H.Res. 1499

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.

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.

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,

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.

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.

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.

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. 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. 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.

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.''

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

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6878, the Pregnant Women in Custody Act, because women's lives matter, pregnant women's lives matter, their babies' lives matter, as do the lives of incarcerated women and their babies.

I have worked on this issue for a very long time and am delighted to be able to support this legislation introduced by my friend and colleague, Congresswoman Bass.

This works to ensure that we recognize the increasing population of women incarcerated. Unfortunately, women are the fastest-growing segment of the incarcerated population in the United States. Conversations about criminal justice reform often overlook their unique experiences and the needs of women and girls within the criminal justice system.

For instance, Mr. Speaker, the United States has the second highest rate of women incarcerated in the world, with 64 women per 100,000 in custody and nearly 60,000 pregnant women admitted into American jails and prisons every year. That is a lot.

Some States have yet to prohibit the shackling of women when they are giving birth. We have to do something.

This bipartisan legislation would establish Federal policies to prohibit the use of restrictive housing on incarcerated pregnant women and develop a national standard of care to add to the pregnancy-related needs of incarcerated women, including access to prenatal and post- delivery care and support.

My legislation, the SIMARRA Act, also complements this by creating a pilot program in the Federal system for mothers to stay with their infants for a period of time. This humane response and the humane response of this bill are what we need to do.

Oftentimes, pregnant women lack access to appropriate nutrition while incarcerated, and the use of restrictive housing can have detrimental effects on a woman's health, as well as the health of her baby. While women of color are disproportionately impacted by incarceration, they also face higher risks of both miscarriage and maternal mortality.

This bill would make certain that incarcerated pregnant women receive vital prenatal healthcare and postpartum support and ensures the Bureau of Prisons and the Marshals Service protect the health and safety of incarcerated women through their pregnancy, when they deliver their child, and as they receive postpartum care. They should not be shackled, and they should not be intimidated or frightened.

The one thing I want to say, Mr. Speaker, even though many of us have different views--and I am an avid supporter of the right to choose-- this is not an abortion bill. This is a healthcare bill.

We also know that the prisons make their determinations on how they help women in their contraceptives. H.R. 6878 would allow BOP to collect data on healthcare needs of pregnant women so that we may have a better understanding.

Let me clearly say that separating a newborn from its mother gives it less chance for both survival and success in life.

We know in Harris County, Texas, there are approximately 1,000 women incarcerated in the Harris County Jail. This bill would require a GAO study, setting national standards, and endeavor to do a landscape to understand reproductive freedom in this country.

Mr. Speaker, that is why I was glad to see my bill, the Stop Infant Mortality And Recidivism Reduction Act of 2021, or the SIMARRA Act, included in the Violence Against Women Act, which passed earlier this year. That bill established a pilot program to allow women incarcerated in Federal prisons and their babies to reside with each other while the mother is incarcerated for a period of time.

Mr. Speaker, let us continue to be innovators in the treatment of those who are incarcerated, and let us make sure that we give every newborn a healthy life. I ask my colleagues to support the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6878, the ``Pregnant Women in Custody Act,'' because women's lives matter, pregnant women's lives matter, their babies' lives matter--as do the lives of incarcerated women and their babies.

Although women are the fastest growing segment of the incarcerated population in the United States, conversations about criminal justice reform often overlook the unique experiences and needs of women and girls within the criminal justice system.

The United States has the second highest rate of women incarcerated in the world, with 64 women per 100,000 in custody, and nearly 60,000 pregnant women admitted into American jails and prisons every year, while some states have yet to prohibit the shackling of women when they are giving birth.

This bipartisan legislation would establish federal policies to prohibit the use of restrictive housing on incarcerated pregnant women and develop a national standard of care to address the pregnancy- related needs of incarcerated women, including access to prenatal and post-delivery care and support.

Oftentimes pregnant women lack access to appropriate nutrition while incarcerated and the use of restrictive housing can have detrimental effects on a woman's health as well as the health of her baby. And while women of color are disproportionately impacted by incarceration, they also face higher risks of both miscarriage and maternal mortality.

This bill would make certain that incarcerated pregnant women receive vital prenatal healthcare and post-partum support and ensure the Bureau of Prisons and the Marshal's service protect the health and safety of incarcerated women throughout their pregnancy, when they deliver their child, and as they recover post-partum.

H.R. 6878 would also require BOP to collect data on the healthcare needs of pregnant

women, so that we may better understand the challenges incarcerated women face and determine how to address the needs of this vulnerable population.

In Harris County, Texas, on average, there are approximately 1,000 women incarcerated in the county jail and on average 25 to 30 of them are pregnant. The jail offers specific programs for mothers to reduce recidivism and help them support their families upon release.

This bill would require GAO to study state and local corrections facilities to understand the services and protections provided for pregnant women, like the program offered in Harris County.

Setting national standards for the treatment of incarcerated pregnant women in federal custody would set an example for state and local facilities to follow and the data collected by BOP would farther inform Congress of the additional health and safety needs of this vulnerable population.

As we endeavor to navigate a new landscape for reproductive freedom across the country, we must recognize that incarcerated women will continue to face challenges in carrying healthy pregnancies to term.

That is why I was glad to see my bill, the ``Stop Infant Mortality and Recidivism Reduction Act of 2021'' (or the ``SIMARRA Act''), included in the Violence Against Women Act which passed earlier this year. That bill established a pilot program to allow women incarcerated in Federal prisons and their babies born during their incarceration to reside together with while the mother is incarcerated.

Let us continue to be innovators in the treatment of those who are incarcerated. And let us make sure women receive proper health care and humane treatment whether they are incarcerated or not--because all women deserve proper health care and to be treated with dignity--no matter their circumstance.

I thank Representative Karen Bass for her steadfast commitment to addressing this important issue. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this long overdue legislation.

I include in the Record a Prison Policy Initiative document titled: ``Unsupportive environments and limited policies: Pregnancy, postpartum, and birth during incarceration.''

[From Prison Policy Initiative, Aug. 19, 2021]

Unsupportive Environments and Limited Policies: Pregnancy, Postpartum,

and Birth During Incarceration

(By Leah Wang)

Making up for a serious gap in government data collection

and understanding, researchers are discovering what pregnant

incarcerated women should expect when they're expecting (or

when they give birth while in custody). Findings indicate

that jails, prisons, and youth facilities have yet to

adequately recognize pregnancy and postpartum needs either in

policy or in practice.

Recently published findings from the groundbreaking

Pregnancy in Prison Statistics (PIPS) Project and other

datasets shed light on a common but rarely discussed

experience: being pregnant, postpartum or giving birth while

incarcerated. Spearheaded by Dr. Carolyn Sufrin of the Johns

Hopkins University School of Medicine and School of Public

Health, this series of studies is our best look yet at

pregnancy prevalence and outcomes in U.S. jails, prisons, and

youth facilities.

In total, 22 state prison systems, all federal prisons, 6

jails, and 3 youth confinement systems participated in the

PIPS Project, a systematic study of pregnancy and its

outcomes among incarcerated women. Historically, the

government has not collected data about carceral pregnancy on

a regular basis, meaning no national effort has been made to

understand maternity care for thousands of incarcerated

pregnant women. The project's sample represents 57 percent of

all women in prison, 5 percent of all women in jail and about

3 percent of young women in youth facilities.

Our takeaway: Carceral pregnancy, whether in jail, prison,

or youth confinement, is characterized by a lack of

supportive policies and practices. Some of the major findings

to come out of these publications are:

There are an estimated 58,000 admissions of pregnant women

into jails and prisons every year, and thousands give birth

or have other outcomes while still incarcerated. Pregnancy

rates among confined youth were similar to those among

adults.

In some state prison systems, miscarriage, premature birth,

and cesarean section rates were higher than national rates

among the general population.

Only one-third of prisons and jails had any written policy

about breastfeeding or lactation, and even where policies

supporting lactation did exist, relatively few women were

actually breastfeeding or pumping.

There are an estimated 8,000 admissions of pregnant women

with opioid use disorder (OUD) into prisons and jails each

year, but long-term treatment using medication is the

exception, not the rule.

A related (non-PIPS Project) study finds paternal

incarceration is also linked to adverse birth outcomes like

low birth weight, which are widely known to impact long-term

health.

The researchers' findings add complexity to a growing body

of literature and consensus linking incarceration to negative

health impacts. And although PIPS Project data can't be

broken down by race, ethnicity, or gender identity, measuring

the scale and outcomes of pregnancies in prison and jail is a

major public health research accomplishment. The fact that

academic researchers had to conduct this research to fill the

data gap--and the shortage of appropriate policies they

found--makes it clear that many correctional agencies have

yet to even acknowledge the needs of pregnant incarcerated

women.

every year, thousands of incarcerated expecting mothers and babies face

adverse outcomes from exposure to incarceration

Over the 12 months of the Pregnancy in Prison Statistics

(PIPS) study period, there were nearly 1,400 admissions of

pregnant women to participating state and federal prisons

with over 800 pregnancies ending in custody (births,

miscarriages, and others), and over 1,600 admissions of

pregnant women to jails with 224 pregnancies ending in

custody. Unsurprisingly, given the short length of most jail

stays, more pregnant women are admitted to jails each year,

but more births take place in prisons, where the average stay

is longer. Based on their data, the authors estimate that,

nationally, 4 percent of women entering prison (in line with

Bureau of Justice Statistics 2016 estimates) and 3 percent of

women admitted to jail (lower than BJS' most recent 2002

estimates) are pregnant.

Pregnancy outcomes in prisons and jails in some places were

worse than national trends across the general population.

When pregnancy did end in custody, in some states like

Arizona, Kansas and Minnesota, rates of miscarriage ranged

from 19 to 22 percent, exceeding estimates of the national

rate. In Ohio and Massachusetts, premature births exceeded

the general population rate of about 10 percent. Among live

births, which were 92 percent of birth outcomes in custody,

one-third (32 percent) of these were caesarean section

births, in line with the national average rate. In some

states, the C-section rate was much higher, suggesting that

C-sections may be taking place when not medically necessary,

risking short- and long-term health problems in babies.

pregnancy among confined youth is not uncommon, and better testing

might reveal it's even more widespread

Upon hearing about the Pregnancy in Prison Statistics

(PIPS) Project, three juvenile justice systems (one state-

level, and one county-level system) volunteered to complete a

survey about pregnant adolescents in the custody of 17 of

their ``juvenile residential placement'' facilities,

providing a window into this population for the first time.

One takeaway from the survey's findings was that adolescent

pregnancies--both in confinement, and upon release--may risk

poorer outcomes because of a lack of continuity of medical

care between confinement facilities and the community. Even

though all three state systems provided basic prenatal care,

with the typical length of stay for young women lasting a few

months or less, justice-involved youth would benefit

enormously from consistency in medical care throughout

pregnancy.

The survey also showed that the rate of pregnancy among

confined youth (3.3 percent) was similar to that of the adult

incarcerated population (3.5 percent). However, the youth

facilities reported less routine pregnancy testing,

bolstering a 2004 study revealing that only 15-17 percent of

1,255 juvenile facilities nationwide tested youth for

pregnancy at admission (with about two-thirds of facilities

providing tests only if requested). Therefore, it's possible

the youth carceral pregnancy rate is a very conservative

estimate, and that thousands of pregnant youth are going

without prenatal care when their health needs are likely

complicated.

Eight pregnancies ended among youth confined in the

surveyed facilities during the 12-month study period,

including four miscarriages, three induced abortions, and one

live full-term birth. It would be misleading to view these

outcomes as representative of all pregnant confined youth,

but the authors advise youth confinement facilities to be

prepared for high rates of miscarriage and other adverse

birth outcomes, seeing as justice-involved pregnant youth are

going through highly stressful life experiences.

Services and policies regarding prenatal and postpartum

care were variable: All three juvenile systems allowed

abortion, and some covered the cost; all three systems also

allowed lactation through either breastfeeding or pumping.

Still, the small sample size (which represented just 2.8

percent of all confined female youth) and the potential

influence of self-selecting facilities make it difficult to

draw conclusions about the experience of pregnant youth in

confinement.

breastfeeding and lactation are not guaranteed to new mothers and

babies, ignoring the enormous benefits of breast milk

When the cohort of 22 prison systems and 6 jail systems

described their lactation-related policies to the

researchers, they painted a discouraging picture of how

correctional facilities largely don't support breastfeeding,

a practice chosen by some mothers for its unique benefits.

To begin, only one-third of prisons and jails had any

written policy on lactation, leaving many incarcerated women

to the whims of facility staff who may not be

trained in this area or understand its importance. Even where

women were formally allowed to lactate, milk was sometimes

discarded at the study sites due to mother-infant separation,

providing only a benefit to the mother of maintaining milk

supply.

Because it is a matter of health equity to provide the

opportunity to lactate and breastfeed (among other parental

choices), researchers extend the ``further research is

needed'' statement in order to understand the probable racial

disparities within carceral pregnancy: ``. . . research in

collaboration with current and formerly incarcerated women,

specifically Black, Indigenous, and women of color, is needed

to fully understand breadth of experiences and perspectives

related to breastfeeding and lactation while in custody.''

opioid use disorder among incarcerated women is treated under some

circumstances, but leaves mothers without help postpartum

In addition to known medical needs during pregnancy, some

women enter incarceration with other health problems.

Researchers accessed six months of activity and policy

related to opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment of pregnant

women in the Pregnancy in Prison Statistics (PIPS) study

sites and found that 26 percent of those entering prison and

14 percent entering jail had OUD. The gold standard of care

for these women would be medication for opioid use disorder

(MOUD), which is linked to better pregnancy outcomes and

increased engagement with addiction treatment and other

medical care.

Twenty-two of 28 sites did offer this avenue for treatment

of pregnant women in some way, but the narrow window in which

they could be treated for OUD leaves much room for

improvement. In most facilities offering MOUD, it would not

be initiated in the facility; they would only continue

someone on MOUD if they were already on it. This unfairly

excludes women who were unable to begin treatment before

admission; for example, if someone was in jail before being

transferred to prison, their access would then depend on the

jail's policy. Postpartum, most facilities providing MOUD

would discontinue treatment, showing a clear disregard for

the mother's well-being after birth.

Still, one-third of surveyed sites managed OUD among

pregnant women through detoxification, some with and some

without medication to manage symptoms. Detox, or ``medically

supervised withdrawal,'' can be a painful process and has a

high rate of failure for pregnant women, increasing the risk

of future overdose.

These exclusionary policies and practices are troubling

given the fact that opioid overdose is a major cause of death

for pregnant and postpartum women in the United States, and

remains a huge concern for formerly incarcerated people. In

Rhode Island, where MOUD has been implemented comprehensively

in their unified prison-jail system, there has been a huge

reduction in post-release overdose deaths; replicating their

initiative would have a great impact on carceral pregnancy

and postpartum outcomes.

the incarceration of fathers is also linked to worse birth outcomes

As if it's not bad enough that incarceration prevents

expecting mothers from receiving care and providing care to

their babies, another recent study finds that incarcerating

fathers during pregnancy or at the time of birth is also

harmful to babies' health.

In another recent study--unrelated to the Pregnancy in

Prison Statistics (PIPS) project--Youngmin Yi and fellow

researchers matched hundreds of thousands of birth records to

jail records in New York City between 2010 and 2016,

observing trends in birth weight, preterm (premature) birth,

admission to the NICU (neonatal intensive care unit), and

more. Paternal incarceration was associated with nearly all

adverse outcomes, even after other characteristics of mother

and father were accounted for statistically. ``Exposed'' to

their fathers' incarceration--even for as little as one day--

babies were born with these vulnerabilities, such as low

birth weight, known to have an impact later in life.

incarcerated pregnant people and their babies deserve better care that

is codified in policy

The findings by Sufrin, Asiodu, Kim and fellow researchers

offer a desperately-needed look into pregnancy during

incarceration. And the findings by Yi et al. contribute to an

even more holistic picture of what it means to be a growing

family entangled in the criminal legal system. Families

experiencing pregnancy are impacted by incarceration whether

the mother or the father is incarcerated, and whether or not

the baby is born during the mother's incarceration.

Both adolescents and adults in confinement should be

afforded comprehensive prenatal care, including education,

lactation support, and opioid use disorder treatment that

continues beyond the end of pregnancy. And babies born right

after or during their parents' incarceration, who risk health

issues like lower life expectancy and social and emotional

challenges, deserve the chance to begin life with one or both

parents as much as possible. These efforts and programs

should be clearly written into agency policy so that facility

staff can be trained and expected to provide care.

One way that prisons and jails can begin to assess and

improve their care for pregnant women is by reviewing the

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' recently

updated comprehensive set of guidelines for carceral

reproductive health care. Facilities should also consider

subscribing to the National Commission on Correctional Health

Care's standards for health services, which have clear ways

of addressing many of the above topics. Prisons and jails

should make their policies publicly available, and create

ways to keep healthy mothers and their babies together.

note about the language used

Throughout these publications, the terms ``pregnant women''

and ``mother'' described those people who were pregnant in

custody during the study period. While we've deferred to the

terminology used by the authors, we acknowledge that

pregnancy can overlap with multiple gender identities, and

our conclusions and recommendations apply to all pregnant

people.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank Chairman Davis. I appreciate his work in bringing H.R. 8876, the Jackie Walorski Maternal and Child Home Visiting Reauthorization Act of 2022, through our committee, and I am proud to support this effective legislation named in honor of our dear friend, Representative Jackie Walorski. Jackie had a servant's heart, and we shared not only a strong friendship but a passion for creating opportunities to help others beyond just one day, with life-changing measures and positive outcomes.

In this case, those that are served are mothers and their new children, those that otherwise have many obstacles that can often lead to costly and negative health outcomes. Jackie worked tirelessly and passionately on this program with Dr. Davis. The Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting program is a program that is successful, and the data supports that.

What does success look like? A healthy mother with a caring support system delivering and raising a healthy new child that is ready to grow, learn, and thrive.

Earlier this year, I visited Every Child Succeeds, a Cincinnati nonprofit that helps support mothers and young children. During the roundtable discussion with local moms and home visitors, I heard firsthand how the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting program, MIECHV, as we call it, we heard how it is working. I also heard kids being loud and laughing, and I thought to myself, that is the sound of happy, healthy children.

Our bipartisan legislation reauthorizes MIECHV for 5 years and will serve more moms and babies by growing the capacity of the program in partnership with the States. MIECHV is a successful program, first of all, by phasing in a State match to vulnerable populations. We will expand the research of evidence-based home visiting programs across the country by adding $174 million in new State funding.

Second, we target funds to families in poverty by directing three- quarters of additional MIECHV funding based on the number of children under 5 in poverty in each State.

Third, the bill improves outcomes reporting so more people will have visibility and access to the good work being done by home visitors.

HHS will also be required to implement a State outcome dashboard, so we have more transparency on program performance measures and clinical indicators to show actual impact on families.

Lastly, we apply lessons learned from the pandemic and allow virtual visits to continue on a limited basis while maintaining MIECHV's commitment to in-person visits and high evidence standards.

As a physician, I am very familiar with the evidence-based benefits of in-home support for both new parents and children, and I am glad we are able to find common ground to provide stability for the program and the vulnerable families that the program serves. This program helps maternal and child health, family safety and stability, and readiness for school.

People said to me on my visit, ``I don't think my child would be healthy without this program, but home visiting made all the difference for us.'' That is proof that this program really works.

I also want to take a moment to celebrate and honor my good friend and battle buddy, Jackie Walorski. I am honored to continue her work here today. I can't think of a better way to honor her than seeing this bill through. She was a devoted public servant who cared deeply about this issue.

Today, this morning, another dear friend of mine is unexpectedly being laid to rest, another physician that believed in this program. Dr. O'dell Owens, a well-known and loved healthcare hero in Cincinnati, Ohio, a man for others, a true public servant, my hero and mentor.

Dr. Owens, as an OB/GYN, brought the gift of life to so many, specializing in caring for expecting mothers that face many challenges, always concerned about the health and well-being of the mothers that he cared for as well as the babies he would bring into the world.

Dr. Owens' services to the community extended well beyond the delivery room and into education, public health, and even served as coroner. Dr. Owens loved the MIECHV program and the long-term, evidence-based positive effects that the program has had on so many lives and families.

I can say with confidence that Dr. Owens and Jackie Walorski would strongly urge the reauthorization of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank, again, Chairman Davis and the late ranking Member and dear friend Congresswoman Walorski for spearheading this issue and their work on this subcommittee. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), the ranking member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Murphy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Ferguson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Miller), my neighbor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Estes).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Yakym).

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank everyone involved with this really wonderful moment that we are experiencing here on the floor, not only in memory of Jackie Walorski but in the work that she put in and how much was accomplished here, especially in a bipartisan fashion on behalf of so many people across America that are going to benefit from this great program--the mothers and the children, especially.

I take a moment to thank Jackie's husband, Dean, who shared Jackie with us here in the House of Representatives, where she was able to do so much good work, and this being one of the very highlights of her career. It spoke so much about who she was and who she is.

This is a special moment for me, as I know my friend Dr. Owens in Cincinnati--who took care of so many mothers that benefit from this program--is being laid to rest today, and he was so proud of what we were doing with this program. Well, he is with Jackie now. But we are all blessed to have had so much hard work put into this across the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Davis, who worked tirelessly on this, as well. This was definitely a dual effort, and I am grateful for all those who have participated, to the entire community, the Committee on Ways and Means, the subcommittee, and to all those involved.

I am very proud that we are moving this bill forward today. I urge its reauthorization and encourage all of our Members to support this wonderful program.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1499, I call up the bill (H.R. 8876) to reauthorize the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting program, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 8876.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me commend and thank Chairman Neal and Ranking Member Brady for their cordiality and the outstanding way in which they have managed the affairs of the Committee on Ways and Means. That is one of the reasons that we are here today, for such an outstanding bipartisan bill, to talk about the welfare of children and families.

For struggling families, home visiting is a life-changing experience. Research demonstrates that home visiting works. I have seen these successes in my home city of Chicago, parents and home visitors partnering to tackle big challenges and making children healthier and safer.

My friend Jackie Walorski saw home visiting work in her district, too. Jackie was deeply committed to helping vulnerable children and families, and she was my partner in our committee's effort to preserve and strengthen home visiting. I really wish she was here today as we continue with the work that we did together.

I also thank our colleagues on the Energy and Commerce Committee-- Chairman Pallone, Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers, Health Committee Chair Eshoo, and Health Subcommittee Ranking Member Guthrie--for their leadership on this bill.

The Jackie Walorski Maternal and Child Home Visiting Reauthorization Act would reauthorize the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting program for 5 years.

Over that 5 years, the bill would double our Federal investment in evidence-based home visiting, bringing home visiting to more families and communities.

This bill would more than double our investment in Tribal communities, where so many residents need home visiting but have been left out due to a lack of funding.

It would invest in the critical home visiting workforce because it is the support and relationships that home visitors build with mothers, fathers, and children that make home visiting work.

And it would ensure that States and territories have reliable, predictable funding and rules so that they can focus on helping more families thrive.

The Ways and Means Committee passed this important, bipartisan legislation on a unanimous vote of 41-0. I urge all my colleagues to join us in supporting the bill today, as we work to enact it into law in the coming weeks. I also thank my colleagues at the Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce Committees for their input and support on the introduced bill.

The bill also has the overwhelming support of home visiting stakeholders, including the Home Visiting Coalition, which endorsed the bill and wrote that it addressed every request the coalition made in a ``thoughtful and productive manner.''

We have an opportunity to make a real difference for children and families across America, and so I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' and then work with us to enact the bill this year.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the outstanding gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), a fierce defender of poor and disadvantaged people.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell), an outstanding gentlewoman that many of us call the pride of the South.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Let me, first of all, thank Dr. Wenstrup for his leadership. And I also thank all of those who have spoken to the virtues of the bill as well as the virtues of Jackie Walorski.

I was able to attend her homegoing services, and I can assure you if you were in Mishawaka or South Bend, Indiana, you would hear the same words that have been spoken here today. She was indeed an amazing woman.

Mr. Speaker, before I close, I would mention another amazing woman who has been legendary and become legendary in this institution, and that is our dearly beloved Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, who has led this body for a number of years. And I think that this can indeed be one of its proudest moments.

Mr. Speaker, I close by quoting Erika Beck, who receives home visiting services in Chicago. At one of the hearings Jackie and I held, Ms. Beck said, ``I know that our lives are changed forever and for the better because of Myia, our home visitor. She is helping me and Louis, my husband, help our kids succeed, and she is educating all of us.''

Such is the feeling of those who receive these valuable services.

Mr. Speaker, I also take this opportunity to thank all of the organizations and individuals who have joined our fight to continue and expand home visiting.

I thank the bipartisan Committee on Ways and Means staff: Staff director Morna Miller, Taylor Downs, Cheryl Vincent, and Andrew Gradison.

I also thank the tremendous nonpartisan staff that my staff and I relied on so much throughout this process. Patrick Landers and Karen Lynch at the Congressional Research Service; James Grossman at the Office of Legislative Counsel, and Carolyn Ugolino at the Congressional Budget Office.

Mr. Speaker, I also thank my legislative staff director, deputy chief of staff, Dr. Jill Hunter-Williams, who put in so much time, energy, and effort on this bill. I also thank all of us who worked with her.

I have had some proud moments in this body, but I can tell you that there is no prouder moment that I have had than to be a force and to suggest when we vote for this bill, for this home visiting opportunity for thousands and thousands of children and mothers and families to experience the help that they need to become everything that America has the potential of helping them to be.

Again, Mr. Speaker, it is an excellent piece of legislation. I urge its passage, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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.

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. 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.

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?

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.

For the reasons I outlined before, Mr. Speaker, we oppose the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition.

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.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.