    [House Hearing, 117 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                     A FINE SCHEME: HOW COURT-IMPOSED FEES
                AND FINES UNJUSTLY BURDEN VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,
                              AND HOMELAND SECURITY

                                     OF THE

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEETH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                             TUESDAY, JULY 27, 2021

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 117-36

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                   Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    46-434                       WASHINGTON : 2022

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                        JERROLD NADLER, New York, Chair
                    MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania, Vice-Chair

    ZOE LOFGREN, California              JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Ranking Member
    SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas            STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
    STEVE COHEN, Tennessee               LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
    HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,      DARRELL ISSA, California
        Georgia                          KEN BUCK, Colorado
    THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida          MATT GAETZ, Florida
    KAREN BASS, California               MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
    HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York         ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
    DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island     TOM McCLINTOCK, California
    ERIC SWALWELL, California            W. GREG STEUBE, Florida
    TED LIEU, California                 TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin
    JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland               THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky
    PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington          CHIP ROY, Texas
    VAL BUTLER DEMINGS, Florida          DAN BISHOP, North Carolina
    J. LUIS CORREA, California           MICHELLE FISCHBACH, Minnesota
    MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania       VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana
    SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas              SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin
    JOE NEGUSE, Colorado                 CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon
    LUCY McBATH, Georgia                 BURGESS OWENS, Utah
    GREG STANTON, Arizona
    VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
    MONDAIRE JONES, New York
    DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
    CORI BUSH, Missouri

           PERRY APELBAUM, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
                  CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Minority Staff Director

                                     ------

            SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

                        SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas, Chair
                        CORI BUSH, Missouri, Vice-Chair

    KAREN BASS, California               ANDY BIGGS, Arizona, Ranking
    VAL DEMINGS, Florida                     Member
    LUCY McBATH, Georgia                 STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
    MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania         LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
    MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania       W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida
    DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island        TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin
    TED LIEU, California                 THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky
    LOU CORREA, California               VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana
    VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas              SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin
    STEVE COHEN, Tennessee               BURGESS OWENS, Utah

                       JOE GRAUPENSPERGER, Chief Counsel
                        JASON CERVENAK, Minority Counsel

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                             Tuesday, July 27, 2021

                                                                       Page

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, Chair of the Subcommittee on
      Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security from the State of Texas     1
    The Honorable Andy Biggs, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on
      Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security from the State of
      Arizona........................................................     4
    The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the Committee on the
      Judiciary from the State of New York...........................     7

                                   WITNESSES

    The Honorable Lisa Foster (Ret.), Co-Director, Fines & Fees
      Justice Center
      Oral Testimony.................................................     9
      Prepared Statement.............................................    11
    Julissa Soto, Denver, Colorado
      Oral Testimony.................................................    15
      Prepared Statement.............................................    17
    Timothy Head, Executive Director, Faith and Freedom Coalition
      Oral Testimony.................................................    20
      Prepared Statement.............................................    22
    Alexes Harris, Professor of Sociology, University of Washington
      Oral Testimony.................................................    26
      Prepared Statement.............................................    28
    Amanda Woog, Executive Director, Texas Fair Defense Project
      Oral Testimony.................................................    36
      Prepared Statement.............................................    39

               STATEMENTS, LETTERS, MATERIALS, ARTICLES SUBMITTED

    Items submitted by the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the
      Committee on the Judiciary from the State of New York for the
      record
      Letter from the National Legal Aid & Defender Association
        (NLADA)......................................................    54
      A report entitled ``The Steep Costs of Criminal Justice Fees
        and Fines,'' Brennan Center for Justice at the New York
        University School of Law.....................................    58
    Items submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, Chair of the
      Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security from
      the State of Texas for the record
      Materials from the Texas Fair Defense Project regarding support
        of HB 3413 (Murr)............................................   140
      Materials from the Texas Fair Defense Project regarding support
        of HB 2441 and HB 1177.......................................   142
      Materials from the Texas Fair Defense Project regarding support
        of HB 162....................................................   143
      Materials regarding ``Tip of the Iceberg: How Much Criminal
        Justice Debt Does the U.S. Really Have?'' Fines & Fees
        Justice Center...............................................   144
      An article entitled ``The Price of Justice: Fines, Fees and the
        Criminalization of the Poverty in the United States,''
        University of Miami Race & Social Justice Law Review.........   178
    Written Testimony of Vikrant P. Reddy, Senior Fellow, Charles
      Koch Institute, submitted by the Honorable Andy Biggs, Ranking
      Member of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland
      Security from the State of Arizona for the record..............   214

                                    APPENDIX

    Statement submitted by Lauren-Brooke Eisen, Director, Justice
      Program, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law for
      the record.....................................................   224

                     A FINE SCHEME: HOW COURT-IMPOSED FEES
                AND FINES UNJUSTLY BURDEN VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES

                                  ----------

                             Tuesday, July 27, 2021

                            House of Representatives

            Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security

                           Committee on the Judiciary

                                 Washington, DC

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:11 a.m., in
    Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sheila Jackson
    Lee [chair of the subcommittee] presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Nadler, Jackson Lee,
    Demings, Bass, McBath, Dean, Scanlon, Bush, Cicilline, Jordan,
    Biggs, Gohmert, Steube, Massie, Spartz, Fitzgerald, and Owens.
        Staff present: David Greengrass, Senior Counsel; Moh
    Sharma, Director of Member Services and Outreach & Policy
    Advisor; Cierra Fontenot, Chief Clerk; John Williams,
    Parliamentarian and Senior Counsel; Merrick Nelson, Digital
    Director; Keenan Keller, Senior Counsel; Ben Hernandez-Stern,
    Counsel for Crime; Joe Graupen-sperger, Chief Counsel for
    Crime; Veronica Eligan, Legislative Aide/Professional Staff
    Member for Crime; Jason Cervenak, Minority Chief Counsel for
    Crime; Ken David, Minority Counsel; Kiley Bidelman, Minority
    Clerk; and Carter Robertson, Minority USSS Detailee.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. The Subcommittee will come to order.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses
    of the Subcommittee at any time.
        We welcome everyone to this morning's hearing, ``A Fine
    Scheme: How Court-Imposed Fees and Fines Unjustly Burden
    Vulnerable Communities.''
        Before we begin, I would like to remind Members that we
    have established an email address and distribution list
    dedicated to circulating exhibits, motions, or other written
    materials that Members might want to offer as part of our
    hearing today. If you would like to submit materials, please
    send them to the email address that has been previously
    distributed to your offices and we will circulate the materials
    to Members and staff as quickly as we can.
        We would also like to ask all Members to mute your
    microphones when you are not speaking. This will help prevent
    feedback and other technical issues. You may unmute yourself
    any time you seek recognition.
        We want to continue in the Crime Subcommittee to have as
    many important hearings as possible with the idea towards
    legislation in our major theme of criminal justice reform. So,
    I am certainly grateful to all of the Members that are here and
    have been faithful in their attendance on both sides of the
    aisle, and of course, to our Chair who has been extremely
    engaged in our work and the commitment of our Ranking Member as
    well. It is very important. So, thank you for your presence
    here today, along with the witnesses who will give their
    testimony and they will contribute to being problem solving and
    criminal justice reform.
        Today, the Subcommittee hears testimony on the impact that
    fees and fines have on families and communities. To be clear at
    the onset, the topic today does not cover restitution or other
    equitable relief for victims, but focuses costs imposed by the
    criminal justice entitles upon those who come into contact with
    the criminal justice system.
        Just as an aside, let me indicate that I am very pleased
    that the Nadler-Jackson Lee bill, Victims of Crime Act Fix, was
    signed into law last week that indicates our commitment to
    protecting victims all over the Nation who have been impacted
    from crime to human trafficking. We are glad to see that
    movement.
        Here, we talk about a different aspect of fines and fees
    and I believe it is important to find a solution to the
    oppression that comes about on individuals who are
    impoverished. These charges to show up at every level of the
    criminal justice system, there are fees for traffic detention,
    phone calls from jail and prison, prison commissary and fee for
    pre-trial release, such as electronic monitoring, supervision,
    and parole fees. Some of these fees can be hundreds of dollars
    a month which in some places can be imposed before guilt is
    adjudicated.
        The United States Department of Justice investigation of
    Ferguson, Missouri that followed the tragic and violent
    shooting of Michael Brown, brought the imposition of fines and
    fees in the justice system to the forefront of our nation's
    public discourse. In its comprehensive report, the DOJ
    concluded that the Ferguson Police Department, the municipal
    court, and the city all depended on fines and fees to operate.
    Fines are monetary penalties ordered by a court to be paid by
    the defendant after arrest that are not restitution or other
    equitable relief.
        Many experts argue, and I believe factually, that the fees
    charged by Ferguson by those levied elsewhere in the United
    States helped entrench poverty, exacerbate racial disparities,
    undermining public safety, diminishing trust in the judicial
    system, and as well, trapping people in cycles of poverty and
    punishment. After arrest, most judicial systems require to have
    people pay fines and fees. These fees are for minor traffic and
    municipal code violations, misdemeanors, and some low-lying
    felonies as well, and are considered resources, unfortunately,
    for funding the government. That is of great concern to all of
    us and I would make the argument that as we proceed, we will
    find out the basis of all of this.
        To be clear at the onset, the topic today does not cover
    restitution, as I have already said. What the imposition of
    fines and fees have done is create a two-tier system of
    justice, those who can afford to immediately pay their court
    debt and exit the justice debt system after the underlying
    matter is resolved. Americans without the means, by contrast,
    may be quickly trapped in what can be for many a spiral of
    mounting debts, long after their case has been settled.
        The total scope of the court-imposed fees is astounding.
        By some estimates, criminal justice debt in this country
    will exceed $27 billion. Without reliable data, the exact
    amount is unknown and likely unknowable, but it still appears
    to be a staggering level. On a personal level, the harm caused
    by court-ordered debt can be grave.
        I remember going to the region that our Member represents
    after the shooting of Michael Brown. Our Vice Chair comes from
    that area and has spoken often about it, Vice-Chair
    Congresswoman Bush. I remember going to that area and meeting
    women, head of households, who unfortunately were caught up in
    the fines and fees, lost their jobs, and were not able to take
    care of their family. Some finding found, disturbingly, that 83
    percent of those surveyed gave up necessities like rent, food,
    medical bills, car payments, and child support to pay their
    court debt.
        Communities are harmed as well. The same study found that
    38 percent of respondents admitted to having committed at least
    one crime to pay off their court debt. About 20 percent of
    those whose only previous offenses were traffic violations
    admitted to committing more serious offenses, included
    felonies, to pay off their traffic tickets. This means that
    levying fines and fees take food out of the mouths of those who
    can't afford to pay them and decreases public safety by
    perversely incentivizing further criminal behavior.
        The harm doesn't stop there. The deleterious impact of the
    imposition of fees and fines is most acutely felt by juveniles.
    Youth who have interactions with the juvenile justice system
    are often required to pay fines and fees. Juvenile fees, like
    adult fines and fees, include juvenile detention fees, fees for
    drug testing, and charges for physical and mental health
    treatment, the practice of passing fees imposed on juveniles to
    their parents or guardian is too common and has the effect of
    weighing down an entire family and particularly an impoverished
    family.
        The woman that I met in the Ferguson community had been in
    jail because she was not able to pay the fines and fees. When
    juveniles fail to pay fines and fees, the debt may also follow
    them into adulthood putting them a step behind their peers,
    even before they have had a chance to begin their adult lives.
    Weighing down youth with debt at the start of their adult lives
    undermines the very goal of our juvenile justice system
    rehabilitation.
        I applaud the efforts in the states to eliminate the
    imposition of fees and fines, but more must be done to remove
    these barriers to youth rehabilitation. That is why we are
    holding this hearing. More must be done.
        One of the most troubling trends in the collection of fees
    and fines is the outsourcing of rehabilitative services, the
    entities that then charge fees for their services. This a
    circle that one does not want to be in. These fees which
    ultimately become collectible by court order or contract, are
    sometimes levied without the supervision of a judge. This type
    of arrangement can elevate private supervision companies to the
    position of determining not only where the supervisee violated
    the terms of their supervision, whether fines should be
    imposed, and basically creating more debt. I am gravely
    concerned that this type of arrangement is both corrosive to
    public trust in the criminal justice system and that it
    incentivizes private companies to violate supervisees simply to
    impose or improve their bottom line. That is absolutely
    ridiculous and of course, tragic.
        What is particularly troubling is the report's finding that
    private companies charge many fees for profit. Evidence shows
    how levying court-imposed fees and fines is not only harmful
    for those can't afford them, but it is a bad deal for
    taxpayers.
        A 2019 report by the Brennan Center for Justice revealed
    that the counties studied, including those in my home State of
    Texas, spent more than 41 cents of every dollar collected from
    fees and fines and related in-court hearings and jail costs
    mean that for every dollar imposed, only 59 percent made it
    into State coffers. The harm these fees and fines cause does
    not outweigh the fraction of the charges that are ultimately
    collected. Our criminal justice resources should be used on
    other high-priority issues like preventing and responding to
    violent crime and reducing recidivism.
        As we discuss this pressing issue, I hope to work across
    party lines to serve our constituents and communities better.
    Already State and local governments have recognized the
    terrible cycle of harm that justice-related fees and fines can
    impose and have begun enacting essential reforms. Groups across
    the political spectrum have expressed support for reducing and
    eliminating the use of fines and fees. That is why I believe
    this common ground is good for a discussion for this Committee
    where we will be working in a bipartisan manner to solve this
    problem and to help Americans overcome the detours in their
    life, but to do it under the light of justice.
        I look forward to working with my colleagues to address
    this issue.
        It is now my pleasure to recognize the Ranking Member of
    the Subcommittee, the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Biggs, for
    his opening statement.
        Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I apologize for my
    tardiness, coming from our own conference meeting. So, I
    apologize.
        Once again, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and
    Homeland Security of the United States House of Representatives
    is holding a hearing on a topic that quite frankly is mainly a
    State and local issue. I was pleased at last week's markup
    where the chair expressed a willingness to work with us on a
    bipartisan basis on issues such as the flow of fentanyl across
    our Southern border and the crisis that it is creating
    throughout the country.
        In February, news organizations announced with shock that
    more than 100,000 aliens had been encountered at the Southern
    border. The White House and Secretary Mayorkas worked overtime
    to deny that there was a crisis at the Southern border. This
    Committee did its part by refusing to hold a hearing on the
    Biden border crisis as we had requested a hearing.
        In March, the Republican Members of the Subcommittee sent
    you a letter requesting that the Chair schedule a hearing so
    that Subcommittee Members have the opportunity to hear from and
    question Biden Administration officials about how the Biden
    Administration's failure to secure the U.S. Southern border has
    allowed transnational criminal organizations, smugglers, and
    drug traffickers to engage in criminal activity and harm public
    safety. We have yet to receive a response to that letter.
        Unfortunately, the number of encounters at the Southern
    border has grown each month since President Biden took office.
    Last month, more than 188,000 aliens were encountered by CBP at
    our Southern border. I have taken multiple groups of Members to
    the border over the past several months, visiting from San
    Diego, Calexico, Yuma, and Tucson, all the way to McAllen
    multiple times in most of those spots.
        In each of these areas, we heard and saw the same thing.
    The Biden Administration's policies have created a crisis and
    we renew our request to hold a hearing to hear directly from
    Biden Administration officials so that they can be held
    accountable for the crisis they created.
        The surge of aliens at the borders allowing drugs and other
    illegal contraband flow across the border because border patrol
    is occupied caring for aliens instead of securing the border.
        I hope that our next hearing will be on this topic. After
    all, this is the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland
    Security. This Committee cannot continue to ignore the crisis
    at our Southern border and the impact the crisis is having
    throughout the nation.
        I also hope the Chair will hold a hearing soon to examine
    the dangerous efforts to defund the police and the increase in
    violent crime in American cities. In June, all the Republican
    Members of the Subcommittee wrote a letter to the Chair
    requesting a hearing on these issues and we have yet to receive
    a response to that letter as well.
        Don't get me wrong. The issue of fines and fees is a very
    important issue. It is one that should be looked at the State
    level. The Eighth amendment to the Constitution prohibits the
    Federal Government from imposing excessive fines, a prohibition
    that the Supreme Court incorporated against the states in a
    February 2019 decision.
        Studies have found that criminal justice debt is sharply
    rising across the country, that associated fees lead to a cycle
    of debt, and that this debt could impede re-entry and
    rehabilitation, but this is largely a State issue. The Federal
    Government should not be in the business of bribing states to
    implement specific policies. Doing so--closes what Justice
    Brandeis called the laboratories of democracy. Why would we
    wish to do that? Let the states work these matters out on their
    own. In fact, many states are already taking a leading role to
    reform fines and fees in the criminal justice system.
        When I worked in the Arizona criminal justice system, both
    as a prosecutor and then later as a criminal defense attorney,
    I will tell you that nothing was more dismaying to me to see
    someone be fined, for instance, $100 and yet the surcharge
    which is what we all the add-ons would be about 100 percent, so
    they would end up paying a $200 fine and fee for what should
    have been a $100 fine per statute. My experience was routinely,
    judges were allowed to waive those surcharges in Arizona. They
    didn't always do so, but we could advocate for that.
        This year, the State of Arizona enacted one of the changes
    that will be advocated for at this hearing today. In April, the
    change was enacted in Arizona so that Arizonans will not have
    their driver's license suspended if they do not pay traffic
    fines or fees. This change is estimated to impact 30,000 people
    in the state. It is a pleasant change. I cannot tell you how
    many people used to come in to see me, both as a prosecutor,
    and then later in representational capacity, whose license had
    been suspended, so they couldn't get to work in a very broad
    and large metropolitan area that had very little public
    transportation services. They would lose their license, thus
    losing their job, thus being in a cycle of problems. The State
    has now exercised its legislative prerogatives to change that.
    I hope it is a positive change in the State of Arizona.
        The important and salient point here is that the State
    legislature made that change, the corrective, without being
    coerced or enticed by the United States Congress. Between
    February and April 2021, several other states including
    Florida, Indiana, my own Arizona, New Mexico, and Oregon
    considered legislation that would eliminate fines, fees, and
    court costs for juveniles in the criminal justice system.
        Just last month, Nevada enacted a law in the practice of
    suspending an individual driver's license or prohibiting an
    individual from applying for a driver's license because of an
    unpaid fine or fee. Again, last month, Colorado enacted a law
    to eliminate certain monetary amounts a juvenile or juvenile's
    parent or legal guardian in the criminal justice system is
    required to pay like fees for applying for court-appointed
    counsel. These discussions and decisions are taking place
    exactly where they should be taking place, in State houses
    across this great country.
        As I noted earlier, states are the laboratories of
    democracy and are better equipped to make decisions regarding
    fines and fees implemented in the State statutes and municipal
    codes. In Federalist 45, James Madison wrote, ``The powers
    delegated by the proposed Constitution of the Federal
    Government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in
    the State governments are numerous and indefinite.''
        Yet, here we find ourselves in this Committee in hearing
    after hearing or markup after markup discussing matters that
    are more rightly State issues. My colleagues are looking to
    impose their wills on the states through grant programs and I
    urge that practice to be discontinued. In 1905, there were four
    grant programs. Today, there are more than 1,300 grant
    programs. This is the problem I think we should be looking at.
        With that, Madam Chair, I thank you for your time. Again, I
    apologize for being late. I look forward to this hearing today
    and I yield back.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the gentleman, and I thank the
    gentleman from Ohio Ranking Member Jim Jordan, he had an
    earlier meeting.
        It is now my pleasure to recognize the Chair of the
    Judiciary Committee, Mr. Nadler, for his opening statement.
        Chair Nadler. Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the Chair for
    convening this hearing on a topic that has not received the
    attention it deserves, given the impact it has had on
    communities across the country. I would remind the Ranking
    Member that the Constitution, that was the Fourteenth amendment
    which it didn't have when the Federalist Papers was written
    which changes things a
    little.
        Over the course of the last three decades, the increase
    imposition of fees and fines in the criminal justice system
    have had increasingly deleterious impact on individuals,
    families, and their communities. In recent years, states and
    localities across the country have imposed a variety of fees
    and fines on everything from minor traffic violations and
    municipal code violations to misdemeanors and felonies to pay
    for programs traditionally funded by tax revenues.
        When you actually examine the numbers, it is not clear that
    these fees and fines are even generating any revenue. One study
    found that some counties spend more than 41 cents for every
    dollar collected in fees and fines. One New Mexico county
    spends as much as $1.17 for every dollar it raises in fines and
    fees incurring a net overall loss.
        This financial shell game does not measure the real cost to
    communities. Rather than improving public safety, frequently
    such fees and fines have only served to place an undue burden
    on low-income communities and communities of color. In fact, by
    many measures, fees and fines have had an adverse impact on
    public safety.
        The comprehensive report of the City of Ferguson, Missouri,
    the Department of Justice found that the Ferguson Police
    Department, the municipal court, and the city, all depended on
    burdensome fees and fines to operate, trapping its citizens in
    a cruel cycle of poverty and punishment. Ultimately, what the
    DOJ found in Ferguson is occurring in jurisdictions across the
    country. This dynamic is often exacerbated by the fact that
    courts rarely consider a defendant's ability to pay the fines
    that they impose. In many cases, those that cannot afford to
    pay fees and fines receive warrants telling them to comply. If
    they cannot pay the debt to satisfy their outstanding warrants,
    which may increase over time, making them even more
    unaffordable, these individuals may even be jailed. This is, in
    effect, a modern debtors' prison. A person's liberty is
    deprived because they cannot afford their court-imposed fine or
    fee.
        Practices like those in Ferguson and elsewhere diminish
    public trust in our criminal justice system and perpetuate the
    notion that equal justice under the law is only accessible to
    those who can afford it. Often these fees are imposed on the
    family of the person who couldn't afford to pay it and they
    can't afford to pay it.
        At the other end of the criminal justice process, fees are
    often imposed on individuals after a conviction, creating yet
    another barrier to their reintroduction into safety. Everything
    we have been talking about until now is before anybody is
    convicted of anything. We have worked to ease the reintegration
    of those who are recently released from jail or prison.
    Burdening individuals who make the journey back to being full
    Members of their communities with fees and fines stands in
    stark contrast to these efforts.
        Thankfully, change in this area is afoot. The costs imposed
    to individuals and families without discernible public safety
    benefit has led many jurisdictions to pause imposing and
    collecting fees and fines. Some other jurisdictions have
    eliminated fees and fines altogether. In a time of deep
    partisan divide, I hope that this is an issue that reaches
    across the political spectrum to build a bipartisan consent to
    some reform.
        I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses. I thank
    the Chair for convening this hearing. I yield back the balance
    of my time.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the Chair very much. We will
    recognize the Ranking Member of the Full Committee if the
    gentleman from Ohio arrives, and we will now move forward to
    the swearing in of our witnesses. We welcome all of our
    distinguished witnesses, and we thank them for their
    participation.
        I will begin by swearing in our witnesses. I ask our
    witnesses to turn on their audio and make sure I can see your
    face and your raised hand while I administer the oath. I ask
    the witness that is present to rise so that he can be sworn in,
    who is physically in the room.
        I will begin. Do you swear or affirm under penalty of
    perjury that the testimony you are about to give is true and
    correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief,
    so help you God? I need to hear the witnesses louder please
    that are virtual. Let the record show the witnesses answered in
    the affirmative. Thank you. The gentleman in the room may be
    seated. We will now proceed with witness introduction.
        Judge Lisa Foster is the Co-Director of the Fines and Fees
    Justice Center. She is also the former Director of the Office
    for Access to Justice at Department of Justice and retired
    California State Judge. She previously worked as staff attorney
    at the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, the Executive
    Director of California Common Cause, was of counsel to the Law
    Firm of Phillips and Cohen.
        Ms. Soto is a resident of Colorado where she has worked in
    nonprofits for over two decades. She immigrated to the United
    States nearly 21 years ago from the State of Michoacan in
    Central Mexico and is the mother of a young man who had court-
    imposed fees imposed during a juvenile proceeding.
        Timothy Head is the Executive Director for the Faith and
    Freedom Coalition. Prior to joining Faith and Freedom, Tim
    worked in public policy as the District Director for a Member
    of the Texas Congressional Delegation. He also has served as
    Chief of Staff and as Policy Advisor to Members of the Texas
    Legislature. Before working in public policy, Tim served as a
    missionary in Asia, the Middle East, and Europe and worked on
    staff at Antioch Community Church in Waco, Texas.
        Professor Alexes Harris, Professor Harris is a Sociologist
    and Presidential Term Professor at the University of
    Washington. She has written extensively on the impact of
    juvenile fees and fines have on over-incarceration. Her book
    entitled ``A Pound of Flesh, Monetary Sanctions is a Punishment
    for Poor People,'' is widely considered to be the foundational
    text on fees and fines.
        Ms. Woog is Executive Director of Texas Fair Defense
    Project. Prior to her current position, she was the co-founder
    of the Texas Justice Initiative and served as the policy
    director on the Texas House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence
    in the Texas Legislature.
        Please note that each of your written testimonies will be
    entered into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, I ask you
    to summarize your testimony in five minutes. There is a timer
    in the Zoom view that should be visible on your screen.
        Judge Foster, you may begin. You are now recognized for
    five minutes. Welcome again.

                        STATEMENT OF LISA FOSTER

        Ms. Foster. Thank you and good morning. Thank you all for
    holding this important hearing. Right now, as we speak, fines
    and fees are devastating the lives of millions of Americans.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Judge, can you speak a little louder or we
    will try to that we--yes, could you speak into the mic? Thank
    you.
        Ms. Foster. Can you hear me, now?
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Better.
        Ms. Foster. Good. Across the country, people, including
    children, who are convicted of minor traffic and municipal code
    violations, misdemeanors, and felonies are assessed fines and
    fees.
        I am hearing a lot of static. Can you all hear me?
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Yes, we can hear you. Yes, Judge, we can
    hear you. If you could continue, please.
        Ms. Foster. Thank you. When people are assessed fines and
    fees and they cannot afford to pay the full amount imposed,
    they are punished with aggressive and often unconstitutional
    collection practices. The result today is a deeply flawed
    system of monetary sanctions that exacerbates poverty, widens
    racial disparities, and diminishes trust in our justice system.
        Those fines and fees are often charged together, they are
    not the same and they do not serve the same purpose. A fine is
    a punishment for violating the law. A fee has nothing to do
    with punishment or accountability. Its sole purpose is to
    generate revenue to fund government. In other words, a fee is a
    clever rebrand for a tax and taxes have no place in our justice
    system. The justice system is a core government responsibility.
    It is supposed to serve everyone, and it should be paid for by
    everyone.
        Let me give you an example of how this works. Today, in
    California, the fine for a simple traffic violation is often
    $100, but the legislature has added an additional $390 on top
    of that $100 fine and those $390 in fees fund everything from
    the Fish and Game Service to the Office of Emergency
    Management.
        The impact of a nearly $500 ticket on the average American
    is catastrophic. According to the Federal Reserve in 2019, 40
    percent of Americans could not access $400 for an emergency. If
    they don't have $400, how are they going to pay a $500 ticket?
        If a person cannot afford to immediately pay the full
    amount they owe, jurisdictions use a host of abusive practices
    to coerce payment including incarcerating people who cannot
    afford to pay, suspending driver's licenses, vocational
    licenses, and vehicle registrations, making it impossible for
    people to legally access the very jobs they need to pay off the
    debt. They add late fees, and interest, and allow private
    collection companies to add an additional 40 percent to the
    amount owed. They refuse to restore voting rights until all
    fines and fees are paid in full. They often keep individuals
    under supervision until their fines and fees are fully paid,
    and then they charge them an additional fee for remaining under
    supervision.
        Fines and fees do not burden all Americans equally.
    Policing practices in our communities of color, coupled with
    the demographics of poverty in the United States means that
    State and local governments are attempting to wring fines and
    fees principally out of our most vulnerable communities, the
    communities hardest hit by the economic and health impacts of
    the COVID pandemic.
        Without question, fines and fees are a State and local
    issue, but they are a national problem, and there are Federal
    solutions. Traditionally, when we think of the ways Congress
    can influence State policies, we think of carrots and sticks
    and those can be used to great effects in this arena. The
    Driving for Opportunity Act introduced in the House by
    Representatives Scanlon, Fitzpatrick, Moore, and Reschenthaler
    is a great example. This bipartisan bill incentivizes states to
    end debt-based driver's license suspension.
        Similarly, in 2016, the Justice Department provided grants
    to five states willing to pilot fines and fees reform. Congress
    could do the same and cause states to innovate and engage in
    reform. Congress could also mandate that the National Institute
    for Justice study State reforms to determine best practices.
        A particular problem in this arena is the dearth of data.
    In consultation with the Bureau of Justice Statistics, Congress
    could mandate that states that receive Federal funding provide
    data so that we can fully understand the scope of the problem
    and again, so the Bureau of Justice Statistics could analyze
    that data and tell us how to solve these problems.
        Finally, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which
    governs private debt collection, does not apply to debt owed to
    a state. We should not allow State and local governments to
    engage in conduct that we have barred in the private sector.
        I urge you to take action today. We in the advocacy
    community stand ready to help. Thank you for the opportunity to
    testify and I would be delighted to answer any questions that
    you have.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Foster follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Jackson Lee. Yes, thank you very much for your
    testimony. I now recognize Ms. Soto for five minutes. Welcome.

                       STATEMENT OF JULISSA SOTO

        Ms. Soto. Good morning, Chair Jackson Lee, Ranking Member
    Biggs, Chair Nadler, Ranking Member Jordan, and Members of the
    Subcommittee.
        [Speaking foreign language.]
        Ms. Soto. My name is Julissa Molina Soto. As an immigrant,
    English is not my first language, so please bear with me. I'm a
    naturalized citizen from Colorado, where I raised my two kids
    as a single parent.
        We were a close-knit immigrant family. We managed okay
    until my nino, or my son, Juan, got caught up in the juvenile
    system. Juan was 14 when police arrested him for stealing
    toothpaste from a supermarket. He thought we didn't have enough
    money to buy the toothpaste, but it was wrong, and I felt
    ashamed. I also had no idea what his mistake would cost us.
        The court charge Juan hundreds of dollars in fines and
    fees, including $60 each week for a class about the
    consequences of stealing. Since we couldn't afford the
    application fee for a public defender, I had to help him
    myself. Since I didn't understand English very well at that
    time, my 14-year-old tried to explain, translate everything to
    me in court.
        As a child, Juan did not have any money, so I had to pay
    everything. I was making $19,000 a year working at McDonalds to
    pay the court. I was late on rent, sacrificed things like
    groceries, and took a second job. I left the house every day at
    5:00 a.m., and sometimes I didn't get home until after the kids
    were in bed.
        At 15, they arrested Juan for a small amount of marijuana.
    I was surprised, but maybe I shouldn't have been surprised
    because I rarely saw him and his sister. I had no time for my
    kids.
        This time, the court fees were even more expensive. We had
    to take a weekly class on communication, which cost us $75 each
    time we will attend this class. If we miss a class because we
    couldn't afford the fee, they charge us another fee. Sometimes
    when I made payments, the total increased because of late fees.
        I begged the court for a waiver. I offered to clean the
    courthouse or do other community service. After years of
    working two jobs, I finally paid off almost $8,000. The cost to
    my family was more than just money. I couldn't be a mother that
    I wanted to be, and my son still resents me for not being
    around when he needed me.
        I don't blame the system for Juan's mistake. The fees made
    everything much worse for my family. Last month, my State ended
    all juvenile fees, but most states still charge fees to youth
    in the legal system and their families.
        My son Juan joined the U.S. Army after high school and
    served two tours, including Afghanistan. He is now in the Army
    Reserves and has a daughter of his own. However, he still
    struggled because of the financial hardship imposed on our
    family. We still struggle with communication.
        My son went to fight for our country and he's a good guy.
    It's our turn to fight for kids and families by ending these
    harmful fees and fines.
        Thank you for listening to me today, and I'm happy to
    answer all your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Soto follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Jackson Lee. Ms. Soto, thank you for that very powerful
    testimony. I now recognize Mr. Head for five minutes.

                       STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY HEAD

        Mr. Head. Good morning, thank you, Chair.
        The discussion of fines and fees in our State criminal
    justice system is an exceedingly important topic, surprising
    agreement on both the political left and right. My remarks
    today will focus on the mounting consensus from a conservative
    and libertarian perspective, which is not as often discussed in
    our national dialog.
        The power to punish is the greatest domestic power a
    government wields. Scholars and judges have debated the purpose
    of this power for centuries, settling on four fundamental
    justifications: Incapacitation, retribution, rehabilitation,
    and deterrence. A function that's notably absent from this list
    is revenue raising.
        However, the raising of revenue has never been considered
    one of the core functions for a variety of reasons. We've
    reached a point in many cases that this is exactly what's
    happening. It's not illegitimated in some circumstances to
    expect a convicted offender to bear the cost of at least a
    portion of their own punishment in the criminal justice system.
        When an enormous portion of local governments' budget comes
    from criminal justice fees and fines, we can reasonably wonder
    whether the quest for revenue has displaced one or all four
    legitimate purposes that I just mentioned.
        It's not uncommon for 10-20 percent of many cities'
    municipal budgets to come from criminal justice fees and fines.
    Chicago, as an example, in 2014 derived 15 percent of its city
    budget from criminal justice fees and fines.
        Conservatives and libertarians often wonder that a conflict
    of interest is developing in our criminal justice institutions.
    Too often, police officers, courts, and community supervision
    officers are put in positions to raise revenue for their
    respective jurisdictions through their day-to-day functions.
    This is something we should all be concerned about.
        A conservative point of view tends to be skeptical of
    oversized budget--oversized government budget. In the worst
    cases, this issue we're discussing today is a telltale practice
    of oversized, over-reaching budgets.
        When law enforcement officers must serve warrants for a
    failure to pay fees and fines, they're less available to
    respond to 911 emergency calls. When courts schedule
    appearances for failure to pay fees and fines, court
    proceedings for more serious offenses can be postponed or
    rushed to judgment.
        When criminal justice fees and fines begin to ebb away at
    relationships between law enforcement officers and community
    Members, we run the risk of converting our police force
    essentially into tax agents.
        We should not be putting our law enforcement officers and
    community supervision officers into such positions, which
    divert from their primary mission as public safety officers. It
    also erodes community trust, which I think is a critical
    element that we tend to kind of underestimate.
        Now, with all of this said, I think that we have to point
    out that reforms have been happening in States for the last
    several years. We at Faith and Freedom Coalition advocate in a
    multitude of States. In the last three years, we've touched
    about 20 different States on subjects related to fines and
    fees, and we're seeing progress being made with on the State
    legislative level, and also on the local jurisdictions.
        While I'm encouraged by this, I'm also concerned that
    Federal efforts to incent or potentially to coerce such
    practices may actually have an adverse effect. So, one of the
    reasons why we've seen the embellishment of fines and fees
    across the country is because we've actually had too many
    expenses absorbed by our local--our criminal justice system.
        So, and when jail populations explode, when court dockets
    explode, that has to be offset, and in some way, shape, or
    form. Rather than raising taxes in a lot of jurisdictions, they
    turn to fines and fees. As the judge just mentioned, these are
    essentially user fees.
        Unfortunately, when the Federal Government comes in with
    grants to this effect, it actually can create a reliance by
    local jurisdictions on these grants that only last for a finite
    period of time, three to five years. When that grant is removed
    or terminates, we see a very dangerous need or reliance on that
    money.
        So, we actually effectively end up either raising taxes or
    raising fines and fees at the end of these practices. So, we
    believe that it's important for the Federal Government, for DOJ
    and other entities to be extremely judicious in the use of
    Federal grants to be able to entice these local practices.
    Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Head follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Head, for your testimony.
    Now, I recognize Professor Harris for five minutes.

                       STATEMENT OF ALEXES HARRIS

        Ms. Harris. Thank you for the invitation to engage in this
    conversation with you today.
        Few aspects of the criminal legal system vividly illustrate
    the two-tiered nature and extent of punitive excess of the
    United States as does the practice of monetary sanctions. I
    will spend my time summarizing a few emergent research
    findings.
        It is important to note that in some states, judges have
    actually been granted discretion to assess criminal defendants
    for the cost of their public defender. In other words, an
    individual who cannot afford to pay a lawyer is expected to pay
    for the lawyer that the State is constitutionally required to
    provide.
        Many jurisdictions charge per-night fees for jail or prison
    space, as well as costs associated with probation and other
    court-mandated requirements, such as electronic home
    monitoring. In most states, all monetary sanctions must be paid
    in full before a person is released from court supervision.
        In many states, people are unable to vote until all costs
    are paid. They must remain in constant communication with court
    officials about their living and financial arrangements.
        As noted earlier, people lose their drive related to
    nonpayment. Then, if apprehended while driving with a suspended
    license, even to a job that might enable them to pay their
    debt, they face renewed incarceration and further financial
    sanctions.
        It is also important to note that monetary sanctions are
    frequently impose in addition to incarcerative time. So, on
    their sentencing day, people may get several days to months to
    years of jail or prison time, and in addition receive thousands
    of dollars in fines, fees, court costs, and restitution.
        So, even when people have served their incarceration and
    their probation time, they still remain under the control of
    the criminal legal system. Many of these people are unemployed,
    unhoused, suffer from mental health problems and chemical
    addiction disorders. As a result, they become tethered to the
    criminal legal system for the rest of their lives because of
    this debt.
        As mentioned, in the juvenile legal system, we know that
    nearly every State imposes costs on children, many of whom
    cannot legally work, enter into contracts, and are mandated to
    attend school. Recent reports have found that these costs
    include billing parents or guardians for child support fees
    related to detention in youth and jail and youth authority
    facilities.
        Families are also charged administrative costs, as we've
    heard, for court processing and appearances. In addition, youth
    are charged fees and fines and restitution.
        Recent research using data from a large cohort of
    adolescent court-involved youth found that significantly
    greater percentages of non-White youth still owed monetary
    sanctions upon case closing relative to White youth
    counterparts. The study also found that penal debt
    significantly increased the odds of youth recidivating.
        In a recent study, we found statistically that poor
    communities and communities that are non-White carry more penal
    debt than non-impoverished or White communities. Furthermore,
    this debt is statistically associated with increases in future
    poverty, especially for Black neighborhoods. It appears that
    penal debt makes poor communities even poorer.
        A final area I will highlight relates to revenue
    generation, policing, and traffic stops. Because local
    governments have come to rely so heavily on revenue generated
    from fines and fees, traffic citations have become a tool for
    profit-making.
        This pocketbook policing encourages police to their
    authority and discretion to make pretextual traffic stops.
    These are judgment calls that often involve such things are
    faulty taillights, expired license tags, or an air freshener
    improperly suspended from the rearview mirror.
        The racially disparate impact of monetary sanctions
    intensifies the aggressive policing of Black and Latinx
    neighborhoods because these racial groups typically find it
    more difficult to pay.
        The policy implications from existing research are clear.
    The Federal Government should use its power to attach
    conditions to grants related to State law enforcement and
    justice practices. We need Federal leadership.
        Such conditions should mandate states to require current
    ability-to-pay hearings prior to assessment of fines and fees,
    desist from imposing fees on minors and their families for
    court processing and relieve all outstanding juvenile debt,
    discontinuing suspending driver's licenses related to
    nonpayment of court-imposed fines and fees and reinstate all
    prior licenses that have been suspended related to nonpayment,
    prohibit courts from issuing warrants related to nonpayment of
    court fines and fees, impose caps on the amount of revenue
    local and State jurisdictions can generate via fines and fees.
        States must annually report, by jurisdiction, the amount of
    fines and fees, sentence owed, and related surcharges, interest
    and payment fees owed and collected.
        In closing, the system of monetary sanctions reinforces the
    United States' two-tiered system of justice, one for people
    with financial means, and one for people without. Within a
    society riven by so much inequality, a system of punishment
    based on economic resources can never be fair or just. We have
    alternative punishment and rehabilitative options; we just need
    the will to make these changes.
        Thank you for your considerations of my remarks.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Harris follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Professor Harris, for
    your testimony. We're now delighted to yield five minutes to
    Ms. Woog. Welcome.

                        STATEMENT OF AMANDA WOOG

        Ms. Woog. Thank you, Chair and Committee Members, for this
    opportunity this morning. Good morning. My name is Amanda Woog.
    I am the Executive Director of the Texas Fair Defense Project.
    We are a legal organization that fights to end the
    criminalization of poverty.
        In each year, our attorneys represented hundreds of people
    who are saddled with criminal debt that they cannot afford. We
    help people get out of this debt and on with their lives. We
    then work with our clients to take what we've learned from
    these experiences and push for greater systemic changes.
        Criminal fines and fees uniquely burden people who are low
    income, and even a few hundred dollars of court debt will turn
    into a high-stakes, years-long struggle to keep those expenses
    from landing them in jail. Because our policing and criminal
    legal systems disproportionately target Black people and other
    communities of color, fines and fees also operate as a form of
    racialized wealth extraction.
        Criminal court debt keeps people from getting back on their
    feet financially, living in neighborhoods with better schools,
    getter better jobs, and obtaining basic necessities for
    themselves and their families. When I get a traffic ticket, and
    unfortunately, I've gotten a few in my lifetime, I get
    frustrated with myself, my husband teases me, and I pay the
    ticket. Life goes on.
        The same cannot be said for people who are living at the
    economic margins. With 40 percent of people in the United
    States unable to afford $400 in an emergency, a simple traffic
    ticket can quickly snowball into more debt, warrants, a
    driver's license suspension, and even arrest and jail.
        Several of our clients have gone on to serve as advocacy
    fellows with TFDP telling their stories to lawmakers to help
    them understand how these policies can trap people into a
    perpetual cycle of debt, fear, and the constant threat of jail.
        Emily is a current client at TFDP who had more than $5,000
    in criminal legal debt from her court case. She recently shared
    with testimony with the Texas legislature. She said,

              ``The debt makes me feel like I'm drowning. I cannot
            afford things for my children. My son wants to go to
            summer band camp, but I have to tell him it's not
            possible. If he wants a new deodorant at the grocery
            store, I have to tell him no, you have to finish every
            last drop of your old deodorant first.
              I'm the sole caretaker for two children, and all my
            money goes towards them. I never spend anything on
            myself. I embarrassingly wear shirts with holes in
            them. Anything I receive goes to my children.
              To pay my fines and fees, and I've tried everything.
            I even donated plasma to pay them. But every time I see
            my probation officer, it's never enough, and all she
            asks about is the money.
              This debt makes me feel like I can't be a good mother
            to my children because I can't provide for them like I
            want to. They should not have to pay the consequences
            for my actions. And the system should be focusing on
            rehabilitating people, not on debt that just makes it
            harder for me and my family.''

        Perversely, criminal legal debt becomes more expensive when
    a person cannot pay because additional fees for nonpayment or
    even fees for entering a payment plan end up adding up, and the
    cycle feels impossible to break for the people who are in it.
        We help people resolve their criminal legal debt through
    legal representation, but there's a huge gap in services that
    we simply cannot fill. Many people with criminal legal debt
    never had an attorney to help them if the underlying cause was
    a traffic ticket or a low-level misdemeanor offense.
        For people who did have did have assistance of counsel in
    their underlying criminal cases, the assistance ended when the
    criminal case was adjudicated, and the impacts of the debt
    continue.
        On average, it takes our attorney ten hours from start to
    finish to get a person's debt handled. Without a lawyer, most
    people with criminal legal debt have no realistic chance of
    getting unaffordable court fines, fees, and costs waived or
    reduced. That's why we need structural changes that do not
    create these unmanageable debt burdens to begin with.
        Fines and fees are also an unreliable revenue source for
    local and State jurisdictions. A recent study by the Brennan
    Center for Justice found that, in addition to thwarting
    rehabilitation and failing to improve public safety, criminal
    court fees and fines also fail at efficiently raising revenue.
        Because punitive approaches to debt collection hamper
    people's ability to obtain employment and support their
    families, they likely have an even broader negative financial
    impact than these studies suggest. Here in Texas, we've been
    chipping away at user pay systems that significantly harm low-
    income communities, and I want to conclude by highlighting a
    recent bipartisan success.
        For years, Texas assessed a surcharge on some driving
    offenses in addition to the fine penalty. When a person did not
    pay the surcharge, which they often did not even know about,
    their driver's license would be suspended. These surcharges
    kept millions of low-income Texans in debt without licenses.
        In 2019, the surcharge was repealed with support from a
    diverse coalition, including ourselves, the Sheriffs
    Association, ACLU, Hospital Association, Goodwill Industries,
    and Texas Public Policy Foundation. More than $2 billion in
    surcharges were relieved, and 1.5 million people were
    immediately able to get their driver's license back.
        This was a bipartisan victory. The bill passed unanimously
    in both houses of the Texas legislature, and it was signed into
    law by Governor Abbott.
        More recently, Texas has abolished a number of juvenile
    fines and fees just in the past legislative session, again,
    with bipartisan support.
        Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak today, and
    I'm happy to answer any questions from the Committee.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Woog follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much for your testimony.
    Now, we will begin the questioning under the five-minute rule.
    I will begin by recognizing myself for five minutes.
        I am very appreciative of the testimony of the witnesses
    and would ask them, because I have so many questions, for their
    succinct response so that we can get as much from you as we
    need to. As I indicated, this is an important hearing so that
    we can legislate, and we need to hear you, of course.
        Judge Foster, let me start with you. In your testimony you
    specifically make the point about fines and fees are not placed
    upon Americans equally. In over-policing communities, the most
    vulnerable people of color are really targeted, as one of our
    witnesses has indicated.
        So, I am interested in what you believe Congress can do to
    stop that tide as relates to State actions to a certain extent.
        Then what would be the level of fines and fines levied on
    the Federal level, and how that can be steered in the right
    direction so most vulnerable are not the victims twice in terms
    of trying to get justice in the justice system. I say that
    meaning that everyone accused and not accused are supposed to
    have justice in our system.
        So, if you would respond to that, I'd appreciate it.
        Ms. Foster. Certainly. Let me start with the question of
    racial disparities. There's no question, as I think you and
    many of the witnesses have recognized, that there are racial
    disparities in the justice system, and those are pronounced
    when it comes to monetary sanctions.
        One of the most important things that Congress could
    require immediately is data. We don't have very good data from
    local and State courts about exactly what's going, and that's
    quintessentially something that the Congress can do, and the
    Federal Government has an important role.
        As I mentioned, the Bureau of Justice Statistics exists for
    the purpose of gathering justice system data from the states,
    as well as the Federal Government. We don't have good data
    about the racial disparities in the system.
        The best data that we have, a meta-analysis that was done
    at Stanford, demonstrates unequivocally that Black drivers are
    stopped 20 percent more frequently than White drivers.
        Once stopped, Black drivers are given a ticket 20 percent
    more often than White drivers. Hispanic drivers are given a
    ticket 30 percent more often than White drivers. We know that
    about some places, we don't know that about every place. So,
    data is a key factor.
        The second is once we have that data, to make sure that
    we're enforcing the laws that prevent police from disparately
    policing. Some of that may also include some experimentation.
    We're learning around the country about alternatives to an
    armed police officer enforcing traffic laws, for example.
        One of the things that the Justice Department could do is
    study places around the country that are moving to
    alternatives, unarmed traffic enforcement, and determine
    whether that works. Whether that's something that other states
    could adopt.
        Those are things that the Federal Government does best. It
    looks at what's happening in the states and can study those,
    gather data, and then promulgate best practices to the rest of
    the country. So that would be my answer with respect to some of
    the things Congress could do on racial disparities.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Judge, thank you so
    very much. Let me--I appreciate it, and I will--we'll continue
    our dialog. Let me ask these questions to Professor Harris.
        In just the past few years, there have been a number of
    high-profile police stops that involve warrants based on a fee
    or fine. Can you describe how nonpayment of a fee or fine can
    lead to an arrest, and therefore a loss of income? I'm going to
    give three questions back-to-back, so that is for you,
    Professor Harris.
        Ms. Soto, let me acknowledge that your son is serving his
    Nation in the United States military. We thank you for that,
    which should be an indication of what happens to vulnerable
    people, and yet these people are worthy Americans, Americans
    committed to serving their nation, or committed to being
    citizens that contribute, but, yet they're burdened by these
    fees.
        So, you did so much to support your son. Can you describe
    in greater detail what the long-term consequences of the
    imposition of fees and fines had on your family?
        Then Ms. Woog, thank you for exposing Texas and what
    continues to go on right now today as we sit here in this room.
    It sounds as if they have been moving in the right direction.
    Can you describe in greater detail how Texas and other states
    have reformed how fees and fines are imposed, even in the
    backdrop of so many who have suffered?
        So, the first answer should come from Professor Harris,
    then Ms. Soto, and then Ms. Woog.
        Professor Harris, can you be concise in your response,
    please? Thank you.
        Ms. Harris. Thank you for that question. To be concise,
    when people, in some--the one key issue is that there's
    disparities in the ways in which fines and fees are implemented
    and monitored across counties, municipalities, and states. So,
    there's no consistent set of practices.
        In general, in many jurisdictions, if people do not pay
    their fines and fees, they will have a warrant issued. Many
    times, people will receive a summons to appear in court if they
    have not made payments.
        If they fail to receive the summons, a recent study
    published in the UCLA Law Journal found that many people do not
    even receive the summons because they're of wrong addresses,
    homelessness, or people receive the summons and they're scared
    to get incarcerated because they don't have the money.
        So, if they don't appear at the summons, a warrant will be
    issued. These warrants do not indicate to the police if it's a
    violent issue or if it was just a nonpayment, and then people
    can be pulled over.
        We've seen when we have that contact in our communities, a
    recent study found that Black men have a one-in-one-thousand
    lifetime risk of being killed by police, one-in-one-thousand
    lifetime risk. So, this warrants related to nonpayment increase
    the likelihood of interactions with police, increase fear,
    anxiety, trauma, and even the possibility of death in our
    communities.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you so very much. Ms. Soto, the
    impact on your family, the long-term impact on your family.
        Ms. Soto. The long-term impact on my family, like I said in
    my testimony, is that my son still resent me, and my kids
    resent me because I was never there for them. He got arrested
    twice after that for having small amount of marijuana. So, I
    couldn't be the mother that I could be.
        No communication whatsoever. I was working 5:00 a.m.-10:00
    p.m. trying to pay these fees, and in the meantime, we got
    evicted, also, once because I had to choose between paying
    those fees or paying my rent. We are still paying those
    consequences because still my kids resent me, still till now.
    They say Mom, you were always working, you were never there for
    us.
        So, I feel that by punishing not only the youth, you're
    punishing the whole family, the family as a whole. His sister
    struggled from that, I struggled from that. What happened with
    these fees is they do separate families. You separate families
    because somebody has to pay these fees.
        These kids are young, so it imposes all those fees on the
    parent. Sometimes when you're a single parent, you're going to
    struggle to make it on your own.
        Like I said, I'm not blaming the system for Juan mistakes,
    I'm not blaming the system for me being a single mom. I am
    asking the system to take into account on all those things.
    You're trying to fix one thing by imposing those fees.
    Supposedly, maybe the youth are going to learn the lesson,
    but--
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
        Ms. Soto. You're separating families and evicting families.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you so very much. We have to
    respond. Ms. Woog, very quickly, thank you.
        Ms. Woog. Thank you. To your question about the reforms
    that we're seeing on the State level in Texas, I mentioned the
    repeal of the driver responsibility program, the abolition of
    some juvenile fees.
        We've also seen advances made to provide procedural
    protections for people, such as requiring ability-to-pay
    hearings. The problem with reforms like that is a lot of times
    they require the assistance of counsel. As I mentioned, there's
    a huge gap in legal services.
        So, some of the exciting experimentation that we're seeing
    in Texas actually occurs in a lot of local jurisdictions, where
    we're seeing local courts and counties trying to think of more
    effective and efficient ways to collect debt initially. What is
    really important to tie to that, is to allow people who are
    unable to afford to pay to their debt to get into court quickly
    and resolve it by other means.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
        Ms. Woog. That kind of experimentation is one of the more
    exciting pieces.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you so very much.
        Ms. Spartz for five minutes.
        Ms. Spartz. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I agree with Judge Foster that the justice system is a core
    government function. I also don't disagree that California has
    very high taxes and fees. I also agree that fees are really a
    form of regressive taxation.
        The issue I have generally, is it the responsibility of the
    Federal Government to bail out states with bad policies?
    Because ultimately if you do that, you punish the states with
    good policies and make them pay to the states with bad
    policies.
        It seems like it should be responsibility of constituency
    of that State to elect good government, to not vote for them
    and replace this with better people if they don't like
    policies, or they can move to other states. We see a lot of
    this happening.
        I also, as the gentleman from New York mentioned that the
    Fourteenth amendment didn't exist during the time of the
    Federalist Papers. The Sixteenth amendment didn't exist too.
    The Supreme Court recently also confirmed that excessive fines
    clause applies to states. It seems like this issue should go
    through the judicial system; it would be a better approach.
        If the Federal Government must do something, it seems like
    we talk about carrots. I think Judge Foster, you mentioned the
    carrots and sticks. What kind of sticks?
        Maybe we should look, states maybe shouldn't get some money
    for something. Instead of giving them the money, what is
    examples of few sticks you can give us to make sure that the
    states having bad policies are not doing that instead of keep
    bailing them out?
        Ms. Foster. Certainly. Let me just say that I gave
    California as an example, but every single State in the country
    and many municipalities within those states charge excessive
    fines and fees. This is a problem everywhere; it is not just a
    problem in some states. It's a problem in every state.
        Ms. Spartz. Is it just the scale of problems is large in
    some states? I don't disagree with you. Just quickly if you can
    briefly mention few things.
        Ms. Foster. Sure. With respect to sticks, let me give an
    example. When Congress determined that, for example, the speed
    limit across the country should be reduced to both conserve gas
    and protect lives, Congress did that by conditioning the
    receipt of Federal dollars on states lowering the speed limit.
    That's a stick.
        We could do the same thing with respect to the money that
    Congress has appropriated through Justice Department grants,
    money that goes to the states. We could say to the states, for
    example, if you want those Federal dollars, then you have to
    collect data.
        If you want those Federal dollars, you have to stop
    suspending driver's licenses for unpaid fines and fees. If you
    want those Federal dollars, you need to do an ability-to-pay
    assessment before you impose a fine. If you want those Federal
    dollars, you have to provide counsel, which the Constitution
    requires, without charging people a fee for that counsel.
        Those are the kinds of sticks that the Federal Government
    could use.
        Ms. Spartz. It just seems the government, all we do is just
    collect data and data and data and report, and it seems like
    I've been in State government too and we just collect data.
    It's all about collection data. I would like to get really real
    policies we have discussion.
        Maybe, Mr. Head, you have some other thoughts that you
    have, you know, from libertarian perspectives. Because I do
    understand that excessive fines really can have adverse effects
    on people who do not have money. The system can be stacked
    against someone who doesn't have the money and it's very
    bureaucratic and expensive.
        So, what other thoughts you have what is there is a
    function Federal Government should have, or should be really
    just purely go through the judicial system?
        Mr. Head. Well, I wouldn't say that I have specific
    examples of sticks. What I actually am even more concerned
    about is the inadvertent, in essence, sticks that end up coming
    by dangling carrots and finding overreach.
        So, when you, as I mentioned earlier, we have burgeoned our
    either Federal or State justice systems over the last
    particularly 40 years, 35-40 years, and have introduced
    different Federal grants to either study or to implement
    programs or to provide services. The grants are never offered
    in perpetuity. It's a three, five, sometimes maybe like a
    seven-year grant.
        When that is removed, the expectation for that service or
    facility doesn't go away. Also, the expectation in the
    community doesn't go away.
        Ms. Spartz. It's a big challenge. I mean, the dependency,
    and it's a huge challenge. I've seen it as a State legislator,
    I've seen it. Is there any solution that really should go
    through the judicial system and government should be sued in a
    court of law for its excessive fines, which apply to the
    states, too?
        So, do you believe that is the best approach and how it
    should be dealt with?
        Mr. Head. Well, it's a longer, a longitudinal approach. The
    reason why I spend much more time in State capitals than I do
    here is because that's actually where we see the most effective
    and most innovative practices.
        Ms. Spartz. People just have to elect better legislators, I
    guess. Better governments in the States.
        Mr. Head. Call for better policies on that at either local
    or State level.
        Ms. Spartz. Thank you, I yield back.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the gentlelady. I'm now pleased to
    recognize the Chair of the Full Committee, Mr. Nadler, for his
    questions for five minutes.
        Chair Nadler. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Soto, you should blame the system because it has
    greatly failed you and your family.
        Judge Foster, the use of fines and fees has increased
    steadily over the last three decades. Despite a constitutional
    requirement do so, many courts never consider a person's
    ability to pay. In what ways does the failure to conduct
    ability-to-pay determinations affect the assessment of monetary
    sanctions?
        Ms. Foster. So, it's very direct. When fines and fees are
    imposed, for example, on a family like Ms. Soto, rather than
    looking at what her economic circumstances are, the court just
    imposed a flat amount.
        Let me talk specifically about fines. The purpose of a fine
    is--began as an alternative to incarceration. The purpose is
    really both to punish and deter, right. If you think about a
    speeding ticket, we want you to think about it before you speed
    again. So, we want the monetary sanction to be enough so that
    you'll twice before speeding, but not enough to bankrupt you
    and your household.
        That argues for the amounts to vary based on one's economic
    circumstance. So, instead of doing that and saying to someone
    who's in Ms. Soto's economic circumstance, a minimum wage
    worker who, at $7.25 an hour, the Federal minimum wage, is $400
    for a ticket is literally a week and a half of work.
        Instead of saying we're going to charge you a flat amount,
    you say what's it going to take to deter that person from doing
    that consequence again, and it's less. Their economic--
        Chair Nadler. Do you think that fines maybe should be
    assessed at a percentage of a person's income?
        Ms. Foster. I think that would make a lot of sense. That's
    exactly what happens in most of Western Europe and South
    America. We can do it in lots of different ways. We can say
    this is the standard amount, and if you earn less than that
    we're going to adjust the fine to compensate for the fact that
    you earn less than that. That would make a lot more sense.
        Chair Nadler. Thank you. Professor Harris, compared to the
    amount they actually receive, courts spend massive sums of
    money attempting to recoup unpaid debt and create severe
    hardship while doing so, even garnishing poverty-level income,
    like SSI benefits, to obtain payment.
        These fees then compound. Additional sanctions are imposed
    as a result of failure to pay, prolonging both spending on
    recoupment and hardship for debtors. What are the financial and
    human costs of pursuing unpaid debt? I think we've heard some
    of that--
        Ms. Harris. My research team and I interviewed over 500
    people across eight states and in the U.S. The system is
    pervasive across the U.S., I do want to establish that. What we
    found is that people receive a bill, their monthly bill owed to
    the court, and every month for many people that bill increases
    because of payment costs, collection fees, and interest.
        So, when that bill keeps coming and people feel like
    they're drowning, it creates a great deal of stress, emotional
    stress and strain on families and children, where some people
    say they can't go outside, they're afraid to go outside because
    they'll be arrested.
        It creates this tethering to the criminal legal system
    where people have to constantly report. They have to miss work
    to report to court to sit in the courtroom all day, right. Many
    courtrooms require you to report at eight, but your case might
    not be heard till three.
        It'll put strain on garnishment of your wages. Even tax,
    income tax can be taken for payment in many jurisdictions. So,
    it's a great deal of economic, emotional hell, and criminal
    legal stress for individuals and their families.
        Chair Nadler. Thank you. Ms. Woog, monetary sanctions raise
    serious constitutional questions, including around the Eighth
    amendment prohibition on excessive fines, Fifth and Fourteenth
    amendment due process rights, and Sixth amendment right to
    counsel.
        How do court fees affect due process and the Administration
    of justice for people who are accused of crimes, and how do you
    think we might fashion the kind of legislation that we were
    talking about a moment ago to base fines on peoples' incomes in
    a way that wouldn't violate constitutional rights?
        Ms. Woog. Thank you for that question. You're right that in
    theory there are multiple constitutional amendments that should
    protect people from criminal debt burdens having the kind of
    impacts that we've discussed today.
        Unfortunately, in our work what we see is that most people
    don't have access to assistance of counsel to actually assert
    those constitutional claims and challenge their criminal legal
    debt from a constitutional perspective.
        So, I agree with Judge Foster that it's really on the front
    end that we need to be addressing these issues. We're right to
    keep focused on the constitutional issues, but in these
    millions of individual cases where people do not have counsel
    typically, it's very, very difficult to assert those rights.
        So, I agree that on the front end we need to be thinking
    about how to issue fines that are commensurate with what a
    person is able to pay and doesn't create the kind of burden
    that carries with them for years and really has this
    devastating impact on themselves and their families.
        Chair Nadler. Thank you. Madam Chair, I ask for unanimous
    consent for a letter from the National Legal Aid and Defender
    Association describing the harm fees and fines may impose and a
    report from the Brennan Center for Justice entitled, ``The
    Steep Costs of Criminal Justice Fees and Fines,'' that
    undertakes an empirical analysis of the fiscal effects of fines
    and fees be entered into the record.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chair, without objection, so ordered.
        [The information follows:]

                          CHAIR NADLER FOR THE RECORD

    =======================================================================

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chair Nadler. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my
    time.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. The gentleman from Texas.
        Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Five minutes.
        Mr. Gohmert. I appreciated the suggestion that fees and
    fines should be adjusted based on income. Judge Foster, do you
    know if the Federal courts adjust fees and fines based on
    income?
        Ms. Foster. So, the Federal Government doesn't impose many
    fees. At certainly not at--
        Mr. Gohmert. Okay, Judge, I know you'll appreciate that I
    just need you to answer the question if you can.
        Ms. Foster. I am trying. The Federal Government--
        Mr. Gohmert. Does the Federal Government, it's pretty
    simple, do they do that?
        Ms. Foster. Well, they don't need to if they don't impose
    them.
        Mr. Gohmert. All right, thank you. Does anybody know
    besides Judge Foster whether the Federal courts adjust fees and
    fines based on income? We'll have to pursue that and find out
    for sure. I think it's a good suggestion.
        One of the things I noted having worked as a felony judge
    in the State system was how many departments would get Federal
    grants, and they would start offering what the Federal grants
    would require. The grants would go away and they're looking for
    income streams to replace what the Federal Government lured
    them into doing.
        People would say hey, we'd like to do that so you got to
    come up with a source of revenue. The locals and the State
    couldn't afford to provide more, so they looked at fines and
    fees. So, I think all of it needs to be looked at. I'm
    particularly concerned, since this is the Federal Government,
    about the forfeitures.
        I know Judge Foster didn't think fines and fees were a
    problem in the Federal system, but they have been, and I've
    seen them be. So, we have a little different perspective on
    that.
        Especially when the Federal Government engages in
    forfeitures where they have decided we can't convict somebody,
    so we'll just go in and take his property. They end up taking
    property of the family that was not involved in any wrongdoing.
    It destroys their way to make a living.
        I wonder, Mr. Head, have you observed anything of that
    nature from the Federal Government in problems with
    forfeitures?
        Mr. Head. Yes, sir, and asset forfeiture is a bit of a
    unique animal because it has Federal implications that when
    applied, also brings local or State jurisdictions in. So, it's
    sort of this hybrid practice that even when states may either
    reduce, or even a number of states now abolished civil asset
    forfeiture, the Federal Government can essentially cooperate on
    a given project.
        The assets that are brought in through that project are
    then split between the feds and that jurisdiction, State or
    local jurisdiction. So, it becomes a problematic situation.
    Then the assets themselves frequently are used for programs
    that, as another witness alluded to, it's kind of by
    definition.
        It's an erratic, unpredictable income stream, so to speak,
    revenue stream for a government. So, it's, not only is it
    problematic on a property rights standpoint and a familial
    standpoint, but it also is not a reliable way to run any
    government program.
        Mr. Gohmert. Well, there's an element of unfairness that
    you can often find, correct?
        Mr. Head. That's exactly right.
        Mr. Gohmert. That's my concern from a Federal standpoint is
    the element of unfairness.
        With regard to a reimbursement as a fine or fee to a
    defendant in Federal court, since Federal court is where we
    clearly have jurisdiction, I have seen presentence reports come
    back with egregiously outrageous amounts of alleged
    reimbursement that overwhelms the defendant. They can never pay
    it back. The prosecution felt good about having such a high
    number.
        Have you seen things of that nature in Federal court?
        Mr. Head. Yeah, yes, sir. That practice itself tends to be
    a bit erratic in different jurisdictions across the country.
    Some regions, some districts are more maybe cavalier in that
    practice than others. You're exactly right, even when--it's not
    uncommon, actually, for defendants to actually be acquitted of
    all or many of the charges but still have to levy the--bear the
    burden.
        Again, I think of these things almost as user fees. You
    used, you rented, in essence, our defense counsel, courtroom,
    stenographer, etc. So, even if you got off, we're still going
    to--
        Mr. Head. You're stuck on one--I see my time's expired. I
    would, Madam Chair, I would like to see this also pursued.
    Because it's not uncommon from what I've seen to have a
    presentence report include an amount of restitution that seems
    very high, maybe it's in limited. I would hope maybe we could
    look at that some point.
        I appreciate having the hearing. Thank you.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Gohmert, while this hearing is not on
    that, you are absolutely right. It is an issue that this
    Committee should take up, and I was here long enough to have
    been with Mr. Hyde when we were also discussing the forfeiture
    challenges that we faced on the Federal level.
        So, and we probably are long overdue, and so, let us look
    forward in a bipartisan way to look at those issues, and I
    thank you for raising them, a former judge.
        Now, I will recognize Ms. Bass for five minutes.
        Ms. Bass. Thank you, Madam Chair, and let me just thank you
    so much for holding this hearing today.
        As the gentleman mentioned restitution and fines and all of
    this, I just don't understand the point when we do this and
    have the fee or the restitution be so high.
        We know the person is not going to be able to pay it back
    and it just sets them up, and it's kind of like the continuum
    that we were talking about last week with people who are
    released from prison and have nowhere to go.
        This is an example of the roadblocks that we set up, and we
    concentrate these people in certain neighborhoods, and you lock
    them out of the economy and then you wonder why they reoffend.
        So, this is part of that continuum and why I appreciate us
    having the meeting today.
        I wanted to talk about the impact on children, because on
    the report from the Committee it says that in 2016 Philadelphia
    netted over half a million dollars from parents of children
    that had interacted with the JJ system, the juvenile justice
    system, and that the inability to pay for the legal guardian,
    to pay a nightly rate for the child's detention, can lead to a
    violation of probation or even facing extended periods of time.
        So, children--and this is what I'm asking the panel,
    Professor Harris, Ms. Foster, children wind up spending time in
    jail because their parents can't pay a fine. I want to know the
    data.
        How many children wind up being incarcerated, and then when
    they do get out what does their future hold? Has anybody
    studied this?
        We had this policy in Los Angeles County where the parents
    had to pay a nightly fee, basically, for room and board, and we
    abolished it. We stopped doing that in L.A. County.
        So, I want to know, can you talk about data and long-term
    consequences? When you put kids in the system, how on earth do
    they get out?
        Ms. Harris. Well, the data is there, honestly, on studying
    many of these issues and processes because we don't have data
    on numbers, as Judge Foster indicated. We don't have a Federal
    set of numbers across all our states. We also don't have the
    data within the states to be able to do these analyses.
        What we do know, I referenced a study that was done by Alex
    Piquero and his colleague that when youth have this debt that
    it significantly increases the likelihood of recidivism.
        So, we know that the debt leads to youth reoffending in
    their communities. We know from qualitative studies the stress
    and what Ms. Soto described here, the strain put on families,
    and it's the strain for generations.
        It's not just that moment. We know that when young people
    are incarcerated, they are surrounded by folks who don't
    support rehabilitative entry, right. The education is poor
    quality in these systems, and so when they come up, they're set
    for failure.
        We're doing an analysis of some of the interview data and
    many of the adults that we interviewed talked about the
    juvenile debt that followed them into adulthood, and criminal
    legal consequences for not paying that juvenile debt once they
    are adults.
        So, we're moving towards this direction to finally study
    the juvenile round. We just don't have the data and we need a
    bit more time to really dig in and understand the consequences.
        It's clear and it's problematic. It's not helpful in any
    way.
        Ms. Bass. Well, I don't see how it's not child abuse. I
    don't know if Ms. Foster Wong, if you would--
        Ms. Foster. Let me just add one thing, and that's to
    emphasize what Professor Harris said. In many jurisdictions, if
    the debt cannot be paid by that child's family, the debt
    follows the child into adulthood. So, when the child becomes
    18, they're saddled with debt.
        In Florida, for example, they prospectively suspend a
    child's driver's license. So, if a child gets in trouble even
    for something as minor as Ms. Soto's child stealing a tube of
    toothpaste, the child cannot get a driver's license, which
    means the child can't find a job to pay back the debt, even if
    we thought it was a good idea for kids to work.
        Ms. Bass. Let me ask you, I did a study about this 25 years
    ago, or so, and in L.A. it started with tickets for truancy.
    So, if you were late to school and the police were surrounding
    it, they could give you a ticket for truancy. It could go into
    a warrant.
        Do you find much of that? Now, we ended that in L.A. as
    well. Do you find much of that around the country, ticketing
    for truancy?
        Ms. Harris. There are tickets for all kinds of things, and
    there was actually just a study done by the Juvenile Law Center
    about children in Municipal Courts for municipal code
    violations. These are adult courts. They're not juvenile
    courts.
        They're children who may violate some kind of a municipal
    ordinance, a noise ordinance or being in a curfew ordinance or
    a truancy ordinance, and then they end up in adult court
    without counsel and fines and fees are imposed upon them that,
    as we said, saddle or stay with them for the rest of their
    lives. That's just antithetical to the whole way that we are
    supposed to be thinking about juvenile justice.
        Ms. Bass. Thank you very much, and thank you, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. The gentleman from Wisconsin is
    recognized for five minutes.
        Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Mr. Head, I was going to kind of direct some comments and a
    couple questions your way. Being a former State legislator and
    doing a lot of ride-along at the circuit court level, I was
    often intrigued and interested to see the banter that goes on
    between some of these judges and the defendants that are before
    them.
        A lot of times it's about the wherewithal and whether or
    not the defendant actually could pay for some of these enhanced
    fees, and probably the best example of that is State
    legislatures, who have a lot of control over this process at
    the State level, oftentimes will continue to impose fees that,
    quite honestly, the defendant is going to be unable to pay in
    the long run, and you're not going to send a police officer to
    somebody's door to try and collect these fees later on. So, you
    end up trying to jump through all these hoops to devise all
    these systems to pull those dollars back.
        So, my first point is, with a rapid expansion of the
    Federal grants and what we're seeing the strings attached as
    those dollars move to the states, it seems to me it's just a
    better place to manage this kind of at the State and local
    level, whether it's a municipal court or a circuit court.
        What's your thoughts on that?
        Mr. Head. Well, I categorically agree.
        One of the pieces that I think I'm encouraged with, so
    obviously, Faith & Freedom Coalition we do work on the Federal
    level but in a lot of states as well, about 20 states this year
    that will engage legislatively.
        I'm seeing a significant uptick in community review boards,
    which, essentially, are local law enforcement, county or city
    law enforcement, that then sort of invite community leaders to
    have an ongoing--it's a charter organization and that receives
    input from that local community.
        I think that I'm actually very encouraged by the progress,
    and I know six or seven cities that have implemented that just
    in the last two or three months here.
        Every system not only is different but also every community
    has very pronounced different needs and dynamics, and so I
    think it's really, really important for us to recognize and
    devolve the decision making process to as local as possible
    and, conversely, avoid Federal or national prescriptive
    approaches that either are going to be inapplicable in a lot of
    places or truly will diverge or divert a lot of this local
    decision-making process.
        Mr. Fitzpatrick. Yeah, I mean, it goes against what we want
    the system to actually accomplish, which is to hold these
    individuals responsible for either negligence or, obviously, in
    some instances at the Federal level breaking their criminal
    defendants that are breaking the law.
        The idea is that State and local authorities, certainly,
    would be better served if we would allow them to make these
    decisions.
        I'll just kind of go in a little bit different direction.
    Oftentimes, we would have individuals that just aren't paying
    child support. They're way behind.
        They're in arrears, and they come before the circuit courts
    in Wisconsin, in my home state, and a lot of times the circuit
    court judges would simply say, let me get this straight. You
    can't pay your child support, but you've got a $9 pack of
    cigarettes in your pocket right now.
        There's oftentimes kind of that type of management, that
    level of management, and relationships that are built with
    defendants that I think would serve us much better.
        At the Federal level, even further removed, I just don't
    see how this makes a lot of sense. So, I thank you for being
    here today. I think the detachment we see from the Federal
    Government to being able to manage this type of system just
    doesn't exist.
        Mr. Head. I agree with that, and I also think that the use
    of the alternative of community supervision, excuse me, of
    community service is underutilized, in a lot of contexts where
    people's inability to pay.
        The specific place for people to be able to serve,
    obviously, needs to be driven by local either judges or,
    potentially, prosecutors to make recommendations as well.
        So, I think there are ways to marry--we would like to see
    more practices of things like that for alternative to pay. Even
    then we need to see partnership with local jurisdictions.
        So, it's very, very important for us to be almost over
    aware of local input into these kinds of processes and
    procedures.
        Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank you. The gentlewoman from Florida
    is recognized for five minutes.
        Then we'll move to the gentlewoman from Georgia, Ms.
    McBath, for five minutes.
        Ms. McBath. Thank you so much, Chair. Thank you, each and
    every one of you, for being with us today.
        Ms. Soto, I just can't thank you enough for sharing your
    story and I'm so sorry that you have been saddled with all of
    these fees and this has become so problematic for you. I really
    appreciate you sharing your story with us today.
        Professor Harris, as Ms. Soto experienced just shows us
    today often the person who is paying the fees or the fine is
    often not the person who actually has done anything wrong.
        So, Professor Harris, I just want to ask you, you co-
    authored a study that looked at the fine practices in 8 states
    and including Georgia, which is the State that I represent, and
    you found that not only was there variation across the United
    States to how these fees were applied, these fines were
    applied, but you also found that there was variation within
    each state.
        So, in your view, were these variations consistent with
    that principle that our justice system should treat similar
    cases in the same way?
        Ms. Harris. I think we all have this broader notion that
    justice should be fair. What does fair look like? It should be
    consistent and there should be policies and practices that
    guide how decisions are made.
        We found across our eight states that there is so much
    variability within a courthouse, within a city, within a
    county, within a State across the United States.
        One example that we haven't talked yet about is that many
    jurisdictions impose mandatory fines and fees. So, even if
    there's an ability to pay assessment at the front end, if
    people are impoverished then judges have the discretion not to
    impose discretionary fines and fees.
        In Washington State, people are sentenced a mandatory $500
    regardless of ability to pay. So, $500 per felony conviction.
    So, there's a lot of variability and even ability to pay
    assessments won't apply to some practices.
        So, it's important that we have this broader conversation
    about what is accountability, what is the point of punishment
    that the last person raised?
        If accountability means being able to meet some bar and
    standard, fulfill that punishment, and then move forward with
    your life, then we need to really assess fines and fees,
    because the vast majority of individuals who face the criminal
    legal system do not have the ability to be held accountable,
    even though that they want to.
        One consistent factor across all our states in interviews
    is people who have been convicted they wanted to serve their
    time to the--
        Mr. McBath. Thank you.
        Ms. Harris. Yeah. Sorry.
        Ms. McBath. Thank you very much. I wanted to move on.
        Ms. Soto, did you feel that you or your son were really
    given clear information about how much he was going to be fined
    for and how to avoid the late fees or the harmful consequences
    that you've experienced?
        Then after she gives that answer, I would love for you,
    Professor Harris, to kind of elaborate on that.
        Ms. Soto. Yes. I felt that my son and I were clear that we
    were poor, that we couldn't pay these fines. I was also
    offering to clean the courthouse or doing some community
    service hours with him because we did not have the money.
        It seems that the system is set not to listen to
    communities of color. I feel that we get punished more because
    of our color, because of the language barrier. It was no
    language justice in here.
        I feel that my son and I were isolated through the system,
    and we were not given a chance to even speak about how much--
    they knew how much money I was making. So, I think it's a great
    idea if they can impose those fees based on your income and not
    put a lot more pressure on us.
        Thank you.
        Ms. McBath. Thank you for that. So, Professor Harris, can
    you elaborate on that for me, please, very quickly?
        Ms. Harris. Sure. Again, that was one consistent finding
    across all our eight states is uncertainty, lack of knowledge,
    lack of what am I being billed for? Why does it increase each
    month? Where do I go to pay? How do I pay if I have multiple
    cases in different municipalities?
        There was a clear lack of understanding of this process of
    why am I paying, because I already was in prison for several
    years. Why am I paying, because I'm on probation?
        So, a lot of questions that were unanswered by local
    courthouse clerks and lack of access to judges to ask those
    questions or attorneys, for that matter.
        Ms. McBath. Okay, thank you.
        Ms. Woog, some states have stopped the suspension of
    driver's licenses for those who have not actually paid their
    fee. Based on your work with clients, what effects does this
    have both for the client, their family, and their community?
        Ms. Woog. The effects are absolutely devastating. In Texas,
    a driver's license is a practical necessity for people to
    obtain childcare and to go to work, to provide for basic
    necessities for their families.
        What we see for people who have their driver's licenses
    suspended is either they pull back entirely--it's very
    isolating for themselves and for their families and can
    exacerbate existing mental and physical health issues--or they
    risk driving illegally, which then exposes them to warrants,
    jail time, family separation, and so that stress and that fear
    is internalized, regardless of how someone deals with that
    situation, and is absolutely toxic for individuals, their
    families, and their communities.
        Ms. McBath. Thank you so much. I yield back my time.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the gentlelady. The Ranking Member
    continues to reserve, and now I'd like to recognize Ms. Demings
    for five minutes, the gentlelady from Florida.
        Ms. Demings. Thank you so much, Madam Chair, and thank you
    to all our witnesses who have joined us here today.
        Ms. Soto, I'm going to direct my question to you. Professor
    Harris talked about that it's important for the justice system
    to be fair, and that's a mouthful.
        I strongly believe that, as someone who has served in the
    criminal justice system for almost three decades, and while we
    continue to make sure that the system is fair and even
    balanced, I think just as we are still working to form that
    more perfect union, it is still a major work in progress.
        Ms. Soto, I think it's so important to hear the personal
    stories, because as we do this very critical work, I think
    those personal stories are so powerful in terms of getting us
    to the place where we need to be. We just need to have the
    political will and really believe that we are working for a
    more fair and just system.
        I, certainly, am doing that. You spoke a bit about that the
    fees imposed should be based on income. I want to give you yet
    another opportunity. Our time has been well spent, but I want
    to give you another opportunity to make this appeal.
        Based on your own experience, how can we, as Members of
    Congress, which is a pretty influential body, how can we
    support the efforts to make this a more fair and just system as
    it pertains to fines and fees?
        Ms. Soto. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak
    for I know those who don't have a voice, to be the voice of the
    voiceless. I do believe that we must look at a story such as
    mine and see the impact that we cause not only to the State but
    to the country.
        These are our youth. These are our new generation. My son
    went and fought for our country twice. So, a lot of the times
    we're deteriorating children of color and I feel that all these
    fees and fines is just a way to oppress our children of color
    and I just don't understand why it's a system that don't--and
    here it is not about Republicans, Democrats, or liberals. In
    here, it's about something that is real that is happening to
    families.
        So, I, certainly, believe that if we look at the person
    income and base that out of their income, the fines, I have no
    problem with that. I feel that will be the solution. Not the
    same fees for all.
        I just don't think that everything applies to all, and I do
    feel that children of color get harsh punishment than children
    who are Anglo or other race and ethnicity.
        Thank you very much.
        Ms. Demings. Thank you so much, Ms. Soto, for your powerful
    testimony.
        Madam Chair, I yield back.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. All right. The Ranking Member of the
    Subcommittee, and now I yield five minutes to the gentlelady
    from Pennsylvania, Ms. Dean.
        Ms. Dean. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for hosting
    this important hearing.
        Thank you to all our testifiers for your expertise that
    you're offering us today.
        Judge Foster if I might begin with you. In 1983, the United
    States Supreme Court ruled that in Bearden v. Georgia that
    someone could be sentenced only if he or she had the money and
    willfully refused to pay.
        We heard today over and over about these debtors prisons
    and how they can force people to forego the basic necessities
    of life to avoid arrest.
        Judge Foster, what kinds of constitutional rights are
    implicated in the current imposition of fees and fines? I'm
    thinking of my own court system in suburban Philadelphia and
    those who are struggling under fees and fines that are
    unbearable.
        Ms. Foster. Thank you for the question, and there are many.
    So, as you mentioned, the Supreme Court long ago and
    consistently since Bearden v. Georgia has said that in the
    justice system, money cannot matter.
        It cannot be the case that we treat people differently in
    our justice system based on how much money they have in their
    pocket or their bank account.
        Yet, that's precisely, as you indicated, what happens. All
    over the country, people who cannot afford to pay fines and
    fees are incarcerated--they're going to jail because they
    cannot afford to pay as well as the host of other consequences.
    So, that is certainly one, and that's equal protection and due
    process.
        The second is the right to counsel, and what we see often
    is because so many State and local governments charge people a
    fee for counsel, people don't obtain counsel. Ms. Soto just
    gave you the best example.
        Here is a child who has the right to counsel. It's in the
    Constitution. The Supreme Court said many years ago in Gault
    children have the right to a lawyer in juvenile justice
    proceedings.
        If a fee to apply to obtain counsel is imposed and if a
    parent is told, oh, at the end of the case you might owe
    hundreds and in some states thousands of dollars for your free
    lawyer, then parents are going to say to their child, no, we
    can't afford a lawyer, and so that child goes unrepresented.
        The Eighth Amendment--and several Members have talked about
    the excessive fines clause--the Supreme Court has indicated,
    just recently held unequivocally and unanimously that the
    excessive fines clause applies to the states.
        Yet, we see states imposing excessive fines without, as the
    excessive fines clause requires, doing any kind of inability to
    pay assessment.
        That is in the excessive fines clause. The State of Indiana
    Supreme Court--when the case from the U.S. Supreme Court was
    sent back to the Indiana Supreme Court they developed a
    standard for determining when a fine is excessive, and part of
    that standard is whether the person has the ability to pay the
    fine imposed.
        Last, but not least is due process, and that is someone's
    ability to understand the proceedings before them, to have the
    right to a fair hearing, and to have their voice heard, and
    that is being violated every day across this country.
        Ms. Dean. Thank you, Judge, for that very thorough listing
    and powerful listing, and I want to reconnect to Ms. Soto.
    Thank you for your testimony today.
        I thank you for your son's contribution and service to our
    country and, therefore, your whole family's service to our
    country. What an extraordinary story. Theft of a tube of
    toothpaste because he thought his mom couldn't afford it.
        What I wanted to ask you is, if you don't mind, what are
    the long-term effects of your story of the imposition of all
    the court mandates, fines, fees, and fear--what are the long-
    term effects for you and for your family?
        Ms. Soto. The long-term effects for me and my family is
    that we don't trust the system. We feel that the system has
    failed us. I had to have a second job to pay all these fees and
    I couldn't be the mother that I wanted to be.
        Therefore, I have to still pay. That type of a punishment
    that your kids have force you because you not being there as a
    mother for your kids, the three of us have to still go through
    therapy and still we're spending more money because of what
    happened with one in the past.
        So, we keep giving money to the system, a system that
    failed us, when all of us have fought really hard for this
    country. The second job really ruin our job. The system failed
    us. I'm very afraid of the system.
        I don't believe in systems somehow even though I have two
    decades working in the nonprofit world giving back to my
    country because this is my country. My son fought two wars and
    my daughter dedicated her life to the homeless.
        We still have some type of resentment to the system. We
    just don't trust systems. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Dean. Thank you for your powerful voice. I yield back.
    I see my time has expired. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much.
        I'll now yield to Mr. Steube for five minutes.
        Mr. Steube. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        My questions are for Mr. Head. While fines and fees can
    create problems if not administered correctly, it can also save
    law-abiding taxpayers from footing the bills run up by
    criminals.
        How could broad Federal rules about fines and fees hurt the
    ability of states and localities to collect revenue from
    convicted criminals who drive up law enforcement and court
    costs?
        Mr. Head. Excuse me, I think that, as I alluded to in my
    opening comments, that I do think that there is a danger of
    overuse, but there also is a legitimate use for fines and fees.
    Especially, in circumstances where very dire crimes have been
    committed and where long investigations or trials have been
    embarked upon. So, I think that there also is an inadvertent
    danger for Congress stepping into this, from a Federal level,
    those are typically outlying cases, but it can also be very
    profound cases.
        We're certainly talking about trans-national cases and
    interstate cases. So, I think that we need to be mindful that a
    kind of one-size-fits-all prescriptive approach on the Federal
    side can not only contemplate the hyper-local scenarios--
    individualized scenarios and communities, but it also can lack
    the elasticity for the extremely high-end cases that are
    outliers. Also, those are the most expensive and most elaborate
    drains on our system, and on the resources that are entailed
    there.
        Mr. Steube. Yes, and I'd like to further address the
    problems of using Federal grants to change State policy. I
    believe it's the role of State governments, not the Federal
    Government, to dictate--especially in this area of law--I come
    and represent Florida. I come from the great State of Florida.
    We've done a lot--when I was in the State legislature, after
    the last eight years that I was there doing criminal justice
    reform and looking at these issues, like civil forfeiture and
    those types of issues. So, I have great concerns when the
    Federal Government is going to address something that the
    States should have within their purview.
        As discussed earlier today, not every State faces the same
    issues when it comes to criminal law, in general, or fines and
    fees specifically. From your experience working in public
    policy on the State and Federal level, can you give us some
    examples of a one-size-fits-all Federal grant requirement that
    hurt State law enforcement efforts in unintended ways?
        Mr. Head. Well, we just had a bit of a conversation on
    asset forfeiture that the asset forfeiture process as is
    allowed on the Federal side, but also has been either reduced
    or greatly restricted on State sides. Actually, about 14 states
    in the last four years have either restricted or abolished
    asset forfeiture. Ironically, but not having much treatment of
    the issue on the Federal side, what generally happens on the
    State side is the Federal investigators tend to partner with
    local or State law enforcement agencies and so the Federal--
    there's essentially a Federal work-around. This is kind of the
    opposite of, in some ways of what your question is. Federal
    inactivity has actually circumvented States' desires to reduce
    or curtail the practice of asset forfeiture.
        So, while Federal action can certainly have an undesirable
    effect, Federal inaction has actually been problematic. In
    essence, the Fed is not having their household in order, so to
    speak, has actually limited States' rights.
        Mr. Steube. Can you speak about the use of fines as an
    alternative to incarceration and how that could be negatively
    impacted by Federal rules limiting fines?
        Mr. Head. Well, I think that, yet again, if we can
    contemplate or allow for local ability to treat local issues,
    we not only find--for instance, in North Carolina, just last
    week I was having meetings about the State of North Carolina
    considering--right now there is a prohibition against
    community--volunteering, basically, to supplant or replace
    payment of fines. So, North Carolina is actually strongly
    considering reversing their State policy.
        New York also has a similar prohibition in place. What we
    would like to see for us is to be able to go to the sort of
    outlying States, to be able to address these kinds of unique
    approaches because I think that there's a--what tends to happen
    whenever we have a prescribed Federal approach or nationalized
    approach is that we contemplate the norm. Inadvertently we
    marginalize the exceptions. Then the exceptions can actually
    become exacerbated.
        So, once again, it's important for us to be able to have
    the ability to customize approaches, not just prescribe.
        Mr. Steube. Thank you for being here today. My time has
    expired.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the gentleman for his questioning.
    The gentleman yields back, and I am pleased to yield five
    minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, Ms. Scanlon.
        Ms. Scanlon. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to our
    witnesses for being here today. Professor Harris, before coming
    to Congress I participated in the defense of children in what's
    become known in Pennsylvania as the Kids for Cash Scandal. For
    those who aren't familiar, between 2003 and 2008 hundreds of
    Pennsylvania teens were sentenced to a for-profit detention
    center in which two juvenile court judges had a financial
    interest. The sentences usually occurred after the young people
    were pressured to waive the right to counsel or confessed to
    crimes that they didn't commit.
        In one of those cases, after the court's conduct was
    declared unconstitutional and our client was released, her
    parents got a hefty bill from the county for the cost of her
    unconstitutional detention. Professor Harris, in your testimony
    you spoke about fees like this being imposed on children and
    families even when the children are later cleared of
    misconduct. Can you very briefly highlight what you might do--
    what we might do at the Federal level?
        Ms. Harris. Thank you for raising that important point--
    that we haven't talked a bit about. That there's profit making
    off these charges and fines and fees--from minors and for
    adults. It creates this perverse incentive, as we have seen,
    for some judges, but for other officials of the criminal legal
    system to try and find ways, right, to keep making profits. We
    also have a lot of contracts with private entities and--so it's
    not just about private facilities or private jails or prisons,
    it's about private entities that are infused within local
    courthouses, jails, probation officers, and prisons that are
    allowed to make profits off a literal captive audience.
        I am not clear on what the Federal Government could do, and
    I do think that contracts should be made publically available,
    so we understand the degree of profit-making and kickbacks that
    local governments are getting from private entities in these
    relationships.
        Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. I think in that case, actually,
    what the Federal Government was able to do involved prosecution
    for wire fraud and those judges ended up in jail. Judge Foster,
    thank you for mentioning my bill, the Bipartisan Bicameral
    Driving for Opportunity Act, which we successfully passed out
    of this Committee earlier this year. We know that court-imposed
    fines and fees can land people in an endless cycle of debt. If
    they can't afford to pay the costs immediately, they can face
    harmful consequences like the suspension of government-issued
    I.D.s--government-issued I.D.s like driver's licenses. About 11
    million people nationwide have suspended driver's licenses for
    unpaid fines and fees.
        I understand that some States and localities have begun
    implementing laws to end the suspension or revocation of
    licenses for unpaid fines and fees. Why are they reconsidering
    that? What role can the Federal Government play to incentivize
    States to enact these reforms and end this practice once and
    for all?
        Ms. Foster. Thank you for your question. Thank you for your
    sponsorship of the Driving for Opportunity Act. It is
    important. So, the States that have stopped suspending driver's
    licenses for unpaid fines and fees--and there are several. We
    are proud of the fact that as little as four years ago, there
    were only three states that did not suspend driver's licensing
    for unpaid fines and fees, and today 22 states have engaged in
    some form of reform. That's important.
        The reason that they've enacted reforms and stopped the
    practice is because it's counterproductive. It doesn't take
    most people much time to understand that if you want someone to
    pay you money, taking away their driver's license--their means
    of getting to work is not a terribly effective way of
    collecting that money. States have understood that.
        They've also understood the much larger economic
    consequences to the States. In the United States today 30
    percent of jobs require driving as part of the job. I don't
    mean just Uber and Lift drivers, but if you think about it, a
    plumber, an electrician, a construction worker, a Verizon
    repair person--not to mention long-haul truckers. All those
    jobs require a person to drive. That requires a valid driver's
    license. If we take that license away, we make our States less
    productive.
        In addition, are the costs of enforcing driving with a
    suspended license. In many places around the country, driving
    with a suspended license is the number-one criminal charge.
    That means that the system is spending a lot of money
    prosecuting people whose only crime is to be poor. So, what can
    the Federal Government do? Exactly what you've proposed.
        [Simultaneous speaking.]
        Ms. Scanlon. Thank you for that. I see my time has expired.
    The Gentlewoman from Missouri is recognized for five minutes.
        Ms. Bush. St. Louis and I thank you to our Chair for
    convening this important hearing. There is a daily trauma that
    we experience in my town, in my home, St. Louis. In my
    community we have many municipal governments, and many have
    their own local government--their own local police force, their
    own local revenue stream. Each of these municipalities rely
    heavily on systems that incentivize raising revenue, off
    targeting people living in poverty, specifically Black people,
    through traffic stops that lead to fines and fees.
        It does not have to be this way. I personally know many
    exemplary public servants who serve in our St. Louis municipal
    governments who do not want it to be this way. Our Federal,
    State, and local governments prioritizing funding for
    militarized policing and incarceration over fully funding
    social safety nets, that's what has led to a crisis in our
    local communities where harming us is not just accepted, but
    it's encouraged.
        In 2015, the Department of Justice found that St. Louis
    officials evaluated their performance on the amount of revenue
    the produced. So much so that in 2012, 13 percent of Ferguson's
    municipal budget was funded by fines and fees, and the city
    budgeted almost a quarter of its revenue from fines and fees in
    2015. Let me just say--because we didn't know--so many of us in
    this community, we didn't know that this was a problem--that
    this is something that shouldn't be happening. We were just
    used to it being the norm. That's a big part of the problem.
    Unsurprisingly, the DOJ also found that 93 percent of those
    arrested were black, whereas only 67 percent of Ferguson's
    population is black.
        Black drivers were also twice as likely as White drivers to
    be searched on a traffic vehicle stops. The reality is that too
    many people live in endless cycles of punishment that are
    deeply linked to violent and traumatic encounters with police.
    The threat of going to jail or having to spend money you don't
    have to pay exorbitant fees. Judge Foster, how does the
    imposition of fines and fees affect people's livelihoods, our
    country's economic growth, and public safety in our
    communities?
        Ms. Foster. Thank you for the question. Let me start with
    your--with public safety. Because there has been some research
    done, and it's very important to emphasize we're all concerned
    about public safety. We're all concerned about crime.
        What we know is that fines and fees can drive crime, and
    they have a dramatic impact on law enforcement's ability to
    fight crime. Let me just give you a couple of numbers. In a
    study that was done of cities that rely on fines and fees for
    some of their revenue, what the study authors found is that for
    every one-percent increase in revenue that a city derived from
    fines and fees--a one-percent increase in fine and fee
    revenue--meant a 6.1-percent decrease in violent crime
    clearance rates. Right?
        So, we're not spending police resources on violent crime.
    We're spending police resources on raising revenue. Similarly,
    for every one-percent increase in revenue that the city relies
    on from fines and fees, there was an 8.3-percent decrease in
    property crime clearance rates. So, police are not solving
    property crimes. They're raising revenue from fines and fees.
    That's not good for anybody. It's certainly not good for public
    safety. So, that's an important point, and I think it's really
    critical that we understand that.
        As Professor Harris mentioned, we also know that people
    commit crimes to pay their fines and fees. I was a judge. It's
    rare that people admit to committing crimes. In a study that
    was done of over 1,000 people who owed fines and fees, 38-
    percent admitted to committing a crime to pay their fines and
    fees. Now, that's just not helping our communities.
        Ms. Bush. No, it's not at all. Thank you Judge Foster for
    all that information. I don't think a lot of people know that
    information that you just gave--those numbers. Fines and fees--
    what we do know, though, is that fines and fees tend to show up
    at every level of the system. That's what a lot of people do
    know. That when you look at fees for traffic and detention,
    phone calls from jail and for pre-trial relief, and that's what
    we know. So, thank you for that information. Now, we need to do
    the work to make sure that we change this. Ms. Woog, from your
    testimony I gather that there has been some substantial amount
    of reform on the State level. Can you just briefly tell us what
    policies and reforms the Federal Government should promote?
        Ms. Woog. Yes, absolutely. I mentioned some local reforms
    that we're seeing that I think are exciting. I think that
    there's experimentation happening on the local level that the
    Federal Government could play a role in supporting. So, for
    example, text message reminders, redesign of court forms. Most
    people don't know that they have options besides paying a full
    amount--which they do under the law in Texas. They have options
    for waiver reduction, our community service law allows people
    to do self-improvement work as part of community service. So,
    taking college classes and that kind of thing.
        So, we really think that encouraging people on the front
    end to help resolve their debt could help take care of a lot of
    the problems that we're seeing on the back end. I think that
    the Federal Government has a role to play in supporting that
    kind of experimentation. It's actually pretty low cost and once
    it gets started, can kind of keep up without needing these
    additional grant funding over and over, as people have
    mentioned.
        Ms. Bush. Thank you. I yield back.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. We thank you for your questioning to Madam
    Vice Chair, and to your contributions to the Committee. Now,
    it's my privilege to yield five minutes to the Ranking Member
    of this Committee, Mr. Biggs.
        Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate that. Mr.
    Head, Congress has gotten in the bad habit of using grants to
    force its preferred policies on states when the Federal
    Government does not have the constitutional authority to
    mandate that States act. This would be one of those areas. Do
    you support States addressing issues related to fines and fees?
        Mr. Head. I do support States' efforts, yes.
        Mr. Biggs. Are you aware of any Federal law that prohibits
    States from making these changes?
        Mr. Head. No, sir, there's no Federal prohibition against
    this.
        Mr. Biggs. Are you aware of States acting to make changes
    whether it's in regard to fines, or fees, or victim
    restitution, without Federal coercion?
        Mr. Head. Well, yes sir. We've enumerated several examples
    over the last--particularly five years that this is--the
    performers on the State level are actually accelerating.
        Mr. Biggs. So, for instance, we had one witness just
    testify that 22 states have made changes with regard to
    suspension of driver's license for failure to pay fine--excuse
    me, fees and surcharges?
        Mr. Head. Correct, on the driver's license issues, yes,
    sir.
        Mr. Biggs. Driver's license issues. So, Arizona and Oregon
    did that?
        Mr. Head. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Biggs. Arkansas--limited situations in which court can
    suspend the person's license. California has acted in some
    ways. Colorado, Delaware, Idaho, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland,
    Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oklahoma,
    and within Seattle, Washington's municipal courts--have all
    engaged and acted as well as Texas, Maryland, New York, Utah,
    and Virginia on these types of issues?
        Mr. Head. Yes, sir. That's right. It's literally coast to
    coast at this point.
        Mr. Biggs. Yes, and were any of them mandated to do so by
    the Federal Government?
        Mr. Head. Not to my knowledge, no, sir.
        Mr. Biggs. In fact, we talked--I wasn't going to bring this
    up, but we talked about civil RICO statutes earlier today. My
    home state, Arizona, now requires a conviction before
    proceeding on civil asset forfeiture, which is a huge, huge
    departure from the civil asset forfeiture realm today. So,
    that's very interesting.
        One thing that I have found somewhat troubling today, as a
    guy who practiced in this field for many years, tried hundreds
    of cases and dealt with this issue is the conflation of fines
    with fees and surcharges and victim restitution. So, I want to
    briefly make sure we all understand what's being said and the
    delineation that goes on here.
        So, Professor Foster, for instance, mentioned that in
    California there might--if you have $100 traffic ticket, it
    might get ratcheted up by--that's the fine, it might get
    ratcheted by an additional $390, is that what you said
    Professor Foster? In my home State it's about--I want to say
    you could get whacked on an additional 120 bucks or more.
    Somewhere in that neighborhood. So, you get a fine of $100, you
    get $120 surcharge that's the vernacular we use, but it's the
    same thing as the fee is the surcharge is it's going to a whole
    host of things.
        We haven't talked about the victims of crimes because there
    are some of the things we're talking about, there really is no
    apparent victim. You're dealing with actually a punitive fine,
    and you're dealing with some kind of--not restitution, but some
    kind of a fee or surcharge that's good--being disseminated,
    whether it's ostensibly to help police functions, police
    equipment, or court deferral of costs. In Arizona there's even
    a very small portion that goes to the State General Fund, for
    Pete sakes.
        So, you have massive--this structure of fees and local
    jurisdictions are setting up, the states are setting up. We
    haven't talked about victims' restitution and the impact that
    has. I raise that because to my way of thinking, part of what
    the justice system should be focused on is to make sure that an
    innocent victim of crime is made as whole as possible. That
    could be a problem as well. So, is there anything that you know
    of, Mr. Head, that deals with Federal mandates with regard to
    how States administer victims' restitution programs?
        Mr. Head. To my knowledge there aren't Federal mandates on
    the restitution. I mean, there are certainly Federal grants
    that are oriented--it's certainly VOCA and VAWA are
    overwhelmingly devoted in that direction.
        Mr. Biggs. Right.
        Mr. Head. Those have grown significantly over the last
    decades. It's been frankly a little bit--mixed results as to
    whether those funds are disseminated truly to victims or if
    they're disseminated to sort of peripheral services that may
    not truly be delivered to victims.
        Mr. Biggs. Yes, I do think that that needs to be cleaned up
    and looked at as well. So, I mentioned in my opening statement,
    Madam Chair, that I do think this is an issue that needs to be
    addressed. One of the things that we're seeing is that many of
    the States are actually undertaking to address these issues
    without the interference of the Federal Government. I would
    like to see us let that go a while longer. I prefer to see
    State action. I am a big believer in Federalism. I believe that
    we have very limited jurisdiction and that's why we end up
    saying, well, let's do a grant program or find some way to
    incentivize. Whereas I think the states, with the help of some
    of the folks up there who are advocating within the states.
    States are responding and that's where I'd like to see this go.
    With that, Madam Chair, thank you for holding the hearing today
    and letting me take some time. I yield back.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. The Ranking Member--thank you for your
    important contribution to this hearing. Thank you for your
    inquiry and ask of consideration. Let me also thank the Members
    of our Committee, Mr. Nadler as the Chair, Ms. Bass, Ms.
    Demings, McBath, Dean, Scanlon, Cicilline, Lieu, Correa,
    Escobar, and Cohen have been very helpful in many of the
    aspects of our work. To thank those who are present--Ms.
    Spartz, Ms. Gohmert, the Gentleman from Wisconsin, and Mr.
    Biggs and Mr. Steube--thank you for your very constructive
    participation as well. Let me ask unanimous consent to place in
    the record a letter from the National Legal Aide and Defender
    Associations testimony against HB 3413, the Murr. Emily Culp,
    Advocacy Fellow, Texas Fair Defense Project, testimony in
    support of HB 2441 and HB 117; Emily Culp, Advocacy Fellow,
    Texas Fair Defense Project, testimony in support of HB 162,
    Fernando Martinez. Tip of the iceberg how much criminal fees
    the United States really have in fines and fees justice? The
    price of justice fines, fees, and the criminalization of
    poverty in the United States, University of Miami Race and
    Social Justice Law Review. Judge Foster, the Steep Cost of
    Criminal Justice Fees and Fines, the Brenna Center of Justice.
    Let me thank the--I ask unanimous consent and here so ordered
    to be in the record.
        [The information follows:]

                         MS. JACKSON LEE FOR THE RECORD

    =======================================================================

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Biggs. Madam Chair, I have one request for unanimous
    consent.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Then you are yielded to.
        Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Madam Chair. We have a letter from
    someone named Vikrant Reddy. I've asked that it be admitted
    without objection.
        [The information follows:]

                            MR. BIGGS FOR THE RECORD

    =======================================================================

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Jackson Lee. Without objection? So, ordered. Let me
    indicate that this hearing, A Fine Scheme, How Court-Imposed
    Fees and Fines Unjustly Burden Vulnerable Communities, is a
    very important hearing. I do want to acknowledge with a great
    deal of appreciation the signing, Mr. Ranking Member, of the
    Victims of Crime Act 6, which really should speak to all of us
    who as we are facing a surge of crime across America--we are
    all trying to determine and discern its cause and that we are
    taking care of our victims, including in that are victims of
    crime in the Federal Victims of Crime Act and it also helps to
    bolster victim crime funds in the States. Gives a certain
    amount of requirements in a county. It also includes human
    trafficking. What it does is it opens the Victim Crime Fund of
    the Federal Government to receive dollars from settlements,
    restitution, and other equitable fines.
        In the Federal system there is a limited number of
    juveniles, as we have said--even though the Federal Government
    carries a big stick, they are basically not engaged in those
    kinds of fines and equitable relief and settlement. Those are
    mostly corporate crimes. I think it is important for us, in
    this hearing, to announce that victims are our concern and the
    conversations that we're having are separate and apart from
    what is being done with these fees and fines as it relates to
    victims. We do not choose here to undermine any efforts to be
    able to make victims whole. That is evident by the Federal law
    that we just had the privilege of having signed into law as a
    bill that Mr. Nadler, m,e and others carried--and was supported
    with great support in the United States Senate.
        So, that is what we want to leave behind. Victims are not
    to be deprived or suffer. We must recognize the cases like Ms.
    Soto and the sacrifice she's made for her children. I do want
    to acknowledge that, as I thank all of the witnesses--Judge
    Foster, thank you so much for a very important contribution,
    Ms. Soto, as a mom and certainly as someone who has touched our
    heart. We wish your children the best understanding of your
    sacrifice, and we certainly thank your son for his sacrifice.
    If we could, we would say, love, love, love in your family
    because you are certainly our hero for coming here and telling
    your story. We thank you so very, very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Head, for an important perspective and thank
    you, Professor Harris, for your contributions as well, and Ms.
    Woog for highlighting Texas and what states do. We will now
    proceed--excuse me. This concludes today's hearing. Thank you
    to all our distinguished witnesses for attending and all our
    Members. This hearing is now adjourned.
        [Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record
    at 12:27 p.m.]

                                    APPENDIX

    =======================================================================

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]