14 Congressional Digest n www.CongressionalDigest.com n Januar.docx

14 Congressional Digest n www.CongressionalDigest.com n
January 2019
“Rather than
allowing the
cycle of crime to
continue, this
legislation takes a
practical, intelligent
approach to
rehabilitation.”
Continued on page 16
The Pros
of Legislation to Reform
Should Congress Pass the FIRST STEP Act to
Reform the Nation’s Prison and Sentencing Laws?
Honorable Bob Goodlatte
United States Representative, Virginia, Republican
Representative Goodlatte, of the Sixth District of Virginia, was
first elected to the U.S.
House of Representatives in 1992. He was the District Director

for then-Representa-
tive Caldwell Butler (VA-R) from 1977 to 1979 and a practicing
attorney from 1979 to
1992. He chairs the Judiciary Committee and also sits on the
Agriculture Committee.
The following is from the May 22, 2018, House floor debate on
H.R. 5682, the FIRST
STEP (Formerly Incarcerated Reenter Society Transformed
Safely Transitioning Every
Person) Act.
I rise in strong support of H.R. 5682, the FIRST STEP Act. The
bipartisan bill before us
is a meaningful, historic criminal justice reform measure. The
FIRST STEP Act places
a new focus on rehabilitation.
While we recognize criminal behavior needs to be punished and
criminals need
to be incarcerated, we must also acknowledge that our prison
population needs to be
rehabilitated to the greatest extent practicable.
The bill establishes a risk and needs assessment as the basis of
both an effective
recidivism reduction program and an efficient and effective
Federal prison system. The
FIRST STEP Act will incentivize prisoners to participate in
evidence-based recidivism
reduction programs, productive activities, and jobs that will
actually reduce their risk
of recidivism.
We know that over 90 percent of all prisoners within the
Bureau of Prisons will be
released someday. That is an indisputable fact. We also know
that without programming

and intervention, which can train prisoners to be better citizens,
not better criminals,
prisoners are more likely to recidivate.
Rather than allowing the cycle of crime to continue, this
legislation takes a practical,
intelligent approach to rehabilitation. By using a focused
approach for each prisoner, we
can lower the risk of recidivism. That is what H.R. 5682 does.
Fewer recidivists means
fewer prisoners in the future. It means greater savings to the
American taxpayer. More
importantly, it means safer communities, fewer crimes, and, of
course, fewer victims.
It also means greater opportunities for people once they leave
prison.
This bill is important because when prisoners who have
received intervention and
rehabilitation are released, they are less likely to commit
crimes. When that happens,
our streets are safer and innocent civilians are less likely to be
victimized. Rehabilitated
prisoners are more likely to leave the life of crime behind,
become productive members
of society, and contribute to their communities. If that isn’t
meaningful, I don’t know
what is.
15Congressional Digest n www.CongressionalDigest.com n
January 2019
“Despite the bill’s

good intentions,
the new incentive
system for pre-
release custody
credits could
exacerbate racial
biases . . .”
and Cons
the Criminal Justice System
Should Congress Pass the FIRST STEP Act to
Reform the Nation’s Prison and Sentencing Laws?
Honorable Jerrold Nadler
United States Representative, New York, Democrat
Representative Nadler, of the Eighth District of New York, was
House of Representatives in 1992. He served in the New York
Assembly from 1976 to
1992. He is the Ranking Minority Member of the Judiciary
Committee and also sits
on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The
following is from the May
22, 2018, House floor debate on H.R. 5682, the FIRST STEP
(Formerly Incarcerated
Reenter Society Transformed Safely Transitioning Every

Person) Act.
I claim the time in opposition to H.R. 5682, the FIRST STEP
Act. On principle, I
cannot support legislation which fails to address the larger issue
of sentencing reform,
and, though this bill makes some modest improvements in areas
related to our prisons,
actually, it does more harm by cementing into our system new
areas of racial biases and
disadvantage that make worse a criminal justice system
desperately in need of reform.
Despite the bill’s good intentions, the new incentive system for
pre-release custody
credits could exacerbate racial biases and, unlike previous
criminal justice efforts, is not
balanced with the necessary reforms to our Federal sentencing
system. As Monday’s New
York Times editorial observed, “A partial bill could end up
being worse than nothing.”
The bill excludes large categories of inmates, based on
convictions for various
offenses and on immigration status, from being eligible for the
pre-release custody
incentives established by the bill.
Second, certain prisoners who are eligible to participate in the
incentive system
and who successfully participate in recidivism reduction
programs would face being
denied early entry to pre-release custody if such inmates are
judged to have a higher
than low recidivism risk under the new system. It would be
unfair to deny these

prisoners what they have earned, and it is counterproductive for
all of us to, in effect,
create a disincentive for prisoners who most need recidivism
reduction programming
from engaging in it.
Third, the combination of these factors, implemented through a
problematic risk
assessment tool, could operate to exacerbate racial and
socioeconomic disparities al-
ready present in the criminal justice system. As the Leadership
Conference on Civil and
Human Rights, the ACLU [American Civil Liberties Union], the
NAACP, the National
Immigration Law Center, and dozens of other advocacy groups
warn, “the exclusions
could … have a disparate impact on racial minorities.”
I want to acknowledge the tremendous work of my colleagues
on the Judiciary
Committee — Representatives [Hakeem] Jeffries [NY-D],
[Cedric] Richmond [LA-D],
and [Karen] Bass [CA-D] particularly — for their efforts to
improve the legislation.
January 2019
Goodlatte,
continued from page 14
“Voting against

this meaningful
and important bill
is a disservice to
those men and
women currently
incarcerated and
their families.”
I know there are some in this body who are opposing this
legislation because it
does not include sentencing reform. I support sentencing reform
and have worked
with my colleagues to find common ground on that issue.
However, we should not
let this opportunity pass by. The vast majority of Members of
this House agree that
this legislation is needed. Let us not linger any longer. Let us
move this important and
meaningful bill today.
Just look at the bipartisan support from outside interest groups
that the FIRST
STEP Act has received. Numerous organizations — almost too
many to list in the
allotted time we have — on both the left and the right have
enthusiastically endorsed
this bill.
I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to not oppose

this very important
piece of legislation before us today. It appears their opposition
to the legislation is based
upon what is not in the legislation rather than what is actually
in it. I don’t believe there
is a single provision in the bill that they oppose. In fact, many
of the provisions in this
bill are there because they specifically asked for them.
For example, Democrats asked for a fix to the way the Bureau
of Prisons calculates
good time credit. We made changes to clarify congressional
intent on that section. They
also asked for language on the risk assessments to ensure that
dynamic factors were
used to evaluate a prisoner’s risk of recidivating. That request
was honored. Various
pilot programs and a prohibition of shackling pregnant inmates
were also placed in the
legislation at the request of Democrats. Good requests, good
changes, and these are
only a few of the many requests that were honored.
Voting against this meaningful and important bill is a disservice
to those men and
women currently incarcerated and their families. It is a
disservice to those great men
and women who work in our Bureau of Prisons, and it is a
disservice to the American
people. The vast majority of those incarcerated are going to get
out one day. Let’s make
sure they have the tools and the resources to successfully
reenter society. H.R. 5682
does just that.
Honorable Bobby Scott

United States Representative, Virginia, Democrat
Representative Scott, of the Third District of Virginia, was first
elected to the U.S.
House of Representatives in 1992. He served in the Virginia
House of Delegates from
1977 to 1982 and in the Virginia Senate from 1983 to 1992. He
is the Ranking Minority
Member of the Education and the Workforce Committee. The
following is from the May
22, 2018, House floor debate on H.R. 5682, the FIRST STEP
Act.
Historically, the United States of America has been plagued
with serious, fundamental
problems within our criminal justice system. For far too long,
policymakers have cho-
sen to play politics and disapprove of commonsense policy that
is specifically geared
towards reducing crime by instead enacting so-called “tough on
crime” slogans and
soundbites, such as “three strikes and you’re out,” “mandatory
minimum sentencing,”
and even rhymes such as, “you do the adult crime, you do the
adult time.”
January 2019
Nadler,

“. . . it is clear that
prison reform alone
will not ameliorate
the crisis of mass
incarceration
unless we address
the principal cause
of the problem —
unjust sentencing
laws.”
I wholeheartedly support certain provisions in the current
version of the bill, such
as expanding time credits for good behavior, banning the
shackling of women prisoners,
and enhanced compassionate relief. But, unfortunately, these
good provisions do not
outweigh the potentially harmful provisions contained
elsewhere in the bill. Perhaps
more importantly, it is clear that prison reform alone will not
ameliorate the crisis of
mass incarceration unless we address the principal cause of the
problem — unjust
sentencing laws.
As former Attorney General Eric Holder [in the Obama
Administration] writes in

today’s Washington Post, “To reform America’s prisons, we
must change the laws that
send people to them in the first place. Anything less represents
a failure of leadership.”
It is unfortunate that after waiting nearly one and one-half years
to take up the issue
of criminal justice reform, the majority was unwilling to subject
H.R. 5682 to a single
legislative hearing or even bother to obtain a CBO
[Congressional Budget Office] score
so we could understand its impact.
I also do not believe we can simply accept as a reason not to
change our sentenc-
ing laws opposition to sentencing reform by a Trump
Administration that changes its
legislative positions on a near daily basis and that has already
done so much to weaken
and undermine the criminal justice system. Nor do I believe
more balanced reform is
not viable when Senator Chuck Grassley [IA-R], the chairman
of the Senate Judiciary
Committee, told us, “For any criminal justice system proposal
to win approval in the
Senate, it must include … sentencing reforms.”
Although I oppose this legislation, I remain fully committed to
achieving balanced
reform as part of an effort to make our criminal justice system
more just and our con-
stituents more safe. But I do not believe that passing this bill
today would contribute
to that goal. I therefore urge an opposition vote.
Honorable Diana DeGette

United States Representative, Colorado, Democrat
Representative DeGette, of the First District of Colorado, was
House of Representatives in 1996. She served in the Colorado
House of Representatives
from 1992 to 1996, where she was Minority Leader from 1994
to 1995. She sits on the
Energy and Commerce Committee. The following is from the
May 22, 2018, House floor
debate on H.R. 5682, the FIRST STEP Act.
I rise today in opposition of H.R. 5682, the FIRST STEP Act.
While I support several provisions in the legislation, including
prohibiting shackling
of pregnant inmates, requiring that individuals be incarcerated
closer to their families,
and clarifying good time calculations, I cannot support other
provisions of the legislation.
I strongly believe the House should be working to ensure that
once convicted in-
dividuals have paid their debt to society, they have the skills
and support to reintegrate
into society, but this bill puts in place too many barriers to that
goal.
The bill excludes undocumented individuals, including those
who remained in the
United States longer than authorized, from the recidivism
reduction programming.

January 2019
Scott,
“I expect that
public safety will be
enhanced by this
bill, because more
people will receive
programming
to reduce their
likelihood to
commit future
crimes.”.
These policies may sound appealing, but their impact ranges
from a negligible
reduction in crime to an actual increase in crime.
Turning to the bill we are debating today, I recognize that the
FIRST STEP Act
includes a fix to the calculation of good time credit, which I
have sought for many
years. Calculating good time credit as Congress had originally

intended is a serious
improvement made by this bill.
This bill also improves the auditing process for enforcing the
Prison Rape Elim-
ination Act to protect prisoners from sexual assault. It places
prohibitions on shack-
ling pregnant and post-partum women. The bill expands the use
and transparency of
compassionate release for terminally ill prisoners. It also
requires the Federal Bureau
of Prisons to house prisoners closer to their primary residence,
so they can maintain
ties to their family and community. And there is a significant
investment in programs
designed to reduce recidivism.
But process is essential to crafting an effective bill. There were
no hearings on this
bill. Nor has a CBO [Congressional Budget Office] score been
done. Nor has a prison
impact analysis been prepared. And it is obvious that experts
had little to do with drafting
the bill. As a result of this process, there are several problems
with the bill.
First, the version of the bill we are voting on today is
unnecessarily complicated
by the use of a risk assessment tool. I have reached out to
experts in the field of prison
reform, and I have not found anyone who will say that risk
assessment tools should be
used to determine which prisoners can use time credits to gain
early release from pris-
on. Instead, they suggest that simply increasing programming
for everyone will reduce

recidivism and the complicated risk assessments are
unnecessary and will stand in the
way of reducing recidivism for many prisoners. The risk
assessment process may also
exacerbate existing racial disparities in the Federal prison
system.
Second, experts have raised serious concerns about excluding
groups of prisoners
from this program who we know will be released from prison
and therefore should be
involved in the program.
Third, there are questions of cost and funding. The Bureau of
Prisons has cut con-
tracts with halfway houses and terminated 6,000 correctional
officers. This bill cannot
achieve its goals without an adequately staffed prison system,
as well as sufficient space
at halfway houses.
Even in the absence of hearings and experts, we can see that
some of the opposi-
tion to this bill is almost comical, because it is lodged by
advocates who support other
legislation that carries the same provisions that are either
similar to or worse than what
they complain about in the FIRST STEP Act.
Others oppose the bill because it does not include sentencing
reform and therefore
does not address mass incarceration. Unfortunately, the bill
those advocates hold up as
“sentencing reform” fails to make any meaningful reduction in
mass incarceration and
may, in fact, add to mass incarceration.

It is in the context of this absurd process that we have to vote
on this legislation.
Unfortunately, without the appropriate analysis, we can only
guess about its impact.
Based on that guess, it is my determination that no prisoner will
be worse off, but many
may be significantly better off, under the FIRST STEP Act. I
expect that public safety
will be enhanced by this bill, because more people will receive
programming to reduce
their likelihood to commit future crimes.
Although this is a shameful process, I will therefore support the
bill.
January 2019
DeGette,
“I am very
concerned about
language in the
bill that excludes
immigrants from

being eligible for
time credits.”
Worse, the bill also excludes some lawful permanent residents
from the program and
could trigger their removal. The bill also excludes those who
have been convicted of
drug crimes, including marijuana-related convictions.
Given that immigrant and minority communities make up a
disproportionate share
of immigration and drug-related offenders in the criminal
justice system, these exclu-
sions will, by their very nature, exclude those who most need
the benefits of the bill.
Finally, any conversation about reducing recidivism must
include sentencing re-
form that would keep low-risk nonviolent offenders out of
prison in the first place and
address our draconian Federal mandatory minimum laws. We
can do better, and we
must do better if we are to address this issue.
Honorable Pramila Jayapal
United States Representative, Washington, Democrat
Representative Jayapal, of the Seventh District of Washington,
was elected to the U.S.
House of Representatives in 2016. She served in the Washington
Senate from 2015 to
2016. She sits on the Judiciary Committee and the Budget
Committee, where she is the
Vice Ranking Member. The following is from the May 22, 2018,
House floor debate

on H.R. 5682, the FIRST STEP (Formerly Incarcerated Reenter
Society Transformed
Safely Transitioning Every Person) Act.
There is one thing everybody agrees on, and that is that it is
past time that we face the
institutionalized racial inequity that is built into every single
step of our mass incar-
ceration system.
We know that mass incarceration disproportionately affects
people of color and that,
today, women in prison are, sadly, the fastest growing
demographic, frequently caught
up with the arrests of their partners and struggling with mental
health and addiction.
This bill does take important steps forward, and I want to say
that it is a very good
faith effort on the part of the bill’s two sponsors: my friend
Hakeem Jeffries [NY-D]
and Representative Doug Collins [GA-R].
Unfortunately, I still am not going to be able to support the bill
because I have
serious concerns about how the bill creates, develops, and
implements a new risk
assessment system on a very quick timeline by someone who,
frankly, has spent his
career opposing criminal justice reforms and, in fact, has fought
attempts to advance
racial justice, and that is Attorney General [Jeff] Sessions. This
is especially concerning
given that research shows us that risk assessments produce
racial disparities. And this
bill does not address sentencing reform, which is an issue that

has bipartisan support
and is the crux of the problem today.
In addition, I am very concerned about language in the bill that
excludes immi-
grants from being eligible for time credits. The bill excludes
longtime, legal permanent
residents, and green card holders, who may have committed the
exact same crimes
as others and may be eligible for relief under U.S. law. If we
are making redemption
available, shouldn’t it be available for everyone, regardless of
immigration status,
for the same set of crimes? Moreover, continued incarceration
of these people simply
January 2019
Pros,
“. . . we are
taking a first step
toward solutions,
a first step toward
hope, a first step
toward making a

difference . . .”
Honorable Doug Collins
United States Representative, Georgia, Republican
Representative Collins, of the Ninth District of Georgia, was
House of Representatives in 2012. He served in the Georgia
House of Representatives
from 2007 to 2013. He sits on the following committees: Rules,
Judiciary, and Oversight
and Government Reform. The following is from the May 22,
2018, House floor debate
on H.R. 5682, the FIRST STEP Act.
I like parts of this legislation; but it doesn’t go far enough; if it
just did a little more —
as if this place produced perfect results every time and we just
want to wait. But I also
would ask those who choose to vote “no” today, is it okay to
make progress on many
other things but on this one say no? Say no to a family who has
a family member in
prison who could get treatment and get help? And when they
come home — which
over 90 percent of all prisoners in this country do, they come
home — is it okay to say
to those folks, no, we are not going to provide that for your
family member; we are
not going to provide extra treatment so that they can get help
with addiction or work
problems or anger management or skills deficits or education
deficits?
No, it is not. Is it okay today to vote “no” and say: I like a lot
of this bill, but I want
to continue to shackle women as they have babies? It is a pretty

simple understanding.
I get it. I want to see sentencing reform, too. I am on record as
saying I do. I am on
record as continuing past this to actually do that. This bill is
real and meaningful reform.
The President has said this is something that can be signed. In
fact, the President, last
week, said that America is a Nation that believes in second
chances.
The FIRST STEP Act gives those second chances. It gives us
hope. It gives us an
ability to look at people. As I have said on this issue many
times, it is a money and
moral issue. In States like Georgia, Kentucky, Oklahoma,
Texas, New York, and Cali-
fornia, these issues have been discussed and evidence-based
approaches have worked.
We have seen it work in my home State of Georgia. This bill
provides the protection,
and it also provides the incentive for this to work.
Now, there have been many discussions on why we shouldn’t do
this, and there
have been many people in recent days coming forward. I think it
is pretty amazing to
me — and I am going to have to be honest here — for the
former attorney general [in
the Obama Administration, Eric Holder] to come out and say
this is not enough and say
that the current Department of Justice could do some of this.
Then I have one question
for the former attorney general: Where were you when you held
the office? Why didn’t
you do something then? If it was within your grasp, why did
you turn a deaf ear to the

cries of families who were in need? Why did you decide not to
do something and now
weigh and say it is not enough?
Look to those families, Mr. former attorney general, and tell
them it is not enough.
It is easy to write an op-ed. It must be a lot harder to do it when
you have the job. So,
as we look forward here, this is a positive piece of legislation.
This is something that we
can look forward to doing, when you have a chance to give
those prisoners the oppor-
tunity to cut the very things down in their life that cause them
to get there to start with.
When we begin to look at the reasons they are there — and
there are multiple — then
we are taking a first step toward solutions, a first step toward
hope, a first step toward
making a difference so that maybe we can get some of our
colleagues to take that next
January 2019
Jayapal,
“. . . we have more
work to do to get
to the place where

our morals are
being consistently
applied.”
based upon citizenship status is a waste of taxpayer dollars and
unnecessarily keeps
families separated.
The reality is that these are deeply important issues, and this
bill shows that we
have the capacity to work in a bipartisan way.
Even with all the good work and even for a first step,
unfortunately, I believe we
have more work to do to get to the place where our morals are
being consistently
applied.
Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee
United States Representative, Texas, Democrat
Representative Jackson Lee, of the Eighteenth District of Texas,
was first elected to
the U.S. House of Representatives in 1994. She served on the
Houston City Council
from 1990 to 1994. She sits on the Homeland Security
Committee and the Judiciary
Committee. The following is from the May 22, 2018, House
floor debate on H.R. 5682,
the FIRST STEP Act.

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 bi-
partisan combination of comprehensive criminal justice reform,
took bills that included
prison reform and sentencing reform, and were on the way to
passing that combination
of very important partnership. Unfortunately, the politics of that
time got in the way.
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 Pris-
ons [BOP] 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.
January 2019
step into sentencing reform and other areas that we have already
worked on and others
across in the Senate have advocated for. But if we choose not to
do that today, you are
saying no to the future.
It is about what we can accomplish and how we can accomplish
it in a way that is
meaningful to others. When we look at this, I also find it rather
interesting; the groups

that have come together here. As we went around talking about
this, we went to so many
different groups from the left and the right that say this is a
great first step: Justice Action
Network, American Conservative Union, FreedomWorks,
FAMM [Families Against
Mandatory Minimums], Prison Fellowship, Faith and Freedom
Coalition, #cut50, Her-
itage Action for America, and many, many more both on the left
and the right. The
Koch Foundation and others have said this is good. This is
something we can move on.
This provides that hope that we are searching for. To the bill’s
detractors, I respect
your opinion. To the bill’s detractors, I would just say: Why
not? If why not, why not
here? And if why not, when? Is it ever good enough? Can we
ever get to a point? I
think one of the things that we often deal with here is the art of
the possible. Today is
about the art of the possible.
We have an Administration that says: We will sign the bill.
Jared Kushner has been
such an advocate for this and worked with the administration to
say: We will put forth
the effort to make this work. We have partners in the Senate
who say: We want to work
and do even more. I am glad of that. Today is about action.
Today is about being a part
of something bigger than ourselves. This is a day when we can
come to the floor of
this House and be proud of why we are here. So many times we
come down, and we
look at the bill, and we see paper, and we see words on a paper.

But I tell you what I
see. I see the faces of the families behind these words that it is
actually going to help.
So when you look at this vote and you look at this bill, I say:
Look beyond the
pieces of paper, look beyond the ink, and look to the families
that will be helped. When
you cast that “yes” vote, you are saying: I want to do
something, and I am not afraid
to wait on something I might want but know that I can take a
step further now. It is
very simple: Vote “yes” to move it along or vote “no” and say
no to those in need. I
can agree and disagree about a lot of parts, but this is about the
people behind the bill.
You could come up with every reason you want to vote “no,”
but remember, there
are families watching today. There are incarcerated people
watching today. Will you
vote for them, or will you vote to hold up something that may or
may not happen?
Honorable Hakeem Jeffries
United States Representative, New York, Democrat
Representative Jeffries, of the Eighth District of New York, was
House of Representatives in 2012. He served in the New York
State Assembly from 2007
to 2012. He sits on the Judiciary Committee and the Budget
Committee. The following
is from the May 22, 2018, House floor debate on H.R. 5682, the
FIRST STEP Act.

I thank Chairman Goodlatte as well as several distinguished
members of the Judiciary
Committee for their leadership on this issue and, of course, my
good friend Doug Col-
Collins,
“I think one of the
things that we often
deal with here is the
art of the possible.
Today is about the
art of the possible."
January 2019
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.

Without provisions in the bill to reduce the excessive
sentencing produced by man-
datory minimums for drug offenses, overcrowding will still
persist and thereby divert
resources from programs to reduce recidivism.
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 Re-
publicans have canceled because of my position on this bill? Let
us work together for
what is good. Let us make a difference in the lives of all of the
inmates.
As the New York 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 sys-
tem 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 [Violent
Crime Control and
Law Enforcement Act]. 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 [of 2010]. 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 Minimums indicated in their
letter, “Sentencing
reform should be included in any final justice reform package.”
Second, even if the ma-
jority 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
Jackson Lee,
“Without provisions
in the bill to reduce
the excessive
sentencing
produced by
mandatory
minimums for
drug offenses,

overcrowding will
still persist . . .”
January 2019
lins for being a phenomenal champion of improving the lives of
currently incarcerated
individuals, folks who have no time for political games.
These are individuals who are in the system right now without
hope, without oppor-
tunity, without a meaningful chance at transforming themselves.
And the FIRST STEP
Act will provide that. It will give them an opportunity to get
educated now, give them
an opportunity to get vocational training now, a GED [General
Education Development
credential] now, a college education now, give them the
opportunity to deal with their
substance abuse problem now, mental health counseling now.
Why would we possibly refuse that? These individuals are
amongst the least, the
lost, and the left behind. And we have an opportunity, in a
bipartisan way, to make a
difference in their lives in so many areas.
Any objective reading of this bill is that it will improve their
quality of life. And
what is so wonderful about this is that you have the right and

the left, conservatives
and progressives, united in this effort. Nothing meaningful is
ever easy, but the mass
incarceration epidemic has been with us for almost 50 years.
You will not just take one
legislative magic wand and wipe it away in one shot. It will
require sustained effort,
sustained intensity, sustained commitment, and a meaningful
first step.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this effort to transform
lives, save taxpayer
dollars, and dramatically reduce recidivism now.
#cut50
Van Jones, President and Cofounder
#cut50, an initiative of The Dream Corps, works to cut crime
and incarceration in all
50 States. It is a national bipartisan effort to reduce the number
of people in prisons
and jails while making communities safer. The Dream Corps
supports cutting-edge
economic, environmental, and criminal justice innovators. Van
Jones is the founder
of The Dream Corps, Rebuild The Dream, Green For All, the
Ella Baker Center for
Human Rights, and Color of Change. In 2009, he worked as the
green jobs advisor to
President Barack Obama. The following is from a May 16,
2018, letter to Congress
in support of H.R. 5682, the FIRST STEP Act, signed by 70
supporting organizations.
This letter is written on behalf of #cut50 and more than 70 other
organizations and
individuals who support the FIRST STEP Act, which would

improve the condition and
opportunities for incarcerated individuals, reduce the risk of
recidivism upon release
from prison, and promote public safety.
We envision a criminal justice system that recognizes the
humanity of the 2.2
million people currently behind bars in America and moves
toward compassion and
treatment rather than punishment and incarceration. H.R. 5682
falls in line with our
mission by improving the conditions for incarcerated
individuals, reducing the amount
of time people spend in prison, and provide meaningful
opportunities to successfully
transition into their communities.
The authors have worked together with groups of advocates,
fellow Members of
Congress, and heard directly from formerly incarcerated
individuals with lived expe-
Jeffries,
“We envision a
criminal justice
system that
recognizes the
humanity of the

2.2 mllion people
currently behind
bars . . .”
January 2019
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 thou-
sands 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 supporters at markup said in their letter, “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 [Jared]
Kushner [the President’s son-in-law and advisor]/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 [then Attorney
General Jeff] 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 [National Organization of Black Law Enforcement
Executives] oppo-
sition 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 [Families Against Mandatory Minimums] states,
“Sentencing reform should
be included in any final justice reform package.”
The act uses an untested and potentially racially and socially
discriminatory risk as-
sessment 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.
Jackson Lee,
“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.”
January 2019
riences through the Federal prison system. We are also
encouraged by strong support
from both Republicans and Democrats as this bill passed out of
the House Judiciary
Committee on May 9, 2018.
In 2015, three out of 10 Federal prisoners and six out of 10
State prisoners re-

leased to a term of community supervision returned to prison
within five years. Far
too many struggle with unemployment, housing instability, and
substance addiction
when they come home. Many have difficulty overcoming the
trauma they experienced
during their incarceration and reestablishing ties to family and
community that were
damaged by their incarceration. We strongly believe that the
provisions of H.R. 5682
will lead to better outcomes for individuals reintegrating back
into their communities.
Establishing a system that provides guidance and intensity of
evidenced-based recid-
ivism reduction programming will provide the necessary
resources for individuals
to prepare for release.
This bill works to improve the lives of the incarcerated men and
women, their
children, and their families by:
Reducing the Number of People Incarcerated in Federal Prisons
This bill will immediately make over 4,000 people in Federal
prison eligible for early
release — by fixing a good time credit calculation retroactively.
Men and women in
incarcerated Federal prison will earn nearly eight weeks (54
days) per year off of their
sentence for good time. Thousands more will soon become
eligible to move from Bu-
reau of Prisons facilities into home detention as a result of the
expansion of the elderly
prisoner pilot program — which gives people 60 years or older
who have served more
than two-thirds of their sentence an opportunity to serve the

remainder of their sentence
on home confinement.
The bill will expand the capacity of prison programming to
ensure that individuals
inside can benefit from counseling, drug treatment, training, and
education. By par-
ticipating in programming, individuals will earn credits (at a
rate of 10 days for every
30 of participating in programming) that allow them to shorten
the amount of time
they spend in prison and release back to their communities and
families sooner — via
expanded use of home confinement. It provides a pathway to
prerelease for even those
deemed “high” or “medium” risk.
Increasing Opportunities for Programming and Work Within the
Walls
Currently, there is a significant lack of programming inside the
Federal prisons. H.R.
5682 authorizes $50,000,000 each year for Fiscal Year 2019
through 2023 (quarter
of a billion), which can be used for programming. This bill also
allows more outside
nonprofits, volunteers, and faith-based groups to go into Federal
prisons to provide
programming. These volunteers will not only provide critical
programming, but also
will serve as mentors to those inside and be a valuable asset in
changing the culture
within the institutions and bringing hope and compassion to
those inside.
The bill also expands work programs so that those inside have
an opportunity to work

and save money in escrow accounts that they can use as they
return home to get back
on their feet. H.R. 5682 also creates an ID program so that men
and women returning
to society have identification necessary to gain benefits,
housing, and employment.
#cut50,
“The bill will expand
the capacity of
prison programming
to ensure that
individuals inside
can benefit from
counseling, drug
treatment, training,
and education.”
January 2019
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.
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 im-

migration law.
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
Vanita Gupta, President and CEO
Formed in 1950 with 30 organizations, mostly civil rights and
labor groups, the
Leadership Conference has grown in numbers, scope, and
effectiveness to include
more than 200 national coalition members. Vanita Gupta served
from 2014 to 2017
as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General and head of the
U.S. Department
of Justice’s Civil Rights Division. Prior to that, she was Deputy
Legal Director and
the Director of the Center for Justice at the American Civil
Liberties Union. The
following is from a May 8, 2018, letter to the House Judiciary
Committee opposing
H.R. 5682, the FIRST STEP Act.
On behalf of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human
Rights and the 74 un-
dersigned organizations, we urge you to vote “No” on the
FIRST STEP Act that will
be considered during the mark-up. Any effort to pass prison
reform (or “back-end”
reform) legislation without including sentencing reform (or
“front-end” reform) will
not meaningfully improve the Federal system.
Across the country, States that have enacted legislation
containing both front- and
back-end reforms have reduced rates of incarceration and crime.
Any legislation that
addresses only back-end reforms is doomed to fail in achieving

these goals. Without
changes to sentencing laws that eliminate mandatory minimums,
restore judicial dis-
cretion, reduce the national prison population, and mitigate
disparate impacts on com-
munities of color, the FIRST STEP Act alone will have little
impact. The Leadership
Conference on Civil and Human Rights plans to include your
position on the FIRST
STEP Act in our voting scorecard for the 115th Congress.
Jackson Lee,
“Early release
would be into a
halfway house
system which is
so underfunded
that there is no
bed space.”
January 2019
Protecting Women and Facilitating Family Connections

Currently, men and women can be housed thousands of miles
away from their loved
ones, left with little opportunity to maintain familial
relationships that are critical to
both their well-being while inside and successful reentry. H.R.
5682 will require that
people living in Federal prisons be housed within 500 driving
miles of their families.
Allowing individuals to serve their sentences in facilities closer
to their family support
system maintains a healthy bond and strong ties to the
community.
In the last two decades, the women’s prison population has risen
by 700 percent.
Our prisons and policies were not designed to meet women’s
needs, and the result has
been a system that traumatizes and endangers women.
The FIRST STEP Act will end the shackling of women in labor
and post-partum.
Shackling pregnant women is dangerous and inhumane. The
shackling of pregnant
women endangers the lives of the mother and fetus. H.R. 5682
sends a clear message of
responsibility for the health and safety of both the mother and
the fetus during pregnancy
by banning the use of shackles. It will also provide hygiene
items to women in prison at
no charge and expand phone and visitation time that are vital to
the rehabilitation process
and to allowing the 80 percent of women who are mothers in
prison stay connected to
their children. The bill also contains a fix to Prison Rape
Elimination Act, which will
improve how the audits of prison rape incidents are conducted.

Meaningful Oversight to Help Ensure Proper Implementation
H.R. 5682 will also place additional layers of accountability and
oversight within the
Federal Bureau of Prisons. Additionally, there will be an annual
accountability report
to ensure that the risk assessment tool is being administered in
an unbiased way. This
is crucial as we continue to face vast racial disparities that
negatively impact African
American and Latino communities.
These are meaningful reforms. This is our best chance to pass
this bill into law
and dramatically change the lives of people inside — and
expand accountability and
oversight of the Federal prison system.
The passage of H.R. 5682 will truly be the first step towards
further progress that
we hope will eventually include sentencing reform. #cut50, on
behalf of the under-
signed organizations and individuals, respectfully urge you to
schedule a vote on this
legislation and vote yes in support.
#cut50,
“The FIRST STEP
Act will end the
shackling of women
in labor and

post-partum.”
January 2019
Moreover, proposals referred to by the White House and others
as “prison reform,”
including the FIRST STEP Act, would do little to reform
prisons or the Federal justice
system. The FIRST STEP Act attempts to allow people to
participate in reentry and
rehabilitation programs and earn time credits that would permit
them to serve the end of
their prison sentence in home confinement or halfway houses.
However, currently there
are not enough of these programs available in the Federal
Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to
serve those currently in prisons. Furthermore, BOP more
recently has reduced the number
of residential reentry centers it contracts with to provide
halfway house programming.
In addition, many people would not be eligible to earn credits
by participating in
rehabilitation or reentry programs merely based on their
criminal convictions. Even if
a person is deemed eligible to participate in BOP programming
based on the required
risk and needs assessment system, after participating in
programming, the BOP warden
could deny the transfer of prisoners to a halfway house or home
confinement if they
find “by clear and convincing evidence that the prisoner should

not be transferred into
prerelease custody based on evidence of the prisoner’s actions
after the conviction of
such prisoner” and provides “a detailed written statement
regarding such finding.”
The Federal criminal justice system is deeply flawed and needs
to adopt a top-to-
bottom overhaul. The FIRST STEP Act alone does not come
close to achieving the
desperately needed reforms to create a fair and just system.
It is important to note that while reforms to address back-end
drivers of our prison
system are needed, they cannot function as a substitute for
front-end sentencing reform.
Only front-end reforms have the power to significantly stem the
tide of incarceration,
reduce the exorbitant cost of the prison system, and give redress
to those inside who are
serving sentences that are disproportionate to the severity of the
offense. Any approach
that does not include sentencing reform will be insufficient to
meet the challenges we
face. Our continued progress toward meeting the economic and
societal challenges
posed by the current system and establishing a fair and more
just system depends on a
comprehensive approach to reform.
It is up to Congress to continue to advance front-end and back-
end reform designed
to improve both Federal sentencing laws and the functioning of
the Federal prison
system. If Congress is serious about addressing meaningful
prison reform, it will pass

legislation that would deal with the conditions of confinement
such as reducing the use
of solitary confinement, providing adequate medical care to
prisoners, and addressing
exorbitant prison phone rates.
While we appreciate the inclusion of some promising provisions
in the introduced
bill, such as prohibitions on the shackling of pregnant women,
reforms to the Feder-
al compassionate and elderly release programs, and an audit of
the program several
years after its implementation, these changes are not significant
enough to overcome
our primary concerns with the bill and many could be adopted
administratively by the
Bureau of Prisons. Furthermore, we remain concerned that the
challenges and solutions
to reforming our Federal prison system have not been fully
explored by this committee
and that no hearings have been held in order to give due
consideration to the FIRST
STEP Act in particular.
Leadership Conference,
“The FIRST STEP
Act alone does
not come close
to achieving the
desperately needed

reforms to create
a fair and just
system.”
Copyright of Congressional Digest is the property of
Congressional Digest and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for
individual use.
WEEK 4 DISCUSSION
WELCOME to the discussion for WEEK 4. Please respond
in complete sentences for each question, unless directed to do
otherwise, demonstrating in your reply that you have read the
material in order to receive full credit.
Topic 1:Copyright
This week you read about copyright and some of the laws
governing digital rights management.
Discussion:
Copyright protection is available for original works of
authorship that are fixed in a tangible form, whether published
or unpublished. The categories of works that can be protected
by copyright laws include paintings, literary works, live
performances, photographs, movies, and software.
Response #1:
Make an argument for or against the following statement:
“Copyright is the only way for musicians,

artists, and filmmakers to protect their integrity. What’s
important is not profit, but protecting creative content from
unfair use. Copyright should remain an important part of our
law”. Justify your response with support from the reading.
Topic 2: Customer Location Data
This week you read the article “Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, and
Sprint Suspend Selling of Customer Location Data (web page).
Discussion:
Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint will no longer share its customers'
location information with several third-party companies who
failed to handle the data appropriately.
Question #1:
Do you agree with phone companies sharing their customers’
information with third-party companies? Why or why not?
Support your answer.
Topic 3: Filter Bubbles
This week read the article” Measuring the Filter Bubble: How
Google is measuring what you click”and watched “How Filter
Bubbles Isolate You”(YouTube Video)
Discussion:
If you and I performed a Google Internet search on a topic, we
could get totally different results. How is this possible? In
attempts to provide us with user-specific content based on the
data they collect on us, web companies may also be restricting
us from information and "narrowing our world view."
Question #1:
What are your thoughts on filter bubbles? Have you ever
encountered a Filter Bubble? Do you think companies like
Facebook and Google have a civic responsibility in this area?
Posting instructions :
Please read this information extremely carefully:
· Please include the topic number and title in your subject name
for each discussion throughout the course.. For instance, Topic
1: Copyright. It has to be clear what you are answering so
ensure you clearly label.

· Do not attach answers or files in discussion unless directions
state to do so.
· You must respond in complete sentences for each question,
unless directed to do otherwise. Ensure you answer each
question within the topic as this week there are multiple
questions in the topics.
· Minimum Topic Response: Posts need to be at least a 70
words, substantive and answer all parts.. If your reply for this
question is less than 70 words and not substantive, you will lose
points. You can use Microsoft Word to count the words in your
response to make sure you have met the requirement.
· :) to indicate a smile and lol for laughter is fine and I may
use it myself from time to time in discussion. I would give
deductions for other text speak such as using "u" for "you" etc.
· Each topic must be answered in a separate post.
· Answer posted in an organized manner.
· If references are used they need to be cited appropriately.
Realize that to answer substantively you may need to do
research and if so reference appropriately.
· Do not in any discussions cover same topic/product/website
etc for separate topics
· After you post please review it to make sure it is formatted
correctly and is easy to read and has no spelling errors
.
WEEK 4: READ & WATCH
Please find below the content and items you need to read and
watch this week. Please note your weekly discussions are tied to
each week’s “Read & Watch”
MAIN FOCUS
1. Privacy & Security
2. Digital Rights Management
READ
1. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)

2. Google grilled over "Project Dragonfly" at Senate hearing on
data privacy.
3. What is Phishing (web page)
4. Background: Introduction to the ECPA (web page)
5. Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint Suspend Selling of
Customer Location Data (web page)
6. Measuring the Filter Bubble: How Google is measuring what
you click.
7. If Facebook is really at war, the only way to win is to put
ethics first.(web page)
VIEW / WATCH
1. How Filter Bubbles Isolate You (YouTube Video)
1 0 ' January 10, 2019 - January 18, 2019 THE NEW YORK
AMSTERDAM NEWS
A first step for criminal
justice reform __
Late last m onth, Congress passed and
the president signed the m ost far-reach-
ing crim inal justice reform in a genera-
tion. Advocates envision the First Step
Act as just that, a first step toward reduc-
ing mass incarceration and repairing our
dam aged democracy.
Specifically, the Act will shorten some
disproportionately long federal prison
sentences, ease m andatory m inim um
sentences and the “three-strikes” rule, in
crease good and earned tim e credits, re-
quire inm ates to be housed within 500

miles of their families w hen possible and
end the shackling of inm ates while preg-
nant, giving birth and in postpartum
recovery. Especially relevant to com m uni-
ties of color, the Act retroactively reduces
the disparity betw een sentences for crack
and powder cocaine.
The Act is long overdue. Mass incarcera-
tion, which author Michelle Alexander has
called “The New Jim Crow,” is one of the
defining civil rights issues in the United
States today. Our n ation represents less
than 5 percent of the w orld’s population
but has alm ost 25 percent of its prisoners.
Worse, more than 30 percent of the world’s
incarcerated w om en are in U.S. prisons.
The Act does n o t go as far as the bill
th a t was p revented from com ing to a vote
by Sen. M itch M cConnell (R-Ky.) and the
R epublican m ajority d u rin g th e O bam a
a d m in istra tio n . H istory will m easu re it
by o u r ability to build on it. “It is a co m
p rom ise of a com prom ise, an d we u lti-
m ately n ee d to m ake far g reater reform s
if we are to right th e w rongs th a t exist
in our crim inal justice system ,” said Sen.
Kanrala H arris (D-Calif.), m em b er of the
S enate Judiciary C om m ittee an d form er
C alifornia a tto rn e y general.
Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), an o th er Judi-
ciary Com m ittee member, and who sh ep -
herded tire legislation, said, "We continue
to work for elim ination of cash bail for

non-violent crimes, and m ore sup p o rt for
re-entry program s...A nd m uch work re -
m ains to be done at the state level, where
the vast m ajority of sentencing and in car-
ceration takes place.”
The federal prison system houses a p -
proximately 12 percent of the nation’s pris
oners. Second and third steps m ust address
the 88 percent in state and local penal in-
stitutions. Doing so will require criminal
reform advocates to hold together the rare
bipartisan coalition of progressives and
conservatives that supported the bill.
This bro ad coalition was able to defeat
th e w orst GOP po iso n -p ill a m en d m e n ts
and convince a law -an d -o rd e r p re sid e n t
to sign th e m easure. The staggering cost
of incarceratio n has caused states to
take a second look at sen ten c in g p ra c -
tices. For th e past d ecad e or so C hris-
tian conservatives have jo in ed the effort
for p riso n reform . The opioid crisis has
also aw akened m any to o u r overly p u n i-
tive system . According to a 2017 survey,
som e 71 p ercen t of A m ericans believe
th a t reducing the c o u n try ’s prison p o p -
u latio n should be a priority.
Victory would not have been possible
w ithout the work of advocates such as Van
Jones and Jessica Jackson Sloan, leaders of
#cut50, a broad national bipartisan initia-
tive to reduce the prison population while
making our com m unities safer. Building

on the work begun during the Obama a d -
m inistration, the formerly incarcerated
and their family m em bers from a host of
groups, am ong them #cut50, Prison Fel-
lowship, the National Council for Incarcer-
ated and Formerly Incarcerated Women
and Girls, lobbied Congress and beat the
bushes for support.
The Brennan Center for Justice, the New
York City progressive non-partisan public
policy and law institute, has developed
guidelines on how best to build on the Act.
A central ten et is the use of federal dol-
lars and other incentives to reduce states’
prison populations.
B rennan’s Priya Raghavan has authored
“An Election Agenda for Candidates, Ac
tivists and Legislators,” which provides a
blueprint to win achievable reforms. She
notes th at if every state passed two of the
proposals—the Alternative to Prison Act
and the Proportional Sentencing Act—the
n ation’s prison population could safely be
reduced by 40 percent.
The proposals include elim inating im -
p risonm ent for lower-level crimes, abol-
ishing cash bail, reforming m arijuana
laws, making sentences proportional to
crime, reform ing prosecutor incentives
and curbing the n um ber of wom en e n te r-
ing state prisons.
As b ro th e r D errick Johnson, p re sid e n t

an d CEO of th e NAACP, rem inds us, “The
Act sh o u ld be seen as th e first step in the
jo u rn ey for equality an d fairness in our
crim inal ju stic e system .” T hat jo u rn ey
requires ste p p e d up political involve-
m ent. And at th e c e n te r of o u r p o liti-
cal an d legislative efforts should be the
d em a n d th a t all ca n d id a tes build on
th e Act by su p p o rtin g bold progressive
seco n d an d third steps.
George Gresham is president o fl 199SEIU
United Healthcare Workers East, the larg-
est union in New York and the largest
healthcare union in the nation.
UAW hies lawsuit
against General Motors
for breach of contract
“ I n N o v e m b e r , m o n t h s a f t e r
P r e s i d e n t D o n a ld T r u m p s a i d t h e j o b s
w e r e c o m i n g b a c k , G M a n n o u n c e d
p l a n s t o l a y o f f 1 5 p e r c e n t o f i t s
s a l a r i e d w o r k f o r c e ( u p t o 1 4 , 0 0 0
e m p l o y e e s ) a n d c l o s e f i v e p l a n t s i n
t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s a n d C a n a d a / '
By STEPHON JOHNSON
Amsterdam News Staff

The union representing au -
toworkers wants to take Gen-
eral Motors to task.
Last week, United Auto
Workers filed a lawsuit in U.S.
District Court against the
auto giant, accusing the com -
pany of breach of labor con-
tract. According to details in
the suit, UAW requests that
the court order GM to transfer
seniority union members to
the Fort Wayne, Ind., assem-
bly plant to maintain its con-
tractual agreement with them.
UAW accused GM of cir-
cumventing the agreement
by using temporary employ-
ees. “UAW members negoti
ated a binding agreement and
we expect General Motors
to follow the contract they
agreed to and GM members
ratified,” said Terry Dittes,
UAW vice president and di-
rector, GM Department.
There are approximately
1,000 seniority employees on
layoff nationwide, including
690 employees laid off at the
Lordstown, Ohio assembly
plant, many of whom have a p -

plied to transfer to openings
at the Fort Wayne plant.
According to the suit, the
agreement between UAW and
GM states that the hiring of
new employees in one loca-
tion while there is a surplus
of senior employees in other
locations is not in either par-
ty’s best interest. “Therefore,
the parties will provide eli-
gible seniority laid-off and
active seniority employees an
opportunity to relocated to
UAW-GM facilities outside of
their area, with particular em -
phasis on placing employees
from closed or idled facilities,"
read the agreement.
In November, m onths after
President Donald Trump said
the jobs were coming back,
GM announced plans to lay off
15 percent of its salaried work-
force (up to 14,000 employees)
and close five plants in the
United States and Canada. GM
also announced that it would
stop production at their Lord-
stown, and Hamtramck, Midi,
assembly plants. The deci-
sion also affects employment
at GM locations in Baltimore,

Md., Brownstown, Mich, and
Warren, Mich.
GM’s stock increased after
the announcem ent of layoffs
and factory closings.
According to GM officials,
their decisions stem from the
decrease in popularity of the
sedan in favor of SUVs. Offi-
cials also said that GM lost $1
billion because ofTrump’s tar
iffs on foreign goods.
“Late last year, GM start
ed the process to bring about
50 Lordstown employees to
Ft. Wayne to fill some of the
positions that had been cov-
ered by temporary employ-
ees,” said a GM representative
to the AmNews. “In fact, about
35 Lordstown UAW members
will be in place by the end of
January. We have ongoing dis-
cussions with the UAW re-
garding our staffing needs in
Ft. Wayne, but have no further
comments on the lawsuit.”
GM’s actions would be the
largest restructuring for the
automaker since its bankrupt-
cy in 2008, when the govern-
ment bailed the company out.

Copyright of New York Amsterdam News is the property of
New York Amsterdam News and
its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or
posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.
January 2019
n The White House
Remarks by President Trump
at White House Prison Reform Summit
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-
statements/remarks-president-trump-
white-house-prison-reform-summit
n Federal Bureau of Prisons
https://www.bop.gov
n Bureau of Justice Statistics
https://www.bjs.gov
n National Institute of Justice
https://www.nij.gov
n National Criminal Justice Reference Service
https://www.ncjrs.gov
n Justice Center
The Council of State Governments
https://csgjusticecenter.org/government-
affairs
n Center for Biological Diversity

https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/about
Selected Internet Sites
Legislative Background on Criminal Justice Reform
Recent Action by Congress on the FIRST STEP Act
For the first time in nearly a decade, Congress is con-sidering
major criminal justice legislation, including
reforms relating to sentencing, recidivism, and prisoner
re-entry into society.
The most recently enacted law addressing these issues
was the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, which eliminated
the five-year minimum sentence for possession of crack
cocaine and reduced the disparity between how much
crack or powdered cocaine a possessor needed to have
to incur Federal penalties.
Earlier, in 2007, Congress passed the Second Chance
Act, to provide grants to local government to help of-
fenders reintegrate into communities upon their release
through housing, employment, substance abuse, family
assistance, and other programs.
House Bill. In the 115th Congress (set to adjourn at the
end the year), Representative Doug Collins (GA-R) intro-
duced the FIRST STEP (Formerly Incarcerated Re-enter
Society Transformed Safely Transitioning Every Person)
Act. Major provisions included:
● Revising the good-time credit law, allowing prisoners
to earn 54 days of credit each year instead of 47
● Prohibiting the shackling of pregnant prisoners
● Increasing drug abuse treatment opportunities.

● Requiring the provision of health care products to
incarcerated women
● Providing phone and video communications and vis-
itation privileges
● Requiring that prisoners be within 500 driving miles
of home
● Expanding compassionate release (such as for severe
illness)
The bill cleared the Judiciary Committee on May 9,
25 to 5. On the same day, the White House held a Prison
Reform Summit to endorse the legislation and encourage
lawmakers to take further action. In his summit remarks,
President Trump called prison reform “an issue that unites
people from across the political spectrum.” The House
passed the bill on May 22 by a vote of 360 to 59.
Senate Bill. Senator Charles Grassley (IA-R), chair of
the Judiciary Committee, introduced a Senate version of
the bill on November 26. S. 3649, simply titled the First
Step Act, combines prison reform proposals contained in
the House-passed bill with provisions of Sentencing Re-
form Act Corrections Act (also introduced by Grassley),
which changes some of the strictest Federal sentencing
rules. Among other reforms, the Senate version eliminates
“stacking” a gun sentence on top of a sentence for a drug
crime or crime of violence — a practice that has resulted
into much longer sentences. It also allows judges to sen-
tence below the mandatory minimum for co-operative,
low-level nonviolent drug offenders.
Outlook. In mid-December, bowing to pressure from

the White House and a coalition of the bill’s supporters,
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (KY-R) agreed
to bring the First Step Act to the Senate floor before the
115th Congress adjourns. n
Copyright of Congressional Digest is the property of
Congressional Digest and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for
individual use.

14 Congressional Digest n www.CongressionalDigest.com n Januar.docx

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Mehr von drennanmicah

Mehr von drennanmicah (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

14 Congressional Digest n www.CongressionalDigest.com n Januar.docx