[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 186 (Thursday, December 1, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H8679-H8686]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ONE STOP SHOP COMMUNITY REENTRY PROGRAM ACT OF 2021
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1499, I
call up the bill (H.R. 3372) to authorize implementation grants to
community-based nonprofits to operate one-stop reentry centers, and ask
for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Schrier). Pursuant to House Resolution
1499, the amendment printed in part A of House Report 117-587 is
adopted, and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 3372
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``One Stop Shop Community
Reentry Program Act of 2022''.
[[Page H8680]]
SEC. 2. COMMUNITY REENTRY CENTER GRANT PROGRAM.
(a) Program Authorized.--The Attorney General is authorized
to carry out a grant program to make grants to eligible
entities for the purpose of creating community reentry
centers.
(b) Application Requirements.--Each application for a grant
under this section shall--
(1) demonstrate a plan to work with community stakeholders
who interact with formerly incarcerated people or individuals
with a conviction record and their families to--
(A) identify specific strategies and approaches to
providing reentry services;
(B) develop a needs assessment tool to survey or conduct
focus groups with community members in order to identify--
(i) the needs of individuals after conviction or
incarceration, and the barriers such individuals face; and
(ii) the needs of the families and communities to which
such individuals belong; and
(C) use the information gathered pursuant to subparagraph
(B) to determine the reentry services to be provided by the
community reentry center;
(2) identify the institutions from which individuals who
are released from incarceration are likely to reenter the
community served by the community reentry center, and develop
a plan, if feasible, to provide transportation for such
released individuals to the community reentry center, to the
individual's residence, or to a location where the individual
is ordered by a court to report;
(3) demonstrate a plan to provide accessible notice of the
location of the reentry intake and coordination center and
the services that it will provide (either directly or on a
referral basis), including, where feasible, within and
outside of institutions identified under paragraph (1);
(4) demonstrate a plan to provide intake and reentry needs
assessment that is trauma-informed and gender-responsive
after an individual is released from an institution, or, in
the case of an individual who is convicted of an offense and
not sentenced to a term of imprisonment, after such
conviction, and where feasible, before release, to ensure
that the individuals served by the center are referred to
appropriate reentry services based on the individual's needs
immediately upon release from an institution or after
conviction, and continuously thereafter as needed;
(5) demonstrate a plan to provide the reentry services
identified in paragraph (1)(C);
(6) demonstrate a plan to continue to provide services
(including through referral) for individuals served by the
center who move to a different geographic area to ensure
appropriate case management, case planning, and access to
continuous or new services, where necessary, and based on
consistent reevaluation of needs;
(7) identify specific methods that the community reentry
center will employ to achieve performance objectives among
the individuals served by the center, including--
(A) increased access to and participation in reentry
services;
(B) reduction in recidivism rates;
(C) increased numbers of individuals obtaining and
retaining employment;
(D) increased enrollment in and degrees earned from
educational programs, including high school or the equivalent
thereof, and institutions of higher education and receipt of
professional or occupational licenses;
(E) increased enrollment in vocational rehabilitation,
technical schools, or vocational training;
(F) increased numbers of individuals obtaining and
maintaining permanent and stable housing; and
(G) increased self-reports of successful community living,
including stability of living situation and positive family
relationships; and
(8) to the extent practicable, identify State, local, and
private funds available to supplement the funds received
under this section.
(c) Preference.--The Attorney General shall give preference
to applicants that demonstrate that they seek to employ
individuals who have been convicted of an offense, or served
a term of imprisonment and have completed any court-ordered
supervision, or that, to the extent allowable by law, employ
such formerly incarcerated individuals in positions of
responsibility.
(d) Evaluation and Report.--
(1) Evaluation.--The Attorney General shall enter into an
agreement with a nonprofit organization with expertise in
analyzing data related to reentry services and recidivism to
monitor and evaluate each recipient of funds under this
section.
(2) Report.--Not later than one year after the date on
which grants are initially made under this section, and
annually thereafter, the Attorney General shall submit to
Congress a report on the program, which shall include--
(A) the number of grants made, the number of eligible
entities receiving such grants, and the amount of funding
distributed to each eligible entity pursuant to this section;
(B) the location of each eligible entity receiving such a
grant, and the population served by the community reentry
center;
(C) the number of persons who have participated in reentry
services offered by a community reentry center, disaggregated
by type of services, and success rates of participants in
each service to the extent possible;
(D) the number of persons who have participated in reentry
services for which they received a referral from a community
reentry center, disaggregated by type of services, and
success rates of participants in each service;
(E) recidivism rates within the population served by each
community reentry center, both before and after receiving a
grant under this section;
(F) the numbers of individuals obtaining and retaining
employment within the population served by each community
reentry center, both before and after receiving a grant under
this section;
(G) the number of individuals obtaining and maintaining
housing within the population served by each community
reentry center, both before and after receiving a grant under
this section;
(H) the number of individuals enrolled in an educational
program, including high school, or the equivalent thereof,
and institutions of higher education, both before and after
receiving a grant under this section;
(I) the number of individuals enrolled in vocational
rehabilitation, technical schools, or vocational training,
both before and after receiving a grant under this section;
and
(J) for each eligible entity receiving a grant under this
section, the number of individuals employed who have been
convicted of an offense, or served a term of imprisonment and
have completed any court-ordered supervision, to include the
number of formerly incarcerated individuals in positions of
responsibility.
(e) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Community stakeholder.--The term ``community
stakeholder''--
(A) means an individual who serves the community and
(B) includes--
(i) a school official;
(ii) a faith leader;
(iii) a social service provider;
(iv) a leader of a neighborhood association;
(v) a public safety representative;
(vi) an employee of an organization that provides reentry
services;
(vii) a member of a civic or volunteer group related to the
provision of reentry services;
(viii) a health care professional; and
(ix) an employee of a State, local, or tribal government
agency with expertise in the provision of reentry services.
(2) Community reentry center.--The term ``community reentry
center'' means a center that--
(A) offers intake, reentry needs assessments, case
management, and case planning for reentry services for
individuals after conviction or incarceration;
(B) provides the reentry services identified under
subsection (b)(1)(C) at a single location; and
(C) provides referrals to appropriate service providers
based on the assessment of needs of the individuals.
(3) Eligible entity.--The term ``eligible entity'' means a
community-based nonprofit organization that--
(A) has expertise in the provision of reentry services; and
(B) is located in a geographic area that has
disproportionately high numbers of residents, when compared
to the local community, who--
(i) have been arrested;
(ii) have been convicted of a criminal offense; and
(iii) return to such geographic area after incarceration.
(4) Reentry services.--The term ``reentry services''--
(A) means comprehensive and holistic services that improve
outcomes for individuals after conviction or incarceration;
and
(B) includes--
(i) seeking and maintaining employment, including--
(I) assistance with drafting resumes, establishing emails
accounts, locating job solicitations, submitting of job
applications, and preparing for interviews; and
(II) securing any licenses, certifications, government-
issued identifications, or other documentation necessary to
obtain employment;
(ii) placement in job placement programs that partner with
private employers;
(iii) obtaining free and low-cost job skills classes,
including computer skills, technical skills, vocational
skills, and any other job-related or other necessary skills;
(iv) supporting preparation for post-secondary education,
including academic counseling, peer mentoring, and community
support;
(v) locating and maintaining housing, which may include
housing counseling, assisting with finding and securing
affordable housing including in areas of opportunity,
assisting with applications for subsidized housing and
housing-related benefits, locating and identifying temporary
shelter when housing cannot be found immediately and applying
for home energy and utility assistance programs;
(vi) obtaining identification cards, driver's licenses,
replacement Social Security cards, birth certificates, and
citizenship or immigration documentation;
(vii) registering to vote, and applying for voting rights
to be restored, where permitted by law;
(viii) applying for or accessing high school equivalency
classes, vocational rehabilitation or technical courses;
(ix) applying for loans for and admission to institutions
of higher education;
(x) financial counseling planning, empowerment or coaching;
[[Page H8681]]
(xi) legal assistance or referrals for record sealing or
expungement, forfeiture of property or assets, family law and
custody matters, legal aid services (including other civil
legal aid services), and relevant civil matters including
housing and other issues;
(xii) retrieving property or funds retained by the
arresting agency or facility of incarceration, or retrieving
property or funds obtained while incarcerated;
(xiii) transportation, including through provision of
transit fare;
(xiv) individual and familial counseling;
(xv) problem-solving, in coordination with counsel where
necessary, any difficulties in compliance with court-ordered
supervision requirements, including restrictions on living
with certain family members, contact with certain friends,
bond requirements, location and residency restrictions,
electronic monitoring compliance, court-ordered substance use
disorder treatment, and other court-ordered requirements;
(xvi) communication needs, including providing a mobile
phone, mobile phone service or access, or internet access;
(xvii) applying for State or Federal government benefits,
where eligible, and assisting in locating free or reduced
cost food and sustenance benefits;
(xviii) life skills assistance;
(xix) mentorship;
(xx) medical and mental health services, and cognitive-
behavioral programming;
(xxi) substance use disorder treatment;
(xxii) reactivation, application for, and maintenance of
professional or other licenses;
(xxiii) providing case management services, in connection
with court-ordered terms of release, or other local publicly
supported social work case management;
(xxiv) safety planning with victims of domestic violence,
dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, and human
trafficking; and
(xxv) applying for State Vocational Rehabilitation services
for individuals with disabilities that may qualify or conduct
an evaluation to determine whether they may be eligible or
potentially eligible for vocational rehabilitation services.
(5) Success rate.--The term ``success rate'' means the rate
of recidivism (as measured by a subsequent conviction or
return to prison), job placement, permanent housing
placement, or completion of certification, trade, or other
education program.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated
$10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2022 through 2026 to
carry out this section.
(2) Equitable distribution.--The Attorney General shall
ensure that grants awarded under this section are equitably
distributed among the geographical regions and between urban
and rural populations, including Indian Tribes, consistent
with the objective of reducing recidivism.
SEC. 3. GRANTS FOR REENTRY SERVICES ASSISTANCE HOTLINES.
(a) Grants Authorized.--
(1) In general.--The Attorney General is authorized to make
grants to States, Indian Tribes, and units of local
government to operate reentry services assistance hotlines
that are toll-free and operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
(2) Grant period.--A grant made under paragraph (1) shall
be for a period of not more than 5 years.
(b) Hotline Requirements.--A grant recipient shall ensure,
with respect to a hotline funded by a grant under subsection
(a), that--
(1) the hotline directs individuals to local reentry
services (as such term is defined in section 2(e));
(2) any personally identifiable information that an
individual provides to an agency of the State or Indian Tribe
through the hotline is not directly or indirectly disclosed,
without the consent of the individual, to any other agency or
entity, or person;
(3) the staff members who operate the hotline are trained
to be knowledgeable about--
(A) applicable Federal, State, Tribal, and local reentry
services; and
(B) the unique barriers to successful reentry into the
community after a person has been convicted or incarcerated;
(4) the hotline is accessible to--
(A) individuals with limited English proficiency,
consistent with applicable law; and
(B) individuals with disabilities;
(5) the hotline has the capability to engage with
individuals using text messages.
(c) Best Practices.--The Attorney General shall issue
guidance to grant recipients on best practices for
implementing the requirements of subsection (b).
(d) Preference.--The Attorney General shall give preference
to applicants that demonstrate that they seek to employ
individuals to operate the hotline who have been convicted of
an offense, or have served a term of imprisonment and have
completed any court-ordered supervision.
(e) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian Tribe'' has the
meaning given the term in section 4 of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304).
(2) State.--The term ``State'' means--
(A) a State;
(B) the District of Columbia;
(C) the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; and
(D) any other territory or possession of the United States.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated $1,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2022
through 2026 to carry out this section.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for
1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees.
After 1 hour of debate, it shall be in order to consider the further
amendment printed in part B of House Report 117-587, if offered by the
Member designated in the report, which shall be considered read, shall
be separately debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not
be subject to a demand for a division of the question.
The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Jordan) each will control 30 minutes.
General Leave
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3372.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, H.R. 3372, the One Stop Shop Community Reentry Program
Act of 2021, is truly a public safety-minded bill that would create a
grant program within the Department of Justice to support community
reentry intake and coordination centers.
The centralized centers opened pursuant to this bill would offer
those leaving incarceration the resources necessary to successfully
rejoin and reintegrate into our communities through DOJ and community-
funded reentry programs.
Now, let me be very clear: I am delighted that there are the kind of
sensitive community efforts across America, spotty in different States
and different cities, who believe in reentry. That is why we believe
this legislation is so important, because it federalizes and increases
the opportunity for all Americans facing the daunting responsibilities
of what reentry is to have a lifeline.
There exists a great need for these programs envisioned in this
legislation as more than 600,000 people return to their communities
each year after serving time in State and Federal prisons, as do nearly
9 million people from county jails, while more than 2.5 million people
complete parole and probation.
We can't deny these people an opportunity to be again contributing
citizens in a positive way.
Individuals with criminal convictions face daunting challenges upon
release. The overwhelming majority of those released from custody
receive minimum preparation during their incarceration and inadequate
assistance to get back on their feet after they are released.
Their convictions may limit employment prospects, educational and
training opportunities, public housing assistance, and access to social
services. They should not, but they do.
Even a minor criminal conviction can erect substantial barriers and
trigger far-reaching collateral consequences, maybe even access to
college education.
Due in part to the difficulty of overcoming these barriers, five out
of six people who have spent time in a State prison will be arrested
for a new crime within 9 years of their release.
We cannot waste human resources or talent in this way. That is why
policies designed to improve reentry outcomes have broad bipartisan
support, as demonstrated by the passage of our First Step Act and the
Sentencing Reduction Act, which incentivizes education and recidivism
reduction programs for people in Federal prisons.
While the First Step Act and Second Chance Act, first introduced by
my good friend, Danny Davis, and other initiatives have been
successful at the Federal level, the majority of returning citizens are
exiting State and local facilities, and there is no overall and
comprehensive effort to address the challenges of reentry.
An example of the type of community reentry center supported by this
legislation is in Tulsa, Oklahoma,
[[Page H8682]]
where community organizations offer a comprehensive model of reentry
services. The services offered through the Tulsa Reentry One-Stop have
significantly reduced recidivism and increased employment. In 2015, 77
percent of the individuals who successfully completed their
reintegration program remained employed after exiting the program.
There is the proof.
H.R. 3372 would establish a grant program to support reentry centers
like Tulsa and ensure support is more available for all individuals
across the Nation from the moment they are released. Support would
include assistance with transportation, housing, skills training, and
even advanced education.
One-stop reentry centers would also assist reentering individuals in
obtaining identification and applying for eligible public benefits.
Those who have formal reentry plans would be able to find case
management assistance and court-directed wraparound support at the
reentry centers.
This, again, would be a lifeline for a new direction, not for the
individual only, but for their family, their neighbors, their
neighborhood, and where they live.
In addition to the one-stop reentry centers, this bill would
authorize a second mechanism to assist individuals reentering
communities that do not have large enough populations of reentering
individuals to maintain a standalone reentry center. In these
communities, H.R. 3372 would provide grants to operate free reentry
hotlines that operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to assist those
recently released from incarceration with reentry services near their
homes.
Madam Speaker, the Judiciary Committee has a responsibility not to
look only at urban crises, urban crime, and urban solutions. We must
look at the hamlets, villages, suburbia, and elsewhere. Rural
communities need our assistance.
We specifically thought it was important to have this hotline to be
able to assist them. This element of the bill is particularly important
in our smaller communities.
Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle might argue that
the funding authorized in the bill is too high, but we know that the
high rates of recidivism equal this amount of money, leaving
individuals coming out of incarceration as having nowhere to go.
{time} 1245
Their actions can become more costly to Americans than our investment
in changing their lives.
This bill would address a pressing nationwide need, providing
individuals with the tools and support they need to successfully
reenter society, ultimately making our community safer.
Now, I have had the privilege of serving alongside of Representative
Karen Bass for a number of years. I take this moment to publicly, on
behalf of her colleagues, congratulate her for her next step in life:
Becoming the first woman to ever become mayor of the great city of LA.
I can say that because there is another great city, Houston.
But I give her my congratulations and I know her colleagues would do
so, as well.
Representative Bass worked with leadership on this issue, as well as
joining with bipartisan cosponsors. We know it has widespread support
and, therefore, we are looking forward to introducing this important
legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, H.R. 3372 authorizes the Attorney General to provide
grants to community-based nonprofits to operate one stop reentry
centers.
The biggest problem, though, is the Department of Justice already
does exactly what this bill would require it to do.
The Second Chance Act of 2007, reauthorized by Congress and signed
into law by President Trump in the First Step Act of 2018, provides
comprehensive assistance to individuals in transition from prison back
to the community. This bill is duplicative. It is redundant, and maybe,
most importantly, the Democrats know that.
Last Congress, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland
Security held a hearing. The majority's own briefing memo for that
hearing highlighted the reporting center in Somerset County,
Pennsylvania. And the center said this: It was a community-based
correctional program that has been designed to provide services for its
participants at one location.
This is the exact type of program outlined in H.R. 3372. And indeed
the center's program received a grant from the Justice Department's
Bureau of Justice Assistance.
In fact, the name of that grant is Smart Supervision: Reducing Prison
Populations, Saving Money, and Creating Safer Communities.
H.R. 3372 is duplicative of efforts found in the Second Chance Act
under which nonprofit entities are eligible for grant funds. While we
want successful reentry programs to reduce recidivism, we should not be
creating duplicative and additional bureaucracy in the process.
Also, the bill encourages State, Indian Tribes, and local governments
to employ sex offenders, murderers, and human traffickers, and other
dangerous criminals to operate the reentry service assistance hotlines.
H.R. 3372 authorizes $7.5 million in grants to States, Indian Tribes,
and local governments to operate these reentry service assistance
hotlines that direct individuals to local reentry services.
It requires the Attorney General to give preference to applicants who
would employ people to operate the hotlines, ``who have been convicted
of an offense or have served a term of imprisonment and have completed
any court-ordered supervision. But the bill provides no exceptions for
violent offenders, such as sex offenders, murderers, human traffickers,
and other dangerous criminals.
While it might be appropriate to employ certain offenders who have
demonstrated full rehabilitation, Congress should not be incentivizing
local communities to hire certain offenders who may not have been
rehabbed.
What should we be doing? Spending our time, our limited time, in
addressing the rampant crime epidemic in America. Cities are rejecting
lenient, soft-on-crime policies and encouraging prosecutors to actually
enforce the law.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, my dear friend, Ranking Member
Jordan, speaks to a particular point that I just have to respond.
I am so glad he cited positive examples of what a reentry program can
do, but he is giving evidence, comfort, and advocacy for this
legislation. Because isolated programs will not help Americans. We now
give a broad-based opportunity for cities, hamlets, villages, and
counties across America--rural and urban, North, South, East and West--
to look at their landscape of those reentering and accessing this one-
stop program.
We have already said 600,000 are released, and we have already said
that these persons want to rehabilitate themselves. Why would anybody
oppose this legislation? And it is bipartisan. Let me remind my friends
that these are individuals who have served their time.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island
(Mr. Cicilline), a distinguished member of the committee and the
subcommittee chair.
Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3372, the One
Stop Shop Community Reentry Program Act.
Every year, more than 600,000 people in the United States are
released from State and Federal prisons. But even after they are
released, in many ways their sentences continue.
Criminal records create unbelievable barriers to securing housing,
education, employment, healthcare, and other basic necessities. And
there is no Federal agency currently responsible for helping newly
released people to navigate these issues.
This bill provides much-needed funding for the creation of a
community-based solution to help formerly incarcerated people access
vital services that will help them return to their
[[Page H8683]]
families and neighborhoods successfully.
As mayor of the city of Providence, I assembled a reentry council to
support similar reentry programs in the city. I witnessed firsthand how
such services deliver desperately needed support and effectively
reduced an individual's reoffending and thereby making our communities
safer and more prosperous.
That is why I am proud to support this legislation. I am confident it
will help people who are exiting the criminal justice system
effectively get back on their feet.
I thank Congresswoman and future Los Angeles mayor, Karen Bass for
her great leadership on this bipartisan, bicameral bill, and on so many
other important issues facing our country.
Madam Mayor, you will be sorely missed in this Chamber and for your
work in the Committees on the Judiciary and Foreign Affairs.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill today.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), a respected member of the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, I voted for this bill in committee
because it is a worthy objective.
Assisting prisoners to successfully reenter society, find jobs, and
take their place as law-abiding citizens is essential to the safety and
stability of our society.
But on further reflection, I have come to believe that this is a
program that the Federal Government should not be funding through
grants to local organizations.
Grants have become the third biggest expenditure of the entire
Federal Government, behind only Social Security and National Defense.
We give away a half-trillion dollars a year in this manner, that is
roughly $4,000 from an average family's taxes, with little oversight,
little accountability, little follow-up, and little results.
Reentry preparation should be a top priority of Federal and State
prison systems. State prisons are a State responsibility. They should
be funded by taxpayers of the individual States. Probation departments
exist precisely to promote reentry, and the model in this bill should
be considered by them.
Now, Federal prisons are our responsibility, and we also have
probation services that should be striving toward implementing concepts
in this bill.
If this measure funded Federal programs that expanded reentry
preparation within the Federal prisons and probation system, I would
strongly support it, but it doesn't. Instead, it takes the money of a
taxpayer in one State and throws that money at a nonprofit organization
in another State with the hope that some good will come from it. And
some might.
But more likely, it will disappear into the salaries of various
groups who will write glowing reports of their work and apply for more
grants next year. And if for some reason the Federal Bureau of Prisons
is unable to provide these services, then they should be competitively
bid out to contractors with specific performance measurements and
accountability.
Federal grant spending is completely out of control and it has to
stop. Reckless spending--all for good causes--I have never seen a grant
program that doesn't promise to do good things, but it is destroying
our prosperity. That spending is driving the worst inflation in 40
years and the most ruinous debt in our Nation's history. And it is hard
to find a grant program that actually delivers on its promises.
I think it is time that we began to spend taxpayers' money as
carefully as they spend what they have got left after we have taxed
them into debt.
This bill falls short of that responsibility.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. There lies the key element to my friends who are ignoring the
fact that this one-stop legislation has bipartisan support. It means
that someone who was in opposition to my party, my caucus, supports
this. The work that Ms. Bass did with all of us was a bipartisan
effort. And the reason is because this is an investment.
And my friends keep talking about grants. And so it is the grant that
continues to be the line of argument and the--how should I say it--the
bee sting. And they are wrong because grants have oversight. Grants
require these organizations to apply and present the best practices,
the best evidence. And so I am very glad that it is a grant. But it
also gives those with broad needs across the land the fair opportunity
to apply for a grant to be able to have these kinds of programs.
The one-stop model that this legislation promotes would aim to
provide complete reentry services to address the critical elements of
the reentry process that promote long-term reentry success, which as I
said, is housing, employment, education, and healthcare.
The bill will ensure that returning citizens can effectively access
the services funded through the many bills that we have tried to work
on.
Now let me just be very clear. One of my good friends called off a
list of offenders that really triggers fear, apprehension, and
distaste. Well, those are the very individuals that we would hope that
through treatment, medical care and otherwise, and getting them into a
proper program, that they can be contributing, that their families do
not have to be fearfully looking over their shoulder as to what have
they done next. We have to try. And these programs will hire those who
have a difficult time finding employment. But you can be assured that
working with the program they will be screened prior to their
employment; their employment will reduce their likelihood to
recidivate.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is extremely important that we take the tough
questions and give good answers. Tough questions about: What do you do
with those who are trying to reenter? What you do is you have a good
program that is tough and that it works.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I would just point out there is nothing in
the bill that requires that you screen these individuals. It says you
are supposed to hire these folks with that past criminal record to
answer the hotlines. That is what the bill says. If you want to amend
it to say no, that they have to be screened even more before you let
them answer the phones, that is not what the legislation says.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, just in a moment let me indicate that
you can always find just a sliver on which to oppose.
I hold in my hand a whole list of Republicans that believe the bill
works and should work. So that, we should take off the table.
Republicans and Democrats support this legislation.
And then I can assure you that people answering the phone will not be
randomly answering the phone. They will be under a supervised program,
as this program relates. We would hope and expect that they would be
the kind that can listen and take the intake of those who are desperate
and trying to find a way not to go back to crime.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
Again, I would just point out that that is not what the legislation
says. It says the Attorney General shall give preference for hiring
folks, that I described in my opening statement, to answer these
hotlines.
So what the gentlewoman from Texas, my friend, said is just not
accurate. It doesn't reflect what is in the bill itself.
That's not the first thing she said today that is not accurate.
Earlier, the gentlewoman made a statement. I wrote it down: Isolated
programs will not help Americans.
How do you know?
{time} 1300
Which isolated programs are you talking about?
I assume you were talking about the one I referenced in Pennsylvania
that is doing exactly the same thing this bill seeks to do.
Have you checked that program out?
If they don't help Americans, then whom do they help?
Are they helping illegal immigrants?
I don't know.
Again, all I am saying is it is important when we have these debates
we stick to the facts.
[[Page H8684]]
For the reasons I outlined before, Mr. Speaker, we oppose the
legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time
to close.
Mr. Speaker, I always like a words game with my good friend from
Ohio, so let me clarify.
An isolated program means that a program in Tulsa and a program in
Pennsylvania do not help someone in Idaho. And so what this one-stop
program does is it gives the good works of the people of Pennsylvania
and Tulsa, it gives Americans the opportunities in cities, hamlets,
urban centers, and rural hamlets the opportunity to have the same exact
program and to invest in the 600,000, those who are coming out of
incarceration, give them the same opportunity for ensuring that they
will have that access to this program
That is what our intent was on the Judiciary Committee, and that is
what the intent was on the many individuals, if you will, who were
trying to craft something that will work for all of America.
Now, let me share with you, Mr. Speaker, an article titled: ``To keep
people from returning to jail, Mesa County follows other communities'
reentry roadmap.'' Many people transitioning from jail or prison
struggle to reenter society. So here is Mesa County's new program with
housing, jobs, transportation, and mental health services.
What we simply want to do is to get this program out.
I will just share you with the story of Richard Gallegos who was
locked up in the Mesa County jail for the first time at age 18. He
spent the next 8 years in and out of jail--typically drug- and alcohol-
related misdemeanors that sometimes led to more serious incidents,
including nonviolent domestic disputes and resisting arrest. He said
that at 27 he was sentenced to prison for a drug and firearms
violation.
Altogether, Gallegos, was born and raised in Grand Junction and now
45 years old, has spent 5 years in State prison, and 3 years in county
jail, and for the past 4 years he has been on probation. He now works
at a job where he is learning masonry, a switch from the oil and gas
industry work he did previously.
``I am staying honest, humble,'' he said. ``I try not to walk with
too much shame. The best thing in my favor is I have been forgiven by
those I have wronged. They understand my drug addiction.''
These are individuals whom we don't want to throw by the wayside. We
want to make sure they get into this program.
Mr. Speaker, I include this article in the Record.
[From the Colorado Sun, Nov. 8, 2022]
To Keep People From Returning to Jail, Mesa County Follows Other
Communities' Reentry Roadmap
(By Sharon Sullivan)
Richard Gallegos was locked up in the Mesa County Jail for
the first time at age 18. He spent the next eight years in
and out of jail--typically drug and alcohol-fueled
misdemeanors that sometimes led to more serious incidents,
including (nonviolent) domestic disputes and resisting
arrest, he said. At 27, he was sentenced to prison for a drug
and firearms violation.
Altogether, Gallegos, born and raised in Grand Junction and
now 45 years old, has spent five years in state prison and
three years in county jail. For the past four years, he has
been on probation. He now works at a job where he's learning
masonry, a switch from the oil and gas industry work he did
previously.
``I'm staying honest, humble,'' he said. ``I try not to
walk with too much shame. The best thing in my favor is I
have been forgiven by those I've wronged. They understand
drug addiction.''
Gallegos shares an apartment with an adult daughter, but
many formerly incarcerated friends are not so lucky, he said.
``People are coming out of jail with no resources,''
Gallegos said. ``You better hope you have a support system.
Resources are slim to none coming out of county jail.
``You're on your own, facing what put you in there in the
first place. People's first thought is often, `I want to do
what's right--but where do I go?' ''
Mesa County officials have long recognized that many people
transitioning from jail or prison struggle with substance
abuse, mental illness or both--compounding the multiple other
challenges they face when reentering society, and often
lacking much-needed resources like Gallegos did.
The Mesa County Sheriff's Office compared names of frequent
users of the jail with frequent visitors to emergency rooms
at Grand Junction's two acute care hospitals, Community
Hospital and St. Mary's Medical Center. (To protect patient
privacy, the two hospitals did not disclose names, but
confirmed that many people appeared on both lists.) They
identified 60-90 frequent users of both the jail and
emergency rooms. Most of these frequent users face challenges
related to mental health diagnoses or substance abuse, said
Mesa County Commissioner Janet Rowland, who has led an effort
to address the issue.
In September, Mesa County launched a new multiagency
collaboration (county officials refer to it as MAC), aimed at
helping people successfully transition from incarceration.
The collaboration connects people to agencies that can assist
with employment, housing, transportation and other basic
needs, as well as access to mental health services or
rehabilitation programs to combat drug or alcohol addictions.
Reentering society
In April 2021, 50 percent of people held in the Mesa County
Jail were on mental health medications, Mesa County Sheriff
Todd Rowell said. Mental health and/or substance abuse issues
are a significant factor in recidivism rates at the jail,
said Rowell. While people can receive treatment for these
conditions while incarcerated, they often lack continuity of
care once they leave jail and, thus, can be prone to
reoffending, he said.
In 2020, when overall arrests were down due to the COVID-19
pandemic, one man was arrested 19 times, Rowell noted. A
dozen other people were arrested four to eight times each.
``I was frustrated. I felt people had almost zero chance to
succeed after jail,'' Rowell said. ``Life is hard anyways,
particularly after spending three months in jail. Finding
work is almost impossible. It's a benefit to any county to
understand those challenges to change the recidivism.''
Mesa County did not have a transition coordinator at its
jail until it hired Julie Mamo in 2019. She visited jails in
Boulder and Douglas counties to learn about their reentry
programs while creating Mesa County's program. The new
multiagency collaboration builds on the program Mamo founded.
Thus far, Mesa County has enlisted three agencies to
provide services to help people with reentry: Amos
Counseling, a Grand Junction-based counseling service;
Foundations 4 Life, an organization that provides substance
use disorder and mental health services to people involved in
the justice system; and the Freedom Institute, a nonprofit
that offers WAGEES (Work and Gain Education and Employment
Skills), a community reentry program within the Colorado
Department of Corrections.
The Freedom Institute has already been providing WAGEES
services for prison parolees in Grand Junction. Its new
county contract now allows the Freedom Institute to offer
those same services to the jail population.
Lisa Mills, Mesa County's behavioral health strategies
manager, decides which agency can best meet the specific
needs of a person leaving jail. Case managers are given no
more than 10 clients--the goal is to meet with people daily
if necessary--to ensure they are adhering to prescription
medications, able to access food assistance, acquire bus
passes, find employment and housing. Upon release, people are
met at the jail by an agency staff member for rides to where
they are staying or wherever else they need to go. The
agencies work closely with the jail's two transition
coordinators.
The county secured a $400,000 grant from the Colorado
Department of Human Services' Office of Behavioral Health to
fund the program. St. Mary's Medical Center and the Mesa
County Sheriff's Office each pitched in another $300,000 for
a total of $1 million.
``It's a long overdue program,'' said Lieutenant Henry
Stoffel of the Mesa County Sheriff's Office. ``A lot of
people leave our facility and don't have basic human needs,
and so they often reoffend. We want to get them out of that
cycle.''
Returning to prison for minor offenses
It's taken 45-year-old Gary Swenson 20 years to get out of
that cycle. His involvement with the justice system began at
age 12 when he was sentenced to a Colorado juvenile detention
center for a burglary he committed with a relative and two
friends. By age 18 he was addicted to methamphetamine. He has
spent half his life in and out of state prison.
Swenson said he found it challenging to meet his parole
obligations without a reliable source of transportation.
Public transit didn't exist in the Grand Valley when he
needed it, and he wasn't allowed to drive until he had
fulfilled parole obligations. Employers were annoyed that he
asked to leave work a couple times each week to attend
mandatory substance abuse classes. He also had to take time
off to submit weekly urine samples for drug screenings--which
he was required to pay for himself, along with the classes.
``Your employer has to be real understanding, which they're
usually not,'' Swenson said.
[[Page H8685]]
He said most of his time behind bars was for parole
violations, including once for receiving a speeding ticket,
or on other occasions for missing those classes--all
violations for which he'd be sent right back to prison.
``It was always a prison sentence,'' as opposed to
probation or a halfway house, Swenson said.
ProPublica (a national nonprofit media outlet that receives
funding from The Colorado Trust) recently reported on how
easy it is to be sent back to prison for minor offenses. The
number of people in Colorado who return to prison within
three years is 50 percent, one of the worst recidivism rates
in the nation, according to a 2018 Virginia Department of
Corrections report cited by ProPublica.
Douglas County's reentry program includes a jail
medication-assisted treatment program that helps people with
opioid use disorder. The county had a 42 percent recidivism
rate in 2021, which is lower than the statewide average, said
Nicole Beckett, the jail-based behavioral health services
administrator in Douglas County. Its reentry program includes
working with probation officers, pretrial officers, public
defenders and community behavioral health professionals.
``It's definitely our goal to disrupt the cycle of
incarceration,'' Beckett said. ``People with substance use
disorders face risk of relapse, making them a challenging
population to help.''
Boulder County's reentry program added a housing
coordinator, Kim Smith, in 2019 to focus specifically on
helping people find housing in the city's extremely tight
market. People on probation are prohibited from leaving
Boulder County to seek more affordable housing elsewhere.
With such a competitive housing market, landlords can easily
choose not to rent to people with criminal records, said
Smith. The reentry program has seen an 80 percent success
rate of people avoiding recidivism.
Mesa County officials say reentry programs are rare in
rural areas due to a lack of resources. County Sheriffs of
Colorado, a nonprofit that provides programs and support to
sheriffs statewide, does not track the number of counties
offering transition programs.
While Mesa County Jail offers some programs in-house, it
needs more space, and continuity of care has been an issue
once people leave jail, Stoffel said. He would like the
jail's transition program to double or triple in size, and
said he expects reentry programs to increase across Colorado.
``They're in treatment for 45 days; recovery is for life,''
Mamo said.
Readjusting to life
In July, Mamo launched a program similar to one she
witnessed in Douglas County that helps people acquire
identification cards. A Department of Motor Vehicles mobile
unit comes to the jail twice a month to issue IDs.
``Most people need two forms of ID,'' said Lory Villumsen,
a second transition coordinator hired in June. ``We process
the application to help with getting them their Social
Security card.'' The transition team is additionally working
on finding birth certificates for people.
Mamo has created partnerships with transitional sober
living spaces, reunited people with family members who reside
outside the community, and enrolled people in treatment
programs--sometimes out of town. The challenges of reentry
are similar, whether transitioning from jail or prison,
except lengthier prison sentences often means a person has
become more ``institutionalized,'' making it more difficult
to adjust to life on the outside, Mamo said.
People who are incarcerated are told when to eat, when to
sleep, what to wear and what to do; ``when people leave jail,
we need to empower them to make all these decisions,''
Stoffel noted.
Freedom Institute executive director Micah Espinoza hopes
that working with people leaving county jail will keep them
out of prison.
``Once you're convicted of a felony, and have fulfilled
your sentence, you still pay for that the rest of your
life,'' Espinoza said. As part of the multiagency
collaboration, ``we're targeting people going in and out of
jail for typically petty offenses. Why are they committing
these crimes? It's usually poverty, homelessness, substance
abuse, mental health.''
Swenson said he's learned from his mistakes; he's been out
of prison for almost two years and is on unsupervised
probation for the first time. He works as a peer specialist
for the Circle Program, a residential treatment program in
Grand Junction for men age 18 and older with concurrent
substance abuse and mental health disorders.
``There are people in this program I've been in prison
with, gotten high with,'' Swenson said. ``They see 'if Gary
can do it,' they can. It's me not forgetting where I came
from.
``Instead of locking people up for possession, give us an
opportunity first to work with them,'' he continued. ``A lot
of guys don't want to be high, live on the streets, be
homeless--it's just all they know. Being part of this program
is a chance to see an opportunity.''
Ms. JACKSON LEE. My concluding remarks include programs in Boulder
County that can be done.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, once you are convicted of a felony and have
fulfilled your sentence, you will still pay for the rest of your life.
We need to find a way where these individuals can contribute and not be
those who enter out and then go in. It is important to learn from their
mistakes, but we have got to help them.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support the underlying
legislation. Again, I thank those who cosponsored it and the main
cosponsor, Congresswoman Karen Bass.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3372, the ``One Stop Shop Community Reentry Program
Act of 2021,'' is a public-safety minded bill that would create a grant
program within the Department of Justice to support community reentry
intake and coordination centers.
The centralized centers opened pursuant to this bill would offer
those leaving incarceration the resources necessary to successfully
rejoin and reintegrate into our communities through DOJ and community-
funded reentry programs.
There exists a great need for the programs envisioned in this
legislation, as more than 600,000 people return to their communities
each year after serving time in state and federal prisons, as do nearly
nine million people from county jails, while more than 2.5 million
people complete parole or probation each year.
Individuals with criminal convictions face daunting challenges upon
release. The overwhelming majority of those released from custody
receive minimal preparation during their incarceration and inadequate
assistance to get back on their feet after they are released, while
their convictions may limit employment prospects, educational and
training opportunities, public housing assistance, and access to social
services.
Even a minor criminal conviction can erect substantial barriers and
trigger far-reaching collateral consequences. Due in part to the
difficulty of overcoming these barriers, five out of six people who
have spent time in a state prison will be arrested for a new crime
within nine years of their release.
That is why policies designed to improve reentry outcomes have broad
bipartisan support, as demonstrated by passage of the First Step Act,
which incentivizes education and recidivism-reduction programs for
people in federal prisons.
While the First Step Act, Second Chance Act, and other initiatives
have been successful at the federal level, the majority of returning
citizens are exiting state and local facilities, and there is an
overall need for a more comprehensive approach to address the
challenges of reentry.
An example of the type of community reentry center supported by this
legislation is in Tulsa, Oklahoma where community organizations offer a
comprehensive model of reentry services. The services offered through
the Tulsa Reentry One-Stop have significantly reduced recidivism and
increased employment. In 2015, 77% of the individuals who successfully
completed their reintegration program remained employed after exiting
the program.
H.R. 3372 would establish a grant program to support community
reentry centers like the Tulsa Reentry One-Stop and ensure support is
made available for all individuals the moment they are released.
Support would include assistance with transportation, housing, and
skills training.
One Stop reentry centers would also assist reentering individuals in
obtaining identification and applying for eligible public benefits. And
those who have formal reentry plans would be able to find case
management assistance and court directed, wrap-around support at the
reentry centers.
In addition to the One Stop reentry centers, this bill would
authorize a second mechanism to assist individuals reentering
communities that do not have large enough populations of reentering
individuals to maintain a standalone reentry center.
In these communities, H.R. 3372 would provide grants to operate free,
reentry hotlines that operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to assist
those recently released from incarceration with reentry services near
their homes. This element of the bill is particularly important for
rural and smaller communities.
Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle might argue that
the funding authorized in this bill is too high. But we know that the
high rates of recidivism of individuals leaving incarceration are far
more costly to American communities.
This bill would address a pressing nationwide need, providing
individuals with the tools and support they need to successfully
reenter society, ultimately, making our communities safer.
I thank our colleague, Representative Karen Bass, for her leadership
on this issue, as well as her bipartisan cosponsors, for introducing
this important legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Recognizing the high rates of recidivism in our communities and the
lack of access to reentry resources, H.R. 3372 would establish a
[[Page H8686]]
new grant program within DOJ to support One Stop Community Reentry
Centers.
When individuals lack access to reentry services such as housing, job
training, and mental health resources, they are more like to be
rearrested and reincarcerated. This bill would improve public safety by
reducing recidivism.
I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R.
3372, the One Stop Shop Community Reentry Program Act of 2021. I am
proud to support this bill and thank my good friend and fellow
Californian Congresswoman Bass for her leadership, and Chairman Nadler
and the Speaker for bringing this important bill to the floor.
There are currently about 2 million people living life behind bars in
this country--and the devastating effects of mass incarceration go far
beyond the length of a prison sentence.
The average national recidivism rate is a staggering 49.3 percent
over 8 years, which is largely driven by individuals experiencing
barriers to essential resources after having served their time.
This important legislation will help people get back on their feet as
they reintegrate from incarceration into their communities--a step
toward addressing the realities that drive mass incarceration,
especially in communities of color.
We must end the vicious cycle of mass incarceration. I urge my
colleagues to vote `yes' on this bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Perlmutter). All time for debate on the
bill has expired.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Scanlon
The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment No.
1 printed in part B of House Report 117-587.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I rise as the designee of the gentlewoman
from Massachusetts (Ms. Pressley), and I have an amendment at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 8, line 16, strike ``and'' at the end.
Page 8, line 21, strike the period at the end and insert
``; and''.
Page 8, after line 21, insert the following:
(H) other relevant information, which may include
recommendations, if any, to improve the effectiveness and
efficiency of the grant program under this section, and to
address barriers faced by individuals receiving reentry
services from community reentry centers.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1499, the
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I come today before the House first in
strong support of Congresswoman Bass' bill, the One Stop Shop Community
Reentry Program Act.
Each year, hundreds of thousands of people are released from custody
after serving their time, and reentry services are a crucial tool to
help these individuals find success when they return home.
However, in many cases, returning individuals are not given adequate
support to succeed as they reintegrate in our communities. Too often
they struggle to access safe and affordable housing, educational
opportunities, and steady employment. This bill will provide critical,
accessible, and comprehensive resources to these individuals including
job training and help to obtain IDs, housing, mental health services,
and more.
Importantly, this bill would also expand services that I have direct
experience to know are critical to increasing the success of reentering
citizens.
Prior to coming to Congress, I had the opportunity to work with
returning citizens in the cutting-edge Federal reentry court started in
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by U.S. Magistrate Judge Tim Rice
and now Third Circuit Judge Felipe Restrepo.
We saw in that courtroom how mentoring and legal assistance often
were the key to successful reentry by returning citizens. The
additional services provided by the reentry court and related
nonprofits resulted in a two-thirds reduction in recidivism by
participants in that program.
So in addition to supporting the underlying bill, I am proud to offer
my colleague, Ms. Pressley's, amendment to the One Stop Shop Community
Reentry Program Act.
This amendment will ensure that the grant program is evaluated for
its effectiveness. We know that it is not enough to create a grant
program, we must also ensure effective implementation of that program
and that the critical government resources we make available are
meeting the needs of the intended recipients and are a productive use
of taxpayer resources.
This additional provision will require evaluation of the grant
program and allow recommendations to improve the program and reduce any
barriers to access.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, it requires the Department of Justice to
issue a report. Seeing how the Department of Justice is already doing
what is authorized in this bill, it would be kind of nice, frankly, to
have this report done before we spend an additional $59 million over
the next several years.
Mr. Speaker, for the reason we outlined against the legislation
itself--it is redundant, it allows people with a violent past to work
at these facilities, and it actually encourages them to be the
preference for answering the hotlines at these facilities, and for
those reasons we are opposed to the legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose the amendment as well, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me rise in great enthusiasm for an
important amendment that calls for an evaluation and a determination as
to whether or not this is impacting positively those who are in the
program.
I have already read stories about Robert and a number of others; if
this program spreads across America to urban hamlets, villages,
counties, and rural communities, then we need to know how effective it
is.
I am almost positive it will be very effective as a worthwhile
investment for the 600,000 people who are released, but this amendment
will ensure that we have the right kind of amendment for best practices
and best evidence.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would simply encourage my
colleagues to vote in favor of Representative Pressley's amendment and
the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the previous question
is ordered on the bill and on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman
from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon).
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon).
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________