[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
REIMAGINING PUBLIC SAFETY IN THE
COVID-19 ERA
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,
AND HOMELAND SECURITY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 2022
----------
Serial No. 117-58
----------
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
48-067 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
AMY RUTKIN, Majority Staff Director and Chief of Staff
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
KEENAN KELLER, Chief Counsel
JASON CERVENAK, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Tuesday, March 8, 2022
Page
OPENING STATEMENTS
The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, Chair of the Subcommittee on
Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security from the State of Texas 2
The Honorable Andy Biggs, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on
Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security from the State of
Arizona........................................................ 28
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the Committee on the
Judiciary from the State of New York........................... 29
The Honorable Jim Jordan, Ranking Member of the Committee on the
Judiciary from the State of Ohio............................... 37
WITNESSES
Panel I
The Honorable Nicholas W. Brown, U.S. Attorney for the Western
District of Washington
Oral Testimony................................................. 39
Prepared Statement............................................. 42
Panel II
The Honorable Sylvester Turner, Mayor, City of Houston
Oral Testimony................................................. 86
Prepared Statement............................................. 89
Thomas Abt, Chair, Violent Crime Working Group, Senior Fellow,
Council on Criminal Justice
Oral Testimony................................................. 94
Prepared Statement............................................. 96
Edgardo ``Eddie'' Garcia, Chief of Police, Dallas Police
Department
Oral Testimony................................................. 105
Prepared Statement............................................. 108
Madeline Brame, Chair, NYS Victims Rights Reform Council
Oral Testimony................................................. 117
Prepared Statement............................................. 119
Charles Fain Lehman, Fellow, Manhattan Institute for Policy
Research, Contributing Editor, City Journal
Oral Testimony................................................. 122
Prepared Statement............................................. 124
The Honorable Satana Deberry, District Attorney, Durham County,
North Carolina
Oral Testimony................................................. 129
Prepared Statement............................................. 131
Jerika L. Richardson, Senior Vice President, Equitable Justice &
Strategic Initiatives, National Urban League
Oral Testimony................................................. 134
Prepared Statement............................................. 136
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Materials 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
A fact sheet entitled, ``Policing, Violence, and Criminal
Justice Reform,'' NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund... 6
A report entitled, ``Descriptive Analysis of Homicide Trends in
61 Major U.S. Cities, 2015-2021,'' NAACP Legal Defense and
Educational Fund............................................. 12
Statement from the Honorable Eric Adams, Mayor, City of New York,
submitted by the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the
Committee on the Judiciary from the State of New York for the
record......................................................... 32
An article entitled, ``The White House's slipshod claim that
Republicans are defunding the police,'' The Washington Post,
submitted by the Honorable Scott Fitzgerald, a Member of the
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security from
the State of Wisconsin for the record.......................... 68
Materials 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
An article entitled, ``White House Fact-Checked over Bogus
Claim on GPO Defunding Police,'' National Review............. 74
An article entitled, ``Scott falsely accuses GOP of defunding
police,'' PolitiFact......................................... 76
A letter from Peter S. Hyun, Acting Assistant Attorney General,
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.............................. 82
Materials 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
An article entitled, ``Budget deal cuts Philadelphia police
funding while increasing spending on housing and education,''
ABC 6 Action News............................................ 145
The police budget from the Budget Office, City of Philadelphia. 149
An article entitled, ``PolitiFact VA: No, Republicans Didn't
Vote to `Defund the Police,' '' VPM.......................... 150
APPENDIX
A transcript of a bail application for The People of the State of
New York vs. Mary Saunders, submitted by Madeline Brame, Chair,
NYS Victims Rights Reform Council for the record............... 180
A report entitled, ``Toolkit: 21 Pillars for Redefining Public
Safety and Restoring Community Trust,'' National Urban League,
submitted by Jerika L. Richardson, Senior Vice President,
Equitable Justice & Strategic Initiatives, National Urban
League for the record.......................................... 188
Materials 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
An article entitled, ``The Who-Cares-If-You're-Innocent
Project,'' The Atlantic...................................... 361
An article entitled, ``Revealed in court: 9-year-old
accidentally shot, killed by robbery victim lost life over
$20, prosecutors say,'' KPRC Click2Houston................... 371
An article entitled, ``Houston Announces $44 Million Plan to
Tackle Violent Crime,'' US News.............................. 376
A report entitled, ``Want to reduce violence? Invest in
place,'' Brookings........................................... 380
An article entitled, ``Houston to Hire More Police, Park
Rangers to Tackle Violent-Crime Wave,'' CityLab.............. 391
An article entitled, ``The Patriot Act Wasn't Meant to Target
Parents,'' Wall Street Journal, submitted by the Honorable Jim
Jordan, Ranking Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from
the State of Ohio.............................................. 393
REIMAGINING PUBLIC SAFETY IN THE COVID-19 ERA
----------
Tuesday, March 8, 2022
House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sheila Jackson
Lee [Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Nadler, Jackson Lee, Bass,
Dean, Scanlon, Bush, Cicilline, Lieu, Escobar, Cohen, Jordan,
Biggs, Chabot, Tiffany, Massie, Fitzgerald, and Owens.
Staff present: John Doty, Senior Advisor and Deputy Staff
Director; David Greengrass, Senior Counsel; Moh Sharma,
Director of Member Services and Outreach & Policy Advisor;
Cierra Fontenot, Chief Clerk; Keenan Keller, Chief Counsel;
Mauri Gray, Deputy Chief Counsel for Crime; Nicole Banister,
Counsel for Crime; Veronica Eligan, Professional Staff Member/
Legislative Aide for Crime; Ella Yates, Minority Member
Services Director; Jason Cervenak, Minority Chief Counsel for
Crime; Ken David, Minority Counsel; Caroline Nabity, Minority
Senior Counsel; Andrea Woodard, Minority Professional Staff
Member; 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 Committee at any time.
Good morning, and welcome to today's hearing on reimagining
public safety in the COVID-19 era. I would like to remind the
Members that we have established an email address and
distribution list to circulate exhibits, motions, or other
written materials that the 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 the Members and
staff as quickly as we can.
I would also ask all Members, both those in person and
those attending remotely, to please mute your microphones when
you're not speaking. This will help prevent feedback and other
technical issues. You may unmute yourself anytime you seek
recognition.
Due to the size of our panels today, I will strictly
enforce the five-minute rule. I'd love to hear all of you
longer because we have a lot to say, but I will strictly
enforce that against all of us.
Before I begin, I'd like to take a moment to note the
passing of Representative James L. Hagedorn of Minnesota, who
passed away on February 17th. His memorial service is being
held today at St. Paul's Lutheran Church in Falls Church,
Virginia.
We will just take a moment of silence in his honor.
[Moment of silence.]
Ms. Jackson Lee. We will accommodate any Members who need
to participate remotely to attend the service.
I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
During today's hearing, the Subcommittee will investigate
the causes of the rise in the rate of violent crime during the
COVID-19 era and the aftermath, and the role of the Federal
government in developing strategies to ensure and enhance
public safety.
After years of falling crime rates, Americans have
witnessed a spike in certain types of crimes. In the last two
years, we have seen a spike in homicides and shootings,
particularly in historically underfunded areas.
The causes of the rise in violent crime are not clear, as
homicide rates increased at the same rate in cities that
adopted criminal justice reform measures as those that did not,
and as many cities grappled with the rise in violent crime--and
rural communities--not all crime is up during the pandemic.
Property crime overall fell 8 percent, led by drops in
burglary and larceny. It appears that the spike in violent
crime coincides with the societal, cultural, and economic
disruptions brought on by the pandemic.
The murder of George Floyd, which toppled already fragile
police community relations, and the ensuing social upheaval
that followed his death and the deaths of others at the hands
of police, statistics show that much of the recent crime wave
involves firearms--guns--which have been a pervasive problem in
America long before the COVID-19 era.
In fact, the weapon of choice for violent criminals is the
gun. In an average year, guns account for, roughly, two-thirds
of homicides. However, in 2020, 77 percent of murders involved
firearms.
Today, more people are carrying guns in America legally and
illegally than ever. Fueled by politics and anxieties brought
on by the pandemic, firearm sales have surged along with police
recovery of illegal firearms.
Firearms are stolen from legal gun owners who leave them in
places unstored. Americans purchased approximately 19 million
firearms last year, down 12.5 percent from 2020, according to
several industry estimates.
The year 2021 was still the industry's second busiest year
on record. More guns lead to more shootings. With so many guns
around they're more likely to be used in violent acts.
Their presence makes it more likely that thieves can steal
them to commit other crimes and that arguments or fights will
escalate out of control, as has been happening across the
nation, and families have been shooting each other. Friends
have been shooting each other and lead to unexpected
consequences like the senseless death of nine-year-old Arlene
Alvarez last month in Houston by a robbery victim who thought
he was shooting in the vehicle--at the vehicle of the person
who robbed him. He should not have done that, and he killed a
precious nine-year-old. He was not the police. He didn't know
that the person who had robbed him had gotten in, and it was
for a mere $20. He should be held accountable.
Because of the prevalence of guns in our streets, we cannot
discuss the rise in violence without mentioning common sense
strategies to effectively reduce gun violence across the
country, such as closing background check loopholes, doing away
with permitless carry, addressing unregulated do-it-yourself
ghost guns and strengthening gun laws that allow guns to be
trafficked from State to State.
Of course, community intervention programs should be
uplifted, as they provide support to those who are at the
highest risk of being victims or perpetrators of both--of
violence, and it helps both police and those communities as
they try to reduce crime.
Just as many cities experienced a rise in violent crime
that included murders of police officers, many communities also
saw an increase in use of force by law enforcement officers.
Police shot and killed 1,055 people in 2021, the highest total
number reported since tracking began in 2015.
Incidents of excessive force and racial and religious
profiling committed by police officers disproportionately among
the most marginalized Black and Brown communities reduced
public confidence and trust in law enforcement, which
negatively impacts police legitimacy and increases some
people's willingness to arm themselves and take matters into
their own hands.
I have seen where police and communities have worked
together, turned the corner on this. The admiration is strong,
and the relationship is strong, and they work together to fight
crime. That is what we want to see in our nation.
On the other hand, as I've indicated, strong police
community relationships forged by community programs that build
partnerships between the community and law enforcement and help
reduce crime, like the Hartford Police Athletic and Activities
League that provides youth with alternatives to violence, gang
membership, truancy, and substance abuse, and like my own
city--Chief Finner and the Houston Police Department where
police officers are out during Halloween, Christmas,
Thanksgiving, working with families who are in need.
That is how we try to work together. Even as we try to
recover from the past two years, the lasting impacts of COVID-
19 on public health and safety are evident and cannot be solved
by law enforcement and the criminal justice system alone.
Decades of under investment in communities that are
primarily experiencing increased violence have created
concentrated areas of disadvantage, poverty, and instability,
which were only compounded by the uncertainty of the COVID-19
pandemic, the loss of vital social services, such as gun
violence intervention programs and easy availability of
firearms.
Reimagining and ensuring public health and safety require
effective policing practices, investment in community
resources, and collaboration and trust between law enforcement
and the communities they police through policies that support
transparency and accountability.
Local leaders throughout the country are working to develop
and implement strong public safety initiatives that balanced
the need for law enforcement with the need for community
investment collaboration.
Congress can support their efforts and incentivize states
and localities in developing traditional and additional
evidence-based tools that focus on prevention and intervention.
For instance, last year, Representative Lizzie Fletcher and
myself were able to secure $975,000 in Byrne Justice Assistance
Grant funding for the Houston Police Department to employ nine
crime victim advocates that provide trauma-informed support for
victims of violent crimes.
We would like to see it end, but we cannot forget those
victims who are in need on these issues. The United States has
historically funneled billions into punitive criminal justice
policy, flooding local law enforcement with military grade
weapons and incentivizing mass incarceration instead of looking
for solutions that will eliminate the conditions in which crime
breeds.
At this juncture, we must not return to antiquated thinking
of tough on crime laws that led to over policing, mass
incarceration, and the devastation of impacted communities.
Expanding our idea of what constitutes public safety is key
to keeping our communities safe, to community-driven solutions
carefully tailored to meet each community's specific needs.
I look forward to hearing from the Witnesses and hope we
have a constructive conversation that helps us find solutions
to the current wave of violence, which must end.
Without objection, I submit into the record the following
documents: A fact sheet entitled ``Policing, Violence, and
Criminal Justice Reform'' and a report entitled ``Descriptive
Analysis of Homicide Trends in 61 Major U.S. Cities,'' both
from the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the
reduction of crime program by the city of Houston authored by
the mayor, Mayor Turner, of the city of Houston.
Without objection.
[The information follows:]
MS. JACKSON LEE FOR THE RECORD
=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Jackson Lee. I now recognize the gentleman from
Arizona, Mr. Biggs, for his opening statement.
Mr. Biggs. I thank the Chair.
Recently, our colleague and friend, Jim Hagedorn, a
Republican from Minnesota, passed away. His memorial service is
this morning. I appreciate that we had a moment of silence on
his behalf and appreciate the Chair for that.
I believe this hearing would have been better served if we
would have continued this, especially since most of our
Witnesses will be appearing via Zoom just out of respect for
the family, friends who--of Congressman Hagedorn.
I am appreciative of this hearing--the topic of this
hearing, and I am sincere when I say that. About eight months
ago, my Republican colleagues and I on this Subcommittee, wrote
you a letter requesting a hearing on the dangerous calls by
some on the left to defund the police and other progressive
policies that correlate to rising crime.
This is a very serious issue that deserves this
Subcommittee's full attention. Last month, I, along with my
Republican colleagues, sent the Chair a letter requesting the
Subcommittee hold a hearing to investigate the recent reports
that ICE released an illegal alien with ties to terrorism from
custody because he might catch COVID-19.
That's an outrageous policy decision. This Subcommittee
should immediately hold a hearing on the matter and I, again,
renew my call for that hearing and I look forward to working
with the Chair to schedule that hearing.
Turning our attention to this hearing today, we see crime
rates, particularly, violent crime rates, going up all around
the country. I fear that this hearing is nothing more than an
election year attempt by my colleagues to deflect attention
away from those in the party who have vocally championed the
defund police movement as well as other progressive policies,
which will be discussed today.
Let's hope this hearing can shed light on why defunding the
police is a dangerous idea with deadly results. As some on the
left have called for defunding the police and some
jurisdictions actually did defund their police departments,
violent crime has surged to levels not seen in years.
In the last two years, the United States has seen a spike
in violent crime. In 2020, the U.S. tallied more than 21,000
murders, the highest totals since 1995, and 4,900 more than in
2019.
The number of murders in the U.S. jumped by nearly 30
percent. It was the largest single year increase ever recorded
in the country, and some have blamed exclusively the COVID
lockdowns.
While this was going on, jurisdictions across America were
also actually defunding their police departments with
disastrous results.
In New York City, for instance, in what PD's data shows
their overall crime rate rose 11.2 percent in October 2021
compared to October 2020. That jump in crime continued after
New York City defunded its police department by a billion
dollars.
In L.A. County, homicides increased 23 percent from 555 in
2020 to 683 in 2021. The increased homicide rate occurred after
Los Angeles defunded its police department by $150 million.
Intentional killings of law enforcement officers reached a
20-year high in 2021. It would have been an all-time high since
the FBI began tracking the data in 1995, but for the attacks on
September 11th.
In total, 73 officers were feloniously killed last year.
Three hundred and forty-six officers were shot last year. More
worrisome is the fact that many of these shootings occurred
ambush style, meaning that the officers were shot without
warning or an opportunity to defend themselves. These types of
attacks were up 115 percent in the last year.
Philadelphia saw nearly a 13 percent increase in homicides
from 2020-2021. In 2020, Philadelphia suffered 499 homicides
while 563 were reported in 2021. Philadelphia decided to cut
its police budget by $33 million in 2020. Portland, Oregon,
also suffered a drastic increase in homicides from 2020-2021.
In 2020, Portland suffered 53 homicides and endured 87 in
2021. It also reported 3,409 aggravated assaults in 2021, an
increase over 2,726 in 2020. Portland also decided to defund
its police department in 2020 by $16 million.
No one should be surprised that violent crime explodes when
jurisdictions significantly reduce the funding of police or
implement progressive policies that favor defendants over
victims and the community.
Despite these troubling trends, our colleagues still
advocate for defunding the police.
Madam Chair, I have a video I'd like to finish my statement
with.
[Video shown]
Mr. Biggs. No, there's--that's not it.
I thought we allowed the Chair almost two full minutes
beyond the five-minutes time and I'm surprised that--
Ms. Jackson Lee. The Chair--and the let the preceding--the
Chair and Ranking Member's time on their opening statement is
different from their five minutes. So, can you get it--your
technology together so we can finish it, please?
Mr. Biggs. I think there was just about 15 seconds left.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Great. We'll let you--if you can get your
technology. Otherwise, we'll--
Can the staff--the gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I would be happy to let it continue, Mr.
Ranking Member.
Mr. Biggs. There's 15 seconds left. That's all.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Yeah. If they pop up, I'll be happy to--
Mr. Biggs. I hope it doesn't interrupt anybody's
conversation, Madam Chair. Thank you.
Ms. Jackson Lee. All right.
I am pleased now to yield five minutes and recognize the
gentleman from New York, the Chair of the Full Committee, Mr.
Nadler, for his opening statement.
Chair Nadler. Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this very
important hearing on public safety.
As the epidemic of gun violence continues to impact our
cities and communities, I look forward to discussing how the
Federal government can more effectively assist State and local
leaders to address violent crime and invest in community
safety. I am also grateful to have a large panel of expert
Witnesses who can tell us what is truly driving the current
increase in violent crime that many cities are reporting.
Our Witnesses can also inform this Committee on effective
strategies to reduce gun violence and other violent crime and
how the Federal government can best support and enhance local
initiatives to improve public safety.
After years of crime rates continuing to fall, 2020 and
2021 saw significant increases in certain types of crime,
specifically, homicides, and other gun crimes.
While homicide rates remain well below historic peaks in
the 1990s, according to research from the Council on Criminal
Justice, the number of homicides in 2021 in a 27 major city
study increased by 5 percent in 2020, and by 44 percent from
2019.
This increase in violent crime coincides with the economic
and social upheaval caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Just as stay at home orders impacted all areas of American
life, the stress of the pandemic, as well as the closure of
many diversions from conflict including after school programs
and violence interrupter initiatives, has resulted in an
increased instability and the need to improve public safety.
Violent crime is an issue that affects every community, and
we need community-driven responses to address it. We know that
law enforcement alone cannot solve the problem of violent
crime, and ensuring public safety requires both effective law
enforcement practices and investment in community resources and
support systems.
In 2021, there was, also, a record number of individuals
shot and killed by law enforcement officers. This deeply
troubling statistic emphasizes that there continues to be a
need for law enforcement accountability and changes to
policing. We know that this need for reform is not at odds with
the need to address the rise in violence.
Without accountability, communities lack trust in law
enforcement and officers are unable to do their jobs
effectively. The confluence of the pandemic's impact on crime
and the public outcry for changes to policing in cities across
the country demonstrates the need for a reexamination of
national policy on public safety and the role of the Federal
government in program development.
I thank the Chair for holding this important hearing. I
look forward to discussing these and other issues with our
panel today.
Before I yield back, I ask unanimous consent to insert the
statement of Mayor Eric Adams of New York into the record.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
MR. 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. The gentleman yields back.
It is now my pleasure to recognize the Ranking Member of
the Full Committee, the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Jordan.
Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Madam Chair.
So, the title of today's hearing is reimagining public
safety--reimagining public safety in the COVID era. Just what
Americans need is more imagination from Democrats. Democrats
reimagined the border over the last year.
We went from a secure border to complete chaos. We went--in
one year's time we saw 2 million illegal immigrants enter the
border as a result of the Democrat's reimagination on the
border.
Democrats reimagined energy policy. In one year's time, we
went from $2-$4 gas. Actually, it's $7 in California. We went
from energy independence to the President of the United States
begging OPEC to increase production, talking with the Saudis,
talking within Venezuela, and talking with Iran, now.
Democrats reimagined inflation. We went from stable prices
to a 40-year high inflation rate. Democrats reimagined science.
For a year, 5-year-olds had to wear a mask in school. That is,
of course, when they let kids actually go to school.
Democrats sure reimagined public safety. We went from safe
streets to record crime in every major urban area in this
country.
I would argue that America needs a little less imagination
from Democrats and maybe a little common sense. I mean, think
about it. When you defund the police, you probably shouldn't be
surprised when you get more crime. When you don't prosecute bad
guys, you probably shouldn't be surprised when you get more
crime.
When rioters and looters for a full summer are called
peaceful protesters, you probably shouldn't be surprised when
you get more crime.
When the Chair of the Judiciary Committee says Antifa is a
myth, you probably shouldn't be surprised when you get more
crime. When you get rid of bail, you probably shouldn't be
surprised when you get more crime.
When you enact dumb policies--imagine this--you get bad
results. When you think about what happened in the last year
and a half in almost every major urban area--Baltimore cut
their police department $22 million; Boston $12 million;
Minneapolis cut theirs $8 million; New York City cut their
police department $1 billion; Philadelphia $33 million cut;
Portland $15 million cut; Seattle $69 million; Chicago $80
million, and on and on it goes.
Guess what? In every single one of those urban areas, crime
went up. Imagine that. Imagine that.
Yeah, I don't know if we need any more imagination from
Democrats. What we need is more cops on the street, not
disparaging cops who bust their tail, put on the uniform, go
protect our neighborhoods every night.
Less imagination, more cops on the street, more prosecutors
who will actually put bad guys in jail. Maybe just a stop to
all the crazy policies.
One of our colleagues introduced a bill, No Money Bail
Act--just getting rid of it. I don't think Democrats want to do
the commonsense thing. They want to do what that video just
talked about. They want to defund the police. They've said it
time and time again.
Representative Jones--the department must be dismantled and
policing reimagined.Representative Jayapal--we need to shift
significant resources from law enforcement to other places.
Representative Omar--we need to completely dismantle the
Minneapolis Police Department. Representative Bush just one
week ago said, we should--the same night--the same night that
the President said they should fund the police, Representative
Bush said, now we should defund the police. Chair Nadler
himself said, just a year and a half ago there should be
substantial cuts to the police budget. That's what they've
said. That makes no sense.
The American people get it. All this reimagination from
Democrats has been a disaster in every single policy area--
energy, crime, inflation, the border, you name it. Americans
want safe streets, they want affordable gas, and they want
freedom. Democrats have given us record crime, record
inflation, and Dr. Fauci.
So, I hope today's hearing will allow the Judiciary
Committee, in particular, this Subcommittee on Crime, to begin
to focus back in on common sense policies that work for the
American families and the American people. That's what I hope
is the result of this hearing.
With that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Jackson Lee. The gentleman yields back.
It is now my pleasure to introduce the Witness for the
first panel. The Honorable Nicholas W. Brown is the U.S.
Attorney for the Western District of Washington.
He previously served as an assistant United States attorney
in western Washington handling a wide variety of criminal cases
and as general counsel to Governor Jay Inslee.
Most recently, he was a partner with Pacifica Law Group in
Seattle. U.S. Attorney Brown received his Bachelor of Arts
magna cum laude from Morehouse College in 1999 and his juris
doctorate from Harvard Law in 2002.
An Army veteran, U.S. Attorney Brown also served in the
Judge Advocate General Corps. He was awarded the Bronze Star
Medal in 2005.
We welcome our distinguished Witness, and we thank you for
your participation. I will begin by swearing in our Witness. I
ask you to turn on your audio and make sure that I can see your
face and raise your right hand as I administer the oath.
Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the
testimony you're about to give is true and correct to the best
of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God?
Mr. Brown. I do.
Ms. Jackson Lee. The Witness has indicated in the
affirmative. Thank you very much.
Please note that your written testimony will be entered
into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, I ask that you
summarize your testimony in five minutes. To help you stay
within that time frame there is a timing light on your table
and on your screen. When the light switches from green to
yellow, you'll have one minute to conclude your testimony. When
the light turns red, it signals that your five minutes have
expired.
We're delighted to have you, U.S. Attorney Brown.
For five minutes you're now recognized. Thank you so very
much.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE NICHOLAS W. BROWN
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Chair Jackson Lee, Ranking Member
Biggs, and distinguished Members of the Committee for the
opportunity to speak with you today. I am pleased to be here to
discuss the Department of Justice's efforts to work together
with communities to address violent crime.
My name is Nick Brown. I began my career with the
department in 2007 as an Assistant United States Attorney and I
am proud to be serving that same district now as United States
Attorney.
Addressing violent crime is one of the top priorities of
the department. To tackle these challenges, we must leverage
the significant power of the community relationships to reduce
gun violence and violent crime.
That is why the department--
Ms. Jackson Lee. We're working to--excuse me.
I'm sorry, Mr. Brown. Your volume is not up. If you can
help us on your side and we're going to try to help on your
side, and we will give you extra time for our interruption.
If you can turn your volume up, if you have that capacity,
and we're turning our volume up. We need to be able to hear you
a little better. If you suspend just for a moment.
Mr. Brown, you can start again. Thank you.
Mr. Brown. Thank you. That is why the department has
highlighted the community violence intervention programs as an
important complementary tool to law enforcement efforts.
These programs have been shown to reduce incidents of
violence by targeting individuals who are most at risk to
commit or become victims of crime with evidence-based and
community informed support.
In my work as U.S. Attorney and throughout my career, I've
had the opportunity to work with Federal, State, tribal, and
local law enforcement officers throughout our communities. The
message that I have received from law enforcement officers in
our communities when it comes to violent crime has been clear
and consistent, that they cannot solve the issue of violent
crime alone.
Partnership between law enforcement and our communities is
vital to this enduring change. That is why in May of 2021, the
department announced its comprehensive strategy for reducing
violence. That strategy calls for active engagement with
communities and organizations that we serve through prevention
and intervention strategies, including CVI programs.
In my district, we lean into community-based partnerships
as much as possible. In our experience, community-centered
evidence-based programs often improve public safety and reduce
violence by reaching broader audiences than law enforcement
communities can do on its own.
Let me give you some examples of the work that we're doing
here in Washington State. We partner with a variety of
community groups that are working to prevent violence,
especially among our youth. These organizations help us
identify the drivers of the crimes in our communities, which in
turn informs how to best use the Federal tools at our disposal.
Much of the work that CVI centers on addressing and healing
the generational trauma of poverty, childhood exposure to
violence, lack of educational and employment opportunities, and
racism.
Our community partners identify those young people most at
risk of being involved in gang and gun violence, and working on
messaging to combat negative influences and assistance with
trauma counseling, housing, education, and employment.
The department supported a recent partnership in our
district between the Kent Police Department in King County,
Washington, and a community organization by providing grant
funding from the department's Project Safe Neighborhoods
program.
This partnership implemented night walks to provide
consistent presence at an intersection that had experienced
high rates of violent crime and gun violence. That program,
built upon recommendations from the community itself, resulted
in a significant impact--a reduction in violent crime.
Examples like these demonstrate that by supporting
community Members and healing their own communities does not
supplant the need for law enforcement. Instead, it proactively
helps law enforcement do their jobs better.
The root causes of violence run deep, and we cannot expect
our officers to serve as mental health practitioners, housing
advocates, or substance abuse counselors, although they often
play those roles.
Through leveraging the expertise of community partners, law
enforcement officers can focus on their public safety roles in
our communities without these additional strains on their
resources.
CVI initiatives also recognize that we cannot simply arrest
and incarcerate our way out of violent crime. Ending the cycle
of violence means committing to evidence-based prevention,
intervention, rehabilitation, and reentry.
Many State and local law enforcement entities across the
Nation are also using department funding to support community
policing and innovative CVI initiatives. For fiscal year 2021,
the department awarded grants totaling nearly $440 million to
support a wide variety of violence reduction efforts, including
community-based violence intervention and prevention strategies
used in school violence prevention programs and evidence-based
police and prosecution practices across the country.
The department has made and will continue to make these
important investments to help communities and law enforcement
work together on innovative approaches to help those at high
risk of engaging in or becoming victims of violence.
That is why the President's fiscal year 2222 budget called
for a $200 million investment in CVI strategies through
appropriations that would flow through the department and the
Department of Health and Human Services.
By supporting community-based violence intervention
strategies in alignment and in coordination with Federal and
local law enforcement, these funds will save lives to promote
safer and healthier communities.
Thank you again for your time and attention of this
Committee to this crucial issue. I look forward to answering
your questions and continuing to work with you.
[The statement of Mr. Brown follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman
yields back.
To begin with questions--and I recognize myself for five
minutes--let me start immediately with the question of what are
the most significant drivers of gun violence and how is the DOJ
focusing on the most significant drivers of gun violence?
Mr. Brown?
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Chair.
There are a number of different influences on our crime and
our crime in our communities, including gun violence, and it is
difficult to pinpoint a single driver to any of these
incidences.
Some of the issues that were highlighted by the Chair in
her opening remarks, certainly, address some of the causes.
We have seen an increase in crime and gun violence crime,
in particular, beginning in 2020 and continuing until today,
some of that, undoubtedly, influenced by the pandemic, some of
that influenced by strains in the community policing resources.
There's just a variety of number of factors that contribute to
the rise in crime.
In the communities that I serve here in the Western
District of Washington, which spans the border from Canada down
to Oregon, we have seen violent crime erupt in new areas.
We have seen a doubling of road rage incidents and
shootings in the city of Seattle in the last year. We have seen
a rise in shootings in homeless encampments that we hadn't
experienced previously.
One of the principal differences for me as a United States
Attorney and seeing how this district has changed before when I
served here previously is that we're just seeing firearm
possession of so many different people.
We used to be able to target and pinpoint the people that
are most likely to be carrying firearms and using firearms
illegally. Now, it seems like almost everyone that law
enforcement encounters is carrying a firearm. The prevalence of
firearms in our community is a significant driver as well.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I've worked with the major city chiefs of
police, and I have heard them understand how important engaging
with the community is. We call it police community
relationships, and how important it is to have the right kind
of interaction with the community.
I'm going to cite a number of points: De-escalation, duty
to care, reduction of excessive force, reforming the no-knock
warrants, and ending choke holds. Would any of that would
hamper police officers' ability to serve their public and to
ensure the safety of the public?
Mr. Brown. No, I do not believe any of those efforts hamper
law enforcement.
Ms. Jackson Lee. So, those aspects of good policing could,
in fact, improve a community cooperation and information
gathering?
Mr. Brown. What I hear from the law enforcement leaders in
my district is they really are trying to build trust with the
communities that they serve, and the more programs and policies
that they adopt to help foster trust helps them to do their job
better as law enforcement leaders.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Would you say that many of the DOJ-funded
programs like the ones you mentioned in your written statement
do, in fact, work?
What evidence do you have that DOJ--funded programs work
and how much do they work as it relates to ending the
proliferation of illegal guns?
It's a bifurcated question--regular programs and then their
programs dealing with ending proliferation of illegal guns.
Mr. Brown. So, there is a specific study that I cited in my
written testimony and I know that there are other academic
studies specifically addressing the impact of CVI programs.
What I lean on here is what I hear from my law enforcement
partners. I talk to police chiefs and sheriffs quite often and
they can tell me about the success stories that they've had
partnering with specific organizations.
When I see direct results of someone who has been at high
risk of violence or directly tied to prior acts of violence,
and that individual gets a job, continues an education, gets
stable housing, that type of success story is also very
important to me in showing that certain programs work and
others that may not work.
So, those are the types of data that I rely on as a United
States Attorney. Addressing firearm trafficking is incredibly
difficult.
As the Chair noted in her opening remarks, what we're
seeing here in terms of the proliferation of firearms in the
possession of people that law enforcement officers are
encountering, which puts law enforcement directly at risk
themselves, is we're just seeing more firearms stolen from
people's homes who lawfully owned firearms.
So, we're just seeing more firearms throughout our streets.
We, of course, as a U.S. Attorney, focus on anything that we
can do to combat trafficking of firearms. What we're seeing
more and more is just firearms in the public's hands because
they've taken them from lawful owners.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me thank you very much. I think that
we will find in this hearing that we will find the pathway to
ensure safety in our streets and accountability in our police
and better police community relationships.
Thank you very much. I yield back.
I am now happy to yield to the gentleman from--the Ranking
Member, Mr. Biggs, for his five minutes.
Mr. Biggs. I thank the gentlelady.
I ask for unanimous consent to allow Mr. Massie, a Member
of this Subcommittee, to yield his time to Mr. Bishop, who is
not a Member of the Subcommittee, but who is a Member of the
entire Judiciary Committee.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Biggs. I thank the Chair.
I thank the U.S. Attorney, Mr. Brown, for being here today.
Attorney General Garland's October 4th, 2021, memorandum
directed DOJ resources to investigate parents directing--and
directed the FBI to work with each U.S. Attorney's Office to
convene meetings with Federal, State, local, tribal, and
territorial leaders in each Federal judicial district within 30
days of the issuance of that memorandum and I was wondering if
you've participated in any meetings convened in response to
the--Attorney General Garland's memorandum.
Mr. Brown. Yes, Congressman. I did convene a meeting in
response to the AG's memorandum.
Mr. Biggs. How many meetings would that be and are they
still occurring?
Mr. Brown. No. We held one meeting. I believe it was in
early November, the combination of Federal and local law
enforcement officers.
Mr. Biggs. So, both Federal and local agencies were
involved?
Mr. Brown. Yes, sir.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you. We received a copy of a memorandum
from the acting U.S. Attorney from Montana to the Montana AG,
all county attorneys, sheriffs, Montana Office of Public
Instruction, the Montana School Boards Association, that
included a summary of, quote, ``Federal statutes that may serve
as a basis for the prosecution of such threats and violent
conduct,'' quote.
Have you drafted or sent or received or seen a memorandum
like that?
Mr. Brown. I'm not familiar with the specific memorandum
that you are referencing, Congressman. I did not draft or send
any similar such memorandum.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you. Your district's main office is in
Seattle, which was, famously, the home of the 2020 Capitol Hill
Autonomous Zone--CHAZ--or Capitol Hill Occupied Protest--CHOP--
a police-free zone formed by activists and anarchists which
descended into violence, open drug use, and multiple shootings.
Do you know how much the crime rate rose in that area
between June 2nd and June 20th of 2020, compared to the
previous year?
Mr. Brown. I do not.
Mr. Biggs. According to Mayor Durkin, crime rose 525
percent in that area. Would that surprise you?
Mr. Brown. Well, Mayor Durkin was previously the United
States Attorney, and I would trust her accounting of it.
Mr. Biggs. Your former boss, Governor Inslee, called the
occupation of city property largely peaceful. There was that
kind of increase in crime. There were two murders, two nonfatal
shootings, and open narcotics use. There were rapes, robberies,
assaults, and gang activity.
That normally wouldn't be described as a largely peaceful
occupation, would it?
Mr. Brown. I'm not familiar with all these specific
incidences of crime, but, certainly, the types of crimes that
you described are very serious and we should take them
seriously.
Mr. Biggs. One of the concerns I had was that the Seattle
Police Department was forced to, essentially, abandon the East
Precinct. My question for you as U.S. Attorney there do you
think that law enforcement should ever be forced to abandon a
precinct?
Mr. Brown. In all decisions that law enforcement officers
make, the local and Federal law enforcement officers that I
work with, I defer to their judgment about how to best respond
to a particular incident.
So, I don't have really specific thoughts on how they
handled that. I trust that they made the decisions that they
thought were best inappropriate there.
Mr. Biggs. Well, you are aware that they were ordered to
leave not by the police chief but by political leaders? Would
that be--change your opinion there?
Mr. Brown. I'm not sure how those decisions were made,
Congressman. What we focus on is how we can best improve
community safety and, as U.S. Attorney from October of 2021, I
want to work with both my local political leaders who make
policy decisions and rely on the guidance from our law
enforcement partners.
Mr. Biggs. According to the Justice Manual, it's the
presumption with certain exceptions that DOJ law enforcement
agencies will electronically record statements by individuals
who are in their custody. Although the manual does not mention
noncustodial interviews, it encourages those types of
recordings to be made.
While it's an important step, would you agree that there's
no accountability for failure to comply with the presumption to
record?
Mr. Brown. I'm actually not sure about what the data shows
and how accountable and how closely people are following those
policies. I am familiar with the Justice Manual's provisions on
that. I don't really have much input or information about how
closely that's being adhered to.
Mr. Biggs. What--well, what directions have you given
Federal law enforcement agencies in your district about
recording interviews?
Mr. Brown. I have not given them any updated information
about that policy since I became a United States Attorney.
Mr. Biggs. Okay. Thank you. My time has expired, and I
yield back to the Chair.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Yes, the gentleman's time has expired.
I now yield to the gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler, for
five minutes.
Chair Nadler. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Brown, how is the Department of Justice supporting
State and local enforcement in their efforts to reduce the
number of illegal guns on the streets?
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Congressman.
I know that there are a number of policies that the
department has put out with respect to firearms tracking and
specifically with respect to the production of ghost guns. We,
and previously in my district, have prosecuted a couple of
cases arising from people illegally manufacturing firearms. I'm
not familiar with all the specific programs the department is
engaged in but I'm happy to follow up with you with that
information.
Chair Nadler. Thank you.
Recognizing that a small number of individuals are
responsible for a disproportionate amount of gun crime, what is
the department doing to support local law enforcement in
implementing data-driven policing practices?
Mr. Brown. Having data-driven policies is very important.
We rely on evidence to show what is working and, importantly,
what is not working. So, we provide a number of specific grant-
funding opportunities to law enforcement officers to make sure
that they have the resources that they need to develop the
right database systems to share information with their
officers.
What's a real focus for me here in my district is making
sure that I can do everything I can to collaborate with our law
enforcement officers to make sure we're forming partnerships.
Just last week, I convened a meeting with all the local law
enforcement officers within King County, Washington, which is
our largest county in the district, and we just had a
conversation how we can share resources and information to
develop specific strategies for reducing violent crime in our
district.
Chair Nadler. Thank you.
As you know, law enforcement response alone will not solve
the problem of violent crime. How is the department working
with other Federal agencies to invest in community resources?
Mr. Brown. I appreciate that question because it is
important to highlight that there are a number of partnerships,
we need to develop both with Federal agencies and between
Federal agencies.
In my district, I work with frequently and talk to
frequently the leaders from our major Federal law enforcement
agencies, including the FBI, ATF, HSI, and other agencies to
make sure they are tackling the problems in a strategic
approach and not simply being reactionary, to building those
relationships and partnerships, which is very important.
I am really fortunate. Right now, I think we have a
tremendous collaboration, not only interagency between the
various Federal agencies, but with our local law enforcement
departments.
Chair Nadler. Thank you.
Earlier in this hearing we heard assertions that defunding
the police was a big problem, that people, despite the
President saying we don't want to defund the police, that in
fact, people want to defund the police.
My question to you is, in terms of the problems that we
face in terms of crime, does it make sense in some cases or in
most cases or in a few cases to reallocate resources from
police to, say, mental health or others to work in conjunction
with the police, which will result in a net reduction in crime?
Mr. Brown. In my experience, you can't tackle crime,
including violent crime, with just law enforcement, that you
need additional support and programs to really intervene and
prevent crime from occurring and making sure that we're
breaking the cycle of crime.
As everyone on the Committee undoubtedly knows, people who
are committing crimes are often recommitting and reoffending,
and simply locking up in incarcerating those individuals often
does not solve the problem.
What we have seen is specific results from crime
intervention strategies, providing support, counseling and
mental health, education, housing, all these things that
stabilize individuals and give them the support and resources
to reduce the likelihood that they reoffend again and,
importantly, from my perspective, I hear that from law
enforcement officers themselves as well.
They recognize that they can't do this themselves and they
want to work with community organizations that will help them
interrupt violence and prevent crime from occurring again.
Chair Nadler. So, a reallocation of resources from purely
police-directed resources to resources--combining resources to
the police and to, let's say, mental health agencies and to
others who work with the police might actually result in a
reduction in crime?
Mr. Brown. As I said earlier in my testimony, I think there
are just a myriad of causes of crime, and we have to have
creative and holistic approaches.
So, I think anything that we can do to support both law
enforcement and the types of social support programs that make
people stable and contributing and healthy will also help
reduce crime.
Chair Nadler. Thank you. I have eight seconds left so I
yield back.
Ms. Jackson Lee. The gentleman yields back.
It's now my pleasure to recognize Mr. Chabot for five
minutes.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for
holding this hearing.
Thank you, Mr. Brown, for being available to us today.
In the summer of 2020, as we all know, following the
horrific death of George Floyd many protesters and elected
officials, mostly Democrats, across the country proclaimed that
because Mr. Floyd had died at the hands of a police officer
that it was time to defund the police.
As Mr. Biggs'--the video that was played early this
morning, we saw the very statements from some of those
legislators across the country and some here in Congress.
Now, this hearing this morning by my Democratic colleagues
is cleverly called reimagining police, not defunding police.
Why? Because they're scared to death of being exposed or
being connected with what many of their supporters and some of
their colleagues--some in Congress, some even on this
Committee--really want, and that's not reimagining police.
That's defunding police.
This reimagining term, this ruse is--it's a fairy dust
term. Don't be fooled. In cities across America we did, indeed,
see defunding. Mr. Jordan mentioned a number of those cities.
I've got a list of 21 cities that amount to $1.7 billion--
billion with a B--that they took out of police department funds
all over the country and we have seen the results of that.
We have also seen liberal prosecutors. George Soros was
involved in funding a lot of those campaigns, a lot of other
campaigns across the country and a number of other liberal dark
money groups. My Democratic colleagues like to throw that term
dark money around.
Well, the Democrats have actually been very effective in
electing people in causes with this dark money. Those
prosecutors are an example of that, and they're doing a lot of
damage across this country right now.
They, for the most part, don't prosecute a lot of crimes
that used to be prosecuted all the time across this country.
An example would be shoplifting, which to some people may
not sound like such a terrible crime, but we have seen as a
result of them failing to prosecute--we have seen folks with
sledgehammers rampaging through department stores. We saw them
on television just a couple of months back.
We have also seen the left's relentless campaign to
eliminate cash bail. Let's face it. Criminals commit crimes,
and because of this they're quickly released on low or no bail,
and they're let out on the street and what do they do?
Well, they commit more crimes, and sometimes they murder
people. We have seen that happen as well in this country.
Madam Chair, let me ask you this. I had called for you to
invite the Attorney General and the FBI director to testify
before this Subcommittee to discuss their strategy for
combating the current rise in violence in the country, and I
would, again, ask that--since we haven't thus far, I would,
again, ask you to please invite them here to testify before
this Committee. Would you consider doing that?
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chabot, as you well know, we have
ongoing hearings, ongoing opportunities to engage the
Administration, and what I can assure you is that we will
continue to do that.
Mr. Chabot. I don't know if you answered my question. Would
you invite them to the Committee to testify? That's what I'm
asking.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Again, we have both the Subcommittee and
the Full Committee. These are important questions. I'm glad
that the Chair has clarified the question of police funding, of
working together with community groups and policing.
So, there will be an opportunity to pursue all those issues
by way of invitations to representatives from the
Administration. I think U.S. Attorney Brown is doing a great
job and my answer to you is there are always opportunities for
those individuals to be invited.
Mr. Chabot. Well, that was about as clear as reimagining
the police is. In any event, Mr. Brown, thank you for what you
do for your community.
Let me ask you real quickly--my time is almost out--would
you agree that when you cut resources or funding from police
departments, as has occurred in your community out in Seattle
or in other communities across the country that you're likely
to see an increase in crime, which we have seen and experienced
in this country now for quite some time? Is that logical and
are we seeing it with our own eyes?
Mr. Brown. What I've mentioned earlier, Congressman, is
that we have seen a myriad of different causes that lead to
increases in crime or decreases in crime. Looking at the crime
trends here and other places in the country, we saw a real
increase in crime beginning in 2020, which was before many of
the budget cuts that have been referenced here this morning
took place.
What I do hear from my officers here in my district is that
they need more resources. They want more officers, and so I,
certainly, support their need and understand their perspective
on that.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you. I think my time is expired, Madam
Chair.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I now recognize Ms. Bass for five minutes.
Ms. Bass. Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this hearing.
I thank you for the opportunity to show our constituents not
only that we understand the fear that many feel at this time
but also that we intend to do something about it.
How we go about that in the most effective and meaningful
way is to look not just at the problem before us but also at
the root causes of that problem and, obviously, the problem
before us. We want to do everything we can to make sure that
our communities are safe and to hold people accountable.
As policymakers, we are confronted with choice which we
shouldn't be, and sometimes we are pushed to either adopt
policies that look tough, yet they fail to address the actual
problem, or we think critically and creatively about solving
the problems in our community.
So, that's why I'm particularly grateful to have you before
us, Mr. Brown. I know that you yourself have talked about the
importance of community-oriented solutions, particularly as it
relates to gun violence, and I'm aware that the Justice
Department recently awarded over $15 million to support Project
Safe Neighborhood and that the district that you represent was
a recipient of some of those funds.
I wanted to know if you could talk about this program and
its goals and what you've seen in your own district and also
around the country, if you can share that with us.
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Congressman Bass.
I appreciate you recognizing the importance of the Project
Safe Neighborhoods Program. PSN, as we refer to it as U.S.
Attorneys, is the principal program by which U.S. Attorney
communities implement their violence reduction strategies and
initiatives. It is a program where we work with our local
jurisdictions to identify how we can best bring Federal
resources and Federal cases in communities where there might
also be concurrent local or State jurisdiction. So, every
district has a PSN coordinator that tries to identify those
programs with the local prosecutors' offices where we can best
bring the most appropriate Federal cases.
An important part of the PSN Program is also the grant
funding operations that we support for law enforcement
organizations and community organizations to help them build
out their resources and their infrastructure to address violent
crime and to work with the community. So, in my district, as
you noted, we do fund a number of PSN programs to local law
enforcement agencies, as well as to local community
organizations, as a way to foster their ability to break these
cycles of crimes, as you rightly noted.
Ms. Bass. Do any of the examples of grants to community-
based organizations come to mind? Like what kind of grants were
they? Then, specifically, do any of the community-based
organizations use violence interrupters? Or some communities
call them interventionists. They might have been young people
that had been involved in the problem, but then, start wanting
to give back to the community in a positive way.
Mr. Brown. Yes, absolutely. To the first part of your
question, I referenced a specific program that was funded
through the PSN Program in my testimony, which was a grant to a
community organization and the Kent Police Department. Kent is
a good-sized jurisdiction in my district. With the community
and the Kent Police Department, they were able to provide more
resources to a specific, very targeted area where there had
been a number of violence instances. So, that PSN funding
approved some very important results. The Kent police chief in
that area was very happy and told me about the significant
reduction in violence in that very targeted area.
As you know, what we really need to do is try to get at
some of these root causes. So, there are a number of
organizations that specifically do the type of work that you
reference. The types of individuals that are high risk for
being victims or high risk for offending are often the types of
people that aren't social service seekers.
Ms. Bass. Right.
Mr. Brown. Those aren't people that often work with mental
health counseling or other social services. So, we want to work
with community groups because the community groups have that
trust relationship with the people in the community that law
enforcement often lacks. So, those community groups can provide
those resources to those people that are most high risk.
Ms. Bass. Are those community organizations and strategies
evidence-based, so they have been researched and tested?
Mr. Brown. Yes. There are a number of studies that show up
in the CVI program's work. For me in my district, we also just
rely on what we are hearing from the community and from law
enforcement officers. My district, unfortunately, had a
shooting in downtown Seattle just last week. I talked to the
police chief of Seattle afterwards. He shared with me that one
of the first calls that he made after they had secured the
scene and gotten information about the victim in that crime,
one of the first calls he made was to a community organization
that could help him perhaps de-escalate retaliatory shootings
and calm the situation.
Ms. Bass. Right.
Mr. Brown. That is something that law enforcement is not
always best suited.
Ms. Bass. Thank you. Thank you.
Ms. Jackson Lee. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Now, I recognize the Ranking Member for his 5 minutes.
Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Brown, why haven't you responded to our November 1st
letter?
Mr. Brown. Congressman, I am not sure what letter you are
referring to.
Mr. Jordan. The letter signed by 19 Republicans, all 19
Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee regarding the
school boards issue, why haven't you responded to that?
Mr. Brown. I believe, Congressman, the department provided
a response. As I said earlier, we did follow the AG's
memorandum to convene such a--
Mr. Jordan. The department did not provide a response. The
letter is addressed to the Honorable Nicholas W. Brown, U.S.
Attorney, Western District of Washington, 700 Stewart Street,
Suite 5220, Seattle, Washington 98101. Is that your address?
Mr. Brown. That is the office of the U.S. Attorney's
Office.
Mr. Jordan. Yes, and the Department of Justice acknowledged
receipt of that letter. I am just wondering; do you make a
habit of not responding to Members of Congress? Not just any
Members of Congress, these are 19 Republicans from the House
Judiciary Committee. Do you make a habit of not responding to
people who inquire about a pretty darn important subject, the
school board memo issue?
Mr. Brown. We try to be responsive to all our community
Members and anyone who asks questions about the decisions and
operations of--
Mr. Jordan. Well, that sort of begs the question then. Back
to, why haven't you responded then? If you try to make an
effort to respond, why haven't you? Did someone tell you not to
respond?
Mr. Brown. No, someone did not tell me not to respond. I
understood that the department was going to provide a response,
and I am happy to have further conversations--
Mr. Jordan. The Attorney General didn't tell you; the DAG
didn't tell you not to respond?
Mr. Brown. No, Congressman, no one directed me not to
respond to that.
Mr. Jordan. Well, this is amazing. No one knows what
happened here. Nineteen Republicans on the House Judiciary
Committee, all the Republicans, inquire about a pretty
important subject matter, and we get no response.
Earlier when the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Mr.
Biggs, asked you a question about this initial meeting--
remember the memo on October 4th from the Attorney General, he
said this: ``I am directing the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, working with each United States Attorney, to
convene meetings with Federal, local, and territorial leaders
in each judicial district within 30 days of the issuance of
this memorandum.''
I think your answer was you did have that initial meeting
within those 30 days. Is that accurate?
Mr. Brown. That is accurate.
Mr. Jordan. When was that meeting again?
Mr. Brown. I don't have the specific date, Congressman. I
believe it was in the first week of November.
Mr. Jordan. Did you follow up with people at the main
Justice, at the Department of Justice? Did you get back with
the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General regarding
what took place in that initial meeting?
Mr. Brown. We communicated that we had the meeting. I don't
think we provided any details about the meeting or
participants.
Mr. Jordan. Have you had any subsequent meetings since that
initial meeting in early November?
Mr. Brown. I meet with my local and Federal law enforcement
partners on a regular basis, sometimes multiple times a week.
So, we have not had any further specific meetings regarding the
AG's memorandum, but I communicate and talk to my law
enforcement partners--
Mr. Jordan. Wait, wait, wait. So, you had the initial
meeting. You told the main Justice, ``We had the meeting,'' but
you communicated nothing else to them? You had no subsequent
meetings on that issue? Is that accurate?
Mr. Brown. I have not had further meetings with the law
enforcement partners about the school board memorandum.
Mr. Jordan. Well, that shocks me because this was the most
important subject matter in the world back in October. The
National School Boards Association writes a letter to the Biden
Administration on September 29th, and literally five days
later, we get a memo from the Attorney General directing you to
have this meeting, as if this was the most important subject
matter on the planet. You had one meeting, and all you told
main Justice is, ``We had that meeting,'' and you have had no
subsequent meetings?
Mr. Brown. Congressman, it certainly was not the most
important issue for me, as the United States Attorney--
Mr. Jordan. It sure was here in this town. It sure was in
the State of Virginia.
Mr. Brown. Well, I can only speak for me and my district,
and our priorities and addressing school board issues was not
the most important issue facing my district as a United States
Attorney.
Mr. Jordan. Well, let me just read the first sentence in
the memo that went to you and the Director of the FBI. The very
first sentence in the October 4th memo from the Attorney
General says, ``In recent months, there has been a disturbing
spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence
against school administrators, board members, teachers, and
staff.''
Have you prosecuted anyone in the last five months for
threats of violence, harassment, or intimidation of school
board members, administration, or teachers, and staff?
Mr. Brown. No, we have not brought any such cases in my
district.
Mr. Jordan. No prosecutions? No subsequent meetings? No
communication with DOJ? We were told this was the most
important thing in history just a few months ago.
Did you make any recommendations to DOJ about what should
be happening regarding this school boards issue?
Mr. Brown. I did not, Congressman.
Mr. Jordan. Okay. Any people and any individuals you know
have a threat tag associated with their name? We got this email
communication that went out to FBI agents around the country.
It says, ``As a result of the Attorney General's memo, the
Counterterrorism Division and Criminal Division created a
threat tag to track instances of threats.'' Do you know about
any threat tags put on parents or any individuals in your
district, the Western District of Washington State?
Mr. Brown. I am not aware of any such tags--
Ms. Jackson Lee. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Congresswoman Dean is now recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. Dean. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for holding this
important hearing.
Mr. Brown, I am Madeleine Dean from suburban Philadelphia.
So, I think you for your extraordinary work and service to
our country.
As you know, 90 percent of the Department of Corrections
inmates will return home one day. Our current system is failing
them, and failing all of us, their families, and our
communities as well. Assisting Americans returning home, people
who are still suffering from mass incarceration and its effect
on their transition to freedom, even after their time is
served, must remain a priority for our government. It is a
priority for me and many on this Committee.
Mr. Brown, what is the Department of Justice doing to
support returning citizens to reduce the chance of rearrest and
support successful reintegration into the community?
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Congresswoman, for that question, and
I appreciate it because you highlight a very important issue.
One of the ways that we make our communities safe is not
only by preventing crime and holding people accountable who
commit crimes, but helping those people successfully return to
our community. That is good not only for those individuals and
their families, but good for their neighbors and their
communities around that, because it enhances community safety.
So, I know that there are a number of reentry-specific efforts
the department prioritizes. There are reentry programs the
department helps support through grant funding.
Here, specifically in my district, my office works with a
number of organizations that are specifically focused on
reentry efforts. We actually just started partnering with a
very positive organization that has had good results working
with the State correction facilities to bring those resources
to some of our Federal detention facilities within my district,
to help people understand what led them there and provide them
the support when they get out of prison.
Ms. Dean. I appreciate that. What else is the Federal
government doing to invest in education, in housing,
healthcare, employment, and other social structures for
returning citizens?
Mr. Brown. Well, some of those subject matters are beyond
my expertise, Congresswoman. I know that there are a number of
programs in each of those areas and some that are specifically
funded and supported by the Department of Justice. I am happy
to have the department follow-up with you on some of those
areas.
As I indicated earlier, some of the CVI programs that we
work with and support, both here in my district and in the
department, are focused on those very specific issues in
providing housing, education, and other programs to make sure
that they are successful.
Ms. Dean. I appreciate that. Anything you can share with
us; we would thank you for that.
Something I care an awful lot about is the role of
addiction and opioids, in particular, and other problems of
addiction and mental health as it relates to the Department of
Justice, the criminal justice system. Can you speak to that in
terms of your own experience in the work that you do? How much
of it is touched by mental health and/or the disease of
addiction?
Mr. Brown. Yes, absolutely. Those two issues are really
prevalent in cases that we see, both in the Federal cases and
investigations that we lead, as well as the cases that local
and State officers are bringing.
You are seeing addiction-related issues, particularly these
days, in my community and throughout our country a number of
people suffering from fentanyl addiction and fentanyl problems.
It is really a serious problem in my district and throughout
our country, and mental health is also such a vital part of
what is contributing to people crimes.
In my district, we do have a program where we work with
people, where we can identify that the impetus for their crimes
was a drug-based issue. We have had a history, a documented
history, of addiction-related issues. We try to work with those
people to find alternatives beyond simply incarceration that
will allow them to be successful for when they reenter the
community.
Ms. Dean. I thank you for that. Anything you are learning,
best practices, that we can make sure that we incorporate into
our policymaking would be very powerful. We know that we can't
arrest our way through addiction and mental health problems. It
is not good for the people, and it is not good for their
families and our communities, and the economy around them.
Again, I thank you for your extraordinary work and service.
I yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Jackson Lee. The gentlelady yields back.
It is now my pleasure to recognize Mr. Tiffany for 5
minutes.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to reference what the Ranking Member was questioning
you on just a few minutes ago. Have you had talks with the
National Security Division regarding the memo from the Attorney
General?
Mr. Brown. I have not, Congressman.
Mr. Tiffany. So, are you ignoring the directive that the
Attorney General's office put out?
Mr. Brown. I don't believe there was any specific directive
for me, as U.S. Attorney, to coordinate with the National
Security Division on that issue, Congressman.
Mr. Tiffany. So, there was not a directive that you
coordinate from the U.S. Attorney's Office?
Mr. Brown. There was a directive in the October 4th
memorandum that we convene a meeting with our Federal and local
partners on that issue, which we did. I am not familiar with
any directive that I work with or coordinate with the National
Security Division.
Mr. Tiffany. You talk about criteria and things like that
to deal with the root causes of crime. Do you consider parental
involvement as something that is important, that should be
included as one of those top issues?
Mr. Brown. I think, certainly, people's family
circumstances and support can contribute to crime. I think
there is plenty of evidence to suggest that having an able and
health family environment makes it less likely that you are
engaged in crime, in particular, violent crime.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you for that answer.
I have jotted down a few phrases that we have been hearing
today. Reimagining, of course; reallocate resources; antiquated
ideas; violence interrupters--all those things have been
bandied around today.
I would hark back to a week ago in regards to President
Biden's State of the Union speech, where he said, ``We are
going to fund the police.'' I think it is very clear today that
was just rhetoric on the part of the President.
All Americans should understand that you have, per the
video that we saw earlier--per these words that we are hearing,
per the poster that is right behind me, a quote from the Chair
on June 7th of 2020, ``it should be very clear to the American
people that the majority party does not have an interest in
getting control of crime. They do not have an interest in
looking out for the interests of victims.''
You can tell with the blame-shifting rhetoric that is being
used. Two things that I have heard today: Root causes and blame
COVID. Where did we hear the term ``root causes'' about a year
ago? It was when Vice President Harris was announced as being
the border czar or she is going to take care of border issues.
The first thing she talked about was, boy, we have got these
root causes; we have got to get control of this. Has it been
brought under control, what has happened on the southern
border? Not at all. We just had all kinds of root causes
rhetoric. So, whenever you hear that phrase ``root causes,''
there is just going to be a lot of jabber-jawing that is going
to go on.
Then, we see the second blame shift that goes on here:
Let's blame COVID. The same thing that we are hearing from the
President's press secretary. ``Why have oil prices all of a
sudden gone up here in America?'' ``It's the Ukraine. It's the
Ukraine war. That's what caused these oil prices to go up.''--
ignoring the fact of what the American people know, that
gasoline went up a buck a gallon, and it started on January
20th of 2021, when President Biden said, ``We are going to shut
down fossil use in this country.''
What was the metaphor for it? It was Keystone XL, but there
were numerous other actions that were taken that were going to
shut it down.
So, here we have got the all-purpose bugaboo, which is
blame COVID. Now, I would encourage this Committee perhaps to
bring Dr. Fauci before us, and maybe he and some of the
governors that put in place the Draconian and unconscionable
shutdowns, that maybe they should be answering for this.
Because you maybe have hit on one of the root causes here: The
shutdowns, the artificial shutdowns, that we were warning you
about that there was going to be huge societal harm.
Yes, we are, in part, we are seeing an increase in crime as
a result of these unconscionable shutdowns that turned people's
lives upside-down. Where were those greatest shutdowns? They
were in the big cities of America, where we have seen this
striking increase in violent crime.
I yield back.
Ms. Jackson Lee. The gentleman's time has expired.
I am now pleased to recognize Ms. Scanlon, the gentlelady
from Pennsylvania, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate you
calling this hearing today.
I cannot sit here silently while my Republican colleagues
try to hijack an important hearing to identify solutions to
address the surge in violence over the past two years,
particularly gun violence, that has taken a devastating toll on
communities across the country, including my own, in cities of
every size and in states, both red and blue.
I have to protest the efforts by our Republicans colleagues
to, once again, ignore the truth and repeat false talking
points about my community and others, instead of grappling with
the truth.
We have heard Members of this Committee and Subcommittee
say today that Philadelphia, which forms part of my district,
has reduced funding for its police, and to go so far as to
bolster these lies by citing specific numbers. Let me just be
clear. Philadelphia has not defunded its police. To the
contrary, funding has increased each of the past two years to
help address the twin pandemics of COVID and gun violence.
So, I would urge my colleagues across the aisle to stop
reimagining the truth and get serious about how this country
can actually address the national surge in gun violence,
because this is a serious problem that demands serious policy
solutions and serious people, not mindless repetition of
political talking points.
Now, what we hear over and over again from law enforcement
in my district and across the country is that we need to stem
the flow of guns to our streets. We can do that with
legislation that our Republican colleagues continue to block--
by requiring universal background checks, banning ghost guns
and assault weapons, and requiring licensing and training with
gun purchases. It is easier to get a gun in Pennsylvania than
it is to get a driver's license. I can go to a gun show near my
home and walk out with dozens of weapons with no check. That is
wrong.
We cannot police our way out of this problem, however. If
we are going to stem the tide of violence, we need to employ
comprehensive approaches to public safety and address the
underlying challenges that drive some people to pick up guns in
the first place. Mental health struggles, poverty, lack of
education or opportunity, all these things made worse by the
disruption and upheaval of the pandemic, have fueled
hopelessness and despair that can lead our fellow Americans,
and particularly children, as I have reason to know, to Act in
desperate, dangerous, and violent ways.
Local officials in my district are working right now to
reach solutions, to prevent violence, and support people living
in their communities. I have been looking forward to this
hearing to explore ways the Federal government can support
these efforts.
Now, Mr. Brown, in your testimony, you mention that a
Project Safe Neighborhoods Program is operating in your
district. Officials in Chester, Pennsylvania, where my district
office is located, launched the same program in November 2020.
The latest data we have indicates that gun violence homicides
are down 44 percent--down 44 percent--and overall shootings are
down 34 percent in the city since then.
Can you talk a little bit more about the importance of
creating these collaborative partnerships between community-
based partners and law enforcement? How do we support these
partnerships, and how does this drive solutions?
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Congresswoman.
As I mentioned earlier, we view CVI programs and other
community-based programs as a complementary tool to ongoing law
enforcement efforts. What we find is that some of these
programs can get at some of these issues that law enforcement
simply is not as well-suited to do. It can help address some of
the root causes. It can help provide the counseling and support
and stabilization that makes it less likely that someone will
commit crimes in the future or be a victim of crime.
Really, partnership between law enforcement and the
community helps build trust in the community. It helps form
partnerships with the community, and those types of
relationships are a law enforcement tool. When the community
trusts the law enforcement officers in their community, they
are more likely to report crime; they are more likely to
identify being a victim or knowing a victim, and they are more
likely to help find solutions. So, when you have programs
supported by the department and other entities that provide
resources for those community organizations, you are building
trust with law enforcement in a very positive way.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you.
We know that during the pandemic we have seen traditional
supports for young people become disrupted, isolating them. Can
you talk about any programs that specifically target young
people?
Mr. Brown. Yes, you are correct that a number of the
programs that work with people at high risk, and particularly
young people, were shuttered during the pandemic. It was just
much more difficult to reach people. It is more positive when
you are meeting with someone in person than trying to do it in
a remote proceeding, or something like that.
So, we work with organizations here and have learned a lot
about organizations that are directly working with young
people. On a positive note, despite the rising crime, we have
seen a decrease, or a stabilization at least, of incidents of
youth involved in shooting in my community. The increase in
shootings in Seattle has gone up in some new areas, but has
plateaued in some of the other areas, which is some indication
that some of these programs that work directly with youth are
having successful results.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you.
I see my time is expired. I yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the gentlelady for yielding back.
I also appreciate her courage, as a crime victim, in
helping to debunk misinterpretation of defund police. Thank you
so very much for your courage.
It is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to Mr. Massie for his
questioning.
Mr. Massie. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I yield my time to Dan Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. I thank the gentleman yielding.
Madam Chair--
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Bishop is now recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Bishop. I thank the Chair and the Members for
permitting me to participate in this important hearing.
Mr. Brown, of course, I guess this is a hearing called by
the majority and we are engaged in congressional oversight, I
guess. I just wonder, I counted as I came in--it was important
enough to me to come here--and when I arrived, there were about
11 Members of Congress sitting here. We have Committee staff
here. Why are you not here, sir?
Mr. Brown. I'm--when I was asked to participate, I was
asked to participate remotely, and which was great for me being
out here in Seattle. So, that was the invitation I received,
Congressman.
Mr. Bishop. So that was a specific request from the staff
for the majority that contacted you to arrange for your
participation today? Or did it come direct--
Mr. Brown. They asked me--
Mr. Bishop. --or did it come from higher in the Justice
Department?
Mr. Brown. When the department asked me if I would
participate, they explained to me that I could participate
virtually, so that was the information that I had.
Mr. Bishop. Who in the department communicated that to you,
sir?
Mr. Brown. The invitation for me came from EOUSA, which is
the Executive Office of United States Attorneys, which is the
main coordination that we have with the Department of Justice
main Justice components.
Mr. Bishop. All right. Do you know of a name of an
individual that made that request or suggested to you that you
appear remotely?
Mr. Brown. The specific invitation came from the Deputy
Director of EOUSA.
Mr. Bishop. All right. Let me take you back to the question
that Mr. Jordan asked you about the meeting that you convened
of--pursuant to Attorney General Garland's memo about school
board protests or threats. You indicated there was a meeting
you thought like in November following the issuance of that
memo, I think. Summarize the content of the meeting. What was
discussed?
Mr. Brown. Sure, Congressman. We had a meeting with
partners from the Federal government law enforcement agencies,
principally the FBI, with our State patrol agency and
leadership from the Association of Washington Sheriffs and
Police Chiefs. We talked about ways that we could be a resource
for them, much like we would be a resource in any other local
law enforcement need and just made available for them--or made
them aware that we were here to help if they had any incidences
that deserved Federal resources or Federal attention. That was
essentially the extent of our meeting.
Mr. Bishop. Wow. So did your office gather or have any
evidence or information about some proliferation of threats to
school boards to share or--because you didn't mention that in
relating what you said. Did you gather that kind of
information?
Mr. Brown. We convened the meeting in response to the
Attorney General's request that we convene such a meeting and
talked about the resources we could provide, much like we would
in any other issue partnering with local law enforcement.
Mr. Bishop. So, again, what the Attorney General indicated
was there was this proliferation of threats that warranted this
nationwide action by the Department of Justice. So, I think you
did not have your office gather any information and you are not
aware of any specific information about a proliferation of
threats, is that correct?
Mr. Brown. I did not gather information about threats in my
district. The letter came a few days before I was actually
sworn into office, so I did not gather information in response
to the AG's memorandum.
Mr. Bishop. Did any participant in the meeting impart any
information or evidence about a proliferation of threats that
would support a nationwide scope of action?
Mr. Brown. There were some conversations in our meeting of
officers hearing about some small anecdotal stories of threats
at school boards, but nothing that would have arisen to needing
Federal assistance of Federal prosecution.
Mr. Bishop. Yes, that is certainly consistent with my
understanding as well and it is important for the Nation to
know in light of the politicized action by the Attorney
General.
Let me ask you one other quick question while I have got
the moment here. You have talked about prevalence of firearms
being an important driver of violence. Ms. Scanlon just talked
about the need for background checks, but you said most gun
violence comes from stolen guns. That wouldn't be allayed by
background checks, would it?
Mr. Brown. Where there are a number of different
contributors to the rise in shootings and certainly what we're
seeing quite often here in my district is people who are
stealing firearms from other gun owners. I don't have all the
information and data about who has owned the gun lawfully or
not, but certainly the rise in firearms in our streets, which
puts the community and law enforcement in danger, is coming a
lot from firearms recovered from stolen homes or stolen
property.
Mr. Bishop. I thank the gentleman from Kentucky. I yield
back.
Ms. Jackson Lee. The gentleman has yield back.
It is now my pleasure to call on Mr. Cicilline for five
minutes.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this
hearing and thank you for the Witnesses that have joined it.
It is no secret that we have seen an alarming increase in
certain types of violent crime across the country. Gun violence
spiked especially during the first year of the pandemic and
2021 saw a 5-percent jump in homicides since 2020 and a 44-
percent jump since 2019.
One of the most important lessons I have learned in my
decades as a lawmaker and as a mayor is that no problem exists
in a vacuum. This includes increases in crime which often
accompany periods of social-economic distress, so it is not
surprising that these concerning statistics accompany one of
the worst periods of social and economic upheaval in recent
history, the COVID-19 pandemic.
COVID-19 not only took the lives of almost a million
Americans; it also upended many of our social and economic
support networks as things like childcare, financial
assistance, and medical services became difficult or impossible
to access. This put unbelievable stress on communities which
then began to see a dramatic rise in crime. The problems COVID
presented were multifaceted, and our response must be equally
multifaceted. It is why we made more than $350 billion in the
American Rescue Plan specifically and explicitly available to
police and law enforcement to support police departments across
the country, making sure that they had the resources they
needed, that they were properly trained and utilizing the best
techniques, but also by including other social and medical
professionals in response to the public safety crisis.
So, despite the fiery speeches of my colleagues, every
single Republican on this Committee and every single Republican
in the Congress of the United States voted no for this funding
for police departments in direct response to the increasing
crime because of COVID. We wrote it specifically for that
purpose. Police departments are using it. That funding--every
single one who made one of these big loud speeches today voted
no. So, let the record be clear on that.
So, I want to first say thank you, sir, for your testimony.
As I think about violent crime, one of the lessons I learned as
mayor of the City of Providence, and my chief always said this,
was that the single most powerful tool the police department
has to fight crime is the trust and confidence of the
community.
When I took office crime was on the increase in the City of
Providence. By the time I left as mayor we had the lowest crime
rate in 50 years, and that was because of the great work of the
men and women of the police department working with the
community, rebuilding trust, creating neighborhood-based
community policing models where my chief always says people
should have a family lawyer, a family doctor, and a family
police officer. They have the cell phones of the sergeants that
were in charge of their neighborhoods.
So, would you speak a little bit about how the Department
of Justice is supporting State and local law enforcement in
their efforts to reduce crime, particularly violent crime and
particularly gun crimes in local communities?
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Congressman, for your question. I
think you've hit the nail on the head. It makes sense that
anybody in any profession frankly works better with people that
they trust. Law enforcement agencies and officers serve those
communities and if they have trusting relationships and know
the people in their communities, they're much more likely to
partnership--partner on successful strategies for reducing
crime and they're much more likely to have good relationships
when they're showing up before a crime has happened, to commit
to those relationships rather than after a crime has occurred.
The focus for me specific to this testimony is how the
Federal government and the Department of Justice can support
community organizations that are adopting evidence-based CVI
strategies because those partnerships with law enforcement is
one of the principal ways that we can prevent violence from
occurring or reoccurring.
So, working with law enforcement agencies I've heard time
and time again that they want these community organizations to
be successful because those community organizations can get at
some of the heart of the problem rather than simply when law
enforcement shows up after a crime has occurred.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you. We have in the City of Providence
a program that was started by the Institute for the Study and
Practice of Nonviolence that supported a group of young people
called street workers that are actually former gang Members,
people who had previously been involved in violent crime who
are out there proactively working with the communities, helping
to prevent violence, working hand-in-hand with the police
department. Every single member of the Providence Police
Department would recognize that they have been a tremendous
asset in their efforts to reduce crime in the city. That is a
great partnership where they are reaching out and helping to
prevent much violence.
We also had a nationally recognized program where another
organization, Family Services, sent with police officers a
domestic violence therapist, who understood how to work with
children, to the scene of a crime so that when they were
responding the harm that children were experiencing as a result
of that incident was immediately addressed by a mental health
professional. Everyone sees those as very valuable to reducing
the impact of crime on our communities. Despite all the
histrionics of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I
hope those efforts can continue in police departments across
the country. Thank you for being here. I yield back.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I recognize Mr. Fitzgerald now for five
minutes.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you, Madam Chair. Can I first ask
unanimous consent to have a Washington Post article that is
authored by Salvador Rizzo titled: ``The White House's Slipshod
Claim that Republicans are Defunding the Police.'' I would ask
unanimous consent that be submitted for the record.
Mr. Jackson Lee. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
MR. FITZGERALD FOR THE RECORD
=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Brown, last Congress Chair Nadler introduced H.R. 9065,
the Federal Bail Reform Act, which would shift the burden of
proof from a defendant to government on bail decisions. The
presumption for most criminal defendants would be pretrial
release. In order to rebut the presumption, the government
would need to show by a preponderance of evidence that release
does not pose a high risk of intentional non-appearance in
court or a specific or substantial risk that the person will
cause bodily injury or use violent force against the person of
another if released.
The Chair has not reintroduced that legislation this
Congress and I'm not sure why. Might have something to do with
bail reform issues in New York. Do you support this type of
reform?
Mr. Brown. Congressman, I'm not familiar with the specific
bill that you're talking about. When my office deals with the
issue of pretrial release, we try to make sure that people who
are the most likely to be at risk of offending again, or
committing other crimes, or are likely to be a flight risk,
that those people are detained pending trial.
Mr. Fitzgerald. So, just in general, let me ask you, do you
think that the danger an individual poses to society should be
one of the factors that should be considered when making bail
decisions?
Mr. Brown. As I said, we try to detain people prior to
trial to promote and prevent crimes from occurring. So, if they
are at high risk of doing that, then we think those people
should be detained.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Okay. Thank you. I would just say in
general, and I know some of my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle--a lot of what I think we are hearing today is kind
of glossing over what has been going on for the last year,
which has been a call to defund the police. Obviously, the
polling shows something different now, or the rhetoric has
changed dramatically in the last couple of weeks, so I am not
sure exactly where we are headed.
Mr. Brown, in 2018 DEA temporarily classified fentanyl-
related substances as Schedule 1 under the Controlled
Substances Act. This emergency scheduling order placed all
these substances based on their chemical structure and
designated them as purely illicit drugs with a high potential
for abuse and no reasonable medical purpose. This order has
been previously extended three times by Congress, but without
action from Congress it will expire, believe it or not, this
Friday. The Biden Administration and my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle refuse to pass a permanent designation unless
it is accompanied by their preferred jail break bills that
would release more criminals onto the street.
Do you support the clean permanent designation of fentanyl-
related substances as a Schedule 1?
Mr. Brown. Congressman, I'm not familiar with the specific
designation or the history that you've described. What I will
say is fentanyl is a very serious drug. It is doing serious
damage throughout the country and specifically in my district
and is an issue that we take very seriously.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, but I am sure you are familiar with
Schedule 1 and what that means and the parameters of that.
Would you support the idea of making fentanyl--it sounds like
you understand how serious this is? Would you actually support
that?
Mr. Brown. I certainly understand what the scheduling is
for the products that are illegal under Federal law. I'm just
not familiar with the clean distinction that you were making or
other related bills, but it is certainly a serious problem.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Mr. Jordan. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Fitzgerald. Madam Chair, I would yield my balance of my
time to Mr. Jordan.
Mr. Jordan. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Bowman, I just wanted to follow-up on where we were
earlier. Will you commit to getting us an answer to the--we had
six or seven questions in our November letter to you. Will you
commit to getting answers to those questions to us since main
Justice has not? We know you received the letter, and it is
from all 19 Republicans. Can we get an answer from you sometime
soon?
Mr. Brown. I'll certainly go back and look at that request
again that came in November.
Mr. Jordan. No, asking will you respond? Will you give us
an answer to those questions?
Mr. Brown. I will coordinate any response with the
department.
Mr. Jordan. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Madam Chair, I would yield my last five
seconds to Mr. Biggs.
Mr. Biggs. Madam Chair--
Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, I will be generous. The time past--
Mr. Biggs. I am just going to do a couple unanimous
consents.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I will yield to the gentleman for
unanimous consents.
Mr. Biggs. I appreciate that. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I first want to submit for the record a Yahoo News piece
entitled: ``White House Fact-Checked over Bogus Claim on GOP
Defunding Police,'' and then also PolitiFact: ``Scott Falsely
Accuses GOP of Defunding Police,'' those two articles without
objection, if possible.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Biggs, without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
MR. BIGGS FOR THE RECORD
=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Biggs. Thank you.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me, also, now introduce into the
record--Members, I am going to take the opportunity to indicate
that Mr. Biggs received an answer, or a letter response dated
December 22 regarding letters that have been the same on the
question concerning a memorandum issued by Attorney General
Garland and entitled: ``Partnership Among Federal, State,
Local, Tribal, and Territorial Enforcement to Address Threats
Against School Administrators.''
This was signed by an assistant attorney general from the
Department of Justice and the memorandum responds to concerns
about violence, threats of violence, and other criminal
conduct.
The comment, in particular, the Justice Department has no
greater responsibility than keeping the American people safe,
and to that end the department has taken action in a wide range
of contexts to keep American people safe by preventing violence
and threats of violence.
It includes a widespread on jobs, election officials,
workers, judges, law enforcement officers, prosecutors, flight
crews, and flight attendants. It is not a stranger to violence
and the Justice Department has a responsibility to keep them
safe.
By unanimous consent I will submit this letter into the
record as a response that has been given to the Republican.
[The information follows:]
MS. JACKSON LEE FOR THE RECORD
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Jackson Lee. With that, I yield five minutes to the
gentleman from California, Mr. Lieu, for his questioning.
Mr. Lieu. Thank you, Chair Sheila Jackson Lee, for holding
this important hearing. My first elected position I was a city
council member, and it is very clear that most police funding
are funded by local cities, counties, and States.
President Biden last week told America that Democrats
support funding the police. We also took actions to execute
that because actions speak louder than words.
The American Rescue Plan provided massive amounts of
funding to local governments to fund police departments,
prevent layoffs, and hire additional police officers. Every
Democrat voted for it and Democrats passed the American Rescue
Plan that funded police departments, and President Biden signed
it.
The following Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee
voted no on the American Rescue Plan. The Republican Judiciary
Member from Ohio District 4 voted no to fund the police in the
American Rescue Plan:
The Republican House Judiciary Member from Ohio District 1 voted no to
fund the police in the American Rescue Plan.
The Republican House Judiciary Member from Texas District 1 voted no to
fund the police and the American Rescue Plan.
The Republican House Judiciary Member from California District 50 voted
no to fund the police and the American Rescue Plan.
The Republican House Judiciary Member from Colorado District 4 voted no
to fund the police and the American Rescue Plan.
The Republican House Judiciary Member from Florida District 1 voted no
to fund the police and the American Rescue Plan.
The Republican House Judiciary Member from Louisiana District 4 voted
no to fund the police and the American Rescue Plan.
The Republican House Judiciary Member from Arizona District 5 voted no
to fund the police and the American Rescue Plan.
The Republican House Judiciary Member from California District 4 voted
no to fund the police and the American Rescue Plan.
The Republican House Judiciary Member from Florida District 17 voted no
to fund the police and the American Rescue Plan.
The Republican House Judiciary Member from Wisconsin District 7 voted
no to fund the police and the American Rescue Plan.
The Republican Judiciary Member from Kentucky District 4 voted no to
fund the police and the American Rescue Plan.
The Republican House Judiciary Member from Texas District 21 voted no
to fund the police and the American Rescue Plan.
The Republican House Judiciary Member from North Carolina District 9
voted no to fund the police and the American Rescue Plan.
The Republican House Judiciary Member from Minnesota District 7 voted
no to fund the police and the American Rescue Plan.
The Republican House Judiciary Member from Indiana District 5 voted no
to fund the police and the American Rescue Plan.
The Republican House Judiciary Member from Wisconsin District 5 voted
no to fund the police and the American Rescue Plan.
The Republican House Judiciary Member from Oregon District 2 voted no
to fund the police and the American Rescue Plan.
The Republican House Judiciary Member from Utah District 4 voted no to
fund the police and the American Rescue Plan.
Actions speak louder than words.
Now, I would like to talk about a second topic which are
school boards. Republicans now are somehow justifying threats
against school board Members. Shame on them. My wife is a
school board member. Under her leadership as President of the
school board last year her school district was voted the best
in that area by two newspapers. She also got death threats and
she had to talk to a local detective about those death threats.
You do not have a right to violently threaten school board
Members. You do not have the right to engage in violence
against them. Republicans on this Committee who defend that,
shame on them. I applaud the Department of Justice for going
after people who engage in violent death threats against school
board Members and who want to take violence and actions of
violence against school board Members.
Now, my question to Mr. U.S Attorney. Thank you for your
service. The former President of the United States made racist
phrases like king flu. He also told minority Members of
Congress to go back to our country. We saw a stunning rise in
hate crimes against Asian Americans. Can you say if that
happened in your area and what steps you are taking to reduce
the hate crimes against Asian Americans?
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Congressman. We are absolutely seeing
a rise in hate crimes and hate-based incidences throughout my
district. I think it's a national problem, but we're seeing it
here specifically. We've had a number of crimes against
religious institutions as well. Just last night, actually, I
convened with my Federal law enforcement partners a meeting
with the leaders from various houses of worship throughout our
district and indeed throughout our State to make sure that they
were aware of these rises in threats and where of the resources
that the Federal government could help provide to identify
people that are making threats in their communities and against
their houses of worship.
We continue to prosecute hate crimes very, very seriously
in this district. I have had a number of cases in the five
months since--
Ms. Jackson Lee. The gentleman's time has expired. If you
can wrap up. Gentleman's time is expired.
Mr. Brown. --where they are committing these offenses.
Thank you.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you so very much and thank the
gentleman.
I will now introduce our second panel of Witnesses.
Accordingly, I ask that you summarize--this concludes the first
panel of today's hearing. I would like to thank U.S. Attorney
Brown for participating in this hearing.
Attorney Brown, your testimony, your patience was most
appreciated and also your commitment to public service and the
work that you're doing in your district in Seattle. Again, we
thank you and the Department of Justice.
We will now take a short recess to set up our second panel
of Witnesses. The Subcommittee will stand in recess for five
minutes.
[Recess.]
Ms. Jackson Lee. The Subcommittee will reconvene to hear
the testimony of our second panel. I will now introduce our
second panel of Witnesses.
First, Chief Eddie Garcia is the 30th Police Chief of the
police department in Dallas and the first Latino to serve in
this position in the department's 140-year history. He was
previously with the San Jose Police Department for his entire
29-year career, where he rose through the ranks and was
appointed chief in 2016. Chief Garcia earned a Bachelor of
Science in criminal justice management from Union Institute and
University. He also attended the De Anza College, where he
studied Administration of Justice.
Mr. Thomas Abt currently Chairs the Council on Criminal
Justice Violent Crime Working Group and recently directed the
National Commission on COVID-19 and Criminal Justice. Prior to
joining the Council, Mr. Abt served as a Senior Research Fellow
at the Harvard Kennedy School and held leadership positions in
the New York Governor's Office and the Office of Justice
Programs at the U.S. Department of Justice. He received his
Bachelor of Arts in economic from the University of Michigan
and received a law degree with honors from Georgetown
University.
Mr. Charles Fain Lehman is a Fellow at the Manhattan
Institute for Policy Research, working primarily on the
policing and public safety initiative, and contributing editor
of City Journal. He was previously a staff writer with The
Washington Free Beacon and has been published in The Wall
Street Journal, National Review, and the New York Post. Mr.
Lehman received a Bachelor of Arts in history from Yale
University.
The Honorable Sylvester Turner is currently serving his
second term as Mayor of Houston, Texas. Mayor Turner recently
announced his One Safe Houston plan to combat violent crime and
respond to the needs of victims while building healthier
communities. He previously served for 27 years in the Texas
House of Representatives. He is an honor graduate of the
University of Houston and earned a law degree from Harvard
University.
As a moment of personal privilege, I am so very proud to
host my Mayor, the Mayor of the city of Houston, who is more
than what the definition of a mayor is. As part of the major
city mayors, as part of the mayors of large cities, he has
confronted every form of natural disaster that you could
imagine--from horrific Hurricane Harvey and a number of other
rising floods to, of course, the pandemic that hit Houston and
Texas very hard, and as well, on the other side of it, a rage
of crime, to which none can be attributed because of the hard
work of his police department, his first responders, and as
well, he and his city council.
So, I am very glad to welcome America's mayor, for all that
he exhibits and symbolizes in fighting the fight on behalf of
the people of Houston.
Mayor Turner, we welcome you here today.
The Honorable Satana Deberry serves as the elected District
Attorney for Durham County. She previously served as a criminal
defense attorney. She previously, also, was from the North
Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, a general
counsel, and executive director of the nonprofit North Carolina
Housing Coalition. Ms. Deberry received her Bachelor of Arts in
sociology from Princeton University, a Juris Doctor from Duke
University School of Law, and a Master's in Business
Administration from Duke University Fuqua School of Business.
Welcome.
Ms. Jerika L. Richardson is a Senior Vice President for
equitable justice and strategic initiatives at the National
Urban League. Previously, Ms. Richardson was a Deputy Executive
Director and Senior Advisor and secretary to the New York City
Civilian Complaint Review Board. She has also served as Chief
of Staff in the Office of the Counsel to the Mayor of New York
City; special advisor to the mayor, and senior spokesperson for
the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New
York. She holds a Juris Doctorate from the University of
Michigan Law School and a Bachelor of Arts in English from
Spelman College.
Let me also thank the President and CEO, Marc Morial, of
the National Urban League, who continues to work and respond to
the calls of Congress and to continue to fight for the wide
breadth and spread of justice, equality, and economic
opportunity for the people of America and African Americans.
So, thank you again, Ms. Richardson, for your presence here
today.
We welcome our distinguished Witnesses and we thank them
for their participation.
I will begin by swearing in our Witnesses. I ask all
Witnesses testifying in person to rise. I ask all Witnesses
testifying remotely to turn on your audio loudly and make sure
that I can see your face and your raised hand while I
administer the oath.
Do you swear or affirm, under penalty of perjury, that the
testimony you're about to give is true and correct to the best
of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God?
Thank you.
Let the record reflect that the Witnesses have answered in
the affirmative.
Thank you, and you may be seated.
Please note that your written statement will be entered
into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, I ask that you
summarize your testimony in 5 minutes.
To help you stay within that timeframe, there is a time
light on your table and on your screen. When the light switches
from green to yellow, you have 1 minute to conclude your
testimony. When the light turns red, it signals those 5 minutes
have expired.
I now recognize the mayor of the city of Houston, Mayor
Turner, for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF SYLVESTER TURNER
Mr. Turner. Good morning. Let me start off by thanking you,
Chair Jackson Lee, my Congresswoman. So, thank you for having
me.
Ranking Member Biggs, Members of the Subcommittee on Crime,
Terrorism, and Homeland Security, as well as the other persons
on this distinguished panel, as we engage in a dialog on
reimagining public safety in the COVID-19 era, there are no
easy answers and no single initiative standing by itself that
can adequately address rising crime.
In Harris County, for example, the criminal case backlog is
nearly 100,000 cases since Hurricane Harvey and COVID. Domestic
violence has doubled since 2019. There are way too many guns on
the streets. The Texas legislature passed HB 1927, permitless
carry, which became law on September 1st of last year, against
the testimony of major city police chiefs. Violent crime is a
public health crisis made worse by the pandemic and easy access
to guns, which demands a comprehensive, holistic response, all-
hands-on-deck approach.
A month ago, on February 2nd, I, along with members of the
Houston City Council, community leaders, and law enforcement
agencies announced the One Safe Houston plan, a public safety
initiative aimed at holistically addressing, and in some cases
rebuilding, the public safety ecosystem in Houston, Harris
County. In the city of Houston, we need more police officers, a
minimum of 600. We have budgeted the resources to add
additional police cadet classes and via overtime. In the
interim, we are adding 125 officers per day. These officers are
being deployed to areas based on the crime data and analytics.
To keep our parks and greenspaces safe, we are adding more park
rangers.
Let me add that, after the murder of George Floyd in June
of 2020, the city of Houston increased its police budget by 13
percent. Houston is, roughly, 600 square miles, twice the size
of Chicago. To complement our police officers, technology is a
must. We are adding to our network of cameras to deter soft
crimes like road rage, shootings, and others; greater use of
ShotSpotter; license plate readers; and enhancing our forensic
center. More Federal grants for more technology would be
helpful.
We confiscated over 6,400 guns last year, and about 3,700
guns were stolen from people's vehicles. There are way too many
guns on our streets. We are budgeting $1 million on a robust
gun buyback initiative, and we will evaluate its effectiveness.
The plan also looks to address crisis intervention in two
areas identified by the Citizens Commission on Police Reform,
organized after the murder of George Floyd. We are fully
implementing it. In fact, I am going even further. 20-one
million dollars has been allocated to our behavioral health
programs; namely, Crisis Call Diversion Program, a 24-hour
coverage program aimed by directly connecting callers with
mental health providers; Mobile Crisis Outreach Teams,
deploying non-law enforcement teams of behavioral health
professionals to deal with nonviolent interventions; Crisis
Intervention Response Teams, specially trained police officer
paired with mental health professionals, and a Clinician
Officer Remote Evaluation using telemedicine.
Additionally, we have seen a substantial uptick in domestic
violence-related crimes that often lead to homelessness. As a
result, we have made an investment of $10 million for sexual
and domestic abuse responses through our Domestic Abuse
Response Teams. These programs provide specifically for
training two-person mobile teams, consisting of one HPD officer
and one victim advocate, responding to high-risk domestic
violence crime scenes at the request of the primary responding
police units. This program is working extremely well.
Other key components of the One Safe Houston initiative
include $2.5 million for the implementation of Cure Violence
and Credible Messengers Program, using community influencers
and disrupters; $1 million to expand the existing successful
Community Reentry Program. I might add, our numbers are more
impressive than the State, 4 percent recidivism compared to 20-
plus percent. We need more dollars there.
We are engaging in our youth initiative opportunity to
provide this coming year up to 15,000 summer jobs to students
ages 16-24. Opportunity is a vital component to keeping our
city youth off the streets during summer breaks and providing
them with access to quality earning and learning opportunities.
With the exception of the summer youth initiative, the cost
of the One Safe Houston program is $45 million, paid for by
ARPA dollars. So, let me thank you for your resources.
Then, I look forward to this hearing.
[The statement of Mr. Turner follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Jackson Lee. The gentleman yields back. Thank you very
much.
Let me, before introducing and recognizing Mr. Abt,
introduce Ms. Madeline Brame, who is Chair of the New York
Victims Rights Reform Council and State Director of BLEXIT for
New York, who also will be providing testimony for us today.
Thank you very much again, Mayor Turner.
Now, I yield 5 minutes to Mr. Abt. He is now recognized.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS ABT
Mr. Abt. Chair Jackson Lee, Ranking Member Biggs, and the
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
speak today.
During the coronavirus pandemic, violent crime has surged.
In 2020, homicide rose by 29 percent, the largest one-year
increase in at least 50 years, while violent crime overall
increased by 5 percent. In 2021, homicides and other violent
crimes continued to climb, but the pace of the increase, at
least for homicide, slowed to 5 percent. Property and drug
crime declined in both years.
These numbers, and the suffering behind them, are deeply
disturbing. At the same time, rates of violent crime remain
well below the highs of the eighties and nineties. We must
respond urgently to this epidemic of violence, but we need not
panic.
Across the country, violence has surged in cities large and
small. It increased in cities led by Democrats and in those led
by Republicans. It rose in blue states and, also, in red ones.
The effect appears to be national, and not driven by local
circumstances.
By all accounts, it is community gun violence, meaning
violence perpetrated with firearms in public settings, that is
driving the increase. It is difficult to know for certain why
community gun violence spiked, but experts have settled on
three likely factors.
The first is the pandemic itself, which disproportionately
impacted the communities where gun violence concentrates.
A second factor is the social unrest caused by high-profile
incidents of deadly police force.
A third factor is a substantial increase in legal gun
purchases where a larger share of weapons fell into the wrong
hands, and did so more quickly than before.
While a large body of rigorous research and public opinion
polling supports additional requirements for owning and
carrying a deadly firearm, that is not the focus of my
testimony today. My focus here is on the nonpartisan, fact- and
evidence-informed solutions that can give cities relief right
now.
These solutions reflect the consensus reached by the
Council on Criminal Justice's Violent Crime Working Group, a
diverse body of law enforcement officials, community violence
and public health experts, advocates, and leading researchers.
Study after study shows that crime, and especially
violence, concentrate among small networks of individuals and
locations. Not surprisingly, the strategies associated with the
strongest antiviolence outcomes have one thing in common. They
focus on these small numbers of people and places.
Some of these focus strategies involve law enforcement. In
systematic reviews of hotspot and problem-oriented policing,
researchers have examined dozens of evaluations and found these
approaches to be effective.
Other strategies prevent violence without law enforcement.
For instance, credible messengers can mediate disputes, connect
individuals to much-needed supports, and use community events
to promote nonviolent norms.
Tellingly, the intervention associated with the strongest
effects does not focus exclusively on police or nonpolice
solutions. Instead, it brings cops and communities together.
Focused deterrence, also known as the Gun Violence
Intervention or Ceasefire, creates partnerships among resident,
service providers, and law enforcement. These partnerships
engage high-risk individuals and groups; provide specialized
supports and deploy targeted sanctions as a last resort.
The key message here is that effective violence reduction
includes law enforcement but does not stop there. Cities must
complement policing with strong community-based approaches,
giving voice to the residents and neighborhoods that experience
violence every day.
I want to conclude with an observation about politics,
along with a concrete proposal that puts politics aside. Our
public conversation about criminal justice is polarized.
Increasingly, it is all about tough policing and prosecution,
or it is policing and prosecutors who are the problem. This
``us versus them'' framing is destructive because everything we
know about reducing violence tells us that we need law
enforcement, but we need community and other partners as well.
The truth is we can have safety and justice at the same
time. We can reduce violence and promote change simultaneously.
We have to reject these ``either/or'' choices and insist on
``both/and options,'' as the Council's Task Force on Policing
did last year, bringing police and civil rights leaders
together around a comprehensive set of reforms.
Our cities need help, and they need it now. Congress should
take the $5 billion for community violence intervention
strategies in the Build Back Better Act, supplement it with $1
billion in support for highly focused, evidence-informed law
enforcement strategies, and pass these measures immediately in
a standalone bill.
This nonpartisan proposal would be embraced by violence
intervention organizations, law enforcement agencies, and the
public at large. It would also signal a new era of cooperation
around the crucial issue of public safety in America.
Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Abt follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Abt, perfect. You have finished, and
we thank you for your testimony.
It is now my pleasure to yield 5 minutes, and to have Chief
Garcia recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF EDGARDO ``EDDIE'' GARCIA
Chief Garcia. Thank you, Chair Jackson Lee, Ranking Member
Biggs, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you
for the opportunity to participate in today's hearing.
I appear before you today as the chief of police in Dallas,
Texas, and it is also my privilege to testify on behalf of the
Major Cities Chiefs Association. The MCCA is a leader in
national policy debates on policing reform. They have
consistently called for an approach that is evidence-based,
sustainable, and thoughtful, and remain steadfast in our
commitment to help increase accountability and rebuild trust
between law enforcement and the communities we serve.
Reform efforts cannot be nationalized. Local law
enforcement needs to--what works in one city may not work in
another. Police departments must have the flexibility to
advance reforms that meet the unique needs of their community.
We have taken several steps in Dallas to promote
accountability and build trust with our community. Some of the
things we've implemented are early warning systems to address
troublesome behavior on the front end. We're also onboard with
the use of an evaluation tool and platform that enables us to
measure the effectiveness of some of the policies, which will
include a public-facing dashboard to promote transparency. The
RIGHT Care Program, which partners law enforcement, fire, EMS,
and clinicians to assist individuals who are experiencing a
mental crisis.
Dallas established the Office of Integrated Public Safety
Solutions to support non-law enforcement efforts to address
violent crime; and all new recruits now take a course on the
history of policing as part of their academy, to understand the
historical shortcomings of our profession.
MCCA Members are strong proponents of community and
relational policing whose strategies are dependent on law
enforcement being present in the community. I'm a blue-collar
chief and frequently go on patrol with my officers. This allows
me to interact with and hear directly from the community
outside of the more traditional avenues.
All stakeholders, including elected officials, must push
back on calls to defund the police. I have yet to find a
neighborhood impacted by violent crime in Dallas, regardless of
language spoken, racial makeup, or socioeconomic status, that
has ever asked me for less policing. Defunding would have a
disastrous consequence and hurt the communities most in need.
We must appropriately balance reform with crime-fighting
efforts. The most recent MCCA violent crime report clearly
showed that America is experiencing a violent crime wave. The
current outlook in Dallas is not akin to other major cities.
Violent crime in Dallas decreased in 2021, and this year to
date, we have 300 less victims of violent crimes. This is not
by chance, but by the local support of our plan and the amazing
work and sacrifices of the men and women of the DPD that this
has been made possible.
Our crime-fighting strategy is centered on a Violent Crime
Reduction Plan. The plan relies heavily on science and data and
was developed in conjunction with criminologists from the
University of Texas at San Antonio. The short-term strategy in
the plan focuses on hotspot policing to address the most
violent offenders in the most violent parts of the city. The
plan's midterm strategies will include Dallas PD working with
other stakeholders to alter a location's criminogenic nature by
strengthening the neighborhood and reinvesting in the
community. The plan's long-term strategies emphasize focused
deterrence to change the behavior of high-risk offenders
through provision of services and community violence
interventions, and when necessary, fulsome action.
In the city of Dallas, we use the weed-and-seed mentality.
Although it has been necessary to involve my SWAT narcotics
teams and crisis response teams in certain areas of our city to
reduce violent crime, our community affairs teams are working
equally as hard to ensure our neighborhoods don't only see us
in moments of trauma. We recognize that a reduction in violent
crime which results in less community trust is not success.
To reduce crime, we also need help from our elected
leaders. In Dallas, we are fortunate to have a strong and
unwavering support from our mayor, Eric Johnson, who's been
advocates for smart, data-driven strategies while also
implementing community-based public solutions. I don't believe
there is a mayor in America who is more supportive of law
enforcement than Mayor Johnson.
That, also, means he understands that we can't ask or
expect our police officers to do everything. Mayor Johnson
created a Task Force on Safe Communities, which recommended
proven strategies to remediate blight, improve lighting, and
teach both children and adults to resolve conflicts before they
turn violent. The Dallas City Council has supported the mayor's
plan by allocating millions of dollars in funding to our budget
to those programs.
Using this layered approach, we have seen some of the most
significant crime reductions in neighborhoods where we're
deploying both our Violent Crime Reduction Plan strategies and
the Mayor's Task Force on Safe Communities programs.
For example, violent crime is currently down 50 percent in
the city's most violent grids. Perhaps most remarkably, we are
reducing crime in those areas while making fewer arrests. These
community-centric efforts are, and should be, in addition to,
not in lieu of, enforcement efforts.
The strong relationship between Dallas PD and our Federal
partners has also contributed to our success. Despite the rise
in crime, violent and chronic offenders continue to cycle
through the criminal justice system. MCCA Members have found to
pursue Federal charges for violent criminals to be a successful
strategy and proper deterrent. To support these efforts,
Congress must have the capacity in the U.S. Attorney's Office
to support additional prosecutions, as appropriate.
The goal of reimagining public safety should be building
safe and prosperous communities. The success we have achieved
in Dallas demonstrates that this is possible when these efforts
are made. Police officers are supported, and stakeholders work
together.
I look forward to any questions that you may have.
[The statement of Chief Garcia follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Jackson Lee. The gentleman's time has expired. Thank
you very much, Chief Garcia. We thank you for your testimony.
I am now pleased to recognize Ms. Brame for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MADELINE BRAME
Ms. Brame. Hello. Good morning. Thank you for having me.
Thank you for holding this meeting.
My name is Madeline Brame. I am the Chair of the Victims
Rights Reform Council. I'm also the State Director of BLEXIT
New York. I'm also the mother of a homicide victim.
My son, Sergeant Hason Correa, U.S. Army, Afghanistan war,
retired veteran, was killed in 2018 in Harlem, New York. Hason
survived the battlefield of Afghanistan, but was killed right
here on the streets of New York. Hason was killed by four
people he did not know, nor had he done any harm.
The four people consist of two brothers, a sister, and
their friend. All four were apprehended. They are between the
ages of 35 and 40 years old. The three men are currently still
being held on Rikers Island, being held without bail, awaiting
trial.
The sister, the female, Mary Saunders, was being held on a
$750,000 bail for 14 months, up until bail reform took effect
in 2019, when a judge reduced Mary's bail to $12,000 because
the judge stated that Mary had children and she needed to be
home with her family. Also, the district attorney informed me
that they felt sorry for her.
Mary has been out on bail for over two and a half years,
coming and going as she pleases. She's home with her family.
She works. She has no monitoring, no supervision, and no ankle
bracelet. There is nothing standing between me, my
grandchildren, or the public to protect us or deter any type
of--anything that can possibly happen.
This case is ongoing. It's been on the calendar in
Manhattan Criminal Court for four years, and I've been faced
with a lot of delays, and trauma and torture, and unanswered
questions, trying to fight to get justice for my son.
My son served this country. He deserves way better than
what he is getting. This entire incident was captured on video.
So, there's no assumption of who these people are.
My grandchildren are afraid to even come to New York to
visit me because they're afraid that the bad lady is going to
kill them.
No one should have to be subject to this. No one should
have to live in a society where there's complete lawlessness.
This bail reform in New York has decimated the Black and Brown
communities. It's like a runaway train that's crashing right
into our communities, leaving a trail of dead bodies and
victims in its wake. It's an atrocity. It's a disgrace, and it
needs to be rolled back in its entirety, or at least allow
judges to determine dangerousness of these people before they
let them out.
I do agree that there needs to be some form of criminal
justice reform because everybody that goes to jail does not
belong in jail. Some people are just career criminals. When you
have people with 44 priors, 176 priors, 83 priors, and you
continuously arrest them and let them out, that sends a direct
and clear message to those criminals that you have a free pass
to continue on your crime spree, which hurts people--all
right?--and which leaves victims.
No one pays attention. No one gives the victim any
consideration, right? We're here and we're suffering. We're
actually going through a torturous experience because no one
will listen; no one cares. There are no rights protecting us.
It's out of control. It is out of order. It's just dead wrong.
I hear a lot of stuff on this panel today about reimagining
what public safety should look like. I didn't hear not one
person say anything about empowering the people in the Black
communities, right, helping them to be self-sustainable, to
help them get on their own feet, to rise themselves up out of
poverty and not be so dependent on all these different programs
and all these different ``credible messengers.''
That's another thing. They're here in New York, but I have
not seen one positive outcome of their effectiveness. We see
them when it's time for there to be a couple of events and--
Ms. Jackson Lee. Ms. Brame, if you could wrap up? Your time
has expired.
Ms. Brame. Thank you, ma'am.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. Let me offer to you my sympathy
for your loss. We all feel that pain.
Ms. Brame. Thank you so much.
[The statement of Ms. Brame follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you so very much.
Let me now recognize Mr. Lehman for 5 minutes for his
testimony before the Committee.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES FAIN LEHMAN
Mr. Lehman. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the
Committee for the invitation to speak to you today about the
future of American policing.
While I am sure some of my fellow guests will call on you
to redefine the role of the police in our society, I'm here to
challenge the idea that reimagination per se is good. My case
is a simple one. Police are an effective means for controlling
crime. Any significant reduction in their number or
responsibilities would cause substantial loss to public safety.
Crime imposes enormous costs on our society. According to
one recent estimate, crime produced monetary and quality-of-
life losses equivalent to $2.6 trillion in 2017 alone. This is
before the dramatic increase in certain offenses over the past
two years, including the unprecedented 25 percent spike in
homicide.
Crime has significant long-term costs. One study estimates
that victimization leads to losses of up to 13 percent of
earnings as much as four years after the fact. These costs are
borne disproportionately by our most disadvantaged citizens. In
2020, for example, the Black homicide rate was 10 times the
White homicide rate.
To reimagine policing in practice means reducing the number
of police officers or reallocating their responsibilities to
other government agencies. I sincerely doubt that we can make
such changes without increasing crime's already exorbitant
cost.
First, police are among the most effective tools for crime
control. Decades of research supports the proposition that
hiring more officers, deploying more officers in a given area,
and investing more investigations causally reduces crime. One
widely studied estimate finds that, for each dollar spent on
policing, society reaps $1.63 in social savings and crime
prevented.
Second, armed officers are needed for the risks of police
work. Advocates of reimagination expect to send police to only
the most dangerous calls. In a country of 400 million guns,
predicting danger in advance is a real challenge.
In Philadelphia, for example, dispatchers routinely
misassign mental health calls as crimes, and crimes as mental
health calls. In 2019, 15 officers were killed, and thousands
assaulted during routine activities like traffic stops or
handling mentally ill individuals. Recent deaths of social
workers sent in such situations highlight the dangers of even
mundane policing.
Third, it is more efficient to concentrate responsibility
for public order in a single agency rather than unbundling it
across many agencies. Divvying up police duties among smaller
groups of social workers, violence interrupters, and other
civilian employees inevitably leads to excess demand for some
agencies and slack capacity in others. Centralizing
responsibilities preserves a more responsive civil service, key
to both controlling crime and engaging the public.
In contrast to the proven effectiveness of police,
proposals to reimagine policing are generally either misguided,
lacking evidentiary support, or just only a small fraction of
what police do.
The most popular reimagination is the replacement of police
with ``community violence interruption,'' a strategy which, as
President Biden put in his State of the Union Address,involves
``trusted messengers breaking the cycle of violence and trauma
and giving young people hope.''
Yet, violence interruption programs routinely show mixed
efficacy, reducing only some measures of violence in some
areas, and even sometimes resulting in increases in violence.
As Texas A&M University, crime-focused economist Jennifer
Doleac put it, ``the evidence on the strategy is extremely
weak. We basically have no idea if it works. But even the
correlational studies aren't consistently finding beneficial
facts, which should give us pause.''
Another popular idea is to shift mental health and
homelessness-related calls to a separate civilian agency. Model
implementations like Eugene, Oregon's CAHOOTS program have
existed for a long time. They do not, in fact, pick up much
police work. Only 5-8 percent of Eugene's calls for police
service are fully diverted to
CAHOOTS, and the agency spends most of its time on welfare
checks and transport. An average of just 3 percent of 911 calls
to police across nine major cities are for mental and medical
illness.
Lastly, many insist that municipal dollars spent on
policing would be better spent on housing, education, or social
services. This argument depends, invariably, on misleading
estimates of the true level of police funding. Across all
levels of government, police account for less than 3 percent of
spending, a relatively small sum that would not obviously yield
greater returns if diverted to other budget functions.
This is not to say that there are no nonpolice
interventions that can reduce crime. There's great promise in
approaches that reduce public disorder, including greening
public spaces, clearing vacant lots, and increasing street
lighting. These interventions, as with any that works by
facilitating community self-policing, are backstopped by strong
and effective law enforcement. It is good to better equip,
better train, and better oversee our police officers, but we
should never imagine that we can dramatically reduce their
footprint or replace them entirely. To reimagine policing
invariably means a new wave crime, a wave that will crush our
worst-off citizens for decades to come.
Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to
your questions.
[The statement of Mr. Lehman follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Lehman, for your testimony.
Your time having expired, we now recognize Ms. Deberry for
5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF SATANA DEBERRY
Ms. Deberry. Thank you, Chair Jackson Lee, Ranking Member
Biggs, and the Members of the Subcommittee.
Also, to Ms. Brame, as a mother of Black children myself,
my heart breaks for the loss of you and your family.
Over the past two years, some communities, including
Durham, North Carolina, where I am the elected district
attorney, have seen a perfect storm of challenges contribute to
a devastating rise in violence. A once-in-a-lifetime pandemic
has disrupted support systems and strained institutions and
organizations that respond to and try to prevent violence.
The year 2020 saw the largest single year increase in
poverty ever recorded in the United States. Increases in
poverty are closely linked to increases in crime, as stress and
desperation make people more likely to see crime as their best
or only option.
At the same time, Americans purchased guns in record
numbers, more than 40 million over the last two years,
worsening this country's existing gun epidemic. In 2020, nearly
purchased firearms were used in more crimes than usual. Yet,
many states have embraced policies that ease access to, and
regulation of, guns.
We have also seen eroded trust and confidence in the
criminal legal system, particularly between law enforcement and
people of color, who are more likely to be killed by police,
subjected to low-level arrests that provide no public safety
benefit, and at the same time, see so many violent crimes in
their own neighborhoods go unsolved. When trust is fractured,
victims and witnesses are less likely to report crimes or
participate in investigations, making communities less safe.
As a prosecutor, I am responsible for pursuing justice, and
I care about the safety of my community--where I live and my
children go to school--just as much as anyone else in law
enforcement. We can achieve safety through common-sense,
evidence-based reforms.
We have to stop pretending reform is a real threat to
public safety and recognize how overreliance on prosecution and
incarceration may make us less safe. We do not need to choose
between reform and public safety. Those two objectives are
inherently linked.
The United States incarceration rate is second to none. We
spend around $115 billion a year on policing. If more
incarceration equaled less crime, we'd be the safest country in
the world.
While prison is warranted in individual serious cases,
there's little evidence that prison reduces recidivism and at
least some evidence that incarceration makes individuals and
communities more prone to crime, among a range of other harms
for residents.
Meanwhile, evidence is mounting that prosecuting and
incarcerating fewer people is in line with public safety. A
2021 study looked at 35 jurisdictions, including mine, that
elected reform-minded prosecutors and found our policies had no
significant effect on crime, including murder. Reforms studies
included reducing cash bail or pretrial detention, declining to
prosecute certain low-level offenses, and diverting people who
need treatment out of court.
Another recent study of the Suffolk County District
Attorney's office found that not prosecuting certain
individuals for nonviolent misdemeanors reduced their
likelihood of being charged with future offenses within two
years by 64 percent.
Like many communities, Durham saw an increase in homicides
last year, even as most other types of crime and overall
violent crime were down. There is no evidence that the rise in
homicides and gun violence in communities across the Nation is
a result of criminal legal system reforms. I do not say this to
trivialize the recent increase in violence, but, rather, to
underscore how pervasive, tragic, and unacceptable it is, and
how badly we need better solutions.
In 2020, cities with higher poverty and unemployment rates
experienced greater increases in crime, suggesting much of the
increase was due to economic stress and inequality, rather than
reform. Both cities that rejected and pursued reforms saw
similar increases in homicides and violent crimes.
Blaming reform-minded prosecutors for increases in violent
crime is misguided and misinformed. Many of my peers and I have
structured our offices and policies entirely around more
effective prosecution of violent offenses. If someone commits a
serious crime, and there is sufficient evidence of their guilt,
they will be prosecuted. We cannot prosecute cases that are
never charged, nor can we prosecute our way out of violent
crime.
We know what works to reduce violence. Proven and promising
studies already exist. We need to work together and invest in
these solutions long term.
Homicide rates in the United States are below--homicide
clearance rates in the United States are below 50 percent, and
even lower for other crimes like sexual assault and rape. The
strongest deterrent to crime is the likelihood of being caught,
not the severity of the sentence. When so few people are
caught, that deterrent effect is minimized. We must work
alongside law enforcement and invest in solving and prosecuting
serious cases. Meanwhile, we should divert and deflect cases
that do not impact public safety.
We need to address the proliferation of guns through
effective policies, impose waiting periods and increase
training, and limit access to guns for young people.
Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Deberry follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Ms. Deberry. Your
time has expired. Thank you for your testimony.
We now recognize Ms. Richardson for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JERIKA L. RICHARDSON
Ms. Richardson. Chair Jackson Lee, Ranking Member Biggs,
Chair Nadler, Ranking Member Jordan, and the Members of this
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on
reimagining public safety in the COVID-19 era.
My name is Jerika Richardson, and I join you in my capacity
as a senior vice President for equitable justice and strategic
initiatives at the National Urban League, where I lead the
organization's advocacy and strategic work on civic engagement,
police reform, criminal justice reform, and other justice-
related areas. I bring you greetings on behalf of our President
and CEO, Marc H. Morial.
Today, I come before you as a former journalist reporting
the stories of communities and families affected by the
criminal justice system, as a former senior spokesperson for
the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New
York, as a former chief of staff for the Office of the Counsel
to the Mayor of the city of New York, and as the former deputy
executive director and senior advisor and secretary to the New
York City Civilian Complaint Review Board, the Nation's
largest, independent police oversight agency.
I have witnessed the testimony of people on the ground, as
well as the law enforcement community, municipal executives,
and those entrusted with executing the law in pursuit of a just
society. Now, as a member of a historic legacy civil rights
organization, I have the opportunity to advocate for the
pressing issues we face today.
Founded in 1910, the National Urban League has long worked
to lift barriers to opportunity for Black people and people of
color in this country and find solutions to keep our
communities safe by advocating for a more just criminal legal
system.
In the face of a pandemic and the second wave of the civil
rights movement, it was clear to us that a new framework was
needed to rethink the way we handle public safety. In response
to this need, the National Urban League released its 21 Pillars
for Redefining Public Safety and Restoring Community Trust. Our
21 Pillars present a plan to transform policing and move us
closer to a more equitable and just system.
In developing the pillars, we consulted with policing
experts and activists, conducted research on evidence-based
practices, and most importantly, incorporated direct feedback
from our 91 grassroots affiliates by conducting a comprehensive
survey which covered all aspects of policing and captured
critical information about what is happening in our
communities.
Our 21 Pillars are focused on five themes that redefine
public safety from the ground up.
Our first theme recognizes that, first and foremost,
community trust must be restored for true change to occur
through truth, reconciliation, and empowerment.
Theme two acknowledges that community trust goes hand-in-
hand with holding those accountable who have been entrusted
with authority to protect and serve.
Our third theme emphasizes working to uproot divisive
policing policies. While we recognize that change takes time,
we also recognize that we cannot afford to wait.
Therefore, we advocate for urgency and transparency,
reporting standards, and data collection in our fourth theme.
Finally, we highlight that standard for hiring, evaluation,
and promotions in public safety must be improved in our theme
five.
Our Nation is now facing a critical moment when political
divisiveness has stalled the conversion of the social justice
activism of 2020 to legislative and policy change. Public
safety and community police relations must be addressed
together.
In order to break the cycle of violence, the National Urban
League recommends that Congress support well-established
community-based gun violence intervention programs for Federal,
State, and local funding; break the ``Iron Pipeline''; repeal
Federal restrictions that prevent tracing crime guns to help
solve crime, and fund programs addressing the root causes of
violence in the community, including healthcare and mental
health intervention; survivor and victim services; family
trauma services; intimate partner violence prevention, and
community justice action funds.
The National Urban League will do everything it can to
break the cycle of harm in our communities, including hosting
convenings in the next year with stakeholders from every
background to discuss what else communities can do to address
these pressing issues.
Thank you for your time. I look forward to this discussion
and any questions you may have on our 21 Pillars. Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Richardson follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Jackson Lee. The gentlelady's time has expired.
I thank all the Witnesses for their important statements
today.
We will begin our 5-minute questions, which I will begin
with recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
Again, Mayor Turner, let me thank you for one of the single
most potent documents that I have seen in responding to the
vicious cycle of crime across America, dealing with violence
reduction and crime prevention. You have put forward enhancing
city park security, crime suppression teams as it relates to
police officers, illegal firearms. Yet, you have also
recognized the rise in domestic violence by multicultural
domestic violence prevention and outreach--something very near
and dear to me, as the author of the Violence Women Act--and
Mobile Crisis Outreach Teams as relates to mental health. I
know that we will work together on a buyback program as well.
We look to vigorously respond to that crisis.
Tell me how the permitless carry affected the crime rate in
Houston, and maybe even Texas.
Mr. Turner. Madam Chair, it exacerbated, really, a bad
situation. This bill took effect September 1st of last year.
The Major Cities Police Chiefs, a major law enforcement
organization, testified against it. When you look at this, you
see that when these sorts of measures have taken effect, it
increases crime anywhere from 11-13 percent. So, this allows
people without a license, permit, or training to be able to
have their guns, and it just has proliferated that problem.
When the bill was being debated, many law enforcement
personnel indicated and testified that, if the legislature
passed it, this would cause people to be shooting even at law
enforcement personnel. It would increase crime. It would create
even a greater market for these guns and add to the gun
proliferation.
So, I just don't see any inherent value from permitless
carry House Bill 1927.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Can the Federal government help in
bringing down gun violence with local communities?
Mr. Turner. There's no question about that. I made
reference to our reentry program, the dollars that we are
investing in that. I would say, with the exception about our
summer youth program, all of the initiatives in the One Safe
Houston plan are currently being paid for by the ARPA dollars.
Forty-five million dollars in the American Rescue dollars are
being used to put forth this plan. So, but for those dollars,
we would not be able to engage in this comprehensive, holistic
approach.
The reentry program has reduced recidivism in the city of
Houston down to 4 percent. So, we need to expand that. That
compares to the State average of a little more than 20 percent.
Then, technology. The city of Houston is 640 square miles.
Chicago has 275 square miles. So, even with more police, we
can't cover the geographical area effectively without
utilization of more technology. So, even additional funding,
additional grants in that space would be a tremendous help.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I just have a short moment. I just want to
get a yes or no. Did the pandemic have an impact, in your
impression, of the rise in violent crime?
Mr. Turner. Yes, without question.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much.
Madam Deberry, let me thank you again for your service.
I have a question because I believe that justice is judges,
the district attorney, policing. It seems my friends on the
other side have misconstrued the idea of defund to mean to
eliminate the presence of police as opposed to the creative
policing of adding in so many different elements to stop crime.
In particular, I want to refer to the Ahmaud Arbery case,
which is not your case. I want to have you express the role of
a district attorney. That case was derailed because of the
inaction of a district attorney in, one, standing for justice,
as well as holding officers accountable when necessary--not
being against police officers. In this instance, it wasn't
police officers, but it was people acting in the pale of law.
What is the importance of ensuring that your office
prosecutes the cases that address the human dignity and civil
rights of individuals as relates to crime issues or the
accountability of policing? Madam District Attorney?
Ms. Deberry. Thank you for that question. I think it goes
to this question, who will watch the watchers? District
attorneys are there to make sure that everybody in our
community is safe. It is important that, as an elected
official, I am responsible to my community when there are rogue
actors and to bring those rogue actors to justice. So, it is
really important that the district attorney, not just work
cooperatively with law enforcement to keep our community safe,
but also to keep our community safe when there are bad actors.
Ms. Jackson Lee. So, to not do a breach of trust in the
community, I believe.
Ms. Deberry. Absolutely.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you both. Thank you, Mayor Turner,
for your testimony and response to my questions.
Now, I recognize you, Mr. Biggs, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Biggs. I thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Brame, thank you for being here today. I appreciate
your testimony. I read your statement. I express my condolences
to you for the loss of your son as well.
Ms. Brame. Thank you.
Mr. Biggs. We anticipated hearing from your mayor, Eric
Adams, today from New York City, but he is not here. So, I
wanted to ask you, if he were here, what would you tell him,
recognizing that very little has been said about victims today,
victims of crime, whatever? What would you tell Mayor Adams,
had he appeared today?
Ms. Brame. Well, actually, I would form it in a question. I
would ask Mayor Adams, what or how is more of the question--how
would he go about ensuring justice for the mothers and families
of homicide victims, not just justice, but a swifter justice?
Not waiting seven years, six years, four years to get justice
for our loved one. How would he go about it? How would he go
about it? Yeah. How can he assure us that we will get timely
justice for the murder of our loved one? That would be my
question to him.
Mr. Biggs. Has a trial date been set for the defendants in
the murder of your son?
Ms. Brame. They keep moving, they keep moving the date.
They keep moving the date. They keep calendars linked. They
keep postponing. They have since sent it back down to the court
that it originally, the court or part that it originated from.
So, now, we are back on calendar for next month. One of the
other defendants are now putting in an application for bail.
Mr. Biggs. I see. Well, I appreciate your testimony.
I think it is imperative that, as we talk about police and
violent crime, that we can't forget the victims, the families--
Ms. Brame. Yeah.
Mr. Biggs. --the communities that are harmed by violent
crime.
I appreciate you so much being here today, Ms. Brame. Thank
you.
Ms. Brame. Thank you for having me.
Mr. Biggs. Mr. Lehman, you released a report--well, before
I get to that, testimony has been heard today that not
prosecuting for certain misdemeanors is a policy that may work
overall to reduction of crime. Having been a former defense
attorney and a prosecutor, I am interested in that, because I
see in some communities where they do not prosecute any
misdemeanors--for instance, in shoplifting cases where there is
less than a thousand dollars theft. How does that help to bring
safer communities? Or does it?
Mr. Lehman. I think there is a big difference between
policies that focus on reducing misdemeanor prosecution at the
margins and policies which issue a blanket repudiation of
misdemeanor prosecution per se.
The study to which I believe Ms. Richardson alludes--now it
may not have been Ms. Richardson; I forget who alluded to it--
that looked at Rachael Rollins' prosecution, nonprosecution
policy in Boston, concerns itself with whether or not an office
that already mostly did not prosecute misdemeanants, if they
reduced further their prosecution of misdemeanants on sort of a
very narrow margin, what that effect would be, what the effect
would be on their likelihood of recidivity.
It shows that they are less likely to recidivate if they're
not prosecuted. I think that's a useful insight about what
happens with a very specific class of misdemeanants who are on
the margins of being prosecuted versus not. We should be very
wary about generalizing in the way that, for example, the
Manhattan District Attorney has, district attorneys in San
Francisco and Los Angeles have, to the idea that not
prosecuting misdemeanor offenders, in general, is good for
lowering crime in a community. I don't think that's well
established.
Mr. Biggs. You stated in a piece you wrote that, ``civilian
`alternatives' both stand on shaky evidentiary ground and, more
important, are not well suited to the fundamental function of
stopping crime.'' Why do these alternatives stand on shaky
evidentiary ground?
Mr. Lehman. Well, as I alluded to in my testimony, I think
that many of the most popular alternatives are lacking in just
sort of basic support in the evidence. Either the research
isn't there, or where we have done the research, the research
has resulted in, has shown no effect or little effect by
comparison to the strong efficacy of policing.
The programs which are touted as ``proven,'' like
``community violence intervention,'' as, again, the President
alluded to the ``proven'' program, I think lack in basic
evidentiary support that we would just expect before we
dramatically transition how we handle law enforcement.
Mr. Biggs. I am sorry to cut you there, but my time has
expired.
Madam Chair, I have three pieces that I would like to
submit for the record.
One entitled, ``Budget deal cuts Philadelphia police
funding while increasing spending on housing and education.''
That is from Channel 6, ABC.
One is the Budget Office, City of Philadelphia, indicating
their police budget.
One is entitled--this is from VPM, an NPR station--that is
entitled, ``PolitiFact VA: No, Republicans Didn't Vote to
`defund the police.' ''
Ms. Jackson Lee. The first one, would you reread that one,
please?
Mr. Biggs. I'm sorry. Yes. This is a story from Channel 6,
ABC, in Philadelphia that says,``Budget deal cuts Philadelphia
police funding while increasing spending on housing and
education.''
Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, I am glad you put that in because,
obviously, reimagining means you fund housing, education, and
policing. So, thank you for that.
Mr. Biggs. Yes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Without objection, those are submitted
into the record.
[The information follows:]
MR. BIGGS FOR THE RECORD
=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you so very much.
I am now pleased to recognize Ms. Bass for 5 minutes.
Oh, Mr. Nadler, I am sorry, for 5 minutes.
Chair Nadler. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Jackson Lee. The Chair of the Full Committee.
Chair Nadler. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chief Garcia, would more resources for law enforcement
result in less crime?
Chief Garcia. Thank you for your question, sir. With a
plan, absolutely.
Chair Nadler. Okay. How do you balance enforcement with
community engagement?
Chief Garcia. Well, it's one of those things that we talk
about here in the city of Dallas, that we have a weed-and-seed
approach. Basically, what that means to us is that taking the
criminal element off the street and those that are preying on
our communities, while at the same time building community
trust, are not mutually exclusive terms.
As necessary avenues for my SWAT teams, narcotics teams,
crisis response teams, gang units to be in our area of violent
crime, my Community Affairs Division is working just as hard to
ensure our neighborhoods don't always just see them in the
moments of, in a moment of trauma. Those two have to be
balanced. Both those things are absolutely necessary. Both are
in addition to, and not in lieu of, each other.
Chair Nadler. Can you explain how you use data to inform
your strategies to address violent crime?
Chief Garcia. Yes, sir. One of the things that we did here
long ago was team up with criminologists, Dr. Mike Smith and
Rob Tillyer at the University of Texas, San Antonio; and using
doctors that have studied criminology in this time period for
techniques and plans that actually work, that have shown
success. We want to be data-driven here and utilizing that will
be incredibly important. Obviously, as I alluded to earlier in
my statement, having support from our city leaders is
absolutely crucial.
One thing that I didn't highlight is the morale of the
department. Let's face it, in the last couple of years, the men
and women, the honorable men and women that serve this country
and serve their communities have seemed vilified, and morale
has been down in a lot of the departments. That's not something
we talk about very often, but human beings with low morale
disengage at a time when we need them to engage even more. So,
we've worked hard on that here. I believe other chiefs do work
equally as hard to ensure that's accomplished.
Then, being able to utilize the era we're in. As also
mentioned earlier, a small percentage of people in a small
percentage of locations are responsible for a large amount of
crime. That's what we're concentrating on. By reducing the
violent crime in those areas, it has helped reduce violent
crime in the city overall. That's been part of the reason that
we were able to establish what we established.
Chair Nadler. Thank you.
Mr. Abt, would you like to comment on Mr. Lehman's
testimony?
Mr. Abt. I would be happy to.
I think maybe I will just comment on one specific area,
which is his criticism of the evidence base in support of
community violence programs, specifically street outreach
programs. The evidence there I would describe as mixed but
promising.
There is, there is a number of studies out there, many of
which show that when these programs are implemented well they
reduce crime and violence. Sometimes when they are not
implemented well, not surprisingly, they are not effective.
It is true that the evidence base for these programs is not
as strong as the evidence base for law enforcement. That is not
necessarily a reflection of how well they work or don't work;
that's a reflection of the massive investment in policing and
police research.
I think the key here is that we shouldn't be talking about
defunding police, we should be talking about funding these
community violence interventions, and to give them more, more
support. I don't think you need to raid police budgets to do
that.
I would also note that Mr. Lehman has voiced his support in
his testimony and other places for lots of nonpolice-based
approaches. I think there is a surprisingly amount, a large
amount of consensus here, which is that we need both end
strategies: We need police and nonpolice solutions at the same
time, working together.
Chair Nadler. Okay. Back to Chief Garcia.
In 2021, you were able to reduce the homicide rate along
with the arrest rate. Can you explain how reform and public
safety can coexist and they are not mutually exclusive?
Chief Garcia. Absolutely. No question that we need to
adapt. Now, we talk about reimagining oftentimes. I am not
quite certain what that means. If reimagining means that law
enforcement reaches out, absolutely.
When I started in this profession 30 years ago, we would
have never thought that an officer would be wearing a body-worn
camera which now we see in most every major city in America.
Now, is that reimagining or is that adapting? I call it adapt,
and there is a myriad of other things that in law enforcement
has changed in the last 30 years, but I believe that is true.
If by reimagining you mean defunding the police, absolutely
not. I believe that police chiefs and city governments are
doing their jobs to adapt to the communities' needs. So, we are
looking at that and balancing out to know that if a community
needs to trust its police department. At the same time, the
police department needs to take the criminal element off the
street, but they're not [inaudible]. You need to work just as
hard on both areas to make sure that we are doing our best to
work with our communities, building trust, and working with our
city governments to ensure that we reinvest in the communities
that have been ignored for far too long. I don't think anyone
is arguing. I think those are some ways that we can, that we
can work on those two areas.
Chair Nadler. Thank you very much.
My time has expired. I yield back.
Ms. Jackson Lee. The gentleman's time has expired.
Now, Mr. Chabot, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Lehman, or is it Lehman, could you pronounce that last
name for me, please.
Mr. Lehman. ``Leeman.'' Thank you.
Mr. Chabot. It is ``Leeman.'' Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Lehman, I noted--
Mr. Lehman. It is ``Leeman.'' Thank you.
Mr. Chabot. --that you were chomping at the bit there to
respond to Mr. Abt when he was making some comments. Could you
go ahead and I'll give you the time here to comment.
Mr. Lehman. Well, so, I think the most important--I agree
with Mr. Abt that it must come down to the program
implementation. There are clearly instances of pure violence or
violence interruption that have been efficacious. There are as
many, if not more, instances of pure violence that showed no
effect in relatively long-time studies or, in certain
instances, result in or at least are associated with an
increase in violent crime.
That said, I do not think this is merely a matter of money.
It is a matter of program complexity. The idea that trusted
sources can go into a community and intercede in longstanding
or very hot gang feuds assumes a great deal of efficacy on the
part of these unarmed civil servants.
It is a very hard thing to do to talk people out of
incitement of violence, to actively bring them into that
process. So, when we are asked to lean more heavily on
community violence interruption as a tool, what we are saying
is really take something that is more complex and which can be
hurt in complexity, means it will be on average less
efficacious.
I agree with what Mr. Abt said we should use instead. Many
people say we should use it instead of, frankly, the more
straightforward approach of putting cops on blocks that deter
crimes. So, to see it my way, I needed to respond.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much.
Mr. Lehman, in your statement you had a number of, I
thought, very good points. So, I am going to give you an
opportunity to just briefly expound upon a couple of them.
One thing that you said was--and they are calling this
thing reimagining police, so we will use their term. You said,
``To reimagine policing in practice means reducing the number
of police officers or reallocating the responsibilities to
other government agencies. But I sincerely doubt that we can
make such changes without increasing crime's already exorbitant
cost.''
What cost is there to the public due to crime? So, what are
they, what, how is this dangerous that they are talking about
here?
Mr. Lehman. Yeah, absolutely. I allude to estimates that
peg the total cost of crime in 2017 alone at $2.6 trillion.
There are higher estimates that are based on willingness to pay
surveys.
Those costs are distributed over a number of different
categories: Damage to property, loss of life, loss of health or
well-being, and degradation of quality of life. Importantly,
those impacts are both personal and global, short run, and long
lasting.
What I mean by that is being victimized by crime--and I
allude to this in my testimony--has been shown to have durable
impacts on just taking advantage of government benefits and
your long-term wage potential. Being victimized by crime harms
children's test scores in the vicinity of crime victimization.
The impact of crime reverberates for the individual of the
crime and then outwards in the community. Public safety is an
essential component of any community's thriving. So, I think it
is important that we understand steps that might take us away
from public safety will have those longer impacts on
communities.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you. Are you familiar with the term
``qualified immunity''?
Mr. Lehman. Yes.
Mr. Chabot. Okay. Let me ask you about that real quickly.
This is one of the Democrats' great ideas on this Committee and
in Congress, to take away police qualified immunity.
Essentially, what that says is this: We all know that law
enforcement officers because of the nature of their job
sometimes come in physical confrontation with people. You may
have a drunk driver. There is some potential for there to be
some sort of physical involvement there.
A domestic violence case, when they go to a home to break
up someone who may be violent with a spouse. There are all
kinds of opportunities.
Now, as long as the police under current law are following
the way they were trained, they are not violating someone's
civil rights, that sort of thing, they are immune from being
personally sued.
What the Democrats want to do is allow law enforcement
officers to be sued personally for any types of engagements
with the public. That would mean that the police officers'
kids' college funds, the equity in their home, their pension
could all be at risk from a bunch of greedy lawyers.
Does that seem like a good idea to you?
Mr. Lehman. Just briefly in the remaining time, I think
that often qualified immunity's impact is overstated by both
sides. Its uses are overstated.
That said, increasing the transaction cost of policing,
increasing the risks to which officers are exposed, will
necessarily lower their willingness to engage in local
policing. So, therefore, I am concerned about exposing them to
personal liability, or more frequently exposing the departments
in the cities to dealing with the costs of that liability which
are driving insurance raises and harmful to [inaudible].
Mr. Chabot. Madam Chair, my time has expired, and I yield
back.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I appreciate the discourse that the
gentleman had on qualified immunity. Let me be very clear. It
is a misinterpretation of that we are promoting in our
reasonable response to holding law enforcement accounting while
also building police-community relationships.
So, I thank you very much for your words.
Mr. Brown. Madam Chair, whose time are you using when you
comment on--
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mine.
Mr. Brown. Your time.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I am using mine. Thank you so very much.
Mr. Brown. Very good. Okay.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. The Dean, but you are back. So,
Ms. Dean will be recognized for 5 minutes. Thank you so very
much.
Ms. Dean. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am sure there are many
others entitled to the title ``the Dean.''
Thank you again for this important panel discussion and the
expert testimony that we are hearing.
To Ms. Madeline Brame, my deepest and sincere sympathy for
the loss of your son. I know those words don't go far enough.
I am a Member from Pennsylvania, alongside my other Member
here from Pennsylvania, suburban Philadelphia. As the United
States grapples with a global pandemic, we still continue to
battle the American pandemic: Gun violence.
According to the research from the Council on Criminal
Justice, the number of homicides in 2021 increased by 5 percent
from 2020, and 44 percent from 2019. In 2021, in my city,
Philadelphia metro area suffered a terrible toll of gun
violence, with fatal and nonfatal shootings at levels not seen
for decades. Sadly, we are on pace to continue that trend this
year.
Mayor Turner, I would like to start with you. I was
particularly interested in the legislation you talked about
because I am a former State representative in Pennsylvania
where we saw such attempts at legislating the bill that you
talked about, H.B. 1927. You called it an irresponsible Act in
your testimony.
For me, I feel like it's more like a slap in the face to
all those who are victim and survivors of gun violence across
the State of Texas or elsewhere.
Can you share in a more maybe granular way from your expert
eyes the impact of allowing unlicensed carry of firearms across
your state?
Mr. Turner. Well, when you have a creation of irresponsible
use on the parts of, on the part of many people, there is no
license, there is no permit, and there is no training.
We recently had a shooting, a fatal shooting for example,
of a 9-year-old in the City of Houston, a person who was a
victim themself of crime. The person was fleeing, and he pulled
his gun and he started shooting, thinking that the person who
victimized him had gotten into this moving truck. That was not
the case.
So, it is very important for people, when they are going to
have their weapons and they are going to use them, to have the
proper training.
I was in the legislature for 27 years. Up until last year,
we had said, we said no in Texas to permitless carry. Police
organizations, major police chiefs, and others in the State
said no. If you do it, it will add to crime by 11-13 percent.
It came into effect on September 1 of last year, and it has
exacerbated our problems.
Ms. Dean. Thank you for that. It makes no sense. It is
counterintuitive that we would have no requirement of training
or expertise with permitless carry. So, thank you for lifting
that issue.
Mr. Abt, I read and heard with interest that you talked
about why it is important that we approach this both as law
enforcement and with community-based approaches. We often hear,
and I am sad to hear it, and I loved that you tried to pull
politics out of this.
It is not about red cities, blue cities, Democrats, or
Republicans. Very often we hear on the other side of the aisle
the old chestnut that this is about Democrat cities. It is a
destructive conversation that is going on.
Could you give us more explicit information about why it
has got to be both: It has got to be good law enforcement and
good community-based approaches?
Mr. Abt. Absolutely. It should be obvious to all Americans
that both parties are responsible for promoting public safety.
We have had increases over the past year of 5 percent in
homicides under the Biden Administration. Last year in 2020
under the Trump Administration there was an increase of 29
percent in homicide. There is more than enough blame and more
than enough responsibility to go around.
I think it is important to understand that there is a
science to violence reduction. There are literally hundreds of
studies on the subject. If you add up the lessons of those
studies one by one by one, you see that there are four basic
principles, or three basic principles of violence reduction.
The first is to be focused, focused on the highest risk
people and places.
The second is your point, that we must be balanced. We have
to give people things to say yes to, as well as to say no to.
There have to be carrots and there have to be sticks.
The third is fairness. Ultimately, if the system is not
perceived as fair, it cannot effectively fight crime and
violence.
Ms. Dean. Thank you very much.
I know my time has expired. I yield back.
Ms. Jackson Lee. The gentlelady yields back.
I now recognize Mr. Tiffany for 5 minutes.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Brame, I have a question for you in regards to--bear
with me just a second. I am going to pull up.
Ms. Brame, in 2007, the District Attorney for Milwaukee
County, who is still there, said, and this is a direct quote
from him, ``Is there going to be an individual I divert or I
put into the treatment program who is going to go out and kill
somebody? You bet. Guaranteed. It is guaranteed to happen. It
does not invalidate the overall approach.''
Have you heard that kind of talk from prosecutors in your
city?
Ms. Brame. Gee, I haven't heard any talk of treatment from
prosecutors in New York. I haven't heard any talk of it. That
is something that I would--
Mr. Tiffany. So--
Ms. Brame. Go ahead.
Mr. Tiffany. Have you had experience where a prosecutor has
not prosecuted someone who should be?
Ms. Brame. Yes.
Mr. Tiffany. So, you have seen someone being weak on crime
by not prosecuting a heinous crime. Is that correct?
Ms. Brame. Yes. Also, a judge.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you.
Mayor Turner, you said COVID contributed to, contributed to
crime in your city. Is that accurate?
Mr. Turner. That is. That is correct.
Mr. Tiffany. Were Houston schools shut down for a period of
time?
Mr. Turner. Houston schools were closed for a period of
time. Then we strongly encouraged them to reopen, yes.
Mr. Tiffany. How long ago did they reopen, do you know,
Mayor?
Mr. Turner. They were open all the way through 2021 in this
academic year. We strongly encouraged all our school districts
to remain open.
Mr. Tiffany. So, they were closed the 2020-2021 school
year?
Mr. Turner. In the 2021 period they closed down. Starting I
think right around April of 2020. Remained closed through the
remainder of that school year. Then in the following school
year they did open up.
Mr. Tiffany. Yeah. The devastation that has happened as a
result of closing schools has just been awful. We knew better
by April of 2020 that should not happen.
Mr. Lehman, are police in retreat? Is there an impact of
police being in retreat, which I think they are?
Mr. Lehman. Yes. Certainly, we have survey evidence from
major departments as well as my experience talking to officers
that they have a sense of, for lack of a term, being under
fire. I think the greatest concern in many departments, not all
of them, but many departments, is that they lack the support of
those in positions of leadership.
As a result, we reduce both the number of levels of police
staffing in many major cities. Many major cities saw declines
in their overall staffing last year. We know that the number of
cops is directly relating to the crime level.
Also, their willingness to be proactive, to be out on the
beat, to confront somebody who they think is a problem before
they are a problem. It is likely both variables have gone down.
Mr. Tiffany. Yeah. So, Mr. Lehman, I believe until both
major parties come out and say, and do, more than just lip
service in saying they support the police, that it is going to
be hard for the police to not continue to be in retreat.
Would you agree with that? Until they know that the public
sentiment is behind them, which we are hearing, including with
documents that are behind me here, until we hear that
unequivocally isn't it going to be hard for police to be able
to offer good, constructive, safe policing that keeps our
communities safe?
Mr. Lehman. I think if police officers have a sense that
they are not supported by civilian leadership, they are less
willing to engage in the most challenging parts of police work,
the most vital parts of police work. Also, people are less
willing to be and remain police officers, which contributes to
a long-run staffing crisis.
Mr. Tiffany. Yeah. I would just close with this: We just
heard from the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania that she said
rejected this notion that there's red cities, blue cities. You
know what, it is very clear, in Democrat-run cities across
America crime has skyrocketed: Seattle, Portland, Minneapolis,
Madison, and Milwaukee. You name it, wherever the political
machine is run by Democrats we have seen an explosion in crime.
You can try to deny that. It is the case.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Now, pleased to recognize Ms. Bass for 5
minutes.
Ms. Bass. Thank you, Madam Chair. As always, thank you for
having this hearing today.
I wanted to ask Ms. Deberry if she would talk about cities
where crime has increased where there has been reform, and
cities where crime has increased where there has not been
reform. I also would like to ask Ms. Richardson the same thing.
Is there a big difference, is what I am looking for? Cities
that have had reforms, do they have an explosion in crimes, and
cities that do not, has crime gone down?
Ms. Deberry. Yes. Ms. Bass, we see no difference in cities
that have reform or don't have reform, in cities that are, and
places that are rural or urban. I mean, North Carolina we have
100 counties. There has been an increase in violence across all
100 counties, irrespective of whether there are criminal legal
reforms in process or not.
Ms. Bass. So, if the reforms--then if there is no evidence
for reforms leading to an increase in crime, what is the reason
that crime has increased in both areas?
Ms. Deberry. Well, I think the pandemic itself has cut off
resources to people who are the most vulnerable in our
community. We know that poverty drives violence. We have seen
since 2022 the largest increase in poverty in history.
We also have seen an explosion in gun sales, and that legal
guns are now used in many crimes.
I think, also, as a prosecutor, we see fewer people willing
to come forward and talk about what is happening in their
communities out of fear of retaliation.
Ms. Bass. Thank you. Thank you.
Ms. Richardson?
Ms. Richardson. I would agree with that assessment. Thank
you for the question.
The National Urban Leagues represent communities across
this country, in urban, growing suburban areas, and we have
seen a dramatic increase in violent crime everywhere. So, I
think it is important for us to look to the underlying factors
of that.
Obviously, we know about the root causes and challenges in
our community. The pandemic really laid bare a lot of
inequities that we see. It resulted in job insecurity, in
instability. It represented and reflected in more homelessness
and housing issues, as well as mental health and trauma.
I would argue that we are not just seeing those in the
community generally, but we are also seeing those issues in law
enforcement as well. So, I think it is critically important
that we focus on addressing these root causes and putting more
funding and resources into social services.
Ms. Bass. Thank you.
Ms. Richardson. You are welcome.
Ms. Bass. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor, good to see you, even on screen. I understand
that in your city you have a problem with homelessness, just
like in Los Angeles, and that you have had a significant
reduction. I wanted to know (1) was there an association with
crime in the unhoused population? (2) What have you been able
to do that has made it so different?
Mr. Turner. The answer is yes. We have reduced homelessness
by about 55-57 percent. Even in the last year we have reduced--
Ms. Bass. Can you come to Los Angeles?
Mr. Turner. So, but it is a correlation, it is a network of
100 different groups, organizations that have a coalition of
the homeless that have come together. Houston and Harris County
have placed unprecedented funding in reducing it. It is not
just about providing a housing unit, but wrap-around supportive
services. So, that program is working well.
Ms. Bass. Was there an association in the unhoused
population and criminal activity?
Mr. Turner. There was.
Ms. Bass. Have you been able to reduce that as well?
Mr. Turner. The answer is yes.
It is also a part of our crisis intervention where the
focus is on addressing the homeless situation as well as mental
behavior health issues, because that also runs rampant within
this particular community.
Ms. Bass. Did you increase your arrest rate and increase
the number of officers? Did that contribute to that reduction
as well?
Mr. Turner. Congresswoman Bass, we have instituted police
reforms. We have increased the police budget in 2020, as well
as in 2021. At the same time, we are seeing rising crime.
So, we have never defunded. In fact, in June of 2020, we
increased our policy budget by 13 percent, and we also
instituted the reforms. What we are seeing is a huge criminal
case backlog because during Hurricane Harvey many of our courts
were taken offline. Then, of course, during COVID many of our
courts were taken offline. Now we have seen a proliferation of
guns all over the place. When you add all those elements in,
even with increasing the police budget, crime has gone up.
Ms. Bass. So, gun reform would be helpful then, huh?
Mr. Turner. Absolutely. No question.
Ms. Bass. Thank you. Thank you.
I think my time is up.
Ms. Jackson Lee. The gentlelady's time has expired.
It is now my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
Mr. Massie.
Mr. Massie. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Abt, can you talk to us about the linkage between
literacy or high school graduation rates and juvenile
delinquency or incarceration?
Mr. Abt. I think there might be some, some correlation. I
have to say that literacy is not the most important thing when
you are talking about violence reduction. What you are talking
about are individuals who are deeply disconnected from
education, deeply connected to the criminal justice system. You
need this sort of all-hands-on-deck approach for those
individuals.
Literacy generally, of course, is extremely important, but
it is not central to violence reduction.
Mr. Massie. How is education correlated, or why did they
lose interest or become disconnected from the educational
system?
Mr. Abt. This is a, this is a grand debate in violence
reduction. When we talk about root causes, accesses to
opportunity, poverty, inequality, other things like that, these
are all correlated with rates of violent crime. Obviously, they
are connected.
In terms of what yields the most direct, measurable, and
concrete outcomes in terms of saving lives this year, next
year, the following year, you have to focus on where the
problem is concentrated. So, obviously, we need massive
investments, I believe, in education housing, educate--literacy
and these other things.
They are not a substitute for the immediate interventions
that we need right now.
Mr. Massie. Thank you.
Mr. Lehman, can you speak to this topic? Is it just a
correlation or is there causation between lack of literacy or
lack of high school diplomas, graduation, tied to incarceration
rates or juvenile delinquency?
Mr. Lehman. I can't, I think, make any sounder claims that
Mr. Abt, although I agree with everything he said. Certainly,
the complexity of handling, the question of handling the root
causes of an offender, risk of offending. He is right that
those individuals who take up the overwhelming majority of
criminal justice resources in terms of frequency of offense the
primary problem is not just access to education, it is not just
any one particular vector.
So, I think certainly there is a correlation. I think that
there are many other levers that one could pull other than
education, even while saying education is very important in
general in society.
Mr. Massie. So, according to the National Adult Literacy
Survey, 70 percent of all incarcerated adults cannot read at a
fourth-grade level. I think there is probably more than just
correlation. I think there is some causation there.
If literacy corresponds to access to better jobs, to
higher-paying jobs, then obviously, income levels are tied to
crime as well. The lack of opportunity, as you mentioned, is a
factor.
Mayor Turner, how long were your schools shut down during
COVID?
Mr. Turner. They were shut down, I believe, starting in
April of 2020, through the rest of that academic year. I think
in the following academic year they started, they reopened. We
encouraged them all to reopen.
Mr. Massie. Do you think the lack of the educational
opportunity or the number of people who sort of tuned out maybe
at the high-school senior level, or maybe at the third-grade
level is going to have any effect on crime in your city?
Mr. Turner. Well, I tie education and opportunity together.
If people are falling behind and not getting what they need
from an educational point of view, it certainly puts them at a
disadvantage and reduces the number of opportunities that are
made available. It could lead to increased crime.
I think the more people that receive education, the better
they will be. I do think it is one of the deterrents to crime.
Mr. Massie. I think one of the worst policies that was
adopted during the last two years in terms of trying to
mitigate COVID was taking a set of our citizens, our kids, and
depriving them of educational opportunities, in some cases for
two years. This is going to have a long tail. This will affect
crime.
This is, this is going to create a pandemic of lack of
opportunity because these kids, a lot of them have dropped out.
They are not going to be literate. They are going to be behind
in every category, not just literacy but basic math, basic
civics. I think it is a tragedy. I think the people who caused
this need to be called to answer, and they need to own up for
what they have created and their contribution to crime in this
country by depriving our kids of an education.
I yield back.
Ms. Jackson Lee. The gentleman yields.
Ms. Scanlon, Pennsylvania.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Abt, you mentioned in your testimony that ATF data
indicates that gun sales have soared during the pandemic. For
thousands of guns sold in 2020, the time to crime was six
months or less.
Can you explain what that means?
Mr. Abt. Sure. A huge number of guns were legally purchased
during the pandemic. Actually there was a 64 percent increase
from the year before.
The time to crime is the time from when a gun is legally
purchased to the time it shows up in a crime scene and the
commission of a crime. That measurement is usually a long time.
The average was 8.3 years in 2019. It fell to 7 years in 2020.
The reason is because a surprisingly large number of guns went
from the legal market into the Black market, into the hands of
criminals, within six months. In fact, that share, that share
of guns increased by 90 percent.
Ms. Scanlon. So, is it fair to say that the increased
access to guns has played a role in the rise in violent crime
in recent years?
Mr. Abt. I think it is a reasonable conclusion. If you look
at the ATF data and then you look at what the local police data
is showing in city after city after city where you are seeing
surges in the illegal carrying of firearms, it is hard not to
put the two together.
Ms. Scanlon. In your testimony, you mentioned a study that
was done in Philadelphia in which the restoration of blighted
and vacant lots was associated with a reduction in violence and
crime. In other words, investing in neighborhoods to remove
trash and restore vacant lots was associated with a reduction
in violence.
Can you talk about this type of place-based crime
prevention strategy?
Mr. Abt. Absolutely.
Place-based strategies that address blight, add
streetlights, change foot and car traffic patterns, among other
tactics can be effective in reducing crime and violence. As you
noted, in Philadelphia, removing trash, seeding land, and
planting trees in vacant lots is associated with a 17 percent
increase in--decrease, excuse me, in violent crime.
In New York City, installing temporary streetlights reduced
nighttime crimes by 36 percent.
So, these place-based crime prevention tactics can work.
Ms. Scanlon. So, as we encourage localities to adopt
evidence-informed strategies to reduce violence, can you talk
about how the Federal government can support these efforts by
funding technical assistance, training, and information sharing
opportunities?
Mr. Abt. Absolutely.
One of the key powers that the Federal government has in
this space, because crime fighting is primarily a local
exercise, is its grant-making power. That just doesn't--that
doesn't just mean handing over dollars to localities to do
whatever they want. It means specifically funding these
evidence-informed strategies that have been proven to work.
As you noted, funding the training and technical assistance
so that we have sound implementation of these things.
Finally, I would note that one of the biggest challenges,
long-term challenges to our violence reduction efforts is the
lack of good data. It's not sexy, but it is incredibly
important. We need to massively invest in our criminal justice
data systems and help our local police agencies collect better
data if we are going to be more effective over the long run.
Ms. Scanlon. In the remaining time, your testimony
mentioned that overheated political rhetoric has presented the
public with a false choice between absolutes, whether it is
Black Lives Matter vs. Blue Lives Matter, that one has to
choose between responsible community law enforcement and chaos.
Most Americans know that is a false choice.
They know it from their own common sense and personal
experience, that effective violence reduction efforts require
law enforcement and working with community partners to make
sure we have safety and justice for everyone.
Can you talk about how this divisive rhetoric, pitting
Americans against each other rather than looking for solutions,
hurts efforts to reduce violence?
Mr. Abt. Sure. You can look to the research which shows
that there is a number of ``soft on crime interventions'' that
are effective.
You can look at the evidence that shows that a number of
targeted but tough interventions are also effective.
You can look at the fact that there is no city in the
United States that has either arrested its way out of violence
or simply programmed its way out of violence.
Or you can just look to the experience of law enforcement
practitioners all over the country like myself. I have never
been involved in an anti-crime effort that was successful if it
didn't have strong collaboration. It never happens. We need to
promote at the national level a collaborative atmosphere so
that we can actually let the people on the ground work across
silos and get the job done.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. My time has expired. I yield back.
Ms. Jackson Lee. The gentlelady's time has expired.
I am now recognizing Mr. Jordan for 5 minutes.
Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The previous colleague just talked about overheated
political rhetoric. I would say the most overheated political
rhetoric in this area has been defund the police, that slogan.
That is certainly not coming from, from our side of the, of the
aisle.
Mr. Lehman, let me just ask you this. This is where I was
with my opening statement earlier. Just common-sense things.
When you defund the police should you be surprised when you
get more crime?
Mr. Lehman. Broadly speaking, no. I would expect a
reduction in police funding to result in, be associated with
increase in crime.
Mr. Jordan. Yeah, I think every American is there.
When you don't prosecute bad guys should you be surprised
when you get more crime?
Mr. Lehman. Depending on the definition of bad guys, no.
Certainly, I think there are margins on which we could
prosecute less, and there are margins on which we should
probably prosecute more. Particularly with the heinous,
serious, or repeat offenders, if you decline to prosecute them
you just expect them to continue to do what they have been
doing.
Mr. Jordan. Yeah.
When political leaders and leaders in the media say that
rioters and looters, people who destroy buildings, attack
police officers, and take property, when rioters and looters
are called peaceful protesters, should we be surprised if that
leads to an increase in crime?
Mr. Lehman. I would be surprised if it led to a large scale
or longer running increase in crime. It certainly would
contribute to sort of a decaying social norms. I think in the
short run it almost certainly places pressure on civilian law
enforcement authorities to spend less of their time and energy
on responding to violence, responding to the rioting, sort of
to give up a police precinct for example, as happened in
Seattle.
So, certainly it is a margin type matter in some specific
cases.
Mr. Jordan. Yeah. If police aren't going to respond, they
are just going to let it happen, doesn't that send a message
that I can get away with that in the future as well?
Mr. Lehman. Sure. Absolutely.
Mr. Jordan. I mean, that is exactly what happened the
entire summer of 2020.
What about bail reform, the left's bail reform efforts?
When you have that kind of bail reform, should you be surprised
when you get more crime?
Mr. Lehman. Well, that depends on what the bail reform
does. The ability to get bail is not necessarily the best
predictor of ability of risk of re-offending or risk of flight.
Moving away from cash bail is not totally crazy.
That said, how you define and design it matters a lot. If
as, for example, in New York State, judges are unable to remand
people on the basis of their risk to the community, that is a
pretty poorly designed bail reform implementation in my
opinion.
Mr. Jordan. Yeah.
Mr. Lehman. If you are erring against keeping dangerous
prisoners, dangerous criminals behind bars, it is a bad way to
do it.
Mr. Jordan. I guess, I always come from the messages sent.
So, if you have fewer cops on the street, I don't know how
anyone cannot conclude that is going to result in more crime.
If you are, if you are letting bad guys out and not having
the type of bail we have traditionally had, you are not
prosecuting violent criminals and other people who break the
laws, if you are telling people that you can take up to $1,000
in merchandise and not get prosecuted for that, I don't know
how that doesn't contribute to more crime.
Mr. Lehman. Yeah. It almost certainly contributes. The
question comes down to where it contributes and how it
contributes. I think it is almost certainly the case. Some
jurisdictions in California have seen an increase in
shoplifting, some jurisdictions in California have not seen an
increase in shoplifting. We tend to blame that either on
progressive prosecution, or on California's changes to the
felony threshold.
We see similar changes in other jurisdictions that do not
lead to larger cases of shoplifting. My suspicion is in that
case there's exceptional factors, prosecutorial strategies and
lenience, and the felony threshold all contribute to an
environment in which shoplifting is easier to do, the costs of
shoplifting are lower.
Mr. Jordan. Yeah.
I think that's an example of exactly what we are talking
about. If you ratchet back the capacity of the criminal justice
system, you should expect that the margin, that the people who
are most likely to offend will offend more.
Mr. Jordan. Yeah, of course. I guess I always start from
the premise I don't--in my mind bad guys aren't stupid. I mean,
they are just bad. So, if they see, oh, we are not going to be
prosecuted. We can go shoplift and not be prosecuted, there are
less cops on the street, when the rioters and looters were
called peaceful protesters, in that environment I don't know
how that doesn't contribute to more crime. That is exactly what
we see.
Isn't crime up in just about every major urban area,
particularly violent crime?
Mr. Lehman. Specifically violent crime. We also see large
increases in motor vehicle theft, other kinds of property
offenses, although not all property offenses. Yes, in general.
By the way, those kinds of offenses are telling me,
specifically shootings and homicides because it is concentrated
among the most crime-prone populations,--
Mr. Jordan. Right.
Mr. Lehman. --people who are getting into these.
Mr. Jordan. Yeah. I yield back.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you for your questioning.
Mr. Cicilline, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you. Ms. Deberry and Ms. Richardson,
you both observe that crime is up across the country
irrespective of the political affiliation of the political
leadership, the victims of crime, or the part of the country,
that this is a problem that is occurring across the country. Is
that right?
Ms. Deberry. That is correct.
Mr. Cicilline. Ms. Richardson?
Ms. Richardson. Yes.
Mr. Cicilline. Okay. So, it seems to me you also both spoke
about root causes of crime. You talked about things like, of
course, the pandemic, mental health, housing, healthcare,
stress on families, and resources for police.
So, my question to both of you, if there was a piece of
legislation called the American Rescue Plan, and you were
serious about responding to crime, and it provided significant
investments in mental health, and in healthcare, and in
housing, and also 380 or 350 billion dollars that was available
for our police departments, would you say that kind of
legislation would actually be an effective response, and
someone who was serious about doing something about crime would
support that? Is that fair to say?
Ms. Deberry. That's fair to say.
Mr. Cicilline. Ms. Richardson?
Ms. Richardson. Yes.
Mr. Cicilline. Would it surprise you to learn that every
single Republican in the entire House of Representatives,
despite the speeches, and as Mr. Tiffany said, the lip service,
voted against exactly those strategies?
So, I say to you, Ms. Brame, I really express my
condolences for your loss. You deserve a serious conversation
about what we can do to support safer communities rather than
the kind of fear you have gotten, unfortunately, from some of
my colleagues.
So, I really want to talk about gun violence and,
specifically, ghost guns, which seem to be a growing problem.
This is where firearms are untraceable and can be easily built
at home from a gun kit. They are appearing in crimes across
this country
So, Mr. Deberry, I will begin with you. What problems do
ghost guns create for law enforcement responding to gun crimes?
How are they a threat to public safety? What should we do about
it?
Ms. Deberry. Well, I would say ghost guns are certainly an
evidentiary problem in the prosecution of violent crime.
Homicides and shootings are the most complicated cases to
prosecute. They are very dependent on physical evidence. The
fact that physical evidence and ability to trace that physical
evidence to a particular defendant, it is difficult to
prosecute that.
I would say that what we need is, certainly, tougher gun
laws and the ability to background check for anybody who buys a
gun, and red flag laws, and other things that would make sure
that guns only land in the hands of people who are trained to
use them, and people that the police can trace those guns back
to, and not in the hands of young people.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you.
Mr. Abt, understanding that law enforcement alone cannot
solve the problems of violence and violent crime--and, as I
say, when I was mayor my chief always said that the partnership
with the community is such a central part of their work--what
policing practices, such as hotspot policing or targeted
interventions, are you finding the most effective at responding
to violent crime?
Would you speak some to the role of the relationship
between the community and the police in terms of trust and how
effective that is as a tool to fight violent crime in our
communities?
Mr. Abt. Absolutely. First, I just want to echo your
observation about the Institute for the Study and Practice of
Nonviolence and their collaboration with the Providence Police
Department. It is well-known to us in the violence reduction
field, and it was, and it remains successful.
Look, in terms of the role of improving confidence and
trust in the criminal justice system, it is pretty simple:
Prosecutors and police need evidence to hold gun offenders
accountable. If people don't trust law enforcement, then they
won't talk to you, and they won't testify in court.
It is not surprising that in the most violent cities we see
the worst police-community relationships, and also the lowest
homicide clearance rates. So, reforms to policing and other
parts of the justice system, if they improve that trust, if
they restore that confidence, that will ultimately lead to
lower crime rates.
That is why we need to control crime and to make reasonable
reforms to the system at the same time. We don't need to
abolish or defund the police. We do need to help them improve.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you. You know what, I take a lot of
pride in the work that was done in my State and my city, some
of the best police departments in the country who really
invested in becoming fully integrated in the community, and
serve on housing boards and YMCA boards, and became trusted,
respected Members of the community so that victims of crime,
witnesses to crime have comfort in sharing information with the
police.
So, I thank you for that. Thank you for recognizing the
Institute. I yield back.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Time has expired. Thank you for your
questioning.
Now, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the Congresswoman
from Missouri, Congresswoman Bush, the Vice Chair of this
Subcommittee.
The Congresswoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Bush. St. Louis and I thank you, Chair Jackson Lee, for
convening this important hearing.
What too many of my colleagues do not want us to talk
about, what they don't want us talking about is that as they
trip over each other rushing to see lies and right-wing talking
points about police funding, they are saying nothing about the
rise of violence by the police. Even after millions of people
marched in our streets demanding an end to police brutality,
there were only 15, one five, 15 days in 2021 in which police
officers didn't kill someone. Last year broke the record for
police killings in this country, 1,055 deaths by law
enforcement. That is likely an undercount.
In Missouri, Black people are almost five times more likely
to be killed by police compared to White people. Year after
year, despite increases in police budgets, St. Louis has led
the country in police killings per capita.
Police violence is so pervasive, many Black and
marginalized people avoid calling the police when they are
undergoing some of the most difficult emergencies.
I came to Congress to save lives. I will not back down from
that, no matter what some of my colleagues on this Committee
say. So, let's get the truth of what health-informed and
evidence-based public safety needs to look like.
In St. Louis, our community has taken meaningful steps to
transform public safety as a public health issue. Last year we
started a 911 diversion program that has diverted mental
health-connected violence, drug overdose, and trespassing calls
to licensed and trained practitioners. Before it started, there
were few options for people in crisis: A trip to the emergency
room, spending a night in jail, or receiving no help at all.
In the almost one year since implementation, our 911
diversion program answered nearly 700 calls with 75 percent not
resulting in a response by law enforcement. The program saved,
saved 2,000 hours of police and EMS time. At the same time,
despite no increases in the local police budget, homicides and
gun assaults also fell, fell back down by more than 25 percent.
These are the kinds of programs that have saved lives in
St. Louis, in Denver, in Eugene, Oregon, and in communities
across our country. So, when some of my colleagues try to tell
you that transforming public safety, that would mean when you
call 911 no first responder will answer, that is a lie.
When there is an emergency and you need help, no one will
show up; that is what they tell you, but that is a lie.
When they tell you that the police need military grade
weapons and equipment, like MRAP, to keep us safe, that is a
lie.
I want us to build a future where communities don't fear
for our lives when we call for help. I want trained
professionals to come and help when you are undergoing a mental
health crisis without fear of death. That is what I will
continue to champion.
It is for this reason that I introduced H.R. 4914, the
People's Response Act, to ensure that the Federal government is
supporting our cities, supporting States, and community-based
organizations and launching and scaling, scaling up our public
health alternatives to policing. Let's make sure this is the
truth that we are talking about today.
So, Mr. Abt, can you provide examples of noncarceral,
community-based intervention programs that have been successful
in curbing community violence?
Mr. Abt. Absolutely.
Cognitive behavioral therapy, also known as CBT, can teach
high-risk individuals to manage emotions, address conflicts,
and think ahead to avoid criminal or violent behavior.
In Chicago, one CBT program reduced arrests for violent
crimes among youth by half, while another reduced shooting and
homicide arrests among high-risk individuals by 80 percent.
We have talked a lot about the community violence
strategies known as cure violence or street outreach. By my
count, there has been approximately four or five evaluations
that are positive and showing positive effects of that
intervention. There's one or two that are showing negative
effects.
So, the balance of the evidence is in favor of those
programs.
We also talked about placement-based crime prevention.
We haven't talked about hospital-based violence prevention,
which is another promising strategy.
Again, I think we have to stop having this either/or
conversation. The police need to be at the table. The community
needs to be at the table. Service providers need to be at the
table. We all need to work together.
Ms. Bush. Thank you, Mr. Abt.
I agree that to achieve community safety we need to
prioritize fully funded programs and services that are proven
to work. I implore my colleagues on this Committee to support
the People's Response Act with deep respect.
Thank you. I yield.
Ms. Jackson Lee. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
Thank you so very much.
It is now my privilege to yield 5 minutes to the gentlelady
from Texas, Ms. Escobar. Thank you for your patience.
Ms. Escobar. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I would like
to express my gratitude to all our panelists who are sharing
their wisdom with us today.
To Ms. Brame, wanted to express my sincerest condolences on
the loss of your child. I cannot imagine.
This is such a critical hearing and such an important
conversation. It is deeply unfortunate that we have colleagues
on the other side of the aisle who use opportunities for real
solutions-based policy, use these opportunities instead for
their performance politics.
I am so fortunate. I represent El Paso, Texas. El Paso is
on the U.S.-Mexico border, but it has also been one of the
safest communities in America for decades. I believe much of
that is the result of community-based policing, and much of
what has been discussed today in terms of really looking at a
holistic approach to addressing crime and troubling increases
in crime.
One of the things, though, that I think is important to
look at is the research. As you talked about earlier, so
important to look at the research. So, I want to examine two
key factors today.
First, let's look at research that demonstrates that, that
when we invest in families and communities that plays a
positive role in addressing crime. That means investing in
healthcare, in pre-K, making sure that we are creating green
spaces, that we have summer jobs programs, et cetera.
The second component of keeping communities safe is looking
at the role that guns play. We know that since 2020, more
Americans have been buying guns at a rate unlike what we have
seen in prior years. Those guns, no doubt, are playing a
serious role in the lack of safety in communities. In fact, it
is not just impacting communities across the country, but it is
impacting our military.
Last week I participated in an Armed Services Committee
hearing where we talked about servicemember suicide. What was
key in that? It was access to guns. These are not government-
provided guns, these are guns that serviceMembers are now
easily able to buy in communities.
Now, despite these facts, despite knowing that if you
invest in people, families and communities, that increases
safety, and that by limiting access to guns, making sure they
don't get into the wrong hands, that increases safety, what are
my Republican colleagues' strategies? More guns and fewer
programs to support families.
That is not just bad policy, it is not just failed policy,
it is not just making us less safe, but it is policy that is
actually deadly. That is the Republican strategy.
Mayor Turner, I want to ask you, because you are a mayor in
the State of Texas, since permitless carry became law you
stated earlier that you have seen crime increase. Can you tell
me what you are hearing on the ground in your community,
especially from law enforcement, since guns became so readily
and easily accessible in Texas?
Mr. Turner. Based on the testimony that was given before
the legislature, before H.B. 1927 was passed, warning
legislators that if they passed the bill it will lead to more
crime, violence, and not just against people in the communities
but even against law enforcement itself, it seemed as though
what they warned against has turned out to be true.
H.B. 1927 went into effect on September 1st of last year.
There are a lot more guns on the street. There are people who I
hear with these guns, no license, no permit, and no training.
It has just it has exacerbated already a bad problem that
existed within our cities.
Ms. Escobar. Thank you, Mayor Turner. It proves the
research is true: When more guns are on the street, homicides
go up.
Mr. Abt, a really quick question in my remaining 20
seconds.
If we were to turn down the volume, look at holistic
solutions, and stop creating an either/or situation, could
America solve its crime problem?
Mr. Abt. I think we absolutely can meaningfully reduce
violence in America if we could get the political consensus
around the programs, studies, and policies that work. We know
what to do. We just need the political will to do it.
Ms. Escobar. We look at the research. Thank you so much.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. The gentlelady's time has
expired. Thank you.
Now, I am pleased to recommend and to recognize the
gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Cohen, for 5 minutes.
Unmute, Mr. Cohen. We want to hear you.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you so much.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
Mr. Cohen. I appreciate and thank, appreciate the hearing
and the Witnesses.
A comprehensive approach to combating crime is essential.
That includes not only increasing funding for police and law
enforcement, but also other strategies that help reduce
violence in our communities. Sometimes that is balancing funds
and balancing programs.
Mayor Turner, the sentiment behind One Safe Houston plan
was an express recognition that we aren't simply going to
police our way out of the increase in crime that we have seen.
The police do play a vital role in addressing that crisis.
Can you expand on the importance of a holistic approach to
public safety, sir?
Mr. Turner. Thank you. I appreciate that question.
There is no one strategy that is going to effectively
reduce crime. It must be holistic. So, in One Safe Houston we
are adding more police, more active boots on the ground in
overtime, more park rangers. We are utilizing more technology
to augment our men and women on the police, on the police
force.
We have the gun buy-back program. Too many guns, so we are
doing that. We will look at and will measure the effectiveness
of that particular program.
Then, at the same time, we are investing $21 million in our
crisis intervention because police can't do it all. So, we are
addressing mental behavior, health issues, substance abuse, and
homelessness.
Domestic violence has doubled since 2019, so we are putting
$10 million into the domestic abuse response program. That's
been lauded by many people even in this area.
On the community side, we have to work with them. Community
messengers' program to help build back trust between the
community and law enforcement. We are investing in our summer
youth program with a goal of adding, providing 15,000 summer
jobs this summer.
So, it takes all that, Congressman, to make it work. So, we
are adding more to police but, at the same time, we are
investing in the community because they have to be on the same
page fighting crime. Can't be either/or. It has got to be law
enforcement and community establishing that trust, and
everybody working to bring down crime in our cities.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mayor Turner.
Let me ask you this. Do you know, have you had an
opportunity to use some of that $350 billion that was made
available through the American Rescue Plan, the largest
investment ever by the Federal government in helping
communities hire police?
Mr. Turner. The answer is yes. The cost of the One Safe
Houston plan that I announced in February, a month ago, is $45
million, separate and apart from the summer youth program.
Every one of those dollars, those $45 million, are coming from
the American Rescue plan. For the ARPA funding, we would not be
able to fund police, add the technology, provide more park
rangers, address the crisis intervention, have our community
partners at the table.
If you took those dollars away, police would fall short,
and we would fall short. So, let me thank Congress for the $45
million that we are using on the One Safe Houston strategy.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mayor Turner.
I am sure you know that Congresswoman Jackson Lee, and
Congressman Green, and Congressman Garcia all voted to that as
to the Democratic Caucus. None of our Republicans that like to
scream about, I think five or six Members of our caucus who
talked about defunding the police, less than 2 percent of our
caucus, none of the Republicans voted for that money, the
largest investment ever in police and policing.
So, thank you, Mayor Turner.
Also, thank you for the Houston Cougars not playing as good
as they could have and allowing the Tigers to have another win.
Mr. Turner. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Cohen. You have a great team and a great coach.
Chief Garcia, what do you think about community policing
and how that can help in this situation?
Chief Garcia. Thank you for the question, sir.
One of the things that always heartens me, I have been
doing this job for 30 years, getting police inside the process
is something that law enforcement has been involved in since
day one. It's really being part of the community, ensure that
the community are working with them. Which is what every
honorable law enforcement officer, particularly in Dallas and
the rest of this country, does every day.
It is reaching out. It is ensuring that they know and see
us in a time of non-trauma, as well as solving a problem, as
well as making sure that they are not fearful, ensuring that
their kids feel safe walking the street, ensuring that they
feel safe coming home from work. So, humanizing each other
through that process.
That we can do a good, a well enough job where individuals
can see us through the uniform, see us as brothers, sister,
fathers, wives, husbands, and we see our community in the same
fashion. Again, having that mindset while at the same time
ensuring that they are safe and ensuring that the criminal
element is not there to hurt them are not mutually exclusive.
So, again, the concept is not new. We just need to continue
to work with them.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Chief.
As I understand it, you have promoted accountability in
your department to better protect and build trust with the
community. Have the reforms, like increased accountability
measures and deeper training practices enhanced the
effectiveness of your program at all?
Ms. Jackson Lee. The time of the gentleman has expired.
You will be happy to have the Chief answer in writing, Mr.
Cohen?
Mr. Cohen. Yes. I would look forward to that. Thank you,
Chair.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you for your wonderful questions.
Thank you so much.
Mr. Biggs, do you have any closing comments?
Mr. Biggs. I do. I just have a few, Madam Chair, if that is
all right.
Ms. Jackson Lee. There are some airplane dates that you
need to be cognizant of. So, if you can abbreviate them.
Mr. Biggs. Oh.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Airplane dates of Witnesses.
Mr. Biggs. Oh, okay. I will go fast. That is right.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Yes, please.
Mr. Biggs. I will go fast.
Just wanted to say thanks to all the Witnesses,
particularly Ms. Brame, who had to leave earlier because she
had a work commitment. She wanted me to express her gratitude
that she was able to testify.
I will just, I will submit additional documents for the
record, then, Madam Chair. I will give you that list offline.
Appreciate that.
Then I will, in deference to our Witnesses who need to
leave, I will yield to you.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. I think one of them is Mr. Abt.
Let me thank the Republican colleagues for their
participation in this hearing. Again, we acknowledge the loss
of our colleague and continue to offer prayers to his family.
Let me, as I thank the Witnesses, Mr. Abt, I am just going
to get you in an abbreviate marathon response.
You heard the discourse here today. Some were confused
about defund, reimagining. I think this was a perfect hearing,
if I might say, on the question of what happened to use during
COVID? Why are we in the midst of this surge of violence? Why
do we not seem to find a common ground on guns instead of using
the Second Amendment.
Can you just succinctly say that the value of
accountability, trust, and the idea of looking for ways to
bring down crime creatively, the mental health crisis, and the
way that we have heard Mayor Turner speak of is a pathway that
you think can work?
Mr. Abt. Yes. Thank you. Thank you for the question.
I think it is clear from the testimony, both from the
Democratically-called Witnesses and the Republican-called
Witnesses, that there is common ground here. That if we work
collaboratively funding both law enforcement and community-
based approaches, we can be successful.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I think that should be the heading of the
hearing and, as well, it should be the closing of the hearing.
I want to thank Chief of Police Garcia from Dallas, Texas.
Mr. Abt, thank you.
Mayor Turner, thank you for bringing the national and local
perspective together and for showing us what is really working
in Houston. To the people of Houston, I offer to them my
commitment to continue working for those final solutions which
I know we can achieve.
Madam Satana Deberry, thank you for the leadership you are
giving in the District Attorney's Office.
Ms. Richardson, please thank the National Urban League for
your work.
Again, we are sorry for the loss of Ms. Brame, and want her
to know that we are concerned for her as well.
Mr. Lehman, thank you again for the presentation that you
made.
With that in mind, this concludes today's hearing. Thank
you to our distinguished Witnesses for attending.
Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days
to submit additional written questions for the Witnesses, or
additional materials for the record. We will look forward to
that.
The hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:01 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]