Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to offer my appreciation for all of my colleagues--in particular, those who have offered this legislation. I recall, in the Congress preceding this, we offered a bipartisan…
Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to offer my appreciation for all of my colleagues--in particular, those who have offered this legislation.
I recall, in the Congress preceding this, we offered a bipartisan combination of comprehensive criminal justice reform, took bills that included prison reform and sentencing reform, and were really on the way to passing that combination of very important partnership. Unfortunately, the politics of that time got in the way.
But my appreciation to Mr. Jeffries and Mr. Collins. It really is the coming together of Members. Mr. Nadler worked very hard to inject very important provisions, as well as many other Members. And they even did so on the day of the markup. And all but one that Mr. Richmond, Ms. Jackson Lee, Ms. Jayapal, and Mrs. Demings put in on retroactivity failed in the committee.
So let me give an open letter to the mothers and fathers of incarcerated persons who are in our constituency and, as well, to those inmates who may, by chance, be looking at this debate. Having recently visited one of the Federal centers, I know that inmates are astute and concerned about their future.
So I think it is important to establish to those parents why Democrats have consistently tried to sew together, tried to stitch together the idea of sentencing reduction and prison reform.
Elements of this bill are striking and good. But to a mom, is it more exciting for you to know that your son, who had an excessive sentencing because of mandatory minimums, and you, who are incarcerated, have your sentence reduced than maybe on the back end?
Now, it is important to note that all of those, if this bill is passed, will participate in the rehabilitation programs, but it is also important to note that the Bureau of Prisons has closed halfway houses. That is a component of this bill. And they have reduced and cut the numbers of individuals who are corrections officers to the extent that corrections officers feel endangered and that augmentation has been used.
Augmentation means that nurses and teachers and others who are inside the prison are being used to augment the staff of correction officers which have been fired--or terminated, rather--under this administration.
In a letter from the BOP union president, they indicated that they are severely understaffed and it would be difficult to implement this bill without those aspects being remedied--meaning more staff, more halfway houses, more money to implement this program.
So many of my friends have asked me: What is the harm? Let me give you what is the harm.
First, it would divert limited resources for programming by requiring a complex risk assessment process that would primarily benefit people deemed at a low or minimum risk of recidivism.
That means, if you came in with a harsh drug sentence but through the years, Mom or Dad, you saw your son or daughter fix their lives, you would note that they, in fact, would not be eligible for this program.
Mr. Speaker, without provisions in the bill to reduce the excessive sentencing produced by mandatory minimums for drug offenses, overcrowding will still persist and thereby divert resources from programs to reduce recidivism.
Let me be very clear: The corrections officers indicate they don't have the staff. Halfway houses have been closed.
In addition, it is documented that, if your son or daughter has an offense that was considered excluded and they have repaired their life, through the prison they have made changes, they will not be eligible-- not for the programs, but they will not be eligible for relief.
So it is a first step. But I would simply say: If it is the first step, why not protection of immigrants? And, also, why not have a sentencing reform hearing, which the Republicans have canceled because of my position on this bill?
Let us work together for what is good, Mr. Speaker. Let us make a difference in the lives of all of the inmates.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on H.R. 5682, the ``FIRST STEP Act of 2018'' and thank my colleagues, Mr. Jeffries and Mr. Collins for bringing this forward. This legislation purports to help reduce recidivism for the millions of formerly incarcerated people that will return to our communities. I respectfully reserve the right to voice my concerns with this bill.
First, as the NY Times editorial noted, ``the biggest problem with the FIRST STEP Act is . . . . what's left out, specifically, sentencing reform.'' Eric Holder said in the Washington Post, ``by choosing a tepid approach, the prison reform bill abandons years of work and risks making it harder for Congress to advance more serious legislation in the future. Meaningful sentencing reform will be less likely to occur if the narrow prison bill is enacted.''
Even President Trump specifically stated during his remarks at the White House Prison Reform Summit last Friday, ``we want the finest prison reform bill that you could have anywhere.'' I agree with the President on this, as I also want the finest prison reform bill. Hence, I will continue to fight for the very best legislation that will adequately address the nearly 650,900 formerly incarcerated people that will return to our communities a year. That's not partisan or personal politics, but rather, common sense, just and equitable politics.
Imagine you are a mother, child or loved one of an incarcerated person that was robbed by a system that played Russian roulette with his or her life because that system
decided they were criminals rather than victims of a public health crisis during the crack epidemic. Now imagine that same system, rather than remediating the tragedy it caused in broken homes and communities through inept policies that had a racial and economic disparate impact, now seeks to pat them on the back and further insult an entire race by feeding them crumbs.
As a mother or loved one, you would demand that the system cure the defect in those sentencing laws that would drastically reduce his or her time in custody, and apply justice equitably. Let's not forget what happened in the 1964 Crime bill. Congress has the power to do that. We should hold ourselves accountable to deliver on the promise we made when we acknowledged the draconian policies implemented during the ``War on Drugs'' crisis, in passing the Fair Sentencing Act. Let's finish what we started then, by appealing to our better angels and not crucify each other because we disagree.
As Families Against Mandatory Minimum indicated in their letter, ``sentencing reform should be included in any final justice reform package.''
Second, even if the majority chose to ignore sentencing reform due to pressure, we cannot sit idly by and allow a slim-fast version of prison reform when dealing with the lives of millions of people.
I will not apologize for demanding more from my colleagues. I will not apologize for fighting with every breath I have to secure justice for those left behind. And I will not apologize for doing my job and shedding light where we may fall short, even when we have in good faith, tried our best. We will all go home tonight. What about those that have longed for that same freedom after they've paid their debts to society. We owe it to ourselves, to the thousands of broken families, and to our society, to give each inmate that will return to our community, their best chance at success, by providing them incentives that will get them home to their families sooner also.
Even the bill's supporter at markup said in their letter, ``the bill unwisely reserves its incentivized programming for those who already pose little threat of re-offending'', for example, those that would commit the sort of crimes alleged against Kushner and others within Trump's orbit. The supporters go on to say, ``We fear that the bill's failure to direct incentivized programming to the group that needs it most will result in little or no reduction in recidivism, and, worse, that that failure will be blamed on prisoners rather than the bill's mistaken design.'' Most alarming here, is that great skepticism looms even in those who want to support this endeavor, because the reality is that the risk assessment tool is flawed.
This Kushner/Trump bill amounts to nothing more than a false sense of hope for those who will never be released, due to either lack of shelter given the significant reduction in housing, or lack of eligibility per the warden.
The wide latitude and discretion given to Sessions, a person who whole-heartedly opposes any form of effective criminal justice reform, and proponent of over-criminalization, will inevitably prove problematic for many who otherwise would benefit greatly from this measure with some modicum of oversight. We should take our time to include an independent committee that would serve as a bulwark in the development, implementation and recommendation process of such a program that will use novice and untested tools at the federal level.
Why must we rush this process? Why not take our time to produce the finest prison reform bill anywhere as the President suggested? I visited and spoke directly to guards and wardens in the BOP. They told me they are severely understaffed and safety is paramount given the shortage in staff. The Director of BOP quit, in the middle of Trump's Prison Reform Summit. All of these facts tell us to wait so that we could get it right. In NOBLE's opposition letter to this bill they write: ``a key concern is the ability of the Federal BOP and U.S. Attorney Offices to implement key elements of this legislation. In particular, it will require that U.S. Attorney Offices and BOP address their needs in staffing and funding. It is our opinion that the proposed $50 million of funding per year for five years will not support the bill's expanded programming.'' For these reasons I oppose this bill, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.
The Act does not include a single provision that will reduce the prison time of persons who are serving unfair sentences for low-level offenses. Even supporters of the bill like FAMM states, ``sentencing reform should be included in any final justice reform package.''
The Act uses an untested and potentially racially and socially discriminatory risk assessment to identify individuals who are eligible to earn credits, which primarily depends on static factors that correlate with socioeconomic class and race, such as criminal history, to assess the risk. Therefore, it will likely fail to reduce crime or mass incarceration.
The Act's exclusions would likely have a disparate impact on racial minorities because the bill excludes individuals convicted of certain categories of offenses from redeeming credits towards early release, even if they successfully complete the program.
The Act leaves it to the discretion of prison wardens to determine who can use their credits and when.
Early release would be into a halfway house system which is so underfunded that there is no bed space. Therefore, it will be unlikely that prisoners can truly be released given the reality of the current halfway house system.
The Act gives a false sense of hope because it wraps the empty promise of prison reform around exclusions and wide breadth of discretion to a full-throated opponent to prison reform, policing reform and sentencing reform, in Jeff Sessions.
BOP already has broad authority to implement the positive provisions of the bill, but has opted not to and Sessions cannot be trusted to implement these provisions.
The FIRST STEP Act includes a list of prisoners who are ineligible for time credits if they participate in recidivism reduction programs by virtue of their convictions for certain offenses. Prisoners who are excluded from time credits are those convicted under Title 18, in the following sections:
``(i) Section 113(a)(1), relating to assault with intent to commit murder.
``(ii) Section 115, relating to influencing, impeding, or retaliating against a Federal official by injuring a family member, except for a threat made in violation of that section.
``(iii) Any section of chapter 10, relating to biological weapons.
``(iv) Any section of chapter 11B, relating to chemical weapons.
``(v) Section 351, relating to Congressional, Cabinet, and Supreme Court assassination, kidnapping, and assault.
``(vi) Section 793, relating to gathering, transmitting, or losing defense information.
``(vii) Section 794, relating to gathering or delivering defense information to aid a foreign government.
``(viii) Any section of chapter 39, relating to explosives and other dangerous articles, except for section 836 (relating to the transportation of fireworks into a State prohibiting sale or use).
``(ix) Section 842(p), relating to distribution of information relating to explosive, destructive devices, and weapons of mass destruction, but only if the conviction involved a weapon of mass destruction (as defined in section 2332a(c)(2) of such title).
``(x) Subsection (f)(3), (h), or (i) of section 844, relating to the use of fire or an explosive.
``(xi) Section 924(e), relating to unlawful possession of a firearm by a person with 3 or more convictions for a violent felony.
``(xii) Section 1030(a)(1), relating to fraud and related activity in connection with computers.
``(xiii) Any section of chapter 51, relating to homicide, except for section 1112 (relating to manslaughter), 1113 (relating to attempt to commit murder or manslaughter, but only if the conviction was for an attempt to commit manslaughter), 1115 (relating to misconduct or neglect of ship officers), or 1122 (relating to protection against the human immunodeficiency virus).
``(xiv) Any section of chapter 55, relating to kidnapping.
``(xv) Any offense under chapter 77, relating to peonage, slavery, and trafficking in persons, except for sections 1592 through 1596.
``(xvi) Section 1751, relating to Presidential and Presidential staff assassination, kidnapping, and assault.
``(xvii) Section 1841(a)(2)(C), relating to intentionally killing or attempting to kill an unborn child.
``(xviii) Section 1992, relating to terrorist attacks and other violence against railroad carriers and against mass transportation systems on land, on water, or through the air.
``(xix) Section 2113(e), relating to bank robbery resulting in death.
``(xx) Section 2118(c)(2), relating to robberies and burglaries involving controlled substances resulting in death.
``(xxi) Section 2119(3), relating to taking a motor vehicle (commonly referred to as `carjacking') that results in death.
``(xxii) Any section of chapter 105, relating to sabotage, except for section 2152.
``(xxiii) Any section of chapter 109A, relating to sexual abuse, except that with regard to section 2244, only a conviction under subsection (c) of that section (relating to abusive sexual contact involving young children) shall make a prisoner ineligible under this subparagraph.
``(xxiv) Section 2251, relating to the sexual exploitation of children.
``(xxv) Section 2251A, relating to the selling or buying of children.
``(xxvi) Any of paragraphs (1) through (3) of section 2252(a), relating to certain activities relating to material involving the sexual exploitation of minors.
``(xxvii) A second or subsequent conviction under any of paragraphs (1) through (6) of section 2252A(a), relating to certain activities relating to material constituting or containing child pornography.
``(xxviii) Section 2260, relating to the production of sexually explicit depictions of a minor for importation into the United States.
``(xxix) Section 2283, relating to the transportation of explosive, biological, chemical, or radioactive or nuclear materials.
``(xxx) Section 2284, relating to the transportation of terrorists.
``(xxxi) Section 2291, relating to the destruction of a vessel or maritime facility, but only if the conduct which led to the conviction involved a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
``(xxxii) Any section of chapter 113B, relating to terrorism.
``(xxxiii) Section 2340A, relating to torture.
``(xxxiv) Section 2381, relating to treason.
``(xxxv) Section 2442, relating to the recruitment or use of child soldiers.
The exclusions also apply to convictions under the following sections of Title 42, Title 49, Title 21, Title 8 and Title 50:
``(xxxvi) Section 57(b) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2077(b)), relating to the engagement or participation in the development or production of special nuclear material.
``(xxxvii) Section 92 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2122), relating to prohibitions governing atomic weapons.
``(xxxviii) Section 101 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2131), relating to the atomic, energy license requirement.
``(xxxix) Section 224 or 225 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2274, 2275), relating to the communication or receipt of restricted data.
``(xl) Section 236 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2284), relating to the sabotage of nuclear facilities or fuel.
``(xli) Section 60123(b) of title 49, United States Code, relating to damaging or destroying a pipeline facility, but only if the conduct which led to the conviction involved a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
``(xlii) Section 401(a) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841), relating to manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance, but only in the case of a conviction for an offense described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of subsection (b)(1) of that section for which death or serious bodily injury resulted from the use of such substance.
``(xliii) Section 276(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1326), relating to the reentry of a removed alien, but only if the alien is described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (b) of that section.
``(xliv) Any section of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2401 et seq.)
``(xlv) Section 206 of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1705).
``(xlvi) Section 601 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3121), relating to the protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources.
The exclusions also apply those prisoners convicted of a prior Federal or State ``serious violent felony,'' described as follows (in Title 18):
``(xlvii) An offense described in section 3559(c)(2)(F), for which the offender was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than one year, if the offender has a previous conviction, for which the offender served a term of imprisonment of more than one year, for a Federal or State offense, by whatever designation and wherever committed, consisting of murder (as described in section 1111), voluntary manslaughter (as described in section 1112), assault with intent to commit murder (as described in section 113(a)), aggravated sexual abuse and sexual abuse (as described in sections 2241 and 2242), abusive sexual contact (as described in sections 2244(a)(1) and (a)(2)), kidnapping (as described in chapter 55), carjacking (as described in section 2119), arson (as described in section 844(f)(3), (h), or (i)), or terrorism (as described in chapter 113B.
Finally, prisoners may not obtain credit for participation in recidivism reduction programs if they: (1) completed recidivism reduction programming before enactment of the Act; (2) completed recidivism reduction programming during official detention before moving to Bureau of Prisons; or (3) are inadmissible or deportable under immigration law.
The Leadership Conference
on Civil and Human Rights,
Washington, DC, May 21, 2018.
Vote ``No'' on The FIRST STEP Act
Dear Representative: On behalf of The Leadership Conference
on Civil and Human Rights, and the 109 undersigned
organizations, we write to urge you to vote NO on The FIRST
STEP Act (H.R. 5682). While well intentioned, this bill takes
a misguided approach to reforming our federal justice system.
Without question, we appreciate the inclusion of some
promising provisions to address some of the problems in the
federal prison system, however, the Bureau of Prisons (BOP)
already has broad authority to make the majority of these
changes through administrative action. In sum, this bill
falls short on its promise to ``meaningfully'' tackle the
problems in the federal justice system--racial disparities,
draconian mandatory minimum sentences, persistent
overcrowding, lack of rehabilitation, and the exorbitant
costs of incarceration. Decisions we make now through this
bill could have deep implications for our ability to impact
the abiding and deepening harms that lead to mass
incarceration.
As such, we continue to have several, grave concerns with
The FIRST STEP Act, including:
The Dangerous ``Risk Assessment System'': The Act purports
to offer people in prison the chance to ``earn time credits''
towards early release to pre-release custody--but by building
and placing a ``risk and needs assessment'' algorithm in the
hands of the Attorney General--one not required to be
designed or tailored for the individuals it is meant to
judge--we risk embedding deep racial and class bias into
decisions that heavily impact the lives and futures of
federal prisoners and their families.
Researchers have shown that risk assessment tools applied
in sentencing decisions in Florida--meant to predict
recidivism--were twice as likely to be wrong when evaluating
Black people as White people. One of the first independent
studies analyzing the use of risk assessment in pretrial
showed that decisionmakers using risk assessment tools--in
this case, Kentucky judges--ignored their results over time,
while also overseeing an increase in failures-to-appear at
court and an increase in pretrial arrests. A further recent
analysis showed that risk assessment tools are as accurate as
a prediction made by a random human selected over the
Internet.
We cannot introduce algorithmic risk assessment into the
assignment of housing and release decisions or rehabilitative
opportunities without sufficient transparency, independent
testing for decarceral and anti-racist results prior to
implementation, and regular effective oversight for not just
what the tool purports to predict, but how decisionmakers in
our prison system use it. The Act uses ``risk assessments''
in an untested manner. It fails to ensure transparency,
independent testing, or analysis of the proposed risk
assessment system or its results prior to its adoption or
implementation. And again, it doesn't require the tool to be
designed or tailored for the individuals it is meant to
judge.
Without these things, and in the hands of the nation's most
prominent proponent of a punishing, rather than a
rehabilitative criminal justice system, ``risk assessments''
will further embed racism into the meting out of resources
that could change prisoners' lives--like access to treatment,
work, and most importantly, the ability to earn time off of a
sentence.
The Overbroad List of Exclusions: The majority of people in
prison will eventually be released. Categorically excluding
entire groups of people from receiving early-release credits
will undermine efforts to reduce prison overcrowding and
improve public safety since such exclusions weaken the
incentive to participate in recidivism-reduction programming.
Furthermore, many of these exclusions, such as those based on
immigration-related offenses, could have a disproportionate
impact on people of color.
The Overbroad Discretion Provided to Attorney General
Sessions: The bill gives broad authority to the Attorney
General and would rely upon implementation by this
administration. Despite assurances to the contrary, this
administration has failed to take any active steps to improve
the justice system, has dismantled existing protections, and
has shown outright hostility to people of color and other
historically marginalized communities. Furthermore, Attorney
General Jeff Sessions is a well-known, longtime opponent of
sentencing and prison reform. It would be unwise and harmful
to vest so much discretion in an Attorney General so hostile
to meaningful justice reform.
The Misplaced Incentive System: Effectively reducing
recidivism requires targeting those most likely to reoffend
with rehabilitative programming. Yet, under this bill, only
``minimum'' and ``low-risk'' prisoners would be able to
redeem their earned time credits, and they would earn more
credits than prisoners categorized as ``medium'' or ``high-
risk.'' Given that time credits would also be subject to
denial by the BOP warden and they are not real time off of a
sentence but rather a flawed mechanism to transition into a
decreasing number of halfway houses or to home confinement
that is rarely used by BOP, the bill is unlikely to provide
the incentives that would meaningfully reduce recidivism.
Allows for the privatization of certain public functions
and allows private entities to profit from incarceration. The
bill retains a provision that in order to expand programming
and productive activities, the Attorney General shall develop
policies for wardens of each BOP facility to enter into
partnerships with private entities and industry-sponsored
organizations.
The Absence of Appropriations for Implementation: The
resources needed to expand programming authorized under the
bill have not been--and may never be--appropriated. In fact,
Congress could decide today, absent this legislation, that
prison programming should be funded and increase the BOP's
budget by $50 million a year for the next five
years. Instead, the FY19 BOP budget calls for a reduction.
Furthermore, the recidivism reduction programming that
currently exists in the federal prison system is grossly
underfunded and not enough to serve those currently
incarcerated. Therefore, without any guarantees that the
necessary funding will be appropriated, this bill is an empty
promise.
The Undetermined Human and Fiscal Impact: It is unclear
what the fiscal impact of this bill will be, given that the
Congressional Budget Office has not released a score for the
bill. Moreover, it is unclear what the human impact of this
bill will be, given that neither the BOP nor the U.S.
Sentencing Commission has produced updated estimates on the
number of people projected to be impacted by the legislation.
Proponents argue that at least 4,000 people will be impacted
by the good time fix alone; however, relying on that number
is misleading because it is based upon data that is over a
decade old. No hearings have been held and there is no CBO
score available in order to explore these questions further.
The Omission of Sentencing Reform: Sentencing reform and
prison reform are both important, but one will not work
without the other. Meaningful reform requires both.
Furthermore, advancing prison reform as a stand-alone will
undermine longstanding, bipartisan efforts in the Senate to
advance a comprehensive justice reform package that includes
sentencing reform.
Last week, we were joined by over 70 civil rights
organizations in opposing this well-intentioned, but
misguided legislation at the House Judiciary Committee
markup. Many of our concerns were also shared by the American
Federation of Government Employees representing 33,000
federal correctional workers in the Bureau of Prisons, as
well as Representatives Lewis, Jackson Lee, and Senators
Durbin, Booker, and Harris in a recent Dear Colleague letter.
While we appreciate the inclination to support legislation
that endeavors to reform our prison system, we believe that
this particular bill would do more harm than good and would
have unintended consequences that ripple into the future.
Finally, if presented with one choice, ``to take what we
can get now,'' then we must ensure that ``what we get'' will
not perpetuate the existing harms of mass incarceration or
give false hope to the men and women languishing in prison
and the communities we represent. Our communities are being
demonized and criminalized so we must stand firm to resist
the lure of a compromise that is ultimately a false promise
that may never be realized and isn't in their best interests.
For the foregoing reasons, we urge you to vote ``No'' on
the FIRST STEP Act and The Leadership Conference will include
your position on the bill in our voting scorecard for the
115th Congress.
Sincerely,
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; 334
East 92nd Street Tenant Association; A. Philip Randolph
Institute; African American Ministers In Action; American
Civil Liberties Union; American Federation of Labor-Congress
of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO); American Humanist
Association; Arkansas United Community Coalition; Asian
Americans Advancing Justice--AAJC; Asian Pacific American
Labor Alliance; Association of University Centers on
Disabilities (AUCD); Autistic Self Advocacy Network; Autistic
Women & Nonbinary Network; Bazelon Center for Mental Health
Law; Bend the Arc Jewish Action; Black Alliance for Just
Immigration; Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law;
Buried Alive Project; Campaign for Youth Justice; Casa de
Esperanza: National Latin@ Network for Healthy Families and
Communities.
Center for Community Change Action; Center for Community
Self-Help; Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP); Center
for Popular Democracy; Center for Responsible Lending;
Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA); Coalition of
Black Trade Unionists; Coalition on Human Needs; CURE
(Citizens United for Rehabilitation of Errants); Defending
Rights & Dissent; Demos; Disability Rights Education &
Defense Fund; Drug Policy Alliance (DPA); Equal Justice
Society; Equal Rights Advocates; Equality California; Equity
Matters; Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; Faith Action
Network--Washington State; Faith in Public Life.
Government Information Watch; Harm Reduction Coalition; Hip
Hop Caucus; Hispanic Federation; Human Rights Watch;
Immigrant Legal Resource Center; Indivisible; Japanese
American Citizens League; Jewish Council for Public Affairs
(JCPA); Justice Strategies; Juvenile Law Center;
LatinoJustice PRLDEF; Law Enforcement Action Partnership;
Let's Start, Inc.; Mommieactivist and Sons; MomsRising;
NAACP; NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.;
National Action Network's Washington Bureau; National
Alliance to End Sexual Violence.
National Association of Human Rights Workers; National
Association of Social Worker; National Bar Association (NBA);
National Black Justice Coalition; National Center for Lesbian
Rights; National Coalition Against Domestic Violence;
National Coalition on Black Civic Participation; National
Council of Churches; National Disability Rights Network;
National Education Association; National Employment Law
Project; National Hispanic Media Coalition; National
Immigrant Justice Center; National Immigration Law Center;
National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild;
National Juvenile Justice Network; National LGBTQ Task Force
Action Fund; National Organization for Women; National
Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE);
National Religious Campaign Against Torture.
NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice; Pennsylvania
Immigration and Citizenship Coalition; People For the
American Way (PFAW); PFLAG National; Prison Policy
Initiative; Safer Foundation; Sargent Shriver National Center
on Poverty Law; Service Employees International Union (SEIU);
Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund (SALDEF);
Southeast Asia Resource Action Center (SEARAC); Southern
Poverty Law Center (SPLC); Students for Sensible Drug Policy;
The Center for Media Justice; The Daniel Initiative; The
Decarceration Collective.
The National Council for Incarcerated and Formerly
Incarcerated Women and Girls; The United Church of Christ;
The United Methodist Church--General Board of Church and
Society; T'ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights;
UndocuBlack Network; UnidosUS; Union for Reform Judaism;
United Church of Christ, Local Church Ministries; United
Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries; United We
Dream; V-Day and One Billion Rising; Washington Lawyers'
Committee for Civil Rights & Urban Affairs; We Belong
Together; Woodhull Freedom Foundation; World Without
Genocide.
