[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 155 (Tuesday, December 6, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H11092-H11096]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 2230
THE SECOND CHANCE ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Marchant). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) is
recognized for half the time until midnight, approximately 45 minutes.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, of course I come to the floor to
talk about a subject that we do not talk nearly enough about. And I
really did not intend to talk about tax policy or taxes, but after
listening to the last hour, and especially some portions of it, I just
could not resist, as I listened to some of the commentary. As a matter
of fact, it reminded me of the young fellow who went to Sunday school
and rushed home because he was so excited and told his mother, ``Mom,
you should have been with me at Sunday school. We just had a great
lesson. You really would have enjoyed it.
She said, ``Well, what was so exciting about it?
He said, ``Well, in Sunday school, they told us all about this great
general named Moses and how he led his army out of Egypt with the
Egyptians in hot pursuit. And when they got down to the Red Sea,'' he
said, ``Moses dispatched his engineers and had them build a pontoon
bridge and all of his soldiers went across. And then when the Egyptians
got on the bridge, he dispatched his demolition experts, and they
dynamited the bridge, and all of the Egyptians fell into the water and
drowned. Johnny's mother said, ``Now, Johnny, are you sure that is what
they told you?''
He said, ``Well, no, ma'am.'' But I figured you would believe this
more than you would what they did tell us.''
And listening to what some of my colleagues have been saying this
evening, I figure that the American people have got to believe
something other than that. I mean, I have been truly amazed about how
they can put money in the pockets of those at the very top, nothing in
the pockets of those at the bottom, and say that they are going to get
the economy moving. It would seem to me if they did it the opposite
way, if they put something in the pockets of those at the bottom, they
have no choice except to spend it. Every dime that they would get would
go right back into the economy, and it would circulate, and the guy at
the grocery store would get some of it. The person in the barber shop
would get some of it. The person selling Pampers would get some of it.
Well, at any rate, it would circulate, and the economy would then be
nourished and could grow and develop and not be one sided. But I really
did not come to talk about that. So let me move on.
I really came to talk about the reentry of the large number of
individuals who are incarcerated in our country. As a matter of fact,
the United States of America has become the most incarcerated nation on
the face of the earth. Right now as we speak, even tonight, there are 2
million people in our Nation's prisons and jails. Two million. More
people proportionately than we would find in prison in China or in
Russia or any other countries that we often talk about their human
rights violations. And it is a problem that we have got to get a handle
on because many of these individuals come home every year.
Right now, we expect about 650,000 to come home from jails and
prison, and when they come home, they need to be reintegrated. But,
unfortunately, when many of them come home, they cannot find a job.
They cannot find a place to stay. There are laws that prohibit them
from working.
In my State, for example, there are 57 job titles by law that an
individual who has a felony conviction could not hold. As a matter of
fact, a person could not even get a license to cut hair without some
intervention or a person could not be a mail technician unless they got
a waiver or some special consideration. So prisoner reentry has become
a big issue but not big enough.
Many of us have been trying to work on it, and we have a bill that we
have put together that we think will go a long way. And, of course, it
is no panacea. It is a small way of addressing the problem.
I was delighted when the President gave his State of the Union
address 2 years ago and suggested that we had to do something for these
individuals coming home, and out of that conversation, in many
instances, efforts have occurred, and ultimately we have the Second
Chance Act on the drawing board, on the table, waiting to be acted upon
that would simply provide some resources to assist these individuals.
It would also provide some coordination so that we can have the Justice
Department, the Education Department, the Labor Department, all working
jointly at the same time, to develop coherent strategies so that as
individuals return, there is enough of an effort to keep them from
going back.
Statistics suggest that when an individual comes out of prison,
unless there is some help for them, unless there is some intervention,
67 percent of them will have done what we call reoffend within a 3-year
period of time and more than half of them will be reincarcerated,
meaning the recidivism rate, in and out, in and out, money being spent,
where, if we could somehow or another try to help them to become self-
sufficient rather than spending $25,000 or $30,000 a year taking care
of them, they could help take care of other members of society and they
could pay some of those taxes that my colleagues have been talking
about. But if they are not working and if they are incarcerated with no
hope, they are not going to pay any of those taxes. So I am looking
forward to the time when we will pass the Second Chance Act.
I am so pleased to be joined by two of my colleagues, both who have
demonstrated a tremendous amount of commitment, a great deal of energy,
effort, and courage to find real solutions to the problems that plague
our society. I know that the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), a
former prosecutor, a judge who has seen corrections, who has seen
sentencing, who has seen people come before the court, probably had to
sentence some of them to correctional facilities, but also who knows
that it is our responsibility to help them as they return.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding
to me.
I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for his
leadership on these issues. He has been hosting sessions across this
country with regard to issues that impact ex-offenders and the African
American male population in our country and in some of the territories.
Reentry is an issue of common sense and of public safety. I am not on
the floor just as a Member of Congress. As my colleague said, I have
served as a general jurisdiction judge handling criminal felony cases,
even death penalty cases, and also as the elected prosecutor in
Cuyahoga County, Ohio. I have been working on community reentry issues
or prisoner reentry issues in Cleveland for 25 years. I served on the
board of the Community Reentry Program in the city of Cleveland. While
county prosecutor, I implemented a Pretrial Diversion Program, as well
as the Municipal Drug Court in the city of Cleveland.
And people said, Why as a judge or a prosecutor are you working on
these issues?
[[Page H11093]]
We must collectively, law enforcement, judges, prosecutors,
correctional officials, address this issue. Otherwise, we will continue
to spend tax dollars incarcerating and continuing to incarcerate
individuals. We need to contemplate that while they are incarcerated
that they have an opportunity to train, that they have an opportunity
to be educated.
I know a lot of people think that going to prison is like being in a
hotel. I guarantee it is not like being in a hotel, even though we used
to call our county jail the ``McFall Hilton.'' McFall was our sheriff.
It is nothing, as many contemplate. And while they are there, we need
to work on issues to give them skills once they hit the streets.
The programs that I spoke about implementing, the Pretrial Diversion
Program, the Municipal Drug Court, and some of the community reentry
programs, are still in existence. We need to contemplate that prisoner
reentry is not a Democratic issue, it is not a Republican issue. It is
a common-sense issue. The facts are clear that meaningful reentry
programs significantly diminish the chances that ex-offenders will
return to prison. They save taxpayer dollars and increase public
safety. So why not invest in enhancing reentry programs in order to end
the cycle of recidivism? That is exactly what the Second Chance Act
does.
Before I discuss the legislation, and I am going to leave that to
some of my colleagues as well, I just want to give a few statistics. In
2002, 2 million people were incarcerated in all of the Federal and
State prisons. Each year, nearly 650,000 return to communities
nationwide. Two-thirds of them are expected to be re-arrested. The
State of Ohio has one of the largest populations of ex-offenders
reentering the community, with about 24,000 ex-offenders returning to
their respective communities annually. Of those ex-offenders, about
6,000 will return to Cuyahoga County, my county, and almost 5,000 will
reenter in the city of Cleveland, which is the largest jurisdiction in
my congressional district.
Statewide, about 40 percent of ex-offenders will return to prison. In
Cuyahoga County, about 41 percent. Such high recidivism rates translate
into thousands of new crimes each year and wasted taxpayer dollars
which can be averted through improved reentry programs.
H.R. 1704, the Second Chance Act of 2005, allocates $110 million
toward a variety of reentry programs. One of the main components is the
funding of demonstration projects that will provide ex-offenders with a
coordinated continuum of housing, education, health, employment, and
mentoring service. This broad array of services will provide stability
and make the transition of ex-offenders easier, and in turn, reduce
recidivism.
One of the things that we have found over the years in our community
reentry programs is a lack of housing for ex-offenders. An ex-offender
comes home to a family and the family says, ``I cannot take you in. You
need to be somewhere else.'' An ex-offender comes home and does not
have access to drug treatment programs and maybe no access to mental
health programs. We found that statistically, inmates in many of the
prisons not only have a drug problem, they have a mental health
problem. And when they hit the streets, they often self-medicate
because they are not involved in any psychiatric program that provides
them the necessary drugs to able to help them work through their
issues. This is the first of a kind piece of legislation that is
critical to the success of ex-offenders but is also critical to the
success of our communities. We need to focus on these issues and begin
to break down the barriers.
{time} 2245
It is important because there are groups that are committed to
reentry on the ground, for example, the Community Reentry Program in my
city. But also in our State prison system, our director, Reggie
Wilkinson, has been very active in creating a program called the Choice
Act.
In that he has been able to implement services and programs beginning
in the penal institution so that as they come out to the street they
are already prepared. I am so pleased to have been a part of many of
these programs, and I am so pleased that our legislation has had a
hearing before the Judiciary Committee.
Many times you introduce legislation, the legislation goes to
committee and it never gets a hearing, does not get voted out of
committee; and then it kind of lingers and dies in committee. We were
pleased that we have had that Judiciary Committee hearing and pleased
to have the opportunity now to try and get it voted out and brought to
the floor of the House so all of our colleagues can talk about the
issue.
The other beauty of this program is that we have bipartisan support.
There are Democrats and Republicans on this bill. The trade
representative, Mr. Portman, was very active in that process. I can go
on and on and on talking about this issue and my experiences with the
program.
But what I will say is I am so pleased. I feel like it is like my
silver anniversary in community reentry issues that I am involved in.
It is great that I am getting to present an opportunity to talk about a
program that is so important to me.
And with that, because our time is limited, I am going to yield to my
colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), and say to him
again thank you so much for your leadership, thank you so much for your
concern.
I know that the people involved in this country, not only the
offenders but their families who are always looking at this, they say,
I sent my son to get a job, and when he went to get the job, if he told
them that he had a felony record he would never get the job, or if he
does not tell them, then they learn he has a record, he loses the job.
There are men and women out here who need to be put to work and take
care of their families.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman
from Ohio (Mrs. Jones). You are absolutely right. I get letters every
day that I can never read. I mean, we try and respond to all of our
mail. I have got a cardboard box of letters that we have not been able
to get to of individuals and their families simply expressing a hope
that this legislation is going to be passed, that there is going to be
some possibility that they would have an opportunity to reclaim their
lives and become again meaningful members of society.
And we certainly thank the gentlewoman for the role that she has
played. I am optimistic, because I think we are going to see this
legislation passed. Right now we have got about 85 sponsors in the
House. When it was introduced in the Senate, there were 10 cosponsors
in the Senate, or 10 sponsors, which is a good indication that it has
great support and that is continuing to rise.
One of the reasons I think we have been able to have a hearing in the
Judiciary Committee is because there is support among members of the
Judiciary Committee for the legislation. And one of the members of that
committee who has been very instrumental in not only moving this
legislation, but instrumental in protecting the rights of American
citizens, perhaps like none other, and using his office, we all like to
call him our constitutional scholar, that is one who understands the
Constitution and what it was that its framers were trying to protect
and provide, and so we are indeed delighted that the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott) is here with us this evening.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Davis) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones)
for working together tonight on this Special Order. I especially want
to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for his hard work in
dealing with prisoners and their problems.
Obviously, we are in a democracy where in most States prisoners
cannot vote, so there is nothing in it for you. However, there is
something in it for the prisoners. But also there is something in it
when you help those prisoners get out and do well. There is also
something in it for everybody else, because if they get out and do well
rather than get out, and with the present trend, two-thirds are going
right back to prison.
The public, the law-abiding public benefits from your work, because
they are less likely to be victimized by another crime. They also as
taxpayers are less likely to have to pay for the
[[Page H11094]]
$20,000, $30,000, or $40,000 a year incarceration for the two-thirds of
the prisoners that go back.
So the gentleman's work not only helps the prisoners, but also help
the law-abiding citizens in terms of their public safety and helps the
taxpayers in terms of not having to pay for the incarceration.
Your legislation is bipartisan legislation. It is not a panacea for
everything that needs to be done, but it certainly makes a significant
step in the right direction in ensuring those who leave our Federal and
State prisons have the assistance they need to avoid returning.
As you mentioned, there are close to 700,000 people who will leave
the prisons, the jails and prisons of the United States next year. Most
will be ill prepared to succeed in earning a living and leading a law-
abiding life, and the resources to help them are very limited. Your
bill will help them.
Now, we know that the chances of success for the prisoners are
extremely small. Two-thirds come back to prison within 3 years. We
know, as the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) has pointed out, that
it is hard to get a job if you have got a felony record. Obviously, the
fact that you have that gap in your resume does not help.
The fact that you have to say that you are a convicted felon does not
help you get a job. Most prisoners have limited education, they have
limited resources, they have limited job skills, they are disqualified
from many Federal programs by virtue of a drug offense.
And there are benefits that they are not entitled to. We also have a
situation where they have limited or no family support, no community
support. So it is not surprising that two-thirds of all prisoners
released are rearrested for new crimes within 3 years of their release.
Although the national crime rate has fallen significantly over the
last few years, we are seeing more and more people sent to prison for
longer and longer times, and the problem is going to continue to grow
before it gets better. We are still passing new bills with longer
prison sentences and establishing mandatory minimum sentences and other
kinds of sentences that make sure that the time served is even longer
and longer and more and more people are sent to prison.
We have seen some of these schemes, like the mandatory minimums
studied. And the studies have concluded that minimum mandatory
sentences are distorted in the effort to establish an orderly, fair,
and appropriate sentencing scheme. These programs discriminate against
minorities, violate common sense, and in the end waste the taxpayers'
money.
Now, all of this focus on the draconian sentences has led us to the
point, as you pointed out, over 2.2 million people are locked up in our
Federal prisons and State jails, a five-fold increase in just the last
20 years. The prison population on the Federal level has increased over
seven-fold in the last 20 years.
For example, in 1984 the daily lock-up count in prisons and jails was
just over 400,000. 400,000. 25,000 in the Federal prisons. Today 2
million prisoners are in State and local prisons. Almost 200,000 in
Federal prisons. 400,000 20 years ago, over 2 million today.
According to many studies, most of that is through the new sentencing
schemes like mandatory minimums. As a result of the focus on
incarceration, the United States leads the world in incarceration, by
far. We are in first place: 726 inmates per 100,000 population. 726.
Second place Russia, 532. We are at 726. 532. Most are in the
hundreds. England, 142 per 100,000. Australia, 117. Canada, 116.
Germany, 91. France, 95 per 100,000. The United States, 700-and-some
per 100,000. When you go into the inner cities, it is not 700-and-some;
it is 3,000 per 100,000. Five thousand in the inner cities. 116 in
Canada, 5,000 in our inner cities.
No matter how tough we get in sentencing, the fact is that 95 percent
of inmates will be released at some point. The question is whether they
are going to reenter society in a context that better prepares them to
lead law-abiding lives or whether two-thirds will return to prison
within 3 years, as the present trend is.
If we are going to continue to send more people to prison with longer
and longer sentences and spend that kind of money, we ought to spend
the little bit of money in this bill to reduce the chances when they
are released that they will be likely to come back to prison.
That is why the Second Chance Act is so important. And I applaud the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs.
Jones) and former Representative Portman. This is a bipartisan bill
supported by over 90 cosponsors, including me and virtually all of the
criminal justice advocates and organizations in the country, including
law enforcement who work with or are familiar with the situation
encountered by those leaving our prisons.
The only criticism I have heard of this legislation is that it
perhaps might not go far enough to fully address all of the problems of
those facing problems reentering society from prisons.
Now, I agree with that criticism, because it does not do everything
that needs to be done, but it is an important first step. And so I am a
cosponsor of not only this bill but one that is being developed by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) that was introduced last Congress
and will be refiled this Congress, the Reentry Enhancement Act.
That bill addresses many of the programs and issues touched by this
bill and goes even further by actually implementing many of the
programs on a national level.
Now, I have seen the value of these programs. The Virginia CARES
Program, Community Action Reentry System, Virginia CARES Program, has
been studied, and they have just little meager resources.
But those who get the benefits of that program, we have seen a 25
percent reduction in recidivism compared to like prisoners who do not
get a benefit from the program. Twenty-five percent reduction. When you
calculate that out in terms of those that do not come back into prison
and what we would have to pay for their incarceration, we save more
money than we spend.
And we not only help the prisoners lead a productive life, save more
money than we spend and also spare that 25 percent of victims who would
have been victimized, victims of crime, they do not have to be victims
of crime because we made that cost-effective expenditure of money
helping the prisoners, but also helping the taxpayer and helping public
safety.
As a society, we often breathe a sigh of relief when a long sentence
is issued for a crime as if that is the end of our responsibilities.
But with the numbers of prisoners and the amount of money we spend with
those long sentences and the fact that when they finish that long
sentence, they are going to turn around and go right back, we need to
do more.
We need to make sure that we do the financially and morally
responsible thing. We cannot allow ourselves the luxury of sounding
tough on crime, tough on crime policies with no attention to what
happens next.
To continue in the direction we are going is unfair to the taxpayer,
unfair to those prisoners, and unfair to the unsuspecting people that
will be victims of crime because we did not spend the money that we
needed to spend.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the work of my colleagues in developing and
promoting this legislation. I look forward to continuing to work with
them and other members of the bipartisan coalition to enact this
measure so that we cannot only help the prisoners but help the
taxpayers and help public safety.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
{time} 2300
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I thank the gentleman from Virginia. I know
that you are on Judiciary and there are people in our country whenever
you start talking about doing something that relates to corrections or
trying to assist individuals who have been convicted of crimes, people
accuse or charge you with being soft on crime. How do you respond to
people who suggest that this kind of legislation, this kind of
activity, this kind of effort is being soft on crime?
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I ask them to decide right up front what
choice they
[[Page H11095]]
are going to make on crime policy. Are you trying to reduce crime or
are you trying to play politics? We know what helps us get elected. We
know how to play politics. We also know how to reduce crime. Once you
have made that choice, the rest of crime policy is easy. If you are
playing politics, you don't have to worry about the effects of the
policy, you just have to make sure that you have got a good vote-
getting slogan. You can be wasting the taxpayers' money. You can be
even increasing crime. Some of these slogans like codifying ``If you do
the adult crime, you do the adult time.'' That slogan has been studied
up and down and the conclusion of every study is that the crime rate
will go up if you codify that slogan. The crime rate will go up. You
help yourself get elected, the crime rate goes up. Like I said, make
your choice. If you are interested in reducing crime, some of these
policies are stupid. If you are interested in getting elected, some of
those slogans are very helpful. When you get into helping prisoners,
let's decide not whether you are interested in the prisoner or not,
just whether you are interested in reducing crime. If your goal is to
reduce crime, this is one of the most cost-effective expenditures you
can make, a lot better than lengthening the sentence. Ninety-five
percent will get out of prison at one point or another. You have got
600,000 people, almost 700,000 people coming back into the community,
two-thirds of whom will end up going back to prison if we don't do
anything. If you want to take that 650,000, almost 700,000 people,
spend a little bit of money and you can reduce the crime rate amongst
that group, if you can reduce the crime rate, you will not only reduce
crime, you will also save the taxpayer a lot of money and spare the
potential victims of crime that victimization.
If you ignore what you have done for humanity in helping the
prisoners, just ignore that, just look at what you are doing for the
taxpayer and the law-abiding citizen, this is the right thing to do.
You also help prisoners lead a more productive life. But that is
frankly, from a public policy position, a secondary aspect. We are
trying to reduce crime. We are trying to save money. This saves money
and reduces crime so that the law-abiding citizen doesn't have to worry
as much about being a victim of crime. You do that by helping the
prisoner lead a productive life. That is what your bill does. It is
cost effective and reduces crime.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. I was about to jump out of my seat in order to
respond to being soft on crime. Again as a former prosecutor and judge,
I have served on a number of commissions with other law enforcement
people. In fact, one of the great community reentry programs is
actually part of our Ohio Department of Corrections under the
leadership of our director. But in the community reentry program that
is run by Lutheran Metropolitan Ministries, our motto is that people
are more likely to act their way into a new way of thinking than think
their way into a new way of acting. One of the things that we want to
do is to give them an opportunity to act into a new way of thinking and
to have new policies and new opportunities to do some things. The duty
of many of these reentry programs is that if we do not do something, we
bring offenders back into the community without mental health
opportunities, without drug treatment programs, without opportunities
for employment.
One of the things that is really impacted by a community reentry
program and the opportunity for jobs is child support. There are many
offenders who are unable to pay child support because they are not
working anywhere and we are paying the cost of supporting their
children. Through giving them meaningful employment, we will be able to
have them pay some of the cost of the children that they have fathered
or mothered. But as importantly as we all talk about the importance of
family, the importance of having a mother or father in your life, in
many of these programs we are able to bring these ex-offenders back to
understanding the need to be a good mother or a good father in order to
create better families, and having stronger families in communities
creates better communities. Having taxpaying, working citizens in our
communities provides a stronger tax base. There are all kinds of
reasons that we need to be in support of community reentry.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I thank the gentlewoman so much. I think we
are fortunate that many publications are taking the right spin on this.
I was just looking at a group of them: The Baltimore Sun, the Houston
Chronicle, Newport Daily News, Journal and Courier, Detroit News,
Baltimore Sun, Tulsa World, Daily Oklahoman, Baltimore Sun again,
American National Catholic Weekly, the Washington Times, the Charlotte
Observer.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. The Cleveland Plain Dealer.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. The New York Times, the Cleveland Plain
Dealer, the Chicago Tribune, the Chicago Sun Times, the Jewish World
Review, the Boston Globe, the Daily Oklahoman, the San Diego Union
Tribune, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Miami Herald, the Lancaster
News, San Francisco Chronicle, the Virginian-Pilot. All of these have
written positive editorials, stories, or entertained letters to the
editor. One that struck me that I picked up really came from Oklahoma.
It talks about a person.
``Facing five 20-year sentences at the age of 35, Debbie Green's life
seemed pretty much over. An abusive husband led her to a heavy meth
habit and that, in turn, to dealing the drug and landing repeatedly in
Oklahoma's prisons. But in 2001, 7 years into her third prison term,
she convinced the parole board to give her another chance. They did,
and so far their bet is paying off: Debbie has worked 4 years now at a
fencing company in Tulsa, staying clean, supporting herself, and paying
taxes. She credits her success to counseling programs on the inside,
strong support from her church and community since her release and her
own gritty determination to beat the odds.''
I think that programs like this one is an indication that there are
indeed places that people can go. And so the Second Chance Act not only
provides for the coordination but it also provides some resources. It
provides some money, block grants to States that can be used to
establish programs such as the one that Debbie benefited from in
Oklahoma. We had hoped that we were going to get this out this year.
Obviously that is not going to happen because of Katrina and all kinds
of other things that have crept or jumped into the legislative process,
but next year.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. The gentleman talked about spending the money.
We are spending the money. Six hundred thousand people get out every
year. Two-thirds of them come back. That is 400,000 going back. At just
$20,000 a year, that is $8 billion we are spending because we don't
reduce recidivism. It is actually probably more like $10 billion to $16
billion by the time you invest 20, 30, $40,000 a piece, but at a
minimum $8 billion, if we spent a portion of that, if we could
significantly reduce recidivism by turning lives around like the life
you mentioned instead of having to pay for incarceration, we are now on
the receiving end of the tax money that she is paying. Every program we
have seen, and this is no different, of those reentry programs when you
provide education, you reduce recidivism, save more money than you
spend, drug treatment, transitional services, significantly reducing
recidivism because of the expense of incarceration, 20, 30, $40,000 a
year, you don't have to reduce recidivism very much to save the
taxpayer some money. We are spending the money now and we ought to be
spending it better. We ought to be smart on crime rather than
rhetorical on crime.
{time} 2310
If we were smarter on crime, we would spend some of this $8 billion
that we are going to spend next year because we did not make the
investments last year. We need to make the investments in these people
to reduce recidivism and save money, and if we do that, it would save
more money than we spend if we pass this bill.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, we have still got a couple of
minutes left.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I just want to add that also the
Second Chance Act will provide demonstration grants, but it also will
create a national offender re-entry resource center for States and
local governments and service providers, faith-based, to be
[[Page H11096]]
able to elect and disseminate best practices and provide training and
support around re-entry.
It will create a Federal task force that will identify programs and
resources, identify better ways to collaborate, develop Interagency
initiatives.
Finally, it will create, in addition to the grants to nonprofit
organizations, offender re-entry research to authorize the National
Institute of Justice and the Bureau of Justice Statistics to conduct
research around re-entry.
We know there are programs working out there that are being run by
churches, that are being run by other organizations, and we need to
collect some of that data in order to implement some of the programs.
Again, I thank the gentleman for his leadership.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues,
and I often say to people that it is not really just about the ex-
offender, and it is not just to help those individuals.
If I am walking down the street and there is a person who needs $15
to get a bit of crack and I am carrying a briefcase and he thinks that
I am an insurance salesman rather than an elected official or
politician and that there might be something in there other than notes,
if he attacks me, then of course I am at risk. I may end up in the
hospital with a $200,000 hospital bill, $300,000, $500,000.
All of the misery, poverty, all of the things that are associated
with crime, many of those can really be reshaped, refocused and changed
with a sensible re-entry policy, and so I want to thank both of my
colleagues for coming and sharing.
____________________