-minute rule.
DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with debate on the Waters amendment under the five-minute rule.
POSTPONED ROLL CALL VOTE - At the conclusion of debate on the Green (WI) amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the noes had prevailed. Mr. Green (WI) demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until later in the legislative day.
DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with debate on the Green (WI) amendment under the five-minute rule.
DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with debate on the Maloney amendment under the five-minute rule.
DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with debate on the Scott (VA) amendment under the five-minute rule.
DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with debate on the Smith (MI) amendment under the five-minute rule.
DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with debate on the Toomey amendment under the five-minute rule.
DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with debate on the Green (WI) amendment under the five-minute rule.
GENERAL DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with one hour of general debate on H.R. 1829.
The Speaker designated the Honorable E. Clay Shaw Jr. to act as Chairman of the Committee.
House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union pursuant to H. Res. 428 and Rule XVIII.
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1829 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill. Measure will be read by section. Bill is open to amendments.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 428. (consideration: CR H10469-10510)
Rule H. Res. 428 passed House.
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 428 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1829 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill. Measure will be read by section. Bill is open to amendments.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 165.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 108-286. (text of measure as reported in House: CR 11/06/2003 H10480, H10487-10488, H10489-10490, H10490, H10494-10495, H10495, H10496, H10497, H10497, H10497-10498, H10503, H10503, H10503, H10503, H10503, H10503, H10503-10504, H10504, H10504, H10504, H10504)
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 108-286.(text of measure as reported in House: CR 11/06/2003 H10480, H10487-10488, H10489-10490, H10490, H10494-10495, H10495, H10496, H10497, H10497, H10497-10498, H10503, H10503, H10503, H10503, H10503, H10503, H10503-10504, H10504, H10504, H10504, H10504)
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Discharged.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1829 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1829 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1829 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1829 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.