PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Nov 18, 2004
Fair Access and Individual Responsibilities Act of 2004 - Amends the Federal criminal code to double the number of members of the board of directors of Federal Prison Industries (FPI), provide for their appointment by the Attorney General, and designate the Director of the Bureau of Prisons as FPI's chief executive officer. Directs the Attorney General to appoint an independent review panel to advise the board regarding the type and quantity of products to be produced and conditions of hire and work. Makes the Attorney General responsible for protecting Federal inmate participation rights and for facilitating their ability to meet financial responsibilities through successful competitive participation in the U.S. economy.
Designates prison industries as Class A (established as of December 31, 2002), B (established on or after January 1, 2005, and carried out by a competitive, independent, taxpaying entity), C (carried out by a private entity located in a Federal correctional institution), and D (pilot industries created to test reform of inmate employment and prison industries) industries.
Repeals (with an exception) requirements regarding the purchase of prison-made products by Federal departments on December 31, 2010. Authorizes the Attorney General to make matching grants to specified organizations to attract firms and create business entities in Federal and State correctional settings. Requires the Director to establish procedures to ensure that inmate workers have the right to join a labor organization and engage in collective bargaining.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Directs the Attorney General to modify correctional practices to improve the attractiveness and efficiency of Federal correctional facilities to ensure maximum inmate employment at prevailing wages.
People & committees
Rep. Conyers, John, Jr. [D-MI-14] · D–MI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 18, 2025. 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.5386 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.5386 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.5386 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.5386 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.