U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

36–063 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019

THE FAIR CHANCE TO COMPETE FOR JOBS ACT 

(H.R. 1076) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL 

LIBERTIES 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

March 13, 2019 

Serial No. 116–10 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Reform 

( 

Available on: http://www.govinfo.gov 

http://www.oversight.house.gov or 

http://www.docs.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Chairman 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

RAJA KRISHNAMOORTHI, Illinois 

JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland 

HARLEY ROUDA, California 

KATIE HILL, California 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

PETER WELCH, VERMONT

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

MARK DESAULNIER, California 

BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan 

STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands 

RO KHANNA, California 

JIMMY GOMEZ, California 

ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, New York 

AYANNA PRESSLEY, Massachusetts 

RASHIDA TLAIB, Michigan 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Ranking Minority Member 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona 

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

JODY B. HICE, Georgia 

GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin 

JAMES COMER, Kentucky 

MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina 

CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana 

CHIP ROY, Texas 

CAROL D. MILLER, West Virginia 

MARK E. GREEN, Tennessee 

KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota 

W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida 

DAVID RAPALLO, Staff Director 

SUSANNE SACHSMAN GROOMS, Deputy Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

ELISA LANIER, Chief Clerk and Director of Operations 

CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Minority Staff Director 

VALERIE SHEN, Chief Counsel and Senior Policy Advisor 

YVETTE BADU-NIMAKO, Director of Policy and Counsel 

KRISTINE LAM, Counsel 

AMY STRATTON, Clerk 

CONTACT NUMBER: 202-225-5051 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES

JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland, Chairman 

CAROLYN MALONEY, New York 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

ROBIN KELLY, Illinois 

JIMMY GOMEZ, California 

ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

Chip Roy, Texas, Ranking Minority Member 

JUSTIN AMISH, Michigan 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

JODY HICE, Georgia 

MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas 

CAROL MILLER, West Virginia 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on March 13, 2019 ............................................................................ 1 

WITNESSES

The Honorable Cory A. Booker, Senator, U.S. Senate, New Jersey 

Oral Statement ........................................................................................................ 5 

The Honorable Doug Collins, Member of Congress, Georgia 

Oral Statement ........................................................................................................ 7 

Ms. Holly Harris, Executive Director, Justice Action Network 

Oral Statement ........................................................................................................ 13 

Ms. Teresa Hodge, C-Founder& CEO, R3 ScoreTechnologies, Inc. 

Oral Statement ........................................................................................................ 15 

The Honorable Ron Johnson, Chairman, U.S. Senate, on behalf of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee 

Oral Statement ........................................................................................................ 3 

The written statements for witnesses are available at the U.S. House of Representatives Repository: https://docs.house.gov. 

INDEX OF DOCUMENTS

The documents entered into the record throughout this hearing are listed 

below, and available at: https://docs.house.gov. 

* Racial Profiling in Hiring: A Critique of New ‘‘Ban the Box’’ Studies, 

National Employment Law Project; submitted by Rep. Roy 

* Empirical Evidence on the Effects of Ban the Box Policies: The State 

of Literature in 2019, Jennifer L. Doleac, Texas A&M University; submitted 

by Rep. Roy 

* Back to Business; How Hiring Formerly Incarcerated Job Seekers Benefits Your Company, ACLU; submitted by Rep. Raskin 

* Letter from the Leadership Conference, National Employment Law 

Project and ACLU; submitted by Rep. Roy 

* The Effect of Changing Employers’ Access to Criminal Histories on ExOffenders’ Labor Market Outcomes: Evidence fromthe 2010-2012 Massachusetts CORI Reform; submitted by Rep. Roy 

* Ban the Box, Convictions, and Public Sector Employment, Terry-Ann 

Craigie, Ph.D. 

(1) 

THE FAIR CHANCE TO COMPETE FOR JOBS 

ACT (H.R. 1076) 

Tuesday, March 13, 2019 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 2:16 p.m., 2154 

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jamie Raskin [chairman of 

the Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Raskin, Cummings, Maloney, Norton, 

Clay, Connolly, Sarbanes, Kelly, Plaskett, Khanna, Ocasio-Cortez, 

Pressley, Amash, Massie, Meadows, Hice, Grothman, Comer, 

Cloud, Norman, Roy, Miller, and Steube. 

Mr. RASKIN. The committee will come to order. So everyone finish up your selfies. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. RASKIN. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare 

a recess of the committee at any time. This joint hearing of the 

Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and the Subcommittee on Government Operations is on The Fair Chance to 

Compete for Jobs Act, H.R. 1076. I will now recognize the chairman 

of the full committee, Mr. Cummings, to give his opening statement, Mr. Cummings. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much Chairman Raskin, to 

Chairman Connolly, Ranking Member Roy, Ranking Member 

Meadows for holding this hearing on H.R. 1076, the Fair Chance 

to Compete for Jobs Act. 

Our bill would do what many state agencies and private corporations are already doing. It would direct Federal employers and contractors not to ask about criminal histories of applicants until the 

conditional offer stage. The bill also includes important exceptions 

for law enforcement and national security positions requiring access to classified information and positions that, by statute, require 

access to criminal history information. It will give formerly incarcerated individuals a fair chance at a job and a piece of the American dream. 

Criminal justice reform is very personal to me. I have seen the 

problems that plague the system through many lenses. I saw it 

during my days as a young lawyer representing criminal defendants in Baltimore. I have seen it as someone who as a deep respect 

for dedicated police officers who serve and protect our communities. 

I have seen it as a Congressman representing a district where 

finding balance between law and order and crime and punishment 
2 

is a profound concern for my constituents. I have also seen it as 

a concerned citizen, in my community where I have lived for three 

decades in the inner city of Baltimore. 

One lens that has not changed is the lens of color. We have seen 

how sentences issued by our criminal justice system disproportionately affects Americans of color. 70 percent of Maryland’s incarcerated individuals are African American. Although African Americans comprise only 31 percent of the state’s population. According 

to a report released by the ACLU, this was the highest proportion 

of incarcerated African Americans in the entire country in 2014. 

Formerly incarcerated individuals need jobs to support themselves and their families and after they have served their sentences. Jobs will also help them avoid recidivism, which helps us 

all. But they will be followed by criminal records long after they 

have repaid their debts to society. As a matter of fact, it will follow 

them to their graves. 

Criminal records limit their employment opportunities and are 

barriers to getting a job. We can reduce those barriers with H.R. 

1076. 

Fortunately there is an emerging, bipartisan, thank God, consensus that this barrier has to come down, and that it needs to 

come down now. There are legislators on both sides of the aisle who 

are considering how we can transform lives and save money. And 

if we help exoffenders to truly put their past behind them, allow 

them to live a life that God meant for them to live. 

We have a unique moment of bipartisan momentum for true reform. And it is ours to seize. My hope is that this hearing inspires 

action. My republican colleagues and I disagree about many things. 

However, on the Fair Chance Act, we have not only found common 

ground, we have, because of a moral imperative, found higher 

ground. 

Finally, let me address the concern that couple of my republican 

colleagues have raised. Although this measure is largely bipartisan, 

a couple of my colleagues say that they are concerned that this bill 

can somehow hurt African Americans or others when certain racist 

employers discriminate against minorities who they think might 

have a criminal record. 

Look, you all know who I am. I have been working on civil rights 

issues for decades. I think I have some standing to speak on this 

matter. You would know that I would never support a bill that I 

believe would cause discrimination against African Americans. So 

take it from me, I support the bill, and we all should support the 

bill. 

But now ladies and gentlemen, it is up to us. It does not hurt 

us. We ask for your support. Now if there is evidence that someone 

is illegally discriminating against African Americans in the Federal 

hiring process, the remedy for that civil rights violation is to bring 

the full force of the law down on that individual. The remedy is not 

to withhold support for a bill that would help our communities and 

our Nation. 

We owe it to our children and to our grandchildren and to generations yet unborn. We must make lasting changes that give them 

opportunities of hope. We need to invest and reform now for future 
3 

generations so that they can see a criminal justice system and an 

entire country they can believe in. 

We must remember that our children are the living messengers 

we send to a future we will never see. And we need to make every 

child’s dream accessible, which starts with their parents. 

I would like to thank Senator Johnson, Senator Booker, and Congressman Collins for testifying before us today. I also thank the 

witnesses on the second panel, Ms. Holly of the Justice Action Network, Ms. Harris from the Justice Action Network, Ms. Teresa 

Hodge of R3 Technologies for sharing their insights with us today. 

And I look forward to our discussion scheduling and scheduling the 

Fair Chance Act for markup as soon as possible. And with that, 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. RASKIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman for your powerful statement. It is now pleasure to welcome our colleagues who 

have come to testify, Senator Johnson from Wisconsin, Senator 

Booker from New Jersey, and our own Congressman Collins from 

Georgia. We are delighted to have all of you here to testify. We 

commend your bipartisan and bicameral advocacy for this important legislation. 

At the conclusion of your statements, without objection, your 

written statements will be made—your complete written statements will be made part of the hearing record. The microphones 

are sensitive, so please speak directly into them. And Senator 

Johnson, we will begin with you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RON JOHNSON, A UNITED STATES SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Raskin 

and Connolly, Ranking Members Meadows and Roy. Thank you for 

holding a hearing on the Fair Chance to Compete for Jobs Act and 

giving me the opportunity to testify on its behalf. 

I also want to thank Senators Booker, Chairman Cummings, 

Congressman Collins, and many others who—for working with me 

on this legislation over the last few years. 

Our founders specified three unalienable rights endowed to all by 

our Creator, ‘‘Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.’’ In comparison to life and liberty, I used to think the pursuit of happiness 

was more of a frivolous concept, a less important right. I no longer 

believe that. Life without dignity and liberty without the freedom 

to dream, aspire, and earn your own success would be rights with 

dramatically diminished value. The right to pursue happiness is 

therefore crucial in the fulfillment of the first two rights, life and 

liberty. 

Few will ever truly be happy living in dependency. Work is essential in allowing to pursue happiness by providing them the dignity of earning their own success. For those reentering society after 

incarceration, work is the key factor in determining whether they 

will turn their lives around or end up back behind bars. One study 

showed those who maintain employment for one year post-release 

had a 16 percent probability of returning to prison versus a 52 percent probability for those without jobs. That is a significant difference. 
4 

A lower rate of reincarceration should result in less crime. Instead of bearing the cost of imprisoning people, communities can 

benefit from their contribution to the tax space. But most importantly, these individuals are not just mere statistics, they are 

human beings, and we should all want them to succeed in life. 

The Fair Chance to Compete for Jobs Act recognizes the crucial 

role employment plays in transforming lives. Just because some 

may have temporarily lost their freedom because they committed 

a crime does not mean they have lost their right to pursue happiness. 

My work reforming incarcerated men and women in Wisconsin 

has shown me the significant barriers they face putting their lives 

back together once they leave prison. My involvement in the Joseph Project where we connect those genuinely seeking to turn 

their lives around with the job opportunities throughout the state 

has taught me how transformational a good paying job can be. It 

is the most inspirational activity my staff and I have been involved 

in since I took office. 

I fully understand the legitimate concerns employers have about 

offering a job to someone convicted of a crime. Many criminals will 

never reform and could pose a significant threat and danger to an 

organization. But many others who have been incarcerated realize 

a life of crime offers no positive future. It is those individuals and 

their future employers that this legislation seeks to help. 

Employers who give Joseph Project participants a chance consistently tell me that they have some of the best attitudes within their 

organization. Having a positive attitude and making a daily commitment to succeed are the key elements of the Joseph Project’s 12- 

hour training program. Employers who have taken the chance on 

these individuals have been rewarded with great employees. 

The Fair Chance to Compete for Jobs Act simply provides the opportunity for an applicant to convey the right attitude and what 

they can contribute to an organization without being automatically 

excluded for consideration because of their checkered past. People 

do choose to turn their lives around, and society should make it 

easier, not harder, for them to do so. 

Prior to hiring, an employer will still have access to an applicant’s complete history in order to make a fully informed hiring decision. Nothing in the legislation prevents that. It is also important 

to note, this legislation only applies to Federal Government and its 

contractors. Although we do hope other employers will see its value 

and voluntarily adopt similar hiring policies. 

Working with the Joseph Project, numerous employers from Wisconsin are already being rewarded with dedicated employees by deciding to hire individuals with criminal records. Nationally, other 

large employers, including Facebook, Google, Walmart, and Koch 

Industries have not only pledged to delay the criminal background 

check but have also begun hiring formerly incarcerated individuals. 

My hope is that by passing the Fair Chance to Compete for Jobs 

Act, employers throughout America will see the value in helping 

people transform their lives through productive employment. 

Thank you. 

Mr. RASKIN. Thank you, Senator Johnson. 

Senator Booker? 
5 

STATEMENT OF HON. CORY BOOKER, A UNITED STATES 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you very much, Chairman Raskin, 

Chairman Connolly, Ranking Member Roy and Ranking Member 

Meadows. It is really an honor to be here. I am grateful that you 

all would invite me. Thank you for holding this hearing, most importantly. I am grateful for Chairman Cummings for his leadership 

on this bill. He has been an incredible friend and inspiration to me 

in my short time in the U.S. Senate, and I want to thank Representative Collins for his support as well. 

I want to gratefully acknowledge my—the bill’s coauthor with 

me—the lead republican sponsor in the Senate, Senator Johnson, 

who spoke very passionately and personally about this issue and 

helped us to usher this bill through committee three times. All 

three Congresses that I have been a senator since it was first introduced in 2015. 

There are more than 650,000 people released from prison each 

year. People who have served their time, paid their debt to society, 

and are returning home to their communities in hopes for a second 

chance. But all too often, they are freed from physical bars, but 

they encounter, what I believe are lifetime sentences. They have, 

literally, 45,000 collateral consequences is what the American Bar 

Association refers to them as. These collateral consequences prevent them from getting opportunity. And you have to understand, 

the overwhelming majority of these people are nonviolent offenders. 

We are in a country, that there was more arrests for a marijuana 

possession in 2017, than there were for all violent crimes combined. 

And so, for things that past Presidents have admitted to doing, 

things that people in the body admitted to doing, I see it out on 

the trail, now it is en vogue for senators to admit to doing it. Lowincome, poor people, and disproportionately minorities are being 

targeted by a failed drug war and then face lifetime consequences 

for possession of drugs and other crimes. 

We are a nation that believes in second chances. And one of the 

most difficult things that people do when they come out of prison 

is just—who want to work, who are dedicated to that—finding a 

job. The barriers for finding jobs. 

Research has shown that a conviction record reduces your likelihood of a job callback by nearly 50 percent, and this is even more 

acutely felt by people of color who have even a less likelihood of 

getting a job after a conviction. The same research has found that 

while 17 percent of Whites with a criminal record were given a 

callback only 5 percent of African Americans were. 

This is a reality I know. I have spent over 20 years of my life 

living in the community I love, which is a low-income community. 

The median income in my neighborhood for the last census is 

$14,000 per household. And when I hear my neighbors who struggle for finding a job because of drug convictions for doing things 

that people on college campuses do every day. What we are seeing 

is a patently unfair system, and we must tear down the barriers 

to employment that are stacked so high against people who have 

done their time and now just look for hope. 

In my home county, Bergen County, a father wrote me about his 

son who was convicted for nonviolent drug charges. But since his 
6 

rehab, he has finished high school, attended technical school, been 

certified as a heating and air conditioning technician, but has repeatedly been denied jobs simply because of his criminal record. 

At the end of the last Congress, in a bipartisan, bicameral effort, 

the First Step Act, which its name suggests was just a step in the 

right direction, was able to be passed, but unfortunately we have 

a long way to go to ensure that those released under the First Step 

Act are set up for success and not continued failure. 

It was a Republican President Bush who said, ‘‘America is the 

land of second chances.’’ And when the gates of the prison are 

open, the path ahead should lead to a better life. We have got a 

lot of work to do to realize that promise. 

The Fair Chance Act allows qualified people with criminal 

records to get their foot in the door and be judged by their merit 

not by a past conviction. It allows employers to get to know an individual and ultimately make them an offer. But before that person 

is hired, that is when they share the criminal history. 

In short, the bill would preclude the Federal Government and 

Federal prime contractors from asking a job applicant about his or 

her record until a conditional offer is extended. And, yes, an employer has the right to know whether someone is considering a job 

has a criminal history. But by placing that information at the end 

of the interview process, it allows a candidate to be judged objectively instead of their having their resume being reflexively tossed 

out. 

This bill strikes the right balance between giving returning citizens a fair shot at finding a job and allowing employers to know 

who they are hiring. Now we already have a nation where 33 states 

and the District of Columbia and over 150 cities and counties have 

adopted Fair Chance policies. 

In the public sector, and they have proven so successful, that 11 

states and 17 cities and counties have extended their Fair Chance 

policies and laws to private employment. Here in D.C., after a policy was adopted, there was a 33 percent increase in the number of 

applicants whose records were higher which resulted in 21 percent 

of them, of all new hires in D.C., being people with records. It is 

an incredible success. 

The bill is going to help break the dangerous cycle of recidivism 

and give people with criminal records a fair shot in a system that 

is still so tragically unfair. We have a lot more work to do. 

But this is about our Nation’s capacity for forgiveness and redemption. Are we a nation that believes in second chances or not? 

Are we a nation that believes a person should not be judged by the 

worst thing that they have done and instead, be seen as who they 

are. People with endless potential, not just for redemption, but for 

contribution in our society. 

God, we have a criminal justice system that is so broken. It feeds 

on the poor. It feeds on the hurt. It feeds on the marginalized, the 

mentally ill, the addicted. Let us do something that rights the 

scales in our country and empowers people to succeed. Let us be 

about restorative justice, instead of retribution against people who 

often need more help than continued harm. Thank you. 

Mr. RASKIN. Thank you, Senator Booker. 

Congressman Collins? 
7 

STATEMENT OF HON. DOUG COLLLINS, A REPRESENATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA 

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you, Chairman Raskin and Ranking Member Roy and also Chairman Cummings, full committee, and it has 

been a pleasure to work with this, Ranking Member Jordan. 

Thanks for inviting me to testify. It is good to be back into this 

room where I first started in Congress with Mr. Meadows and us, 

when we first came here bright eyed and bushy tailed ready to take 

on the world, and it is good to be back and see you again. 

Look, I am going to be brief, because we have talked about this 

a lot, and you have heard about the importance of the Fair Chance 

Act from those senators that just spoke before me. This legislation 

clearly draws on broad bipartisan support, and it should. It is common sense. As it looks to build on the work that this this chamber 

started last year the First Step Act. 

I worked on the First Step Act with my friend, Hakeem Jeffries 

and introduced it with a belief that we can and should do better 

when it comes to our prison system and our criminal justice system. And I cannot think a more proud moment for me to stand in 

the Oval Office while President Trump signed this legislation, who 

bought into it and understood that people matter. Redemption matters. And a chance is what is important. And to hear the President 

say that and sign that was a great day. 

I am committed, then, that the First Step Act was just that, a 

first step, and not a final step. I continue to looking for ways to 

work across the aisle on issues related to the justice system, redemption, and recidivism reduction. The Fair Chance Act is part of 

that commitment, and I am proud to be working alongside Chairman Cummings on this legislation. 

The Fair Chance Act is important, both in terms of what it does, 

and in terms of the example it sets. The bill brings Ban the Box 

to the Federal Government. It prevents Federal employers and contractors from asking about a criminal history until the final stages 

of the interview and application process. 

Too often individuals who have atoned for their mistakes and 

served their time are automatically disqualified or overlooked because of their record. These individuals are denied a chance to rejoin and contribute to society even though they have paid their 

dues. 

This scenario can lead to a cycle of recidivism because an individual is unable to find work. We can do better. We can provide 

meaningful opportunities to those who have paid their dues who 

are seeking a second chance. Thirty-three states, including my 

home state of Georgia have Ban the Box. The Federal Government 

can learn from their example and their successes. 

Governor Deal, a former member of this body, in Georgia, was 

a leader on issues like this. And much of what has been accomplished on reform efforts in Congress have been built and modeled 

after those efforts. The Fair Chance Act continues that effort. 

It is my hope that members of this committee and all of my colleagues will look at a strong, bipartisan support of this bill already 

has and join this effort to reduce recidivism, strengthen communities by banning the box at the Federal level. 
8 

I made this comment to President Trump before he signed it, the 

bill, the First Step Act. I said, ‘‘Mr. President, many times you’re 

gonna be presented with bills that are simply lines on a page.’’ And 

hearing the echoes of the chairman of this great committee and the 

ranking member and others, I told him, I said, ‘‘On this bill, there 

are actually faces behind those lines,’’ and we have actually seen 

that come true. 

When we take a step of humanity, Mr. Chairman, when we take 

a step to looking how we can help in solid ways. Recognizing the 

role of our criminal justice system and those of who had made mistakes and then helping them once they get out, not diminishing the 

system but enhancing it. This is what this bill does, and I look forward to continued support. I thank the chairman, the ranking 

member, and I appreciate the opportunity to testify. 

Mr. RASKIN. Congressman Collins, thank you very much. We 

very much appreciate your testimony and those of our now-departed colleagues, and this panel is dismissed. 

Before I now turn to opening statements from the subcommittee, 

I just wanted to recognize that this is a joint hearing of the new 

Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and the Government Operations Subcommittee. And this, in fact, the first hearing 

of the new subcommittee. So I just wanted to quickly recognize all 

of the members. 

We have got an all-star cast on the subcommittee: Carolyn Maloney, Lacy Clay, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Robin Kelly, Jimmy 

Gomez, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ayanna Pressley, Eleanor 

Holmes Norton. On the minority side we have Chip Roy, who is the 

ranking member, Justin Amash, Thomas Massie, Mark Meadows, 

Jody Hice, Michael Cloud and Carol Miller. And I just want to welcome and thank all of the members of the new subcommittee. 

And I want to ask the clerks if they would prepare the table and 

ask the new panel of witnesses to come forward to the witness 

table during our opening statements. 

At this time, I will recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. And again, I want to extend my warm greetings to 

Mr. Roy, the ranking member, and also to my Vice Chair, Ms. 

Ocasio-Cortez. 

This is an exciting and timely hearing. The laboratories of democracy across the country have been banning the box for quite 

some time now. So we have a good table of experiences to draw 

from as we enter upon this legislation. Six years ago, my home 

state of Maryland became the ninth state to ban the box and to improve fair hiring practices in our local communities. 

Today, 33 states and more than 150 counties and cities have instituted Ban the Box in addition. Many companies, like Walmart, 

Koch Industries, Target, Home Depot, and Bed Bath & Beyond 

have embraced the policy, too. So Congress can strike a decisive 

blow for reentry and reintegration by enacting this policy at the 

Federal level. 

The bill would codify the existing OPM guidance for Federal 

agencies to ask about criminal histories only after a conditional job 

offer has been made rather than automatically screening out applicants at the start of the process, which is still taking place in too 

many workplaces. 
9 

When highly qualified job seekers do not even make it to an 

interview, there is nothing but lost opportunity on all sides. To the 

employer and the applicant, but also the applicants’ families and 

our local communities. 

The Fair Chance Act includes important exceptions for sensitive 

positions in national security and law enforcement, and it would 

not force any employer to hire any applicant they do not want to. 

But the bill would institute Ban the Box for millions of Federal 

contractor positions for the first time, effectively opening up the 

possibility of employment to this critical and expanding sector. 

Study after study have shown that steady and meaningful employment is the most significant factor for reducing recidivism. 

Finding and keeping a job is the critical way for returning citizens 

to truly reintegrate and make contributions to society. 

I look forward to hearing more about the details and the rationale for the Fair Chance Act from our witnesses as the committee 

plans to take up the bill at a markup as well. 

I hope today will be the first of many hearings we have to advance the bipartisan cause of a fair and just criminal justice system. 

I also want to thank Teresa Hodge from Baltimore, Maryland for 

her tireless advocacy in Maryland to help people with criminal histories successfully get back on their feet and into society. Enduring 

prison, going to prison and being released and building bridges to 

success, not only for yourself but for other people is a powerful testament to the potential that this legislation has. 

There are still way too many people that have paid their debt to 

society but are never been given a fair chance to work in dignity 

again. So I look forward to hearing how this legislation will help. 

And with that, I will turn to Mr. Roy, and I recognize the gentleman for five minutes. 

Mr. ROY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. Thank 

you very much for holding this hearing on this important subject. 

I applaud you for making this issue the first that we are going to 

cover in this Congress. I appreciate you doing that. It is an important issue. I would like to thank the witnesses for being here and 

each of your devotion of your life to this important issue, and I look 

forward to hearing from you. 

I think it is safe to say that everyone in this room wants those 

in our society who have committed crimes to be rehabilitated back 

into the community and live a law-abiding and productive and fulfilling life. 

The chairman and panel may not know, I was formerly the Vice 

President of Strategy of the Texas Public Policy Foundation where 

we had Right on Crime as a core component of that institution’s 

purpose. I was proud to work with those individuals as we have advanced, you know, policies to change, both in Texas and now at the 

national level. 

A huge part of reentry success is gaining and maintaining employment. There is dignity in work. Employment is part of the rehabilitative process. Think about the challenges such a person 

faces as they seek employment, especially those who were recently 

incarcerated. You need clothes for an interview, proof of identification. You need to find transportation to get to an interview. You 
10 

need to know what to say when you get to the interview, and eventually, you will be faced with the dreaded question, ‘‘Have you been 

convicted of a crime?’’ 

And this is the issue we are examining today. And it is a tough 

issue. And, again, I applaud this committee for putting this issue 

front and center. I do have some concerns that I think we should 

address and look forward to hearing about today. 

The chairman mentioned some of those concerns earlier, Chairman Cummings, about, you know, some of the issues that have 

been raised in the past. And, you know, one of those is pointing to 

the question of hiring people with convictions, and this policy may 

not actually advance the cause that I think is being purported to 

advance, and that is something that we will address today. 

And, you know, why do I say that? Because there is some evidence that suggests that this bill may run afoul of the goal based 

on some of the studies and the history that people have looked at. 

I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record, written testimony provided for this hearing by Texas A&M Professor of Economics, Jennifer Doleac. 

Mr. RASKIN. Without objection. 

Mr. ROY. Now, I say as a University of Texas School Law graduate, I say that with some hesitation, right, this is an Aggie’s report. And I say that as I am married to an Aggie, so I am going 

to get in trouble back home. 

But this is an important study. It is an important review of the 

record. And I think it was done from an objective, non-biased view 

by this professor. I think it is important for the discussion on the 

record. 

Professor Doleac’s testimony reviews the empirical evidence on 

polices that prohibit employers from asking job applicants about 

their criminal records. And that evidence shows that these policies 

may not actually increase employment for people with records. And 

in fact, the evidence suggests it may actually reduce employment 

opportunities. Additionally, it may reduce minority hiring overall 

and disproportionally hurting young African American men who 

have no criminal record. 

I would also ask unanimous consent to enter into the record, a 

May 15, 2018 letter from then-Chairman Gowdy to the Government 

Accountability Office. This letter reads, in part, ‘‘Given the goal of 

improving employment outcomes for those with criminal records, 

we would like GAO to examine whether the Federal Ban the Box 

initiative is achieving its intended purpose and determine whether 

there have been any observable changes in the hiring of individuals 

with criminal histories attributable to this initiative.’’ 

So without objection, I would like to put that in the record. 

Mr. RASKIN. Without objection. 

Mr. ROY. And Ranking Member Jordan recently requested that 

GAO continue to pursue this effort. I think we should analyze the 

current Federal policy, determine if it is effective and then legislate 

to appropriate, based on evidence. 

The only last thing I would point is, there are a couple of questions that I think is important for us to look at. You know, why 

should an employer spend time and resources interviewing individuals who should not be hired, if you know that. And if you had that 
11 

information, you might know it from the get-go. I just think that 

is an important thing to review. 

One might hypothetically ask, you know, if I am particularly in 

charge of hiring someone to be in charge of, you know, tax collections and enforcement at the IRS, would I really want to hire Michael Cohen, for example, based on his recent running afoul with 

the IRS. I think that would be a reasonable question to ask if you 

knew that right out of the gate. 

And then there are other methods to consider regarding statute 

of limitations. Are there ways to deal with this in a slightly different way, or sort of a partial ban the box? 

I look forward to hearing information on those. These are challenging issues, and I thank the chairman for having the hearing. 

I thank the witnesses for being here, and I look forward to learning 

more about how to help more people with criminal records find 

work success and lead crime-free lives, and I yield back to the 

chairman. 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay, I now recognize the Ranking Member of the 

Government Operations Subcommittee, Mr. Meadows of North 

Carolina, for five minutes for an opening statement. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RASKIN. Well, are you ready—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. I yield to the Chairman of the Government Operations. 

Mr. RASKIN. You know what, we recognize Mr. Connolly of Virginia for five—I was just giving you a second. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I forgot, we are called chairmen, now. He is the 

ranking member. I just automatically—sorry. 

Mr. RASKIN. All right, we will let Mr. Meadows go. We will give 

Mr. Connolly a minimum—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. I will be very, very, very brief. I want to thank 

the chairman and the ranking member of the Civil Rights subcommittee. Obviously, my good friend, Mr. Connolly, the chairman 

of the full committee, Mr. Cummings, who articulated exactly why 

this is such a critical issue. 

I am probably one of the few Members of Congress in the private 

sector that has actually hired those that have been convicted and 

incarcerated and actually hired them to work for me in the private 

sectors, and it has been a very rewarding [experience]and truthfully, [they were] some of the best employees that I have had. 

I must admit, that when I did it, it was with great fear and concern. Not necessarily for myself, personally, but from the attorneys 

that actually represented my corporation. They said, ‘‘Are you 

crazy?’’ You know, ‘‘What are you doing? The liability, the potential 

liability.’’ And so, I think that this is a good second step. It should 

not be the final step. We should answer some of the difficult questions that we have, and I look forward to working in a bipartisan 

way. 

Look forward to hearing from both of you and with that, I yield 

back. 

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Meadows, thank you for your always-thoughtful 

comments. And now we turn to Chairman Connolly. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank my good friend, Mr. Raskin. And again, 

I am going to have to use to this chairman thing. 
12 

Mr. RASKIN. Hopefully not for too long. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Been a while. So forgive me. This is a really important subject, and it is quite striking that 33 states and 150 cities and counties have adopted policies preventing public employers 

from asking about an applicant’s criminal history until a later 

stage in the hiring process. 

And in Washington, DC. alone, that Ban the Box policy has resulted in a 33 percent increase in employment for the formerly incarcerated. 

In November 2015, President Obama moved to implement a Ban 

the Box policy across the Federal Government. And that was clearly intended to encourage more individuals with requisite knowledge, skills, and ability to apply for Federal positions. 

I happen to believe more can be done to help ex-offenders find 

employment. Federal contractors, for example, are a great example. 

They play an important role in supporting Federal operations. New 

York University professor Paul Light estimates that among the 40 

percent or 3.6 million of the 9 million individuals who comprise the 

Federal work force are contract employees. 

And as I have said often, the Federal contracter does work shoulder to shoulder with Federal employees. Sometimes even performing this very substantially similar task, which, by the way, is 

a problem in terms of equity after a shutdown. Because we pass 

laws to make sure our Federal employees are kept whole, but their 

Federal contract counterparts are not. Even though they may be 

working in the same office, cubicle by cubicle, doing the same work. 

And so, similarly, I think we have some real opportunities in expanding Ban the Box to Federal contract employees and would very 

much be interested in hearing testimony today about that as well. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are delighted to join you in 

holding this hearing. And thank you, Mr. Cummings, especially for 

your vision on this subject. [It] was very much appreciated. 

I yield back. 

Mr. RASKIN. Excellent, thank you very much, Mr. Connolly. Now 

I want to briefly recognize Congressman Massie to introduce the 

witness from his home state of Kentucky. 

Mr. MASSIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my pleasure and my 

honor to introduce Holly Harris, the Executive Director of the Justice Action Network. She was born and raised in Kentucky, and she 

has done a lot of great work there. She previously served as a litigator at the Justice Cabinet and in senior leadership roles for Kentucky-elected officials. In fact, it was there, that we worked together on the industrial hemp issue, and we succeeded. She did a 

great job there in Kentucky for us. 

Now she is the Executive Director of the Justice Action Network, 

which has gone from a three state presence to a 17 state presence, 

and I want to thank you, Ms. Harris for your passion and leadership on these issues and other issues that matter to the people of 

Kentucky and the people of this entire United States. 

Mr. RASKIN. Thank you very much. Will the witnesses please 

rise? 

[Witnesses sworn.] 
13 

Mr. RASKIN. Let the record show the witnesses have answered in 

the affirmative. Thank you and please be seated. The mics are sensitive, so please do speak directly into them. 

Without objection, your full written statements will be made part 

of the record. And with that, Ms. Harris, you are now recognized 

to give the verbal presentation of your testimony for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HOLLY HARRIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, JUSTICE ACTION NETWORK 

Ms. HARRIS. A miracle of technology. Again thank you, Chairman 

Raskin, Chairman Connolly. Thank you, Representative Massie. I 

want to thank all the members of the committee for inviting me to 

be here today. 

Again, my name is Holly Harris. I am the Executive Director and 

president of the Justice Action Network. We are the largest bipartisan organization working at both the Federal and state levels to 

make our justice system fairer and more effective. 

The Network is a relatively young organization. We launched in 

2015 and started with three target states. We are now built out in 

17 states across the country in which we have helped to pass more 

than 70 pieces of significant criminal justice reform legislation. 

At the Federal level, we were honored to support and serve as 

a bipartisan convener for many of the organizations and lawmakers 

that work to pass the First Step Act. And if it is Okay, I would like 

to just immediately, right off the top address some of the questions 

that you had, Ranking Member, Roy. 

You did reference a study or some testimony that talked about 

how, potentially, Ban the Box could exacerbate racial disparities, 

and I think it is really important to note that the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and Chairman Cummings and 

Teresa Hodge with JustLeadershipUSA and some of the most important civil rights voices of my generation are zealous supporters 

of this policy, and I think we ought to be deferring to those voices 

on what is best for minority communities and at-risk populations. 

In addition to that, I also want to address your point that, you 

know, that employers may waste their time by interviewing folks 

who may ultimately not be eligible for a job. And I will tell you 

what we hear from employers, and I will tell you, it is really critical in my home state of Kentucky, there is a real dearth of skilled 

labor out there. 

And what we hear from employers is that they are desperate for 

workers. And so, quite frankly, they are excited about seeing the 

Federal Government take this move, because it will empower them 

to do the same. 

With that, I will move on with my testimony. For many of those 

reasons, Fair Chance hiring or Ban the Box, as most people refer 

to it, actually tops our list of legislative priorities. And it has a 

vaunted place among our state legislative victories, because it was 

the very first bill that we helped to pass in the states. 

House Bill 56 in the Battleground state of Ohio passed with near 

unanimous support on both sides of the aisle, in both chambers at 

the close of 2015, the year that we launched the Network. 
14 

Since then, we have successfully urged implementation of Ban 

the Box in Arizona, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Indiana, 

and in many of your home states. And not to play favorites, but I 

will start with the Commonwealth of Kentucky. 

Representative Massie, in our very first meeting with Kentucky 

policymakers in 2016, we urged executive action on Ban the Box 

and in 2017, the policy was implemented. Thanks, in no small part, 

to some members of Kentucky’s Federal delegation, you, Senator 

Rand Paul, Congressman Yarmuth, getting the hemp ban back together again. There were pioneering voices in criminal justice reform in our home state. 

Another great Commonwealth representative on this committee, 

Massachusetts became one of the first states to pass Ban the Box 

by legislation back in 2010. Chairman Raskin, your state legislature in Maryland was next, banning the box for public employment 

in 2013. That same year, Illinois Governor issued an executive 

order banning the box for Government employers. And the following year, the state legislature passed an even more expansive 

version. 

In 2014, the District of Columbia banned the box for public and 

private employers. Congressman Hice—I saw Congressman Hice 

earlier. I had the honor of meeting Governor Nathan Deal, who 

previously led your home state of Georgia. As you well know, Governor Deal was a national leader in all areas of criminal justice reform policy. He even got a unanimous vote on sentencing reform 

in Georgia, which is pretty unheard of. But he implemented Fair 

Chance hiring by executive order in 2015. 

Chairman Connolly, that same year, Virginia’s Governor also 

signed an executive order also banning the box and shortly thereafter, Representative Ocasio-Cortez, the New York legislature did 

the same. 

The very next year, in 2016, Wisconsin banned the box for government jobs and just a week later, Missouri followed suit implementing Fair Chance hiring for public employment. The California 

State Assembly passed Ban the Box, for public and private employers in 2017. And in 2018, Michigan, banned the box for government 

jobs by executive order. Finally, and not to be outdone, the legislature of the U.S. Virgin Islands, banned the box for public and private employers in November that same year. 

Other witnesses today have cited to data that a job can be the 

greatest deterrent to returning to a life of crime. Others will share 

their compelling stories of the consequences of a criminal record, 

not just on themselves but on their families and on their children. 

My role here is to remind everyone that we are not reinventing the 

wheel with this legislation. We are simply asking Congress to catch 

up to what is happening in their own backyards. 

All in, 33 states, diverse in population, geography, and political 

ideology have implemented Fair Chance hiring policies that, at the 

very least, ensure people with records have an opportunity to get 

their foot in the door and present their skills and qualifications before they have to disclose their criminal histories. 

At a time when some studies show that as many as one in three, 

oe in three American adults have a criminal records, we simply 
15 

cannot afford to exclude this population from employment opportunities. 

And as a woman who hails from Kentucky, a state that has been 

ravaged by the drug scourge, I can tell you that we are not ready 

to throw in the towel on our friends and our family members who 

are struggling to overcome addiction, who have made mistakes but 

simply want a chance to get back on their feet, support their families, and be productive members of society again. 

Mr. RASKIN. Ms. Harris, let me stop you there, and you will get 

a chance, during questioning to offer more thoughts. 

Ms. HARRIS. Yes sir. 

Mr. RASKIN. Thank you for your excellent testimony. Ms. Hodge? 

STATEMENT OF TERESA HODGE, C0-FOUNDER & CEO, R3 

SCORE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 

Ms. HODGE. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Raskin, 

Ranking Member Jordan, Ranking Member Roy, and members of 

this committee. 

I am Teresa Hodge, and I am testifying today on behalf of 

JustLeadershipUSA. And the millions of formerly incarcerated and 

convicted people in the United States. JustLeadership is a national 

nonprofit, dedicating to cutting the U.S. corrections population in 

half by the year 2030. Led by directly impacted people, we believe 

that those closest to the problem are closest to the solution but furthest from the resources and power. 

For this reason, JustLeadership works to ensure the directly impacted people are at the center of the criminal justice reform efforts, because we have the most relevant expertise and the most to 

gain from such reforms. I applaud this committee for recognizing 

this and inviting me to testify today. 

For those of us who have been incarcerated and convicted, we 

hold a similar truth. We know we are better than our worst mistake. We are people who can do and make positive contributions to 

this country but countless stigmas and structural barriers impede 

our success. 

One of the most harmful of these barriers is the consistent discrimination we face when pursuing jobs. Today, more than 70 million adults in this country have a criminal record, and we confront 

more than 46,000 laws and statutes that hinder our success, including access to gainful employment. 

The Fair Chance to Compete for Jobs Act is a critical step toward 

eliminating discriminatory barriers. By codifying important legal 

protections, you will provide millions of people a fair chance to compete for employment in the Federal Government. 

By delaying any discussions of a person’s criminal history record 

until a conditional offer of employment is extended, we allow all individuals to compete for the positions based on their talent and 

skills. 

To date, 33 states and more than 150 municipalities have already enacted these laws. Now Congress can join their ranks and 

quicken the elimination of these harmful, discriminatory practice 

that continue to ruin millions of lives. 

A growing body of evidence, coupled with the bipartisan of the 

Ban the Box policies throughout the country attest to the effective-
16 

ness of Fair Chance hiring policies. My story and my voice speaks 

to the depth of the problem and humanizes the pain that millions 

of Americans face. 

On August 3, 2011, I was released from Alderson Federal Prison 

Camp. I had imagined this day for the entire 70 months of my Federal prison sentence as a first-time, white-collar, nonviolent person. 

I went to prison at the age of 44 years old. With more than 20 

years of professional work experience that included an H.R. background as well as social entrepreneurship, I was confident that I 

could return home and be a valuable asset in the workplace again. 

Yet, all of this did not take away from the fact that as a former 

H.R. professional, I was familiar with the training that often leads 

to immediate disqualification of anyone with a criminal record if 

that information is readily available. 

I know that meaningful work brings dignity to one’s life. It was 

with this knowledge that prior to leaving prison, I began reaching 

out to my network for a job. A former colleague hired me. I was 

able to start working days after my release from prison. 

A year later, I was searching for greater meaning to my own 

prison journey. I wanted to launch a nonprofit alongside my daughter that would help people with criminal records pursue entrepreneurship as a means to become self-sufficient. I looked to my professional network for a part-time job that would allow me the flexibility to start a nonprofit. 

I was induced to an opening found online by a friend. However 

this time, I did not have an introduction into the company. After 

my initial read, I knew I was qualified for the position, and I began 

applying online. I put my name, my address, my phone number, 

and other very basic information into the system. And then the 

question appeared, ‘‘Have you ever been convicted of a crime?’’ I 

took a deep breath, and I said, ‘‘yes.’’ I hit enter, and I will never 

forget what happened. The screen went black and a message appeared, ‘‘Something you said disqualified you for this job.’’ 

The answer was glaring. It was not my name or my address. It 

was the fact that I had said yes. I was disqualified for the opportunity before I even had an opportunity to apply. 

I do not believe I will ever forget that experience. At that moment, I became aware of the level of discrimination that I could 

face for the rest of my life when applying for a job. 

There is nothing on its own that will alleviate the centuries of 

criminalization, but enactment of the Fair Chance to Compete for 

Jobs Act offers a starting point. Removing this box does not ensure 

that every person with a criminal history will get a job. But it will 

give those who apply a fair chance. 

I urge this committee and Congress to pass the Fair Chance to 

Compete for Jobs Act. Millions of Americans and their families are 

counting on you. I also believe, just knowing you have a fair chance 

to employment is essential to the success of reintegration and will 

reduce recidivism. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify. 

Mr. RASKIN. Ms. Hodge, thank you very much for your testimony. 

And I would like to thank both of the witnesses for their testimony 

today. And I am going to pass myself. So I am eager to get questions from all of the members, and I turn it now over to the Rank-
17 

ing Member, Mr. Roy, and I just learned from a friend of yours that 

you were actually born in Bethesda, Maryland. 

Mr. ROY. I did not campaign on that fact. 

Mr. RASKIN. So—well, you are always welcome. So all is forgiven. 

Come on home, Mr. Roy. All right, Mr. Roy. 

Mr. ROY. Happy to go, actually the chairman wants our side to 

go ahead and go first. 

Mr. RASKIN. No please, please. I am eager to get to the—— 

Mr. ROY. I will yield to the gentleman from Kentucky. I believe 

he has a question. 

Mr. MASSIE. I have several questions here today. So you announced an impressive array of states that have implemented Ban 

the Box in their state legislatures. Do we have enough of a record 

yet to know whether this policy works or does not work, and if 

there are ill effects? What kind of record do these states have that 

have done it long enough to have some data? 

Ms. HARRIS. Well there is a lot of research out there actually— 

to your point—the states need to be passing better data collection 

bills, and we are working on that, too. But there is a lot of data 

that shows the connection between having a job and recidivism 

rates. 

And I believe some of that has been referenced in the testimony 

from our friends at Freedom Works that was submitted into the 

record. And then also from the Leadership Conference on Civil and 

Human Rights. But basically, a job is the greatest deterrent to returning to a life of crime. 

And so, you know, to us, to our organization and the groups from 

the far left to far right that support this policy, it is not just about 

providing second chances, which is great. It is not just about ensuring that employers can find good workers. It is also about ensuring 

public safety, which you cannot put a price on, so. 

Mr. MASSIE. How do you get over the fear that, obviously, employers would have that if they hire somebody with a criminal 

background and they have not done their due diligence and then 

something bad happens related to that criminal background that 

they would be liable for the actions of that employee or that their 

hiring process would be, you know, looked at in a bad way by a 

jury? 

Ms. HARRIS. Well I can tell you we do not hear that, again, from 

employers at all. In fact, again, it is a desperation for workers that 

we hear. That is why the Homebuilders Association, The automobile manufacturers and so many others have joined in the fight 

for criminal justice reform, because they simply cannot find workers. 

I will tell you that my home state of Kentucky is moving forward 

on an expungement bill today that can address some of those concerns employers have, and I would sure love to see that happen at 

the Federal level as well. 

Mr. MASSIE. Let us see, I think it was Mr. Roy brought up the 

point, what was your point, Mr. Roy, on the—— 

Mr. ROY. I am sure it was a really good point. 

Mr. MASSIE. Yes, I am trying to remember what it was. Oh, what 

about, and this is my concern, too, if people are not allowed to ask 

the question about prior criminal conviction, there is a concern that 
18 

they may replace that question in their mind with some indication, 

maybe race of the applicant. And that, this, you know, people have 

objected that maybe this could result in more bias in the hiring 

process if we do that. 

Now, I do not personally subscribe to that. Like I do not know 

if the data shows that, but what do you say when you are asked 

that question? 

Ms. HARRIS. Again, I defer to my good friend, Ms. Hodge to her 

organization JustLeadershipUSA. Also to great leaders like Chairman Cummings and also the Leadership Conference on Civil and 

Human Rights. 

Mr. MASSIE. Let me ask you this—— 

Ms. HARRIS. I was going to say—— 

Mr. MASSIE. If you will defer to Ms. Hodge, do you have that concern that somebody who is not allowed to ask about their criminal 

record, may instead, substitute their own personal biases in that 

application process? And thereby, result in more discrimination? 

Ms. HODGE. That is not a concern of individuals who have arrest 

or conviction records. The concern that we have is just an opportunity to compete. 

The example that I gave of applying for an opportunity, I did not 

have an opportunity to even apply for that particular job. So in this 

case, what we are looking for is just a fairness in an application 

process. Between eight and nine employers run criminal background checks. And so, we are not trying to hide information. We 

just want to get a little bit further in the process so that we have 

an opportunity to be seen and to state our case of who we are in 

this moment. 

Mr. MASSIE. To be clear, I support this legislation. I think it is 

great idea. I think that the concerns need to be addressed. That we 

have to have answers to these, because when this ultimately does 

come for a vote, we are going to have to debate this on the floor. 

So I am glad to hear your testimony here today. I think it does support the fact that we need this bill and that taxpayers would benefit. 

And it is not just about benefiting the people who are applying 

for the jobs. It is that taxpayers actually benefit from the resources 

that those people can bring to the job that are being denied right 

now because of the box that they have to check. So I yield back my 

time, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RASKIN. Thank you very much. Okay, before I yield to the 

Chair of Government Operations, Mr. Connolly, I just want to state 

for the members, we are following the rule which Chairman Cummings has decreed for questioning. 

So we will go to the chairs first, then we will go in order of seniority by virtue of the people who were here when the gavel came 

down. So if you want to speak, you have got to be in your seat. 

You were. I see you looking at me, Ms. Kelly. But our staff has 

kept careful records. So, you know, do not travel until you hear the 

gavel. That is the rule. I was the first victim of this rule. And so, 

I learned it well. But you actually learn something listening to everybody. Mr. Connolly, I come to you. 
19 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman before you defer to me, and I 

thank you. I just want to make sure, does Mr. Cummings wish to 

go? 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I am going to be very brief. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Why do we not defer to Mr. Cummings? 

Mr. RASKIN. Oh very good, then I come to the chairman. Mr. 

Chairman? 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Ms. Hodge, is it Ms. Hodge? 

First of all, I want to thank you for your journey. 

Ms. HODGE. Thank you. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I think a lot of people do not realize how difficult 

it is when someone has a record. Some of my constituents were 

telling me during the recent shutdown that they finally got a 

chance to be even more empathetic to folks who are going through 

coming out of prison or with a record, because they, themselves 

were faced with a situation where they had no paycheck and could 

not and did not know when they were going to get one. But at least 

they knew they were going to get one. 

On the other hand, we have people with a record who have no 

way out. Am I right? 

Ms. HODGE. Yes sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I cannot hear you. 

Ms. HODGE. Yes sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And so you said you have children? 

Ms. HODGE. I do. I have one daughter, and I have a grandchild. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And tell us a little bit more about your journey. 

And so you came out of prison. You had already made preparation 

to get a job? 

Ms. HODGE. Yes, I did. I was fortunate enough to have a strong 

network, and I took good skill sets with me to prison. And as a result of that, I was able to reach into my network. And it was people 

who believed in me and who knew me as a person and knew that 

I would be qualified for opportunities, but that is not the case for 

most people. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Right. And we have a situation today—I do not 

think people really fully understand the volume of African American people who are locked up for offenses like dealing with marijuana and things of that nature, nonviolent. While at the same 

time, they can go to Colorado and watch people buying the same 

drug or whatever you want to call it, and it is no big deal. 

And the lives—a person who then goes who has that record cannot get a job. Family, a lot of times, is not there for them. I mean 

what do they do? What are they supposed to do? I mean, do you 

have any suggestions? 

Ms. HODGE. The best thing that a person can do is—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Yes. 

Ms. HODGE [continuing]. get a job. Most people who I met in 

prison and individuals who came home right after being incarcerated, what they wanted more than anything was to be productive 

members of society. They wanted to have a job. While I was imprisoned, women were dreaming of being able to go home, walk their 

children to school, and have jobs. And they wanted to be productive. And so, the best thing that individuals can do is access jobs. 

But without a job, then people are returning to under-resourced 
20 

neighborhoods and communities and are returning back to what is 

familiar. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Now Ms. Harris, this whole question of worrying 

about whether the person—will you be able to trust them and all 

that kind of thing. What we are dealing with is, this person comes 

in, maybe does an interview and you are trying to just make sure 

that they get maybe past the initial steps. Is that right? Am I missing it? 

Ms. HARRIS. Absolutely and ultimately once a conditional offer is 

made, then there can be discussion of criminal history. But I would 

like to say, and of course, this is anecdotal. I mean, from the employers that we talk to, and we talk to quite a lot of them, who hire 

individuals with records, they say that these individuals are their 

very best employees, and they are so grateful for these jobs. 

They are the first to be at the door in the morning and then they 

are the last to leave at night. And so, again, all we ever hear from 

employers who have implemented Fair Chance hiring practices is 

just how well it is working for them. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I have found that just to be the same thing. I 

found that to be the case. As I close, and at Johns Hopkins, I remember, not long ago, I went—drove up there and these guys 

jumped out and they were like the Secret Service. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. CUMMINGS. No, seriously, seriously. I was very impressed. 

They were dressed in bowties, and they were sharp. They had little 

wires in their ears and stuff. And so I said, ‘‘Who are these guys? 

They are so polite.’’ And come to find out, all of them were former 

inmates. They had formed a firm and had been hired by, probably 

the No. 1 hospital in the world, Johns Hopkins. So I just—the idea 

is to give people a chance so that they can then go forward and do 

for their families. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your courtesy, and I yield back. 

Mr. RASKIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I come now 

to the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Hice. 

Mr. HICE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and I, likewise 

appreciate this hearing and the heart of everyone up here. And to 

both of you, thank you for your work, and we are grateful for your 

presence. 

Ms. Harris, I appreciate you giving a shout-out to Georgia and 

what has been done there. I know there are a lot of other states 

that are doing great work in this area as well. But Governor Deal 

and my colleague, Doug Collins have been tremendous leaders, and 

it is an honor to work with them. 

We have got some 70 million individuals that have a criminal 

record in this country. That is an enormous amount, even compared to other countries. And, you know, obviously this is something that we have got to address, and so I am glad that we are. 

The question, obviously, is these people need some sort of opportunity after they have served their time so they do not go back into 

the same cycle. And I know that is why we are all here. And from 

studies that I have seen, those who are released from prison who 

stay unemployed are three times more likely to return than are 

those who are making even $10 an hour. So the opportunity here 

is great. 
21 

One of my concerns has been brought up, and I want to bring 

it back up. And if both of you could kind of answer quickly. I do 

not have too many questions, but I want to get both of your responses. 

Since the Office of Personnel Management has implemented the 

Ban the Box policy, the question is, out of the gate, have we seen 

an increase of hiring people with convictions? Either one of you, 

both of you. 

Ms. HARRIS. I can just share, that again, there is a lot of data 

that is still missing from states. 

Mr. HICE. So we do not know? 

Ms. HARRIS. But I will tell you this. I will tell you this. I have 

experience in hiring in state government, and here is the way it 

works. You know, we open the floodgates—— 

Mr. HICE. I want to go quickly, because I have got some things— 

my question is, have we seen, definitely, an increase in hiring people with convictions? Or do we not know? 

Ms. HARRIS. I have not seen data that shows that. 

Mr. HICE. Okay, Ms. Hodge? 

Ms. HODGE. I have not seen data. I know that we have reported 

that in the District of Columbia employment for individuals with 

records has gone up by 33 percent. 

Mr. HICE. Okay and that is a fantastic number, my friend. But 

Chairman Connolly mentioned that, and I think that is fantastic. 

Great record. I would love to see that across the board, but at this 

point, from the GAO, we do not have that kind of information. 

The study came out from Professor Jennifer Doleac, whatever her 

name is. I hope I pronounced that properly. Are you familiar with 

that study reference? You are? 

Ms. HARRIS. Yes. 

Mr. HICE. Okay, does it concern you? 

Ms. HARRIS. No. 

Mr. HICE. Okay, does it concern you? 

Ms. HODGE. No, it does not. 

Mr. HICE. Why not? 

Ms. HODGE. The crux of the study talks about Ban the Box is not 

a cure-all, and we agree, that it is not a cure-all. It is a good first 

step when we are looking at employment. And the study looks at 

discrimination and the study focused on African American men as 

a whole around employment opportunities. 

Mr. HICE. Okay, the question that does concern me is again that 

we do not have any evidence, no empirical evidence that Ban the 

Box legislation increases employment. That does kind of concern 

me. That was the result of the study. Let me ask you this. Moving 

on from there, another underlying issue that I think we are all trying to tackle is employers seemingly reluctant to hire people. Does 

this legislation change that at all? 

Ms. HARRIS. Well no, if we are talking about private employers, 

there is no private employer mandate in this. 

Mr. HICE. All right, that was going to be my next step. 

Ms. HARRIS. Sure. Yes but, of course, Mark Holden at Koch Industries talks about this all the time. I mean, if you do not want 

to adhere to this policy, then do not do business with the govern-
22 

ment and provide services that are paid for by the taxpayers. And 

so, I think it is quite simple. 

Mr. HICE. Okay. Ms. Hodge, you want to add anything to that? 

Ms. HODGE. No, I agree with everything that Ms. Harris has indicated. 

Mr. HICE. Okay, let me ask one last question, and we may not 

have an answer to this. We know unemployment, right now, is 

about 3.8 percent. Do we have any records as to how many of that 

unemployment are individuals with records? 

Ms. HARRIS. I am not aware of that number, but I can certainly—— 

Mr. HICE. Is there any way we can get an answer to that? I 

would really be curious to know how many among our current unemployed in this country have records. 

Ms. HODGE. Probably the National Employment Law Project is 

the leader of data concerning unemployment for individuals with 

criminal histories. They have conducted long-standing studies and 

are the leaders of Ban the Box. 

Mr. HICE. Would you try to get that for us? 

Ms. HODGE. Yes sir, we will. 

Mr. HICE. Thank you very much. 

Mr. RASKIN. The gentleman’s time has expired. Thank you very 

much. Mr. Connolly. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome, to our 

panel. Ms. Hodge, you may know this, but as I understand it, an 

estimate one in three adults in America has a criminal record that 

will show up in a routine background check. Is that your understanding? 

Ms. HODGE. Yes sir. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. That is astounding. 

Ms. HODGE. It is. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And if they all go through the experience you did, 

in that interview, where the screen goes black. You said something 

that disqualified you—that disqualifies potentially a third of the 

entire American work force—adult work force. 

Ms. HODGE. Yes sir. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Astounding. Ms. Harris, there is now guidance 

with respect to formerly incarcerated individuals by OPM for those 

seeking direct employment with the Federal Government. Is that 

correct? 

Ms. HARRIS. Yes sir. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And has it had a positive impact, from your point 

of view? 

Ms. HARRIS. Yes, there is positive data that we have seen. And 

I also want to share, you all, this is some good common sense. And 

I can tell you that as—— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. My time, Ms. Harris. Do not jump ahead. 

Mr. MEADOWS. But I like her accent, Mr. Connolly. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Great accent and great point you are making, but 

hold on. So that guidance which is working pretty well on the direct Federal employment side. Is that guidance extended to those 

who are seeking to be Federal contract employees? Working for a 

private contractor with an account with the Federal Government? 
23 

Ms. HARRIS. I am not aware of that. I do not think so. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Perhaps the answer is no? 

Ms. HARRIS. I am not quite sure. I am not quite sure. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. So it does not apply. And here is the thing. So 

we have a total Federal work force of about nine million. Of which, 

40 percent is private contract employees, 40 percent. So if my math 

is correct, that means we have got 5.4 direct Federal hires and 3.6 

million contract hires. 

And in many cases, those contract employees are embedded with 

the Federal employees. So at the same agency in the same room, 

same office, you know, sharing cubicles, we got a Federal employee, 

we got a contract employee doing the same work. But they are not 

treated the same way. So when there is a shutdown, the Federal 

employee might be reimbursed—is going to be reimbursed, but the 

contract employee is not. 

And likewise in the case of looking at former incarceration as a 

factor of employment we are providing relief at the Federal employment level but not necessarily at the contract level. And different 

companies may have different policies. And I assume from your 

point of view that would present a problem if we have sort of a potpourri of approaches as opposed to a uniform, standard policy. 

Ms. HARRIS. Not if we pass this legislation. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. What is that? 

Ms. HARRIS. We will not have the problem. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. You are jumping ahead again, Ms. Harris. We 

are trying to work through the case, here. But okay. So maybe legislation is necessary, you are saying? 

Ms. HARRIS. It is necessary, yes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. It is necessary, and are we not lucky that Chairman Cummings has a bill that we can all consider getting on the 

help us with this. And that bill, inter alia, would include mandating agencies to keep data. Is that correct, Ms. Hodge? 

Ms. HODGE. Yes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And that data could then give us sort of a statistical base for GAO and others from which, Mr. Hice’s question, 

would have some statistics that would be helpful in guiding us in 

terms of how policies are working or how they are not. And to 

incentivize agencies to do the right thing that Ms. Harris is advocating for and so are you. 

Ms. HODGE. Yes sir. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Are there states, you know, you went through a 

long list of states, thank you, Ms. Harris, but is there sort of a 

benchmark where it is really working and working well and we can 

look to and go, ‘‘There is the model.’’ 

Ms. HARRIS. We have literally never had a state, certainly not 

the ones that we have been a part of helping to implement the Ban 

the Box policy and that would be, again, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Indiana, Kentucky. We have literally never had any policymaker 

from the far left to the far right complain about implementing this 

policy. And in fact, it has been just the opposite, so. I will say, 

though, there is dearth of data that is available in the states. And 

sometimes that is what is difficult in determining, you know, how 

far reaching this policy is. 
24 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I just want to say, in closing, and thank you 

both. You know, this is sort of an across-the-board thing we have 

to look at. Policies of incarceration, Mr. Cummings has talked 

about that already, is just inherently unequal. And not a fair system of justice. Then the consequences of having been incarcerated, 

including the restoration of voting rights. 

In my state, it required the scent of the Governor, because the 

legislature would not do it. Physically designed the restoration for 

170,000 individuals, one by one. That is what it took. And now we 

are looking at hiring practices. So we have got a long way to go 

in terms of making sure justice is blind. And that once somebody 

has served their term, they have opportunities in this society. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RASKIN. And thank you, Chairman Connolly. I come now to 

the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Norman. 

Mr. NORMAN. Thank you all for appearing. Let me give you a different point of view. I am from the private sector. We are contracting company. We have done government work, but we mainly 

do private work now. And as I understand, Ban the Box would not 

run—would not be required—for private work. 

We have done a lot of hiring with people who have been incarcerated. One of my best carpenters was a person who had a drinking 

problem. He killed a 13-year-old from drunk driving, not once, but 

twice. And he told us. Had I not been able to find out, no, I would 

not have hired him. The fact that I did find out gave me that lever 

to, if he ever got off the wagon, I would know it. 

Second, I hired another carpenter who had been in prison for 30 

years, drug abuse. Great worker for a while. I hired him. He told 

me. And most of the workers who had criminal records were eager 

to tell us, for some reason. He went back to cocaine. I could sense 

it, because we could watch his change in personality. 

The third person I had, had a cocaine problem. Had been in and 

out of prison. Got back on it. I called him in. I said, ‘‘I can’t keep 

you on.’’ He said, ‘‘Why?’’ I said, ‘‘Let me ask you. You’re the best 

motor grader driver I have, any piece of equipment. How is that 

going to protect that family when you get high and run off the 

road?’’ He is now at a Federal job with waving the flag on the highway, which is the only Federal job he could get, waving a job. I was 

paying him $30 an hour. He is down to $12 now. 

Why I would take—Ms. Hodge, help me understand. I would take 

the tact as almost discriminatory against that person not to know 

the background, because if the person I just described was able to 

go to a Federal job and get on a motor grader or a D7 tractor and 

run over through a house, tell me what I am missing. 

Ms. HODGE. Congressman, first thank you for those stories. The 

process is not to keep the information from an employer. It is just 

to delay it a little bit further in the process. In addition, again, 

eight out of nine employers run criminal background checks. And 

so this information will be disclosed. I think the point that you 

were making where you had an opportunity to meet the individuals. They were able to tell you their stories, to tell you about their 

mistakes, and you had an opportunity after having that human 

connection, to make a decision as an employer. 
25 

I think that is what we want to continue to happen. We are not 

looking for this information to be hidden. We want employers to 

have the information, a hundred percent, and I think that is exactly what this bill will do. It is just a little bit further in the process. 

Mr. NORMAN. But does it not let that person down who has been 

incarcerated, if he is—and I guess what you are saying is—once 

they fill that application out online, if you see the criminal history, 

it precludes them from taking the next step. I am just saying from 

a private individual, the opposite would be true to me, because we 

have experienced it. We have lived it. 

And particularly, if you take a Federal job, it is even more important to know that up front. And then to request an interview with 

that government employee. There is a lot of Federal jobs involve 

childcare. And to have somebody potentially watching your children 

that you do not know about, the history of it, is a drawback to the 

person as well as to the Federal employee that is hiring them, because they can help them. 

In each one of our cases, we were able to help them. And more 

importantly, spot the signs when they either go back or cannot 

function, which helped that person, because they knew we were 

looking. I yield back. 

Mr. RASKIN. Thank you very much. Is Ms. Kelly in the—oh, there 

she is. The gentlelady from Illinois. 

Ms. KELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairs and ranking members. There 

has been significant action, you know, through many states that 

you have named on Ban the Box, and I am proud that my state 

is one of them. Can you just share some of the results on the state 

level, from the implementation of this law, and it can be either one 

of you. 

Ms. HARRIS. Well if I could, I was just going to share from my 

own experience how this worked in government hiring. I was both 

a chief of staff, general counsel, and what would end up happening 

is we used a criminal history as a filter. So if you got hundreds of 

resumes, and again, so many of them were not qualified for positions. But next to geography, filtering by criminal history was the 

only way to get this down, you know, get the applications down to 

a couple of dozen applications. 

And so, of course, what ended up happening is then these individuals were not the most qualified. They were not the most talented. And so, then we had to go back into the application pool. 

And so, I would say the only way, the only way, to safeguard individuals with records from being discriminated against in the hiring 

process and to ensure that we are hiring the most talented, the 

most qualified people to do jobs that are paid for by the taxpayers 

is to implement Ban the Box. 

Ms. KELLY. Do you have any? 

Ms. HODGE. I agree with everything that Ms. Harris said. I was 

once an H.R. professional prior to incarceration. And I was mandated by my employer to dwindle down the application pool, often 

to 10 or 20, something that was manageable. We looked for every 

possible way to discriminate. By having the information ahead of 

time, it was used. 
26 

Ms. KELLY. What would you say when people get out of jail? Like 

you said, you had skills before you went into jail that you could use 

when you got out, but what about people that go into the system, 

into prison, and they do not have skills. What do you think needs 

to be done in prison? What skills do you think need to be taught 

or trained, so people can be prepared when they come out? How do 

you figure that out? 

Ms. HODGE. I think that prisons, to some degree, have to keep 

pace with what is happening on the outside of the prison walls. I 

am a big advocate for technology, because we live in a digitally connected world. And it is important that people know how to use 

technology. But in addition to that, just jobs that are jobs of the 

future. So that individuals can come home and gain access. 

Often when people are in prison, they are given trainings for jobs 

that no longer exist when you come home. And that is very disheartening, because individuals are believing when they come 

home, that they will be able to have access to certain employment 

opportunities. 

Some of the statutes that we have talked about keep an individual from being able to apply. Instances such as, you might get 

a barber’s license while you are incarcerated. And in certain jurisdictions, when you come home, because you have a criminal record, 

you cannot be a barber. 

Ms. KELLY. Also, we would all agree that the affects, you know, 

criminal justice, employment rates, the economy, and crime rates. 

But what would you say are—we are talking about the good things, 

but some of the negatives—what do you think needs to be improved? Like my colleague, Mr. Norman talked about his experiences. What are things that you think need to be improved? 

Ms. HARRIS. Oh where to start? 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. HARRIS. Certainly, I mean, I mentioned earlier that there 

needs to be a significant vehicle for expungement. That is happening all over the country. And in fact, in Kentucky, we have got 

a felony expungement bill. And the bill that would pass today, 

hopefully passes today, would take a waiting period from 10 years 

to 5 years, crime-free waiting period. 

So I am hopeful that we will move forward with expungement. 

Look, there is still so much that we have to do on sentencing reform, and I am hopeful that we can have a broader conversation 

about that as well. 

Ms. HODGE. I agree with everything that was said. And then also 

I reiterate that most employers actually run criminal background 

checks. And we do not want to hide information. We just want to 

be able to have the human contact, the human experience to be 

able to advocate and tell our stories, to tell individuals who we are, 

and to just receive the job based upon our talent and experience, 

or not. 

Ms. KELLY. And then, just out of curiosity, do you go to business 

and tell your story and—— 

Ms. HODGE. I do, and I am an advocate in this country. I do go 

and talk. I am currently working with banks right now who are interested in finding ways to give loans to individuals who have ar-
27 

rest or conviction records, because they are turning to entrepreneurship out of necessity. 

Ms. KELLY. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Ms. HARRIS. And what foolish person would not hire her? 

Mr. RASKIN. Thank you very much. We come now to the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Grothman. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Well, I think this committee is largely a lovefest 

and, perhaps, it should be. It certainly is about as well-intentioned 

a bill as you are ever going to find. Before we had these committees, you know, hardworking staff put together stuff for us. Stuff 

that sometimes does not come out in the testimony immediately. 

And one thing, just struck my eye a little bit, here. I mean, one 

of the things they say is, ‘‘that these bills may be counterproductive.’’ And they mention a study here, I do not know whether 

any other legislators brought it up. Joint study by a Michigan Law 

professor and a professor of who knows what, some gal from Rutgers. And they found unintended consequences. They felt that 

when they did the Ban the Box—or before Ban the Box, there was 

some race discrimination. That White people were seven times 

more likely to get callbacks than their Black counterparts. And this 

was based on made-up resumes. 

They said after they put Ban the Box in there, White people got 

45 percent more callbacks. So in other words, it kind of Ban the 

Box, really, really punished Black people. Are you familiar with 

that study, and do you have like a counter to it? 

Ms. HARRIS. Well I was going to say, still, I guess I am a little 

confused. I mean, yes, I am familiar with the study. But again, in 

my own experience in hiring in government, really the only way 

that you can consider individuals with records, is again, to implement Ban the Box, because so many government agencies use the 

criminal history as a filter. 

So—and I am unclear—I know, you know, it has been said several times that then, you know, a question about criminal history 

will then be replaced by a question about race or—and that was 

just never my experience. And again, the only way, again, to ensure that we are giving opportunities to people with records is to 

ensure that they cannot be discriminated against in the beginning 

of the hiring process. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Well these are kind of dramatic numbers. I 

mean Ron Johnson’s my buddy. I will vote for his bill, but these 

are kind of huge numbers. The difference between 7 percent and 

45 percent. It is kind of devastating, I think for Black people and 

the University of Michigan, that is a top-flight law school. I would 

not think this Sonja Starr is, you know, incompetent person. Really, one of the best law schools in the country. 

And I am just saying, you can read the little guidance we have 

here, gives the reasons why they think this would, perhaps, make 

sense. But, I mean, jumping from 7 percent more likely to be called 

back to 45 percent, is a big number, and I will vote for the bill if 

they bring it up, but I would hope the committee chair spends some 

time looking at that number and makes sure that by passing this 

bill, we do not make things a lot worse. Because maybe we have 

to bring Sonja Starr or Amanda Agan in here and find out why, 

but I assume they are sharp people, and they are saying this bill 
28 

is going to make things a lot worse. So, you know, so I will vote 

for it. And it certainly feels good to vote for it, but the studies 

ought to be kind of analyzed maybe a little more as well. 

And before I get myself in any trouble, I will pass things back 

to the chairman. 

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Grothman, thank you very much. I come now 

to Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. 

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to kind of pick 

up on that prior note about, you know, race-based discrimination 

and employment. Banning the box is not legislation to end racism 

in America. Would you say that is correct, Ms. Harris and Ms. 

Hodge? 

Ms. HARRIS. I would. 

Ms. HODGE. Absolutely. 

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. So we have a lot more work to do when it 

comes to racism and employment discrimination beyond just Ban 

the Box, correct? 

Ms. HODGE. Yes. 

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. And I would recommend that if we are truly 

concerned about race-based, and other forms of discrimination in 

the employment act, I would be happy work with my colleagues 

across the aisle to strengthen and expand Title 7 of the Civil 

Rights Act passed in 1964. So I think, we can table that conversation, because I agree, that there is a lot of work that needs to be 

done. 

Ms. Hodge, you mentioned earlier that a person should not be 

judged by the worst thing they have ever done, correct? 

Ms. HODGE. Yes. 

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. I agree and especially when they have paid 

their debt to society. And I think that something that is not discussed enough is that Congress has done something wrong. And we 

have a debt to society, because the war on drugs is widely recognized as a horrific and non-evidence-based policy that created an 

enormous amount of social damage in the United states. 

The criminalization of marijuana and the punitive sentencing of 

nonviolent people is wrong. Zero tolerance laws were wrong. Blocking harm reduction policies was wrong. Minimum sentencing laws 

were wrong. And even against all advisement from commissions 

and nonprofits and experts and secretaries in both administrations, 

Congresses of both parties did the wrong thing. We have a debt to 

society that we must repay. 

And my question is, do you think banning the box is part of the 

work that we have to do to repay our debt to society? 

Ms. HODGE. I agree that banning the box is a step, and yes, it 

is something that Congress can do and join the 33 states in over 

150 jurisdictions that have already done so. 

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Thank you. One of the things that we 

learned is that one of the biggest aspects of preventing recidivism 

as you both have talked about, preventing people recommitting 

crimes and going back to jail, is employment and economic opportunity. Is that correct? 

Ms. HODGE. Yes. 

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. So I am interested as well, it is not just any 

economic opportunity but the dignity of work and how dignified a 
29 

job is that can prevent you from—that can keep a person in society. 

So out of all the job programs that you have seen that formerly incarcerated people may apply to, what tends to be the most common 

line of work that they enter? What kind of jobs are we talking 

about? 

Ms. HODGE. Most people enter into the restaurant and hospitality, construction, very baseline, entry-level positions throughout 

the country. 

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. And so you would say that a lot of jobs that 

we are talking about are in the service sector? 

Ms. HODGE. Yes. 

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Are there any that are typically offered 

more technical jobs? 

Ms. HODGE. I am sorry, say that one more time. 

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Are folks offered more technical jobs ever, or 

do you see—like, does it tend to be more complicated work beyond 

that? 

Ms. HODGE. No. 

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. So we are talking about a pretty basic level 

of work, and I think that we should also be expanding this conversation so that we are not just allowing or creating opportunities 

for the formerly incarcerated to have only minimum wage jobs. But 

recognize the unlimited potential of all people. And for that reason, 

Mr. Chair, I would like to see unanimous consent to submit to the 

record something for consideration, A Bill of Rights for 

Criminalized Workers, just released by JustLeadershipUSA. 

Mr. RASKIN. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. And last but not least, how do you think the 

Fair Chance Act can work toward the dignity of work for all Americans? And, Ms. Harris, you are free to enter as well. 

Ms. HODGE. I will go quickly. I think we are at a time in the 

country where, with First Step Act passing, that more and more 

Americans are talking about criminal justice and criminal justice 

reform. I believe that Congress passing this bill will continue that 

conversation. It will allow more people to begin to understand what 

is going on with a third of our country, their fellow citizens, people 

who their children go to school with. So it is a good first step. 

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Thank you. Ms. Harris, anything? 

Ms. HARRIS. I agree with Ms. Hodge. 

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Thank you very much. 

Mr. RASKIN. The gentlelady yields back. Now I am calling on our 

colleague from West Virginia, Mr. Miller. 

Ms. Miller, forgive me. 

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you ranking 

member chairman. And thank you both for being here today. 

We have learned about the Fair Chance Act. Legislation that 

seeks to ban the box and give previous criminal offenders the opportunity to interview for positions with Federal agencies and contractors. I strongly believe in giving people a second chance. 

During my time in the West Virginia legislature, I was a proponent for justice reinvestment and fought for years to ensure that 

it was implemented. The opioid epidemic in my state has created 
30 

thousands of nonviolent offenders who, once they are clean, need 

assistance and the tools to reenter their community. 

Reducing recidivism is only possible if we give people those tools 

and the opportunity to succeed. To accomplish this, we should focus 

on promoting exoffenders through rehabilitative certifications and 

connecting them with the many jobs that seek to hire exoffenders. 

Employment is one of the most important factors in reducing recidivism. Although the Fair Chance Act is written with good intentions, I think a GAO study on the effects of the policy is needed 

before we can move forward in good faith. 

Ms. Harris, what protections are put in place for Federal contractors who hire those with a criminal history? Giving exoffenders a 

second chance. Is there anything in the Fair Chance Act that protects contractors from increased liability, insurance, or other issues 

that might arise from hiring exoffenders? 

Ms. HARRIS. Again, I think the premise of the question is a little 

bit troubling. We have not seen these issues across the country 

with any of the employers that we have worked with who have 

hired exoffenders. So when we talk about liability issues, it just 

has been very rare that employers have had a negative experience 

with Fair Chance hiring practices or with hiring formerly incarcerated individuals. 

Ms. HODGE. I agree. 

Mrs. MILLER. Okay, is there evidence that Ban the Box legislation actually helps those with a criminal history join the work 

force, or do hiring managers use other factors to weed out those 

exoffenders, such as race and gaps in employment? 

Ms. HARRIS. I will just refer to my previous testimony on my experience in hiring in government employment. And I also wanted 

to note a statistic, sort of coming at the question from a different 

direction. 

I know we are talking about the impact of Ban the Box, but you 

know, the impact of not giving employment opportunities to individuals with records, and I am referring to a letter that should be 

in the record from the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human 

Rights, the National Employment Law Project, and the ACLU. And 

I am a conservative—— 

Mrs. MILLER. Make sure you are answering my question, please. 

Ms. HARRIS. Yes ma’am, and it states, ‘‘The Economist estimated 

that the U.S. GDP was reduced by as much as $78 billion in 2014 

alone, due to the poor prospects, poor job prospects, rather, of formerly incarcerated individuals.’’ So that is coming at your question 

in a bit of a different direction, but we are certainly seeing a very 

negative impact on our economy. 

Mrs. MILLER. I just want to make sure that we are not using it 

as a tool to weed out people, as opposed to hiring them. 

Ms. HARRIS. No, in fact, it weeds out people when they are filtered by criminal history in the hiring process. 

Mrs. MILLER. Ms. Hodge, are there limits on Ban the Box legislation, so that perpetrators of violent crimes are not employed by the 

Federal Government? 

Ms. HODGE. Not to my knowledge. But there are—I think I have 

to go back to one thing, which is, we are not forcing anyone to hire. 

This is really about when is this information disclosed? And em-
31 

ployers can continue with their traditional practices of running 

background checks and gathering all the information that they 

need to make a decision. 

So this is not forcing anyone to hire. It is just when will this information be disclosed? 

Mrs. MILLER. Considering my history in working very hard on 

this subject, I just want to make sure that whatever legislation is 

put forward does not actually have the reverse effect on what we 

are trying to do, which is give people tools to become good citizens 

and feel good about themselves and be productive. Thank you. 

Ms. HODGE. Thank you. 

Mr. RASKIN. Next is—— 

Mrs. MILLER. Yield back. 

Mr. RASKIN [continuing]. the gentlelady from Massachusetts, Ms. 

Pressley. 

Ms. PRESSLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you, Ms. 

Hodge for your informative and compelling testimony. Thank you 

for bringing your lived experiences to this. I share your belief that 

the people closest to the pain should be driving and informing the 

solutions and the policymaking. So we thank you for being here. 

In 2000—and I do want to say that I very much appreciate the 

organization mission launch on your website. It says, ‘‘People do 

not go to prison, families do.’’ And that is really what I want to 

pick up on. My father was in and out of the criminal justice system 

because of crimes he committed while battling a substance abuse 

disorder. 

I know, intimately, the destabilization, the stigma, the social 

shame and isolation of having a loved one who is incarcerated. I 

do want to say, my father has gone on to do incredible things. He 

obtained two advanced degrees and went on to be a professor of 

journalism and a published author. So I am very proud of him. But 

needless to say, while he was in the throes of that addiction, in and 

out of the criminal justice system, our entire family was serving 

with him. 

In 2015, the Center for American Progress released a study 

showing that nearly half of the children in the U.S. have at least 

one parent with a criminal record. And 5.2 million children, or one 

in 14, have a parent who has been in prison. 

In the Massachusetts 7th, which I am fortunate to represent, a 

Boston re-entry study that tracked formerly incarcerated men and 

women, found over half of respondents had less than $400 in their 

pockets upon release from prison. And about a third went to unstable or temporary housing. I think they represent about 30 percent 

of our chronically homeless, in shelters, transitional housing programs, motels. And fewer than half were in paid employment after 

two months. 

These studies both unearth the scale and scope of challenges 

many children and families face when welcoming a parent back 

home. A criminal record can lead to unemployment and underemployment, picking up on the comments of the gentlelady from 

New York, which in turn lead to financial instability, eviction, and 

hunger. Underscoring that incarceration and a criminal history is 

quite literally a shared sentence for families. 
32 

Ms. Hodge, in your work with Mission: Launch, what impact, 

specifically, have you seen a criminal record have on the families 

of those who are released from prison? And I also want to say, I 

appreciate your being here, because you are diversifying the public 

narrative of who is incarcerated. There are more women incarcerated now than ever before and the Massachusetts 7th, we have almost 40 percent of our householders, single female headed. So 

again, if you could speak to the impact on family? 

Ms. HODGE. Thank you for that question. I think part of the 

work that I do is a result of the children. I was incarcerated with 

many women who I cannot tell you of the cries and the pain that 

I had to listen to for almost five years of them being away from 

their children. It was at a visiting room, watching children play, 

after reading an article where it said that, ‘‘A child who has an incarcerated parent is more likely to go to prison themselves,’’ and 

it was after reading that, that I personally made a commitment 

that I wanted to do this work. 

I was fortunate. My daughter was 22 when I went to prison. So 

I took an adult child to prison. But she became committed to that 

as well as we watched the mothers and the children reunited, often 

for just once a year, for a few hours in a visiting room. 

Ms. PRESSLEY. And there is so much work to be done around 

maintaining those familial bonds while a loved one is incarcerated. 

Everything from more-affordable phone rates to family visiting 

areas and the like, but a family reunification and the stabilization 

of family is such a critical component of successful reentry and reintegration, you would agree? 

Ms. HODGE. Absolutely, yes. 

Ms. PRESSLEY. And so, could you speak to how does this employment discrimination and housing discrimination as well, how does 

this affect in the day to day, the functionality of the restoration of 

family? 

Ms. HODGE. Family reunification is extremely important. If a 

parent is unable to take care of their families that plays an unnecessary strain. I have engaged with organizations that support children and one of the things that they said is that it is the most 

stressful time in the lives of a child when their parent comes home. 

Because it is an unnecessary strain for individuals, for parents, 

who are unable to take care of their children, depending on the 

types of crime, they are unable to live with their children. If their 

children live in public housing as well. 

Ms. PRESSLEY. I am just so sorry. As we wrap—do you think that 

social safety set programs should be doing more to support the children of incarcerated parents? 

Ms. HODGE. I think our country is safer when we support families and we support families being together. 

Ms. PRESSLEY. Thank you so much. 

Ms. HODGE. Thank you. 

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Meadows is up next, the ranking member of the 

Subcommittee of Government Operations. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you both for 

your testimony. It has been very illuminating. If you could help me 

understand a little bit. So let us make the assumption, I think everybody here makes the assumption, this is going to be passed by 
33 

both chambers, will be signed into law. How will it work in the 

workplace? 

So let us say that you do not have it, you do not disclose it up 

front. You come in for an interview. At what point does it get disclosed? So I understand the whole filter, but I also can see the negative part, that if it creates a situation where you are interviewing 

somebody and they are nervous that they are going to have to disclose this, and if they do not, then the employer—having been 

one—I go, ‘‘Well, why weren’t you just honest with me, and I check 

it as a dishonest mark against you.’’ How does it work in reality? 

Ms. HODGE. I think it works a couple of different ways. But in 

this particular scenario, it is, a person gets to complete an application, and an individual criminal history gets to persist. They are 

able to be interviewed by you, and it is—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. And during that interview, do they disclose this? 

Ms. HODGE. No. The law that is before you is if there is a conditional offer. If you are interested in this person, that is when it is 

disclosed. However, the Ban the Box policies throughout the country, there are various versions of them. It is why many states and 

jurisdictions are expanding it. And quite frankly, it is a complicated, unnecessarily, complicated policy. 

Ms. HARRIS. Yes, and I would just offer, too, and I think this is 

something that Congressman Norman, I believe, brought up. So 

again, there are a lot of individuals who would tell you, or a lot 

of employers rather, who would tell you that when individuals 

come in who have a criminal record, they are actually very quick 

to share it. Before you even ask, they are quick to share it. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Right. 

Ms. HARRIS. Because again, they are quite concerned about the 

issue you just raised, about honesty. But this gives them an opportunity to talk about their efforts at rehabilitation. It also gives you 

an opportunity to see their job skills and qualifications. And again, 

we are talking about discriminating against a third of our country. 

And we are no longer talking about an obscure minority here. This 

is a third of our country that has a criminal record. So I mean, I 

think it is quite concerning that, you know, that we would exclude 

a third of our country from the job pool for government jobs. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I get that, but I guess here is the concern, because I normally would ask, you know, is there anything that I 

ought to know about that might be a concern? In the minute—if 

this uses this law—is used as one to say, ‘‘Well I am not required 

to disclose it,’’ it can have a complicating factor, certainly from an 

employer standpoint. Do you follow me? So if you all can come up 

with some recommendations on how maybe we can look at that. 

And I am going to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman 

from Kentucky, who Ms. Harris does not need a translator for you. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MASSIE. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina. When 

I was a county executive, at Lewis County, the second biggest line 

item in our budget was the jail. The only thing we spent more 

money on was the roads. And so, I spent a lot of time over at the 

jail, and I got to know some of these inmates. And one of the most 

ironic cases was a guy who had been convicted of flagrant nonsupport. It is a Class D felony in Kentucky. I think he was spend-
34 

ing a year in our jail. Okay, we were housing state inmates at the 

time. 

So the reason that is ironic to me is we are depriving him of a 

year of income and the children that he has fathered need that income. I am not advocating for a lesser sentence for it, but the problem is when he gets out, how is he going to provide for those children? So I want to broaden this in the minute that I have left. And 

this is probably a good idea, this bill, but what are the other things 

we can do to make sure that those type inmates, when they get 

out, they can provide for the family that they should be supporting? 

By getting a job. Ms. Harris? 

Ms. HARRIS. Again, and not to be a broken record, but 

expungement. And again, most expungement bills in this country, 

there is a ridiculous waiting period of 10 years. And if you live with 

a criminal record for 10 years, I mean it is just—expungement almost seems like it really will not do much for you. 

But an expungement bill that has a reasonable crime-free waiting period of, you know, three to five years, I think could do a lot 

to ensure that individuals can get back on their feet and eventually 

find a well-paying job. But I mean, that is where I would like to 

start at the Federal level, just because there is no significant vehicle for it. 

Mr. MASSIE. Let me give Ms. Hodge a chance to tell me something else we could do to make sure people can get a job when the 

get out of jail. 

Ms. HODGE. Actually I was agreeing with everything that—— 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. HODGE. Ms. Harris had to say there as well. But I think that 

this bill—if Congress passes this bill, it continues a conversation. 

It continues a conversation with employers on how do we handle 

this issue? I do not think that we have all of the answers today, 

here. Ban the Box is new legislation. So the data does not exist to 

the degree that we would like to have it, but I think that it is a 

good next step, and we are going to have to grow and heal as a 

country and find ways that we create employment opportunities. 

Mr. MASSIE. I yield back. 

Mr. RASKIN. Thank you very much. And Mr. Massie, you know, 

the question you raised is an important one, and it is one that I 

hope we, that our subcommittee will get to investigate, which is 

people who are in jail or in prison for essentially financial offenses 

for not paying fees, not paying fines, speeding tickets and so on, 

not paying child support, and I know a lot of states are trying to 

work on that problem as well. We come now to the gentleman from 

Missouri, Mr. Clay? 

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And just to continue the 

conversation with Mr. Massie. There is an effort around the country in the area of restorative justice. In the state of Missouri, it has 

been shown that we have debtor’s prison for things like you mentioned, for people who do not pay child support. But in the St. 

Louis region, we have just elected two new prosecutors in St. Louis 

City, St. Louis County, who have done away with warrants and jail 

time for those do not pay child support. And for low-level possession of marijuana. 
35 

And because the corrosive effect of locking someone up because 

they cannot pay child support only multiplies the impact. Okay, so 

you put them in jail, then they lose their job. Or they lose their 

privilege of driving. So they cannot drive to a job then. 

I mean there are all kinds of cyclical effects that happen to people because we go after these low-level crimes and because a person is poor we cannot—they cannot meet those fines and then they 

wind up doing jail. So that is a discussion, hopefully, this committee will continue to have. 

And that is why the First Step Act is so important. That is why 

The Second Chance Act was so important. And I want to continue 

to engage you in that. But before all of my time is up—well, if you 

have a response. 

Mr. MASSIE. No, I just think it was the most ironic case in our 

jail. And it also shows why this is not a democrat or republican 

issue. 

Mr. CLAY. And it happens more than it should. 

Mr. MASSIE. Exactly. 

Mr. CLAY. So let me go to my first question. But thank you for 

engaging. Ms. Harris, thank you for being here today and you have 

spoken enthusiastically in the press about criminal justice reform 

being a bipartisan issue. 

Ms. HARRIS. Yes sir. 

Mr. CLAY. Specifically Ban the Box, initiatives like the Fair 

Chance Act, benefit not just individuals but entire communities. A 

prime piece of evidence you have identified is Ban the Box initiatives have been endorsed by a wide variety of employers from 

Facebook to Walmart to Koch Industry. Is that correct? 

Ms. HARRIS. Yes sir. 

Mr. CLAY. The benefits of Ban the Box for individuals with a 

criminal record is obvious. It helps them get jobs they are qualified 

to do but might not otherwise get. 

How do policies like the Fair Chance Act benefit employees? 

Ms. HARRIS. Well again, it opens up opportunity, and I do not 

want to miss the forest for the trees, here. Again, we are just ensuring that folks with records will have an opportunity just to get 

their foot in the door and be able to offer, you know, a narrative 

about their job skills and qualifications before they, you know, they 

have to discuss what is, perhaps, their worst mistake. 

And so we are not, as Ms. Hodge said earlier today, no one is 

forcing anyone to hire anybody. But simply to give these individuals an opportunity. 

And you did mention bipartisanship, and I do want to note that 

I think it is just truly remarkable that a democratic-led committee 

would invite a conservative strategist from deep red Kentucky to 

serve as one of your witnesses, and I think that speaks to your 

commitment to these issues and to the bipartisanship that continues to safeguard criminal justice reform. 

Mr. CLAY. We find you an excellent witness for this legislation. 

Ms. Hodge, before my time is up, you have worked passionately to 

open doors to people with criminal records building on your own experience which you have movingly testified to here. What response 

have you seen from employers, particularly public employers who 

have adopted Ban the Box policies? 
36 

Ms. HODGE. A lot of what Ms. Harris has said. Employers are 

saying that these are their best employees. They are less likely to 

leave the job. They arrive early for employment. There are stories 

after stories of employers who are saying, by widening their pool, 

and not just blanketedly discriminating—and now that we are 

using technology online. We have to know that algorithms are 

going to work faster and are discriminating people earlier in the 

process. 

Mr. CLAY. Thank you both for your testimony. My time is up. I 

yield back. 

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Clay, thank you. I am going to come to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Representative Norton. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This is an 

important hearing, and one we have not looked at. I am impressed 

by the testimony we have received today from both of our witnesses. We are talking about Federal Government hiring alone. 

You know that once upon a time, the Federal Government was 

the kind of role model for the states and then the states said, ‘‘Well 

it must be all right, because the Federal Government is doing it.’’ 

And now it has turned just the opposite, I think, as your testimony 

has indicated. 

I am very interested in your testimony, because this is an issue 

that seems to breach the divisions in Congress. I note, Ms. Harris, 

if you do not mind my saying so, that you are a republican. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. HARRIS. Secret is out. 

Ms. NORTON. And are here by invitation of the democratic chair 

of this subcommittee. So I do think we begin on the right foot. I 

am also impressed by the list of jurisdiction states who have 

banned the box. I cannot find a difference between red and blue on 

this issue. And as a key to, perhaps, learning how we can bring 

that to other issues as well, I would like your opinion, the opinion 

of both of you, on why this bill has seem to know—we used to say 

left or right—it is red or blue. And why, in particular, it would be 

seen as consistent with conservative principles? 

Ms. HARRIS. I am going to assume that is to me. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. HARRIS. But look, you know, criminal justice reform policy, 

in general, strengthens families. We would say it gets government 

out of the way and puts people back to work. Right, Congressman 

Massie? It ensures that we are holding government agencies accountable. It also improves public safety, which I think is a goal 

of both parties. 

So, you know, for all of those reasons, I certainly think that 

criminal justice reform, in general, is consistent with conservative 

principles, and that is why you see some of our most conservative 

members, like Congressman Massie, like Senator Rand Paul, like 

Congressman Amash, you know, serving as zealous advocates for 

these issues. 

Ms. NORTON. Certainly if you leave people who get out of prison 

with nothing, no way to earn a living, of course, that could be seen 

as an invitation to crime. So I do think that this makes me want 

to think, at least, of issues to which we could transfer just such 
37 

thinking. In other words, what is the alternative? You come to the 

alternative pretty clear what you want to do. 

I do not know if you can think of other criminal justice reform 

measures that have this same kind of red and blue impact. Can 

you? 

Ms. HARRIS. Oh, sentencing reform, bail reform, shrinking criminal codes, getting rid of a lot of unfair, unnecessary duplicative 

laws, any of your reentry policies. All of the above have a lot of bipartisan support. 

I also would urge, and I would be remiss not to mention it, you 

know, folks here have talked about those who have relapsed on the 

job, and it is due to drug addiction. And we have got to be investing more money in treatment in this country. Less investment in 

jails and prisons and more investment in treatment, because we 

are not treating the core issues that brought a lot of these individuals to the justice system to begin with. 

Ms. NORTON. Thanks for that insight. Now, I think—in fact I 

know that our bill is about Federal employment, and I noticed, Ms. 

Harris, that you indicated that some jurisdictions have banned the 

box in public and private employment. And then some, I suspect, 

in only public employment, and I want to know how jurisdictions 

make that distinction if some decide to go with only public employment, why? Any insight you can give us on that? Because obviously 

most of the jobs in the United States are private employment. 

Ms. HARRIS. Sure, and look, I think as more people see and hear 

the success stories of organizations like, for example, Koch Industries. I cite to that a lot, because Mark Holden is very free and 

sharing about his experiences in hiring formerly incarcerated individuals. 

As more jurisdictions hear those success stories, and by the way, 

as employers become more and more desperate for workers. I 

mean, now in the country, we have more open jobs that we have 

unemployed individuals to fill them. So, you know, as employers 

become more desperate, I do think there will be a move to further 

encourage private employers. 

Ms. NORTON. You scare me a little bit on that. It is good to hear 

that one of the reasons is that employers need employees, and I remember during the Clinton Administration, when we got to this 

point as well. And we found people readily employing people with 

records. 

So if we get back beyond where we are now, we have full employment. Do you think there will be reversion, or do you think these 

examples will have made the case for hiring formerly incarcerated 

people? 

Ms. HARRIS. Oh, there is no question. I defer to Ms. Hodge to 

share so many of the stories from the individuals who are involved—— 

Mr. RASKIN. Ms. Hodge, will you answer the question, and then 

the gentlelady’s time is up. 

Ms. HODGE. Yes, I am sorry. Can you please repeat your question, though? 

Ms. NORTON. Yes, I say, of course, we are in a time when employers are desperate for—with full employment, it is called, of 

course, we know, people are working two or three jobs. And so, I 
38 

am wondering if you have had enough experience so that when inevitably in a market economy, we go back to where you do not have 

full employment anymore, you feel that the lesson has been 

taught? That it is not a danger to hire formerly incarcerated persons. 

Ms. HODGE. Yes. I personally believe that the evidence is going 

to bear that. I think that is why states that have early adopted 

Ban the Box, even minimally, have gone back and have expanded 

it, Ban the Box within their states. So we are now starting to see 

that. And I think as we continue, the evidence will prove that banning the box is beneficial—it makes us as a country more fiscally 

responsible. 

Mr. RASKIN. Thank you. The gentlewoman from the Virgin Island, Ms. Plaskett. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you all for 

being here and to my colleagues for this, I think, very educational 

and important discussion. I want to say just as a point of reference 

that this discussion has been going on for quite a long time, and 

I am glad that this is really raising itself now to a point where we 

may have a bipartisan solution that makes some steps in the right 

direction. 

I just want to note that our chairman of the subcommittee was 

very engaged in this, and when I was his law school student, at 

American University Law School, I wrote a thesis where he was 

the advisor on the disenfranchisement and voting rights for convicted felons. I saw that in a box a couple of months ago and 

thought—— 

Mr. RASKIN. I hope you will not mind my violating your academic 

privacy, but you got an A on your thesis. 

Ms. PLASKETT. I did, thank you. But the other thing I wanted to 

share was an experience that I had. I had been a prosecutor in the 

past, and I had the pleasure and the honor of working in the Bronx 

District Attorney’s office. And just as a personal experience, I recall 

one day taking my sons to a barbershop. People had told me that 

this has got to be one of the greatest, hottest, barbershops in the 

south Bronx. And sitting there with three of my—my sons were 

really small at that time waiting for them to see the barber. It was 

a young shop. These were young guys. They even had an area of 

play for their children. And as I looked at the guy who was about 

to do my son’s hair, I realized I had put him in jail. That I was 

the prosecutor. 

And so, I began to put the newspaper a little closer over my face 

as he was about to start shaving my son’s head. And afterwards 

when I paid him and thanked him, you know, said he did a great 

job. He called me by name. And said, you know, ‘‘And I want to 

thank you, because you were definitely the ADA on that case, but 

I definitely did the crime and being in jail is where I got my barber’s license from.’’ But he could not find work and so he and two 

other guys from the barbershop went in and started their own barbershop together. And the city of New York gave them support to 

be able and lease a place to do that. 

And that became a safe place for not only young people. They 

were able to have their children there and care for their children 

while they were working. So these are important things in commu-
39 

nities to have. And that is just a personal experience. But banning 

the box is crucial, because research shows that removing barriers 

from employment is essential to providing a real second chance for 

individuals. 

Two studies from the National Institute of Justice found that 

having a criminal record reduces likelihood of a job callback or offer 

by nearly 50 percent. You both are, I am sure, very aware of that. 

What would these penalties even apply to those who be arrested 

or who actually have not been convicted? Can any of you answer 

that? Does this apply to arrest, this banning the box? Or is it just 

for convictions? 

Ms. HARRIS. Well so, if you are—this particular bill allows the 

government employer to inquire into your criminal history but then 

again, that would mean that you would have to have been convicted of a crime. That said, as you well know, if you do a criminal 

background check, you can often see where someone has been arrested. So, you know, it would still be available to you if, you know, 

depending on the search mechanism that you are using. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Sure, you know, in the panel before, Senator 

Booker cited some information from the American Bar Association, 

which stated that there were 45,000 collateral consequences to having a criminal conviction. I think that is really important for us to 

know. That this is just one of many consequences to individuals of 

having that. 

You cited earlier, Ms. Harris, the Virgin Islands, which adopted 

a robust Ban the Box that keeps from public and private, which 

means that employers are hiring and looking for good workers, because there are a staggering 30 percent of 18-to–35-year-olds in the 

Virgin Islands that have a criminal record. Most for nonviolent offenses. Most are petty offenses and marijuana offenses in our case. 

And one of the other things our legislature did last year that I 

was really happy to be a part of was to remove the waiver for individuals to receive food stamps. Because we saw that we had so 

many families—individuals that were coming out of jail that unless 

a state allows it, will not allow them to receive food stamps for 

them and their families as they are trying to find work and trying 

to make that transition. 

So we should be working here at the Federal level to look at 

states—with the states—to see what support do they need from us 

and Federal legislation that will allow them to support individuals. 

There are a lot of other things that I would like to ask you all, but 

I want to thank you so much for having this hearing. This has been 

a really wonderful conversation, and I am glad to get this information on the record, so our colleagues can see the importance of banning the box. Thank you. 

Mr. RASKIN. The gentlelady yields. We come to the gentlelady 

from New York, Ms. Maloney. 

Ms. MALONEY. First of all, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman 

for calling this important hearing, and I thank both panelists and 

all of my colleagues for their support and contribution to the discussion. I am a proud cosponsor of the Fair Chance Act and think 

that our Federal Government should follow the example of 34 

states, including my own home state of New York that has enacted 

similar legislation. And as we heard from the testimony today, the 
40 

Fair Chance Act is not only morally right, but it makes good business sense by employing people with a record and making it possible for them to be employed, and they have the dignity of work 

for their own life. Also it helps their families and actually the economic vitality of our country. So barring people with criminal 

records from work has real negative consequences for the economy 

and for the bottom line. 

And I want to cite two statistics that really support this. The National Employment Law Project, in 2014, ‘‘America’s GDP lost an 

estimated $78 billion because people with felony records could not 

participate in the labor market.’’ The organization also found that, 

‘‘Putting 100 formerly incarcerated people back to work could increase their lifetime earnings by $55 million, increase their income 

tax contributions by $1.9 million and boost sales tax revenues by 

$770,000.’’ That sounds like a pretty good deal. 

So I would like to ask Mrs. Harris and Mrs. Hodges, are these 

findings consistent with your understanding of the economic benefits of employing people with criminal records? 

Ms. HARRIS. Yes. 

Ms. HODGE. Yes. 

Ms. MALONEY. And we have also established that reemployment 

of people, the dignity of work, employing them with criminal 

records adds value to our overall economy. So Ms. Hodges and Ms. 

Harris, do Ban the Box policies save taxpayers money? 

Ms. HARRIS. Yes ma’am. 

Ms. HODGE. Yes, it will. 

Ms. MALONEY. And I agree. In fact, the National Employment 

Law Project also noted that, ‘‘Ban the Box saves as much as $2 million in criminal justice expenditures.’’ So my question is, why have 

we not passed this earlier? This sounds like a win-win-win, for the 

individual, the family, the economy, the country. 

Ms. HARRIS. Amen. 

Ms. MALONEY. So why have we not passed it earlier, do you 

think? 

Ms. HODGE. I am not sure why we have not passed it earlier, but 

I am so excited that this bill is before Congress today, and I am 

hopeful that this Congress will pass this bill. 

Ms. MALONEY. Well thank you so much, and I yield back. 

Mr. RASKIN. Thank you so much. The gentlelady yields, and I 

come now to the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Roy. 

Mr. ROY. Well you all have been extraordinarily patient. We are 

coming up on a couple of hours, I think, for those who have been 

here at the table. So thank you for your patients, we are about to 

wind down. I do appreciate the chairman. I appreciate all of my 

colleagues. And I will try to be quick. 

And full disclosure here, you know, this committee in particular, 

we have got a lot of interesting issues in Oversight. Maybe there 

is a little bit more bombast in this committee sometimes, because 

of some of the issues that are brought before it, and this was a 

very, I think, compelling hearing. Very nonpartisan, as Ms. Harris, 

you rightly point out. I already pointed out my affiliation with the 

Texas Public Policy Foundation, who is obviously one of the leaders 

on this with Right on Crime, this area, Right on Crime. 
41 

But I do want to say, sort of acknowledge, that I am a little bit 

split on this issue and broadly speaking as somebody who believes, 

from my faith, my Christian faith in second chances and somebody 

who thinks that we need to follow the data and figure how we can 

best allow people to integrate back into society. I think this is a 

really important conversation. 

I am also a former prosecutor, and not unlike my colleague that 

was just talking, and so I do have some concerns about just making 

sure that as the pendulum is moving, as we kind of think about 

things, that we are making sure we are keeping our eye on the 

ball. 

So a couple of things, a couple of clarifying questions, totally 

meant to be open-ended, clarifying questions. No ‘‘gotchas’’ or anything. I did want to come back to the Doleac study, because we 

have talked a few times about these issues that have been raised, 

and, in general, the response has sort of been, ‘‘Well, that’s not 

been my experience.’’ And that is fine. That is an anecdotal observation that I take your word on it, because you spend all your days 

doing this. So that matters to me. 

But in the empirical analyses, it is not just the Doleac study, 

there are others, you know, for example, I would ask unanimous 

consent to enter into the record, a February 2017 paper authored 

by two senior economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston 

that analyzed Massachusetts Ban the Box reform. 

Mr. RASKIN. Without objection. 

Mr. ROY. The study found, ‘‘We find that contrary to the intended 

goal, the Corey reform,’’ which is the analogous reform here, ‘‘has 

a small negative effect on exoffenders employment that grows over 

time.’’ Now to be clear, it said, ‘‘small negative effect,’’ so I mean, 

I would acknowledge that. 

And as I said, with respect to Ms. Doleac, her analysis said, ‘‘delaying information about job applicants’ criminal histories lead employers to statistically discriminate against groups that are more 

likely to have a recent conviction. No. 2, this negative effect is driven by reduction employment for young, low-skilled Black men who 

do not have criminal records. No. 3, current evidence suggests that 

Ban the Box may not increase employment for people of criminal 

records and might even reduce it.’’ 

I could go on, and you guys have read the study. My point of 

bringing that up is only this, it is important that we look at that, 

and that is why we have got this inquiry in on the study, the letter 

that Chairman Gowdy put in last year that we are waiting on. 

And here is when I am going to actually get to the question, 

which is, I think Ms. Harris, you had pointed out about current 

policy with the Federal Government and hiring. And I think you 

stated something to the effect of, we need this law to prevent the 

Federal Government from having hiring practices that would make 

it difficult for those with records, because they have to check the 

box. You said something along those lines? 

Ms. HARRIS. Yes, I guess there could be action from the President 

as well, but legislation would be required. Was that your question? 

I am sorry. 

Mr. ROY. Well it is, and I am glad you said that, because my understanding, but please correct me if I am wrong, is that under cur-
42 

rent Office of Personnel Management Policy, established under 

President Obama, we already follow what is laid out in the Fair 

Chance Act but if I am wrong—— 

Ms. HARRIS. But it does not extend to contractors. 

Mr. ROY. Okay, so here is my question and that may be fair and 

I will take your word that that is true. What data do we have from 

the experience in the last, two, three, four years—I do not know 

the date of the executive order or whatever the order was that 

would indicate how this is faring with employment, not the contractors if it only applies to employees. How are we seeing it perform with respect to employees? 

Ms. HARRIS. What I would share is that there is really no level 

of accountability for some of this and that is why I think it is pretty critical that when we talk—I think someone did make the point 

about implementation about ensuring that we are not, you know, 

replacing, you know, the box with something that could exacerbate 

any sort of, you know, racial disparities. 

And so or any sort of race issues. And so—look, I think your 

point is well taken that you know, implementation of this and ensuring some accountability with respect to, you know, what is 

passed by this body is critical. I would raise the First Step Act that 

we just passed. Look, when you read it, it is great. We are having 

some issues with implementation. So—and it is my understanding 

that this body, all of you all are members of the Oversight Committee, and I am quite hopeful that you all will be vigilant in ensuring that when you pass this bill that there is a level of accountability in ensuring that the Executive branch does, in fact, follow 

it. 

Mr. ROY. Well I appreciate that. My time is winding down, so I 

will just say this one last point, which is that, I think I would hope 

that we, the committee, would be able to work on other things in 

this area. 

I think we are heavily over-criminalized. I think that I would 

like to look at over-criminalization, how we might reduce the number of laws that are out there. If you follow, you know, a crime a 

day on Twitter, it is pretty compelling. 

And also things like occupational licensing, which I think, often 

more at the state level, but I would at least like to continue to 

have, you know, interest in looking at some of these other ways 

that we can address these kinds of issues. And I thank you all very 

much for your time. Thank you. 

Ms. HODGE. Thank you. 

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Roy, thank you. The ranking member has extraordinary experience in this field. And so, I indeed hope that this 

will be just the beginning of some bipartisan collaboration we can 

do to advance things. 

I am going to ask each of you one question, and I am going to 

yield, two-point-five minutes to Ms. Pressley from Massachusetts. 

She has asked for two, but I was so moved by her beautiful statement before, I am giving her two-point-five minutes, and then I am 

going to enter some stuff in the record. 

So, Ms. Hodge, let me start with you. You began with a very 

powerful story about how you knew that you had the right qualifications. You knew you were right for the job. You filled it out on-
43 

line and then you honestly answered the question, ‘‘Do you have a 

criminal record,’’ and then suddenly it went blank and came up 

and it said, ‘‘You have been disqualified because of one of your answers.’’ 

Now technically speaking, and maybe even more than technically, subsequently speaking, we are not going to remedy that 

with this legislation, because now you could not be cutoff at the 

threshold, but you go all the way through the process and they 

could say, ‘‘Ms. Hodge is the greatest candidate we’ve ever seen,’’ 

and then they ask you the question, ‘‘Do you have a criminal 

record?’’ And then at that point, they could say, ‘‘Sorry, we can’t 

chance it.’’ 

So no, I understand that would not happen in every case, so you 

clearly have won by virtue of having the opportunity to get the job, 

but if that were to happen to you, what would your reaction be? 

In other words, would you feel better about such a process or worse 

about such a process? I think some of colleagues asked about that. 

Ms. HODGE. I would feel better. I think that most individuals 

who have an arrest or conviction record just want to feel as though 

they have a fair shot. And I have applied for many jobs, even prior 

to incarceration that I did not receive that I felt like I was qualified 

for. And so, being disqualified for any other reason but just the fact 

that I had a criminal record and that early on in the process was 

what was the most disheartening. 

Mr. RASKIN. What an excellent answer. I think there are a lot 

of socio-psychological studies which show that people—even if they 

are not going to end up getting a job, admission to a college, whatever it might be, win a prize, if they feel like the process was fair, 

then they do not leave embittered by the experience. I thank you 

very much. 

Ms. Harris, let me ask you, I think that one of the tough things 

we face in this whole field is the idea that because someone has 

committed a crime, they have been adjudicated guilty by a jury of 

their peers, that, that defines who they are for the past and for the 

future. And you seem to have robust optimism about you. What is 

it that gives you faith that we do not have to be bound by that belief? 

Ms. HARRIS. Well, ‘‘There but for the grace of God go’’ all of us, 

right? I mean, again, I come from a state where a lot of people are 

very sick. No state has been ravaged by the drug scourge like Kentucky. And, you know, and because of that, you know, we have a 

whole lot of people who are entering our justice system who are not 

bad people but they are sick people. And so I certainly have the 

belief that if we can get these people well and certainly that should 

happen through treatment not through incarceration. Then, you 

know, of course, they can be different people. And the stories, you 

know, of Ms. Hodge and so many of the individuals that she works 

with at JustLeadershipUSA. Matthew Charles, my good friend, 

who actually would be considered a violent criminal is one of the 

finest people that I have ever met. 

So I would not even call it optimism. I would say, you know, 

based on my personal experience and my observations that this is, 

you know, second chances are real and that a person’s worst mistake should not define them. 
44 

Mr. RASKIN. Thank you very much. Ms. Pressley. 

Ms. PRESSLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chair for being so gracious as to 

allow me the opportunity to ask one more question for the record. 

I am reminded of a recent report produced by the IMF which 

substantiated what we all know, which is that if we had a more 

inclusive economy, what that can mean for the GDP. And, in fact, 

when it comes to closing the gender gap, specifically they said, if 

we were to address that, then we could see a boon to the GDP of 

some 35 percent. 

And so, thinking about this from the standpoint, a more inclusive 

economy, do we have any projections? In 2015, they said something 

like there were 70 million Americans with a criminal record or who 

had been incarcerated. So are there any economic projections of 

what a more inclusive economy can mean by eliminating these barriers to employment? 

Ms. HARRIS. Again, I would go straight back to that number that 

has been cited, which again, is sort of the reverse of your question. 

But on how—on the negative impact that we have seen to our economy by the poor job prospects of formerly incarcerated individuals. 

Economists have estimated the U.S. GDP was reduced by as 

much as $78 billion in 2014 alone. Seventy-eight billion dollars in 

one year. So, you know, certainly, I mean, again, that is the reverse 

of your question. I think it underscores the point. 

Ms. PRESSLEY. Thank you very much, all right. And I yield back. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chair for your graciousness. 

Mr. RASKIN. Oh you bet, Ms. Pressley. Thank you for your astute 

questioning today. 

Let us see, I wanted to close just by saying something about the 

very interesting point made by Mr. Grothman from Wisconsin 

about this study, and I am going to enter some counter studies into 

the record. 

But, of course, he made the interesting point that there is one 

study that shows that removing a former condition of incarceration 

as a legitimate grounds for discrimination may increase race discrimination. And, of course, I do not know whether or not it is true. 

There are several reports which undermine that claim. 

But in any event, I do not know that it is a powerful argument. 

Even if it were true, it is like saying, ‘‘Well we shouldn’t have the 

Pregnancy Discrimination Act, because some employers may say 

therefore, we’ll just discriminate on the basis of gender.’’ You cannot use one form of discrimination to justify another form of discrimination. 

But in any case, I am introducing one statement from Dr. TerryAnn Craigie, who is a professor at the Department of Economics at 

the Connecticut College, and she makes the point that her confers 

of study finds that, ‘‘Ban the Box policies increase the likelihood of 

public employment for those with criminal records by 30 percent.’’ 

And she goes through the data. 

The second comes from National Employment Law Project which 

directly targets the claim that you are going to increase race discrimination if you develop a Ban the Box policy. The core problem 

raised by the study is not Ban the Box but entrenched racism in 

the hiring process, which manifests as racial profiling of African 
45 

Americans as criminals, according to these authors. And they get 

into a lot of detail. 

And then, finally, from Texas A&M University—oh, that one has 

been entered already. Where is the one from—is that the one from 

the leadership conference? Okay. 

Two more, one from the ACLU called, Back to Business: How 

Hiring Formerly Incarcerated Job Seekers Benefits Your Company. 

And finally, from the Leadership Conference, a statement on the 

Fair Chance to Compete for Jobs Act of 2019. 

Mr. RASKIN. I want to thank everybody for this enormously illuminating and fair-minded hearing. And without objection, all members will have five legislative days within which to submit additional written questions for the witnesses to the chair which will 

be sent to the witnesses for their response, and I ask our witnesses 

to please respond as promptly as you can. 

And again, we thank you for your excellent testimony today. The 

hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:36 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ