[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.

                          ____________________