[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]