    [House Hearing, 119 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                           RESTORING LAW AND ORDER IN
                             HIGH-CRIME U.S. CITIES

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                           SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

                                     OF THE

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                          WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2025

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 119-39

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                                       _______

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    61-918                   WASHINGTON : 2025

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                            JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair

    DARRELL ISSA, California             JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland, Ranking
    ANDY BIGGS, Arizona                      Member
    TOM McCLINTOCK, California           JERROLD NADLER, New York
    THOMAS P. TIFFANY, Wisconsin         ZOE LOFGREN, California
    THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
    CHIP ROY, Texas                      HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
    SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin              Georgia
    BEN CLINE, Virginia                  ERIC SWALWELL, California
    LANCE GOODEN, Texas                  TED LIEU, California
    JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey       PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
    TROY E. NEHLS, Texas                 J. LUIS CORREA, California
    BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
    KEVIN KILEY, California              JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
    HARRIET M. HAGEMAN, Wyoming          LUCY McBATH, Georgia
    LAUREL M. LEE, Florida               DEBORAH K. ROSS, North Carolina
    WESLEY HUNT, Texas                   BECCA BALINT, Vermont
    RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina          JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
    GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin            SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
    BRAD KNOTT, North Carolina           JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
    MARK HARRIS, North Carolina          DANIEL S. GOLDMAN, New York
    ROBERT F. ONDER, Jr., Missouri       JASMINE CROCKETT, Texas
    DEREK SCHMIDT, Kansas
    BRANDON GILL, Texas
    MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington

                                     ------

                           SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

                     JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey, Chair

    BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 JASMINE CROCKETT, Texas, Ranking
    ROBERT F. ONDER, Jr., Missouri           Member
    DEREK SCHMIDT, Kansas                JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
    BRANDON GILL, Texas                  HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
                                             Georgia

                   CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director
                    ARTHUR EWENCZYK, Minority Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                          Wednesday, November 19, 2025
                               OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                       Page

    The Honorable Jefferson Van Drew, Chair of the Subcommittee on
      Oversight from the State of New Jersey.........................     2
    The Honorable Jasmine Crockett, Ranking Member of the
      Subcommittee on Oversight from the State of Texas..............     4
    The Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the Committee on
      the Judiciary from the State of Maryland.......................     6

                                   WITNESSES

    Rafael A. Mangual, Nick Ohnell Fellow, Manhattan Institute for
      Policy Research
      Oral Testimony.................................................    13
      Prepared Testimony.............................................    15
    Paul C. Mauro, Former Inspector, New York Police Department
      Oral Testimony.................................................    22
      Prepared Testimony.............................................    24
    Tina McKinney, Mother of Memphis Police Officer
      Oral Testimony.................................................    28
      Prepared Testimony.............................................    31
    Dr. Nancy La Vigne, Dean, Rutgers School of Criminal Justice
      Oral Testimony.................................................    34
      Prepared Testimony.............................................    36

              LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

    All materials submitted for the record by the Committee on the
      Judiciary are listed below.....................................    56

    An article entitled, ``Portland Police Chief Reveals Troops Tear-
      Gassed Protest by Accident,'' Oct. 29, 2025, New Republic,
      submitted by the Honorable Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., a
      Member of the Subcommittee on Oversight from the State of
      Georgia, for the record
    Materials submitted by the Honorable Jasmine Crockett, Ranking
      Member of the Subcommittee on Oversight from the State of
      Texas, for the record
        An article entitled, ``Cities in Blue States Experiencing
            Larger Declines in Gun Violence in 2023,'' Oct. 16, 2023,
            American Progress Action
        An article entitled, ``The Highest Rates of Gun Homicides Are
            in Rural Counties,'' Sept. 26, 2025, American Progress
        An article entitled, ``Trump doesn't have the data to back up
            claims about Washington, D.C.,'' Aug. 12, 2025, MS Now
        An article entitled, ``The 21st Century Red State Murder
            Crisis,'' Feb. 27, 2024, Third Way
        An article entitled, ``Crime in St. Louis: What You Need to
            Know,'' Oct. 14, 2025, Council on Criminal Justice
        An article entitled, ``How Profit Shapes the Bail Bond
            System,'' Sept. 19, 2025, Brennan Center
        An article entitled, ``DOJ cancels $500M in public safety
            grants, cuts officer safety and crime prevention
            programs,'' Aug. 18, 2025, Police1
        An article entitled, ``Public safety groups face an uncertain
            future months after federal grant cuts,'' Nov. 10, 2025,
            NPR
        An article entitled, ``Justice Department Slashes Essential
            Services for Crime Victims,'' Nov. 7, 2025, Brennan
            Center
        An article entitled, ``Trump cuts 69 global programs tackling
            child labor and human trafficking,'' Mar. 27, 2025, The
            Guardian
        An article entitled, ``Trump Defunds Effective Crime-
            Prevention Policies,'' Jul. 22, 2025, Brennan Center
        An article entitled, ``Crime-Prevention Efforts Face Setbacks
            After Federal Cuts,'' Jul. 21, 2025, Brennan Center
        An article entitled, ``Federal Cuts to Behavioral Health Will
            Harm Public Safety,'' Sept. 23, 2025, Brennan Center
        An article entitled, ``The Trump Administration's Budget Will
            Undermine ATF's Efforts to Prevent Violent Crime,'' Jul.
            9, 2025, American Progress
    Materials submitted by the Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member
      of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Maryland,
      for the record
        An article entitled, ``Exclusive: Federal drug prosecutions
            fall to lowest level in decades as Trump shifts focus to
            deportations,'' Sept. 29, 2025, Reuters
        An article entitled, ``Justice Department struggles as
            thousands exit--and few are replaced,'' Nov. 10, 2025,
            Washington Post
        An article entitled, ``How Trump Has Exploited Pardons to
            Reward Allies and Supporters--ProPublica,'' Nov. 12,
            2025, ProPublica
        An article entitled, ``ICE Has Diverted Over 25,000 Officers
            from Their Jobs,'' Sept. 3, 2025, CATO

                           RESTORING LAW AND ORDER IN
                             HIGH-CRIME U.S. CITIES

                                  ----------

                          Wednesday, November 19, 2025

                            House of Representatives

                           Subcommittee on Oversight

                           Committee on the Judiciary

                                 Washington, DC

        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in Room
    2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Hon. Jefferson Van
    Drew [Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Van Drew, Jordan, Moore,
    Onder, Schmidt, Gill, Crockett, Raskin, Moskowitz, and Johnson.
        Mr. Van Drew. The Subcommittee will come to order, although
    I have to admit you are a pretty orderly crowd, this is very
    quiet, everybody is tired out from a long day yesterday, even
    Mr. Raskin maybe. That is the quietest I have seen you for a
    few minutes. We are going to get you fired up. Thank you for
    being here. Without objection the Chair is authorized to
    declare a recess at any time.
        We welcome everyone to today's hearing on ``Restoring Law
    and Order in High-Crime U.S. Cities.''
        I now recognize the gentleman from Alabama to lead us in
    the pledge of allegiance. Then I ask that we remain standing,
    that we remain standing for a moment of silence.
        All. I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States
    of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one
    Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for
    all.
        Mr. Van Drew. I will now recognize myself for an opening
    statement. Again, I want to welcome everyone here today to
    another meeting of the Subcommittee on Oversight. Today we are
    going to focus on one very simple truth. We need to restore the
    rule of law in America's high-crime cities. Let us be honest
    about something from the very start, crime just didn't rise and
    come about on its own.
        It happened because leaders chose so, leaders in the
    democratic run cities have made political choices. Choices that
    put radical ideology before safety, politics before people, and
    criminals before the safety of the good people in our
    communities. For years these cities have embraced soft on crime
    prosecutors, eliminated cash bail, reduced penalties for repeat
    offenders.
        They empower criminals, they undermine law enforcement,
    they weaken the very fabric that keeps our families safe. Here
    is the truth, the simple truth, it is not complicated, it is
    just reality. When you reward criminal behavior, you get more
    of it, it is that simple. When you take away consequences, you
    get chaos. When you weaken the rule of law, you hurt the very
    people that you claim to protect.
        In Charlotte, a community that this Committee, many of us
    on this Committee, we went to Charlotte, and we saw firsthand
    in a field hearing, they tried to quote, ``Re-imagine criminal
    justice.'' Do you know what happened when the re-imagining
    delivered? Repeat offenders walking the streets over and over,
    and over again. Charlotte was quite an experience.
        Now, we have gone as a Full Committee to New York City, we
    have gone to Philadelphia, and this Committee actually went to
    Charlotte, and we saw the work of the Left-wing magistrates, of
    the Left-wing judges, of the Left-wing attorney general, and of
    the Left-wing prosecutors, the results, the death, the mayhem,
    and the chaos, it is real, it is not funny.
        When we talked to the people in Charlotte, I will never
    forget the father of the one young lady, and I believe, and I
    don't even have this in front of me, I am digressing for a
    minute. This woman was pulled out of her bed, stripped naked,
    had to get down on her knees, God knows why, and then the
    perpetrator took a shotgun, put it to her chest, and took her
    life.
        The father was there, man, I wish each and every one of you
    could have seen that father. He was so upset, he was shaking,
    he was crying, he was a grown man. Any of us that are parents,
    any of us that love anybody in our lives, you can't imagine. I
    said at the time, ``I wish I could say to you I know how you
    feel, I don't.'' Nobody here, unless you have lost somebody,
    and we do have somebody who has, nobody knows how you feel.
        We don't, but you can see it. The guy who did it, the
    perpetrator, was charged over forty times and released over,
    over, over, and over. I won't do it forty-some times again, it
    is sick. People are living with fear instead of freedom. We
    remember another case, the murder of Iryna Zarutska, that is
    why we went to Charlotte, a murder that should have never
    happened.
        A murder committed by a criminal who obviously had deep
    seated problems, and was released not one, two, or three times,
    but 14 times. Iryna loved America, she sat down in the train,
    and he came up behind her, she never met him, never saw him,
    didn't even look at him. He violently stabbed her in her neck,
    and murdered her in front of everybody on that train.
        She loved America, her family actually had her--she loved
    America so much, her family, she was Ukrainian, had her buried
    in America because she had such hopes, and such desires, and
    such ambitions. The city of Memphis continues to lead the
    Nation in violent crime, and not in spite of policy decisions,
    but because of them. The district attorney in Shelby County,
    backed by George Soros, fact.
        You may not like it, but it is true, it turned cash bail
    into a last resort. When you make accountability a last resort,
    you make public danger the first result. Again and again
    criminals are released, again and again they commit crimes.
    Again and again innocent people pay the price over and over. It
    isn't justice ladies and gentlemen, it is not compassion, it is
    the literal definition of insanity.
        It is failure, it is cruel, it is unfair to law abiding
    citizens plain and simple. Los Angeles, another town, you can
    name almost every city in America, almost. Career criminals,
    rapists, cop killers are given leniency through special
    directives that prioritize ideology over good public safety.
        The result is predictable, gangs have been emboldened,
    communities have been terrorized, and a once great American
    city has been hollowed out again by lawlessness. The city of
    Chicago, everybody knows about Chicago, still the murder
    capital of America, still drowning in violence and still
    doubling down on the same bad ideas as eliminating cash bail,
    and making pretrial release a default.
        Just last week a Chicago man known for serially punching
    women, who just walks right up to a woman, and it is women
    always, walks right up to her, big guy too by the way, big guy,
    and just punches her in the face. I don't have any words. He
    was arrested and released for the twentieth time. God help you
    if you are a woman and you are walking down that street.
        Maybe after he is done you are not even recognizable
    anymore. It is nice for you, isn't it nice for your family,
    because of the policies we have. If he wasn't released it
    wouldn't happen. Twenty times, 20 times back on the street. In
    what world are these politicians living in when they design
    laws that make it easier for someone like that to be released
    over, and over, instead of designing laws that protect the
    women that are continually assaulted?
        These are dangerous policies, they are bad policies, and
    they have a predictable outcome. They hamper law enforcement,
    and they let dangerous people walk our streets. It is that
    simple, it really isn't that complicated. In fact, I have
    spoken with law enforcement, true story, not only in Charlotte,
    but in other areas where we have gone on the road, this
    Committee, who have told me that often times before they are
    even done writing up the arrest report and somebody has looked
    at it.
        Before that even happens, they are watching the person
    being released. They are not even done with the report, and
    they are already out. It is an upside-down world, it is a
    bizarro world, it is a sick world that we live in, and it has
    to stop. For four long years the past administration, the
    Biden-Harris Administration encouraged this mentality,
    encouraged soft on crime policies, encouraged the unraveling of
    law and order in what was our beautiful, sparkling cities.
        That changed earlier this year, and I know not everybody is
    going to agree with me on this, but it did. Since President
    Trump was sworn back into office, he has done what he always
    said he would do, there was no surprise here, restore common
    sense, restore law and order, restore accountability. In
    August, President Trump deployed the National Guard and Federal
    agents to support local police right here in Washington, DC.
        People tell me they exaggerate it in Washington, nothing
    happens. I just think of the people that I know. I think of the
    gentleman from Kansas whose intern was murdered in Washington,
    DC. How does his family feel? This young intern comes to D.C.
    to learn, and he never leaves because he is killed, he is
    murdered. In my office alone, where we have had, just in my
    office, numerous people that have been attacked on the streets
    in the Nation's capital, in Washington, DC.
        The stories go on and on, we have other Members, Members
    that were car jacked, I can go through the list, but I am not
    going to do it, it is wrong. You know what? It is not funny
    when it happens to you, it is really serious. In August,
    President Trump deployed all these folks, and what happens when
    you enforce the law? Crimes went down and safety went up.
        Over four thousand arrests, and an 11 percent drop in crime
    city wide; 11 percent drop in just a few months. Words don't do
    that, ideology doesn't do that, press conferences don't do
    that. Action does that, real action, tough action, and
    necessary action. Because it worked, because results speak
    louder than slogans, other cities, many of them are asking for
    the same help.
        In September, National Guard units were deployed to Memphis
    and Portland. Plans are underway for Chicago as well, and of
    course in many of these cities Democrat officials are fighting
    it every step of the way. Fighting safety, fighting
    accountability, and fighting success. In some areas where they
    are deployed, people who live in the neighborhoods, who live in
    the areas, we had some folks even in D.C. said it was the first
    time in years that they had walked up and down their streets in
    safety.
        In years, they were so happy. We are here today because the
    American people do deserve better. They deserve leaders who are
    going to protect them and take care of them. They deserve
    prosecutors who enforce the law. They deserve cities where
    criminals fear consequences, and families feel safe. To our
    witnesses, I want to thank you for being here, I know it is
    your precious time.
        I thank you for speaking on behalf of communities living
    through the nightmare of bad policy and failed leadership. I
    even thank the folks that are going to disagree with me. We
    look forward to your testimony, thank you.
        I now recognize the Ranking Member, Ms. Crockett.
        Ms. Crockett. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and thank you
    for calling this hearing. Since January, Donald Trump has used
    the full power of the Federal Government to attack Americans in
    cities across the country. In Donald Trump's America you are at
    increased risk of experiencing militaristic operations in your
    home.
        Increased risk of being subject to detainment by masked
    thugs and wannabe vigilantes. Increased risk of suffering
    injuries due to reckless and illegal acts by rogue Federal
    agents. Increased risk of being deported to foreign nations,
    even if you are an American citizen. You are at an increased
    risk of being targeted by Federal Government for criticizing
    the President and his friends.
        Congressional Republicans have completely abandoned their
    Article 1 powers and have exchanged their responsibility to
    their constituents with fealty to the President. They have
    allowed the President to morph Federal agencies into
    instruments of autocracy. As a result, the President has been
    able to ignore Federal law, disregard court orders, and
    implement the largest pay-for-play scheme in American history.
        The White House, well what is left of it anyway, is
    literally up for sale. The Federal courts have characterized
    this presidency as quote ``lawless.'' In fact, when ruling
    against illegal acts committed by the administration, a
    Republican appointed Federal judge stated quote,

            The Court cannot imagine how the public interest might be
            served by permitting Federal officials to flaunt the very laws
            they have sworn to enforce.

        In a separate case, where the administration was sued for
    unlawful acts, the judge, also a Republican appointee, stated
    quote,

            Allowing constitutional rights to be dependent upon the grace
            of the Executive Branch would be a dereliction of duty by this
            third and independent branch of government, and would be
            against the public interest.

        In another case, the court summed it up perfectly by
    declaring quote,

            As is becoming far too common, we are confronted again with the
            efforts of the Executive Branch to set aside the rule of law in
            pursuit of its own goals.

    Judiciary Committee Republicans have been completely complicit
    in this corruption. Since they are so interested in restoring
    law and order, I have a couple of suggestions on where they can
    start.
        First, this is the President of the United States standing
    beside his best friend Jeffrey Epstein. As we all know, Mr.
    Epstein is one of the most notorious sexual predators in
    American history. For eight weeks the Republicans on this
    Committee have chosen to protect these two men instead of
    providing justice to Mr. Epstein's victims. Now, the
    administration is panicking.
        Second, they campaigned on releasing the Epstein files,
    then AG Bondi and associates did a photo op with the files, and
    she said, and I quote, ``The Epstein list is on my desk.''
    Then, somehow the Epstein list didn't exist. The Epstein files
    became a Democratic hoax. Now, the President is supposedly
    supportive of releasing the files, even though he is currently
    ignoring a Congressional Subpoena to do so.
        Now, the President is simply crashing out, and it is
    because he can't seem to explain his special decades long
    relationship with one of the most prominent sexual predators in
    American history. It is already public that he is in the
    Epstein files, but his administration is hiding the context of
    his involvement, if any, with Mr. Epstein's horrific crimes.
        Now, this is Ms. Ghislaine Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell, who
    obviously helped Jeffrey Epstein traffic more than a thousand
    women and girls, well Donald Trump is now giving her special
    treatment while she is serving out her prison sentence. He
    won't even rule out giving her a pardon or commuting her
    sentence. I don't need to explain why partnering with sex
    traffickers wouldn't be restoring law and order.
        Now, this is Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem.
    Not only has Secretary Noem been busy filming propaganda ads,
    but she has also been busy cashing in on millions of taxpayer
    dollars. In fact, Secretary Noem has funneled millions of
    dollars to a company called the Strategy Group. The Strategy
    Group helped Secretary Noem win her campaign to become the
    Governor of South Dakota.
        Corey Lewandowski, her top policy advisor, has worked with
    the firm. The company's CEO is married to Secretary Noem's
    Chief spokesperson, Ms. Tricia McLaughlin. This is what
    corruption looks like. They are stealing money from the
    American people's pockets and depositing it into their bank
    accounts. Now, we move on to yet somebody else. This is the so-
    called border czar, Tom Homan.
        Mr. Homan is on tape accepting fifty thousand dollars in
    cash bribes stuffed in a brown paper bag from an undercover FBI
    agent. Apparently, Mr. Homan accepted these bribes in exchange
    for awarding Federal contracts to his friends. Trump's
    Department of Justice killed the investigation into Mr. Homan's
    crimes, and Congressional Republicans didn't say a mumbling
    word.
        Last, this is insurrectionist and Nazi sympathizer Ed
    Martin. It appears that Mr. Martin is functioning as the
    Associate Deputy Attorney General Pardon Attorney, Director of
    the Fake Weapon-ization Working Group, and Special Attorney for
    mortgage fraud. All that means is that Mr. Martin is Trump's
    lapdog, whom the President sends to initiate lawsuits against
    the President's perceived political opponents.
        This is what we call organized crime. They are breaking the
    law, often by stealing taxpayer dollars, covering up their
    crimes by ending and obstructing investigations, then
    prosecuting people who call out for their unlawful behavior.
    While the Republicans are encouraging this corruption, they are
    abandoning actual victims of violent crime, and ignoring the
    Republican led State's 21st Century murder crisis.
        In September's appropriation markup, Congressional
    Republicans proposed reducing the FBI staff by thousands of
    positions and underfunding the agency by more than $1 billion.
    They have proposed slashing resources from the ATF, they have
    proposed cutting grants for juvenile justice programs and hate
    crimes and eliminating the community violence intervention and
    prevention grants.
        They are literally de-funding the police. No matter what
    they say at today's hearing, Congressional Republicans have
    proven that they are not investing in keeping American
    communities safe from violent crime.
        Mr. Chair, I yield back.
        Mr. Van Drew. I thank the Ranking Member. We are fortunate
    to have with us the Chair of the Committee of the whole today,
    Mr. Jordan, and the Ranking Member, Mr. Raskin. I believe Mr.
    Jordan is not going to do an opening at this time.
        Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for this important
    hearing, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.
        Mr. Van Drew. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Raskin?
        Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much. I will take mine now, I am
    going to try to stay for as much of the hearing as I can, but I
    won't be able to do it toward the end. Mr. Chair, thank you
    very much, I wanted to just begin by underscoring three things
    that you said that I hope people will keep in mind as you hear
    my remarks:

        (1)  When you reward criminal behavior, you get a lot more
    of it.
        (2)  It is not funny when it happens to you, and alas, I
    have a personal story to tell.
        (3)  Letting criminals off the hook is not compassion, and
    it is not justice.

    I want to agree very strongly with those three points that you
    just made, Chair Van Drew.
        I want to thank the witnesses for being with us today. Just
    before the shutdown this Subcommittee convened a field hearing
    in Charlotte to advance the tired, I would say, utterly
    exhausted Republican claim that Democrats are somehow soft on
    crime. This is an odd proposition to me given that Democratic
    led cities today are now driving a historic nationwide decrease
    in crime.
        Especially homicide and violent crime following a dramatic
    spike in those categories under the first Trump Administration.
    One of the North Carolina local news outlet, The News&Observer,
    captured the very paradoxical nature of that hearing in an
    article titled, ``Republicans are in charge in NC, but somehow
    Democrats are to blame for violent crime | Opinion''
        Well, The News&Observer is correct. Republicans from the
    White House, to Congress, to the State houses are
    systematically undermining public safety in communities across
    America with what I would call gangster State policies while
    claiming that Democrats are to blame. What is really going on?
    Let us start with the administration's first day in office, how
    about that?
        On the first day Donald Trump pardoned nearly 1,600 January
    6th insurrectionists, people who either pled guilty or were
    convicted beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of their peers
    for hundreds and hundreds of crimes, including hundreds who
    violently attacked Capitol police officers, Metropolitan Police
    Department officers, Montgomery County, Maryland police
    officers, police officers from Virginia, and so on.
        With baseball bats, steel pipes, Trump flags, confederate
    battle flags, broken furniture, and bear mace into people's
    eyes. In the months since, the Department of Justice proceeded
    to fire dozens of FBI agents and Federal prosecutors, the most
    experienced Federal prosecutors we had, career civil servants
    appointed under Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents
    simply because they had worked in the January 6th
    investigation.
        Nothing like that has ever happened before in the history
    of the Department of Justice, and I hope nothing like that will
    ever happen again. These were career civil servants, expert
    criminal prosecutors fired because they had prosecuted people
    for violently attacking police officers, storming the Capitol
    saying they were going to hang Mike Pence to overthrow a
    Presidential election, and they got fired because of it.
        A massive violation of civil service, constitutional
    rights, and the principles of public safety. One hundred and
    forty of our officers were injured, wounded, disfigured,
    disabled, hospitalized on that day; one hundred and forty of
    them. I wish I could take one hundred and forty minutes and
    tell you about each one, but I will tell you about one of them,
    I will tell you about Sergeant Gonell.
        Now, Sergeant Gonell has written a book about his
    experience, which I recommend highly to all of you. His family
    were immigrants to America, he became a citizen as a kid, and
    he fell in love with police work. His family took a trip to
    Washington, and they visited the Capitol, and he met police
    officers here, and he had a dream that he would become a
    Capitol police officer one day.
        What do you know, he became a Capitol police officer after
    he served in the Army, he went to Iraq, and he went to
    Afghanistan. Then he was here on January 6th. He said he faced
    violence which he described as medieval in nature, that was far
    worse than anything he had seen in combat in Iraq or in
    Afghanistan. He fought for hours and hours.
        He was so wounded, they destroyed a rotator cuff, his left
    foot was smashed, and destroyed, he couldn't lift his shoulder,
    he was beaten in the face and the head. He did everything he
    could to try to get back to work, and the force told him he was
    no longer physically fit to do it. Forced to retire by the
    insurrection Donald Trump incited according to a bipartisan
    vote of the House of Representatives.
        Which 57 of the 100 Senators voted to convict him on, the
    most widespread bipartisan vote in the history of Presidential
    impeachments. He was that wounded, that disfigured, that
    incapacitated, he could no longer serve. He had to leave his
    dream job and is now living on what a fraction of what his
    income was before because of that violence that took place.
        That is just one story. I wish you could know all the
    stories. Maybe you know the story of Michael Fanone, he was a
    D.C. cop, he wasn't even on duty here, he heard about it, that
    the Capitol was under attack on the radio. He immediately drove
    to the Capitol, got off several blocks away, ran to the scene
    to join the police officers, and he got pulled into the crowd
    after fighting for hours, and he had a heart attack.
        He was afraid that he was going to die, and he begged them,
    he said, ``I have four daughters, spare my life,'' and his life
    was just barely spared. There is supposed to be a plaque up in
    the House of Representatives to the officers because of their
    indomitable valor and courage that day, but the speaker won't
    put that up. They won't give a dollar to the families of any of
    these police officers whose lives have been so fundamentally
    altered.
        They did sneak a little provision in to give a million
    dollars to each Republican Senator who were inconvenienced
    because they were treated like other American citizens, and
    their phone records were subpoenaed because they were involved
    in the conspirators of that attack. That is where the
    sympathies run, each of those guys was going to get a million
    dollars pay out.
        At least I heard Lindsay Graham say he wanted tens of
    millions for what happened to him. What happened to him? Did he
    get sprayed in the face with bear mace? Did he have to fight
    for hours to protect American democracy? No, his phone records
    were subpoenaed, the same way any American's phone records can
    be subpoenaed if they are involved in a criminal conspiracy, or
    if their name comes up in a criminal investigation.
        If you don't like that, you should support the bill that
    Chair Jordan brought before us in markup yesterday, which we
    passed unanimously, numerous times, that would save all
    Americans from abuse of that process. We have been trying to do
    that for nearly a decade I believe. From this Committee, and
    the Senate has consistently rejected it, they are not
    interested in protecting anybody else's civil liberties.
        They just want their million-dollar jackpot payout. Well,
    in any event, so that was the story on January 6th, and this
    administration has done everything in its power now to reward
    the people who participated in it. Meantime they are firing the
    officers, the FBI agents, the prosecutors who tried to
    prosecute it. I want to tell you though, a lot of people would
    want to sweep the whole thing under the rug, and they think it
    is over.
        Crime doesn't really work like that, and criminals don't
    work like that. As the good Chair said when he kicked this off,
    ``if you forgive crime, if you pardon it, if you let it go, you
    are going to see more of it.'' Well, let me tell you a little
    story about that, because we have got lots of cases of these
    pardoned criminals going out and committing other crimes.
        Let me tell you the ones that we have found that have been
    committed by people that Donald Trump pardoned on his first day
    in office. They have gone on to do terroristic threats, home
    invasion, burglary, vandalism, theft, felony assault with a
    deadly weapon, discharge of a firearm, manslaughter, drunk
    driving, grand theft, aggravated kidnaping, reckless driving,
    and reckless homicide.
        Invasion of privacy, conspiracy to commit murder as a hate
    crime, possession of child pornography, violation of protective
    order, assault, violation of antistalking order, DUI, battery,
    felony, malicious bodily injury, rape, forgery, sexual assault,
    illegal gun possession, drug possession, and conspiracy to
    murder. Who is responsible for all that? These people were
    pardoned by Donald Trump, sentences commuted.
        Out on the streets, now these people are doing all that.
    Let me tell you about one of them. I told you I was going to
    get a little bit personal here, because I take the subject
    raised today personally. This guy's name is Taylor Taranto, he
    was pardoned after being convicted of multiple crimes on
    January 6th, multiple crimes on January 6th. He was rearrested
    in 2023 for illegal possession of hundreds of rounds of
    ammunition, two guns, and a machete.
        After he was live streaming from the woods near former
    President Barack Obama's house. He went there with all the
    ammunition and guns, and he threatened to set off a car bomb.
    Well, on the way there he showed up at the elementary school
    two blocks away from my house, where all three of my kids went
    to elementary school. He told listeners that he was at the
    elementary school near my house on his live stream.
        He said he was near my house, that is where he was headed
    next, and he didn't want to tell anybody where I lived, because
    he said I want Raskin all to myself. Fortunately, my wife and
    I, and my kids were not at home when he stopped there on his
    way down to Barack Obama's house. This is a January 6th
    insurrectionist who has been pardoned by Donald Trump.
        You may have read about him recently in the newspaper
    because at the sentencing for other crimes too, Department of
    Justice lawyers mentioned that he participated in the riots on
    January 6th, and his superior officers at the Department of
    Justice objected to the fact that these DOJ lawyers had
    referred to the January 6th riots and suspended them. Somebody
    correct me if I am wrong, were they suspended?
        These lawyers were reprimanded for what they had done, and
    they were suspended simply for mentioning the reality that
    January 6th had taken place. It is not just January 6th, Trump
    recently pardoned crypto executive Changpeng Zhao who had been
    sentenced to four months in prison, and ordered to pay one of
    the largest corporate penalties in history after pleading
    guilty to enabling money laundering through his crypto
    exchange.
        According to prosecutors, he aided Hamas, he aided Al
    Qaeda, and other terrorist networks, but Donald Trump pardoned
    him. He also pardoned Ross Ulbricht, the creator of Silk Road,
    an online black market that allowed thousands of drug dealers
    to distribute hundreds of kilos of illegal drugs, including
    heroin, cocaine, and opioids.
        Take Ghislaine Maxwell, who was transferred from a real
    prison to a prison camp after the No. 2 at DOJ went to see her.
    On July 22nd, the Democrats on the Oversight Committee moved to
    subpoena her, they got Republicans to come over and agree. The
    next day she was sent her subpoena, and the next day after
    that, July 24th, that is when Todd Blanche went to see her.
        Not to ask about more coconspirators, not to investigate
    whether other crimes had been committed. No, he was trying to
    find out exactly what she might say about Donald Trump when she
    came to Congress. Satisfied with her answers, President Trump,
    the great champion of law and order, apparently authorized and
    approved her transfer to a prison camp where no sex offender
    had ever been sent before, because they are not allowed.
        Because sex offenders like Ghislaine Maxwell are considered
    violent offenders. That wasn't it, it wasn't just enough that
    she got to cut the line and get there in one or two days when
    people are waiting six months, eight months, two years to
    transfer after proving they have a compelling reason to do so.
    No, she was transferred overnight, she gets there, and then she
    gets the superstar Trump Hotel treatment.
        She gets room service in her cell. Ever heard of that
    before? Well, she gets meals brought to her, she gets special
    exercise privileges there, she gets special visitors that come
    whenever she wants them to come, and they are allowed to bring
    their computers. They don't even deny that, they just say they
    want the people who brought that as whistleblowers to the
    Members of this Committee, they want those people punished.
        Her lawyer was bragging about the fact that they were
    punished. In other words that they suffered retaliation for
    speaking out, when this Committee has always stood up for the
    rights of whistleblowers to tell the truth about abuse of law
    in America. Well, they have taken a wrecking ball to the
    Federal Government's ability to investigate and prosecute
    criminals.
        The DOJ is hemorrhaging thousands of lawyers, they are
    having a very difficult time recruiting people to this absurd
    environment, where the President has taken over all
    prosecutorial functions. Now, they are wasting resources just
    to follow the political program of Donald Trump. You have seen
    how he fired his own U.S. Attorney Mr. Siebert in Virginia,
    because he wouldn't bring charges against James Comey.
        That is what Donald Trump wanted. He sacks him, he puts in
    another attorney who has never been a prosecutor before, never
    been an Assistant U.S. Attorney or anything, she is so
    incompetent the judge in the Comey case now says that they are
    going to have to throw it out likely, because she messed up the
    entire grand jury indictment process. Yet, he continues to go
    after his political opponents.
        What a radical distortion of justice that is, and what a
    waste of our resources. They are draining resources away from
    human sex trafficking, away from child sex exploitation, and
    away from drug trafficking to go and either participate in
    their anti-immigration campaign, or just to do whatever Donald
    Trump wants them to do.
        My friends, this is the record that they want to brag
    about? When we have got real Democratic mayors across America
    who are, and some Republican mayors, but mostly Democratic
    mayors who are actually reducing crime, and fighting crime,
    what an outrage this is. One of the other things they did when
    they first got in was, they got rid of hundreds of grants that
    were being given to local law enforcement, to the police.
        Talk about defunding the police, well they defunded the
    police, certainly anything having to do with human sex
    trafficking, anything having to do with child-sex exploitation,
    they just got rid of it all. Mr. Chair, I am glad you said
    exactly what you did when you kicked this off. It is not funny
    when it happens to you, and it is not when you have got a
    pardoned January 6th person coming to your house with weapons
    on his way down to Barack Obama's house with a machete.
        Now, that is not funny. Also, when you reward criminal
    behavior, as this administration has done from day one, you are
    going to get a lot more of it. They are headed to turn us into
    a gangster State. I thank you, and I look forward to hearing
    the testimony of the witnesses.
        Mr. Van Drew. I thank the Ranking Member, and later on I am
    going to reply to a good number of those issues. I will say one
    thing; threats are horrible for all of us. My wife has been
    threatened, I have been threatened, my kids, and my grandkids,
    it is really awful, it is terrible. Just so you know, I can
    relate to what you are saying there.
        My wife was threatened that she would be beaten, they would
    throw her on the hood of a car, rape her, murder her, burn the
    house down, and kill my children and my grandchildren. That is
    not a uniquely Democrat, Republican, conservative, or liberal
    issue. The other issue, and I will ask the Committee if we can,
    and then we will move on here, the issue at hand is what is
    happening on our streets.
        Those subjects you brought up are worthy of debate, and we
    can have a separate Committee on all of it, all the things you
    spoke about, but I am talking about the average Joe on the
    street in their city where they want to live their life with
    their children, and their grandchildren as well. It is a little
    bit different than where we went with that, which was highly
    political.
        Worthy of discussion, but not really what this hearing is
    about.
        Mr. Raskin. Those are all average crimes that happen every
    day on our streets, including my street.
        Mr. Van Drew. OK, I am not going to do this because I don't
    want to--even mine, with the threatening--
        Mr. Raskin. You cannot separate one crime from another.
        Mr. Van Drew. There are people that are in prison because
    of some of the things they were going to do and got caught, to
    me, but nevertheless, it is not an average crime. I am a Member
    of Congress, it is different. I am talking about just the guy
    that comes home from work and is walking on the street, and he
    stops by the grocery store, and he gets killed.
        It is a different thing, just the average day to day thing.
    We will talk about it more, I appreciate you, Mr. Raskin. With
    that being said, all other opening statements will be included
    in the record, and we are going to introduce today's witnesses,
    finally your time.
        We will start with Mr. Rafael Mangual. Mr. Mangual is a
    Fellow at the Manhattan Institute where his research focuses on
    criminal justice and policing. He is the author of Criminal
    Injustice and serves on the New York State Advisory Committee
    of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
        Mr. Paul C. Mauro is a former law enforcement officer
    having served for 23 years with the New York Police Department.
    During his tenure he served as the Commanding Officer of the
    NYPD's legal bureau, and as the Executive Officer for
    operations and analysis in NYPD's intelligence bureau. Thank
    you for your service and thank you for being here.
        Ms. Tina McKinney, this is the hardest one, these are
    always hard, is the mother of Officer Joseph McKinney, who was
    a Memphis Police Officer killed in the line of duty on April
    12, 2024. The suspect was out on bond, and I want everybody to
    listen to this one paragraph. The suspect was out on bond from
    an arrest the previous month on charges of possession of
    modified semi-automatic weapons and grand larceny.
        Everybody heard that. I am sorry, I have got no words, I am
    sure everybody tells you the same thing. Thank you, thank you
    for being here, and trying to help other people in the future.
        Nancy La Vigne, did I pronounce it correctly? Good. Dr.
    LaVigne is the Dean of the Rutgers School of Criminal Justice,
    where her work focuses on applying data and research to
    criminal justice policy.
        She previously served in the Department of Justice during
    the Biden Administration. We thank you for being here, I am a
    Rutgers grad, I went in predental, premedical, so I went to
    Rutgers, we may disagree on issues, but Rutgers is a good
    school. We are going to begin by swearing you in. Would you
    please rise and raise your right hand?
        Do you swear under penalty of perjury the testimony you are
    about to give is true and correct to the best of your
    knowledge, information, and belief so help you God? Let the
    record reflect that the witnesses have answered in the
    affirmative, and thank you, and please be seated. Please know
    that your written testimony will be entered into the record in
    its entirety.
        Accordingly, we do ask that you do summarize and complete
    your summary of your testimony in five minutes. Mr. Mangual, we
    will start with you.

                     STATEMENT OF RAFAEL A. MANGUAL

        Mr. Mangual. Well, thank you all so much for the
    opportunity to offer remarks on the all-important topic of
    public safety in America's cities, which is an issue that I
    have spent the last decade working on. I would like to begin by
    suggesting that in public debates over questions of safety, far
    too much weight is put on aggregate crime measures that often
    fail to fully capture or accurately describe the risk of
    criminal victimization faced by America's urban residents.
        We often talk about crime in national, statewide, or
    citywide terms. It is an understandable colloquialism that I am
    sure I have been guilty of too. Whether a city's crime levels
    are up or down, while important, can mask some important
    realities. In my home city of New York for example, data from
    2010, 2015, and 2020 illustrate that approximately 50 percent
    of the city's reported crime occurs on just four percent of the
    city's street segments.
        The experiences of residents living on block clusters where
    so much of a given city's crime concentrates are radically
    different from those living in the neighborhoods with very
    little crime. To paint the picture a little more vividly,
    consider that year residents of Chicago's 19th District, which
    I used to call home, experienced a homicide rate of just 2.3
    per 100,000.
        In the 6th District by contrast, the homicide rate was 73.4
    per 100,000, almost 32 times greater. I make this point for a
    couple of reasons, but one is to just illustrate that even in
    cities that have experienced recent declines in serious crime,
    there remain microgeographic pockets where serious violence
    continues to occur at levels that we should all find
    unacceptable.
        Should therefore be working to alleviate with urgency
    irrespective of aggregate crime declines at the citywide level.
    The fact remains that in too many city neighborhoods criminal
    violence is a serious problem. That problem is one that is too
    often characterized by a particular type of failure.
        Which is the failure to incapacitate violent criminal
    offenders who have thoroughly demonstrated through repeated
    criminal conduct that they have no desire to play by society's
    rules. A few numbers to consider, in Chicago on average a
    shooting or homicide suspect is arrested nearly 12 times. In
    Oakland, homicide victims and suspects alike have an average of
    ten prior arrests.
        In Baltimore the number is nine. Right here in Washington,
    DC, it is eleven. These numbers are bad enough in the abstract,
    but they take on a more urgent character when they are
    illustrated by specific cases. Because of the work I do, I am
    often sent stories of heinous and tragic crimes committed by
    offenders who had no business being out on the street.
        We already heard about one such case in the case of Iryna
    Zarutska in Charlotte, North Carolina, but I want you all to
    consider another case out of Charlotte, which has not gotten
    nearly enough attention, which is the shooting death of Jayce
    Edwards, who was just four years old. According to news
    reports, one of the four men arrested in that case had
    previously been charged in nearly a dozen car thefts.
        He was arrested again just days before the shooting with a
    firearm. Unbelievably to the uninitiated, he was allowed to
    post bond and was released yet again. A second suspect in that
    case had racked up 38 charges, and had multiple prior
    incarcerations for serious felonies including firearms and
    other violent charges. These examples all elicit the same
    question, why?
        Why were these offenders out? The answer in many cases is
    that somewhere down the line policymakers made a choice. They
    made a choice to pursue decarceration for its own sake because
    they were convinced that doing so was the best way to serve
    justice. The good news is that none of those decisions are
    written in stone. Our leaders can and must make different
    choices.
        In recent years, we have seen some encouraging examples of
    Federal, State, and local leaders doing just that. In the State
    of Tennessee for example, law makers have, thanks to the
    leadership of Tennessee House Speaker Cameron Sexton, passed
    legislation to amend their State's constitution so that judges
    there can have the right to detain dangerous criminal
    defendants in all cases.
        They also passed a truth in sentencing law to ensure
    offenders serve the majority of their sentences before they can
    be released. Last year, lawmakers in Louisiana took a similar
    step with their own truth in sentencing measure, much to the
    chagrin of criminal justice reform advocates, in addition to an
    effort to eliminate discretionary parole.
        Of course, President Trump's Administration through
    Executive Orders and actions related to policing, and
    enforcement initiatives like the Memphis Safe Task Force, and
    Project Safe Neighborhoods in Chicago, the latter of which has
    led to a nearly 300 percent increase in Federal gun
    prosecutions just through the end of October.
        Now, there remains a lot of work to be done. I would like
    to close with the suggestion that I hope many of you will reach
    out to discuss further at a future date. Which is that Congress
    should consider an omnibus crime bill along the lines of what
    was done in 1994.
        This time with a particular focus on police recruitment and
    retention, funding the acquisition of force multiplying
    technology, incentivizing better data collection, and
    incentivizing the adoption of stronger penalties for habitual
    offenders. Thank you once again for the invitation to address
    this body and contribute to these important discussions. I look
    forward to answering any of your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Mangual follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Van Drew. Thank you, Mr. Mangual. Mr. Mauro, you may
    begin.

                       STATEMENT OF PAUL C. MAURO

        Mr. Mauro. Chair, Ranking Members, and the Members of the
    Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
    today. My name is Paul Mauro, I served 26 years with the NYPD,
    including many years in counterterrorism following 9/11. I
    retired four years ago; I am now a practicing attorney. My
    perspective is shaped by decades on the street, and doing
    investigations, and by my concern for the city that I still
    call home.
        New York's recent criminal justice system and its history
    is one of collapse, renewal, and now sadly decline. The city's
    recovery from the dark days of the 1970s and 1980s and began in
    the 1990s under mayors who prioritized policing and
    accountability, and was aided by the bipartisan 1994 Crime
    Bill, co-authored by then Senator Joe Biden, and signed by
    President Clinton.
        The broken windows policing complemented that effort by
    addressing a low-level disorder before it grew into something
    worse. Enforcement was often limited to summonses, not jail,
    and was responsive to community complaints. Neighborhoods
    revived, and the entire city became a model of recovery. After
    the new challenges of 9/11, the NYPD created a world class
    counter-terrorism apparatus without sacrificing safety.
        Despite expectations post 9/11, crime continued to fall
    under Mayor Bloomberg, and Commissioner Ray Kelly. Later,
    during Commissioner William Bratton's tenure of 2014-2016,
    indexed crime fell another nine percent, while the jail
    population dropped 18 percent. Proof that safety and reduced
    incarceration can exist.
        In fact, over 20 years at that point, crime had fallen 76
    percent, while the jail population was cut in half. We had hit
    the sweet spot. Over the ensuing years however, that success
    has eroded. Reforms such as no cash bail, and other changes
    have coincided with visible disorder. Disorderly conduct
    summonses for instance, the linchpin of quality-of-life
    enforcement fell 91 percent after 2015.
        Recruitment and retention are in crisis, though murders and
    shootings are down this year, major felonies are up 16 percent
    2010 in New York, and low-level recidivism is universal. Behind
    those figures lies a deeper problem, the Federal National Crime
    Victimization Survey shows that the vast majority of crime now
    goes unreported nationwide. Street conditions, and my own
    experience in New York bear this out.
        For instance, homeless encampments are referred to agencies
    with no enforcement power. Shops close after repeated
    harassment and burglaries go unreported. Officers are not lazy,
    they are overwhelmed. A small fraction of offenders and
    chronically mentally ill drive much of this disorder. Research
    suggests that incarcerating or housing just a small fraction of
    the worst offenders would visibly improve conditions.
        An uncomfortable truth is that women are disproportionately
    targeted by the mentally ill. Likewise, The New York Times
    found that 327 repeat offenders account for roughly one-third
    of all New York shoplifting arrests. Stores write off these
    losses as shrinkage and pass the cost onto consumers. In New
    York we now lock up our toothpaste, not our perpetrators.
        At the same time, and most alarmingly, the city is closing
    the Ryker's Island Jail, and replacing it with four dispersed
    jails that cut the prisoner bed count by a full two-thirds.
    This is a guaranteed recipe for failure. Our newly elected
    Mayor Zohran Momdani has famously pledged to lean into all
    these reforms, reducing police head count, replacing officers
    with social workers, and eliminating key police units.
        Nationwide the role of the National Guard remains widely
    misunderstood. In New York since 9/11 the Guard has manned New
    York City transit hubs without incident. Governor Kathy
    Hochul's deployment of 1,000 troops to the subways has been
    touted by her for providing a 42 percent drop in subway crime.
    Note that the Guard does not answer 911 calls, they provide
    deterrence through visibility.
        New York has long been a testing ground for criminal
    justice police, we know what works if we are allowed to do it.
    Federal Government can help with funding, certainly, it can
    even condition funding on best practices by local agencies.
    Most importantly, Federal leaders can help change the
    narrative. When leaders support police, that message is felt on
    the street.
        When they vilify police, that message is felt even more. Is
    it any wonder that since 2019 assaults on NYPD officers are up
    63 percent? The first duty of government is to protect its
    citizens; public safety should never be subordinated to
    politics. Every community, whatever its politics, wants the
    same thing, to live safely, and with dignity.
        Those who secure that safety deserve our support, not our
    scorn. I thank you all for allowing me the privilege of
    speaking with you here today.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Mauro follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Van Drew. Thank you, Mr. Mauro. Ms. McKinney, you may
    begin.

                       STATEMENT OF TINA McKINNEY

        Ms. McKinney. Chair and the Members of the Committee, thank
    you for allowing me to speak today. My name is Tina McKinney,
    and I am the mother of Memphis police officer Joseph McKinney,
    lovingly known as Rusty. Rusty died in the line of duty on
    April 12, 2024, in Memphis, Tennessee. He was just 26 years
    old. He was a devoted father who had just purchased wedding
    rings and was eager to build a life with his fiancee.
        Rusty lived a lifetime only few get to have. He had a large
    family who adored him, and he loved to travel. If you said you
    wanted to go anywhere, he was there with you, he wanted to go,
    and his eagerness was undeniable. He was a good kid, the kind
    every parent hoped for. He lived a full life with an eagerness
    to help, and it lasted his entire short life, way too short.
        Rusty was an Eagle Scout, a distinction that takes years of
    dedication and discipline in service. From camping in every
    kind of Memphis Mid-South weather to countless hours of
    community service. He lived the values of scouting every day,
    and it shaped the man he became. Deep down he always wanted to
    be a police officer. When he was five or six, he would dress up
    as an officer for Halloween, and ride on his electric police
    motorcycle all through the yard.
        When he was older looking for a career, he would chat with
    officers, who encouraged him to join the police department. It
    is hard to write about him, I feel cheated, and I feel robbed
    of all the what-could-have-beens, and the life he could have
    had. He was loved by so many, and after the news of his death
    stories poured in from friends, coworkers, and strangers.
        A young man shared how Rusty made him feel welcome when he
    had started his first job. He was nervous, but Rusty took him
    in and made him feel a part of the team. That kindness Rusty
    showed him, stayed with him. A coworker of mine told me her
    daughter had received a ticket from Rusty when he was on the
    force and shared how she remembered him as kind and respectful.
        The one thing everyone said from the hundreds who attended
    his service was that Rusty and our family did not deserve this
    tragedy. They were right, this wasn't just a tragedy, it was a
    failure of leadership, and a failure of accountability. My son
    was a police officer, but he was also a victim. A victim of
    repeat offenders, one who was a juvenile, and a victim of
    failed policies, and failed leaders.
        God gives us a life, but he doesn't promise how long it
    will last, or how good it will be. Instead, he gives us
    choices, choices that shape the life we live, and Rusty chose
    service, compassion, and integrity. Those two criminals
    repeatedly chose violence and a life of crime. Those young men
    were out on bond despite being arrested just weeks earlier for
    serious crimes, and they are responsible for my son's death
    through their actions and by their choices they made.
        Dangerous repeat offenders are not isolated incidents for
    the city of Memphis. It is a result of years of political
    neglect, soft on crime policies, and a justice system that has
    prioritized leniency over accountability, and judges who
    release high-risk offenders, and district attorneys who start
    pilot programs to identify cases to downgrade to misdemeanors.
        Management and long delays with issuing car tags made it
    impossible for officers to enforce basic traffic laws,
    contributing to a breakdown in public safety. Memphis has also
    been losing officers, not just to violence, but to attrition.
    They have faced reduced pay, loss of benefits, and lack of
    support from city leaders. The Memphis Police Department has
    struggled to retain talent while crime surged.
        While our leaders debate referendums and engage in
    political optics, family like mine pay the ultimate price.
    Public officials entrusted with leadership who have repeatedly
    failed to uphold the standards of their position, raising
    serious concerns about judgment and accountability, some
    propose defunding law enforcement, and introduce proposals to
    cut police budgets.
        Those proposals were widely criticized and widely rejected.
    The school board has mismanaged children's futures in Memphis.
    Former Shelby County school superintendent Dr. Marie Faegins
    stated many members of the board chose chaos over children, and
    I believe this statement to be true. Student's poor performance
    is beyond poor; our school system ranks in the bottom 50
    percent statewide.
        Students lack basic math skills and reading skills, despite
    spending exorbitant amounts of money per student, the district
    has failed to deliver results. Millions in State and Federal
    funds have been spent, yet proficiency in some areas has
    dropped as low as five percent. Instead of investing in proven
    solutions, the board has spent millions on studies and
    administrative overhead.
        Educational failures are not separate from the rising
    crime. They are deeply connected. A weak education system feeds
    weak communities, and weak communities suffer the consequences
    of crime and strain police.
        Accountability must be more than a word. It must be
    standard. It must apply to individuals who commit violent acts
    and to those leaders whose decisions enable those acts.
        Without accountability, justice is incomplete and safety is
    compromised. Police officers take the job knowing the worst may
    happen, but it is up to those in the position of power to
    protect them.
        They ensure they have the best environment to work in, and
    to know that the system will work together to make a safe place
    for all to call home.
        My son went to work, as do all officers, with a sense of
    hope and optimism that they can make a difference, and a hope
    of coming home to the families who love them.
        I urge you to listen to the voices of grieving families
    like mine. Rusty deserved better. Memphis deserves better.
    Rusty had a job with MPD, but he was so much more to everyone
    in his personal life.
        We all lost so much when he was taken for us. My son died.
    He gave his last breath saving a fellow officer and pushing her
    to the ground when the bullets started to fly.
        He gave his life serving a city that tragically did not
    protect him in return. By continually allowing repeat offenders
    to be released and to commit more crimes, crime has taken a
    toll on me.
        I would not travel to Memphis unless it was necessary and
    many individuals felt the same. With the increased State
    troopers and Federal agencies embedded in Memphis after the
    death of my son, Memphis is beginning to change.
        People are venturing out, and people are trying to enjoy
    the city again. They are thanking city officials for allowing
    those agencies to come in.
        Rusty died a hero. He protected others as he died. He gave
    his life. It is time for our leaders to protect those who
    remain.
        Bring the National Guard and keep the Federal agencies who
    are involved in the city until criminals realize crime doesn't
    pay any more in Memphis and playtime is over.
        Thank you for allowing me to speak on behalf of my son, and
    the family, and our community in Memphis.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. McKinney follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Van Drew. Thank you for your courage. You represent
    many, many other people. I see his handsome face there. It is
    unfortunately now the story of most major American cities.
        Dr. La Vigne, you may begin.

                    STATEMENT OF DR. NANCY LA VIGNE

        Dr. La Vigne. Chair Van Drew, Ranking Member Crockett, Mr.
    Raskin, the Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to speak with you today. Let's start with some
    facts.
        Violent crime is down to prepandemic levels or even lower
    in most every U.S. city. That started around 2022, not when Mr.
    Trump started office in January of this year.
        Nationwide, violent crime is down 50 percent from its peak
    in 1991. Despite these gains, I am not going to sit here and
    say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
        That is because every bit of violent crime is unacceptable.
    Every life lost is a tragedy. We can do more, and we should do
    more.
        With that said, the reductions in the violent crime rate
    that I just quoted to you; those are real statistics. We are
    clearly doing something right.
        To that I say, if it is working, don't break it. That is
    precisely what this Administration is doing. It is breaking it
    by deploying armed guards to cities uninvited by local leaders,
    by canceling grants that support violent crime interventions,
    by cutting support for crime victims services, and by reducing
    investments in research on what works to promote safety.
        Now, to be clear, I am certain that sending in the Guard
    will suppress crime in the short run. The research is strong
    that increasing police presence can reduce crime.
        Much depends on how they are trained, how they are
    deployed, and how they interact with community members. Sending
    in a surge of National Guards and other Federal officers into
    cities can keep residents away for fear. It can curb tourism.
    It can hurt local economies.
        The Guard lacks local expertise. They don't know the
    stakeholders, the players. They don't know how to resolve
    issues peacefully because of that lack of local knowledge.
        That can erode trust even after they pull out, because
    residents don't distinguish between one type of law enforcement
    officer and another. Guards aren't trained for civilian
    policing and things like deescalation and crisis intervention,
    a type of training matters.
        Is there a better role for law enforcement, Federal law
    enforcement in dealing with local crime issues? Absolutely.
        One example is DOJ's Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN). It
    has been in operation since 2001. It has been going strong
    across various Administrations.
        It is a partnership between U.S. Attorneys' offices and the
    local police. It is a proven success. It has been rigorously
    evaluated. It can result in reduced violence.
        This Administration is breaking that too. Advising U.S.
    Attorneys to divert resources away from PSN to, you guessed it,
    immigration prosecutions.
        Aside from Federal law enforcement presence or partnership,
    what are other ways to reduce violence? I will lift up one
    example from my home city of Newark, New Jersey.
        The Newark Community Street Team is a community-based
    violence intervention effort. It was launched in 2015. Since
    then, homicides have been down 65 percent in the city of
    Newark.
        Federal funding for the Newark Community Street Team was
    cut this year, along with dozens of other grants for community
    violence intervention programs.
        Whatever we do to address issues of violent crime, we
    should make sure that it is a wise use of taxpayer dollars.
    Research and evaluation can help us to discern that return on
    investment, what works, what doesn't, what should be continued,
    and what should be disbanded.
        The Department of Justice canceled dozens of grants to
    evaluate crime reduction programs. It also canceled
    translational efforts like crime solutions.gov, which helps
    make findings from research accessible to local leaders,
    practitioners, police chiefs, so that they can implement
    evidence-based practices.
        What about the victims? Services can help them heal, but
    they are also essential in preventing revictimization.
        If Congress truly cares about violent crime, they care
    about victims. Right? This Administration terminated hundreds
    of millions of dollars in victim service grants.
        In closing, safer communities come from evidence. They come
    from partnership. They come from respect for local expertise.
        Instead of letting this Administration break strategies
    that work, Congress should restore and invest in them. Thank
    you.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. La Vigne follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Van Drew. Thank you for your testimony. We will now
    begin with questions. We will proceed under the five-minute
    rule.
        I am going to recognize the gentleman from the great State
    of Alabama.
        Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have seen crime rise in
    Democrat ran cities, including in my home State of Alabama in
    the two largest Democrat ran cities, that would be Birmingham
    and Montgomery.
        Senator Tuberville has noted that he would be supportive of
    the National Guard coming in to help local police departments
    in Alabama with rising crime.
        Mr. Mangual, have we seen an improvement enough that would
    warrant the National Guard coming to Alabama, from these other
    cities where we have, obviously like D.C., where we have
    deployed the Guard?
        Mr. Mangual. Yes. I do think that there is some pretty
    significant evidence that the deployment of the National Guard,
    whether it is in Washington, DC, or in some of the other places
    where it has been deployed, has had a beneficial deterrent
    effect through the presence, right? The problem to the extent
    that there is one is that those benefits are going to be
    limited.
        It is best that those kinds of efforts are coupled with
    other Federal agency deployments and prioritizations of things
    like 922(g) cases, which are gun prosecutions, gang
    prosecutions, et cetera.
        Mr. Moore. Yes. So far, since the operation started in
    D.C., we have had nearly 3,100 arrests and 300 firearms seized.
        What does that tell you about the depth of unchecked
    criminal activity prior to the National Guard being here?
        Mr. Mangual. It tells you that Washington, DC, like many
    other American cities, has been for a long time under policed,
    right?
        When you have additional resources coming in, and they are
    able to make significant numbers of arrests, that tells you
    that the city did not have what it needed beforehand. That
    should be a lesson to the leaders to add to the foresight.
        Mr. Moore. If the resources for policing are there, Mr.
    Mauro, you may want to touch on this too as well, these soft on
    crime DAs, when they just turn the folks back out, doesn't that
    go against just certainly the morale in the police departments?
        If we have politicians criticizing police officers when we
    are soft on them after they go through the trouble to make an
    arrest, to try to get somebody, to put them behind the bars,
    and then we turn them right back out. In the case of Ms.
    McKinney, we have officers and individuals attacked again.
        Does it, Mr. Mauro, doesn't that hurt the morale? Even if
    we have the policing resources, if we turn the people right
    back out, isn't that going to create a problem for society?
        Mr. Mauro. Well, of course it does, sir. The result can be,
    in some instances, therefore a lack of enforcement.
        If you make, let's say, an arrest for a low-level offense
    that should go downtown, so to speak, and when you get there,
    it is DP'ed, as they call it, declined prosecution. When that
    happens regularly, you begin to understand that it is not what
    the system you work for wants.
        I am very cognizantly choosing that example, because it is
    one of the things that led to the beginning of the disorder in
    our subways.
        The lifeblood of New York City is the subway system. That
    is the city's circulatory system. Jumping fares, as they call
    it, fair beating, is one of the ways that the entire policing
    revolution that we had in the 1990s, it was really founded on
    that as one of the principal enforcement mechanisms.
        Not everybody who jumps the turnstile is a member of a
    robbery crew, certainly. If you are a member of a robbery crew,
    you are not paying the fare.
        When somebody jumps the turnstile and you give them just a
    summons, and it turns out that they have two robbery warrants
    on them, well now you have the ability to take them off the
    street.
        That has a cascading effect on the safety in the system.
    That was really one of the broken windows linchpins.
        Ultimately what happens, is when that is no longer
    enforced, and I should mention that the District Attorneys in
    New York, we have five, at least four, literally don't enforce
    that crime. It is on, right in the Day One, the infamous Day
    One memo of Alvin Bragg, saying, we are not going to enforce
    that anymore.
        Now, I would argue that this is not even within his power.
    That is the legislature that has to repeal an entire statute.
    Nobody has challenged that and so on it goes.
        Consequently, people who would have been kept off that
    system, now feel with impunity to jump the turnstile, go in
    through the out door, they don't pay, and now they have easy
    access to a place that they can commit crimes, get out of there
    quickly, et cetera.
        In addition to morale, it leads to a lack of enforcement.
        Mr. Moore. They basically just lose concern about it. It is
    that broken window principle, if you don't stop them there,
    then the crime just escalates in certainly, individuals who are
    jumping the turnstiles.
        You said Governor Hochul, Kathy Hochul, right, had moved
    the Guard into the subways. They were just there as a presence
    to deter, right? That is kind of, they are not really arresting
    people?
        Mr. Mauro. No, no. They don't follow the 9/11 system. It is
    not like they are getting deployed to go on ``particular police
    jobs.''
        They are there for what is called their omnipresence. You
    see it all over New York, it has been underway, as I mentioned,
    since
    9/11.
        That is 25 years without incident. You see them in the
    omnibus, the Oculus, excuse me, downtown, which is a big
    transportation hub. You will see them in Penn Station, in Grand
    Central. They just stand there.
        Because they are there, it takes weight off of the police,
    and it sends the message that this area is observed. Very
    often, perpetrators will move on.
        Mr. Moore. Thank you. I am out of time. I will yield back,
    Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Van Drew. I thank the gentleman.
        Ms. Crockett. Mr. Chair, I have a couple of UCs before we
    move on.
        Mr. Van Drew. OK.
        Ms. Crockett. First, I have a unanimous consent request. I
    ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a report written
    by Chandler Hall, titled, ``Cities in Blue States Experiencing
    Larger Declines in Gun Violence in 2023.''
        Then, I have another one. It is by Chandler Hall again,
    titled, ``The Highest Rates of Gun Homicides Are in Rural
    Counties.''
        My next one is titled, written by Jeff Asher, titled,
    ``Trump Doesn't Have the Data to Back Up His Claims About
    Washington, DC.''
        My final one is written by Kiley Murdock and Jim Kessler,
    titled, ``The 21st Century Red State Murder Crisis.''
        Mr. Van Drew. Without objection.
        Ms. Crockett. Thank you so much.
        Mr. Van Drew. I now recognize the gentleman from Georgia.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am deeply disappointed
    about this hearing. It was billed as an exploration of the
    Trump-Vance Administration restoring law and order through the
    deployment of the military onto the streets of America.
        That is what we were here to talk about, and I haven't
    heard one Republican witness talk about that. How the military,
    the National Guard, has decreased crime on the streets of
    America. That is what this is supposed to be about.
        Somebody has lied, just like Trump lied. He lied about
    releasing the Epstein files. He lied about putting America
    first. He lied about lowering costs on day one.
        Mr. Van Drew. Mr. Johnson, if I can just interrupt for a
    minute. All our witnesses are kind enough to be here. They are
    not here as a Republican or Democrat.
        Their own views are them on all, I will say for all of
    them. Not one of them is intentionally lying and they swore an
    oath.
        I appreciate your comments. Please move on.
        Mr. Johnson. Well, no, no. I am not casting aspersions at
    the witnesses. I am saying that this hearing was billed as
    something that it has not turned out to be.
        We are supposed to be talking about how the deployment of
    the military onto the streets of America, has lessened crime.
        Mr. Van Drew. This is your chance, sir. This is your
    chance.
        Mr. Johnson. It is a fair argument for me to make that we
    have misled the public, just like Donald Trump has misled the
    public.
        The public, the American Joe, or the average Joe on the
    street, is feeling like a sucker now, because Trump is telling
    them that, look, don't believe your lying eyes.
        Prices are down. They know that price of groceries is up.
    The price of energy is up. The price of their healthcare is up.
    Donald Trump is telling them, believe what I say. They are
    getting tired of that.
        They looked at this drama with the Epstein files, they saw
    him go from doing everything he could to prevent the release,
    into flipping at the last minute, so to save the little face
    that he still has, because he knew he was going to lose that
    vote and he lost it.
        Every single Member of Congress, except for one, voted to
    release the Epstein files. The American people are really
    confused at this point.
        They see MAGA Republicans in the House carrying President
    Trump's water. They are not happy about that. Fortunately, they
    have a shining light to look at. Her name is Marjorie Taylor
    Green.
        She has started to move away from the deception, the lies,
    deceit, and the violence. Because of that, she is now being
    subjected to violence.
        Let me ask you a question, Mr. Mangual, although you have
    been to law school, your training has been as a corporate
    communications guy with the International Trademark
    Association.
        You are here to talk about how the military has made our
    streets more safe. I will ask you this question. Law
    enforcement is a noble profession, isn't it?
        Mr. Mangual. It is.
        Mr. Johnson. It has special education and certification.
    Isn't that correct?
        Mr. Mangual. It does.
        Mr. Johnson. Specialized skills that you get from learning
    to become a police officer, like Ms. McKinney's son, and I am
    so saddened by your loss. My condolences to you, Ms. McKinney.
        Law enforcement officers, isn't it true, Mr. Mauro, are
    trained professionals?
        Mr. Mauro. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Johnson. They take a different oath than does the
    military. Isn't that correct?
        Mr. Mauro. Well, I am not familiar with the military oath,
    but, I know--
        Mr. Johnson. That is because you never served in the
    military. The military is trained to combat, to be in combat
    situations. Whereas, law enforcement officers are trained to
    enforce the law.
        Isn't it a fact, Dr. La Vigne, that if we have people who
    are trained in combat, deployed to the streets of America, that
    we are doing law enforcement a disservice, because law
    enforcement depends on the respect and support of the people
    who they serve?
        Isn't it true that by deploying the military to the streets
    we are hurting law enforcement?
        Dr. La Vigne. It can be demoralizing to local law
    enforcement to have the National Guard come in, as if they
    aren't capable of doing their jobs.
        You are right, they are trained specifically to be policing
    in a civilian context.
        Mr. Johnson. They come in and break things up and kill
    people. That is what the military does, right?
        Dr. La Vigne. I don't know about that.
        Mr. Johnson. Well, that is not what police officers are
    trained to do.
        Dr. La Vigne. Correct.
        Mr. Johnson. With that, I will yield back.
        Mr. Van Drew. I thank the gentleman.
        Mr. Johnson. Before I do though, let me offer, for
    unanimous consent, an article entitled, ``Portland Police Chief
    Reveals Troops Tear Gassed Protest by Accident.'' That is in
    The New Republic on October 29th. Without objection.
        Mr. Van Drew. Without objection.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Van Drew. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize Dr.
    Onder from the great State of Missouri.
        Mr. Onder. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Unfortunately, I am all
    too familiar with high crime cities. A part of my district is
    on the outskirts of St. Louis, Missouri, a city that has
    consistently had one of the highest homicide rates in the
    country.
        In fact, I myself, all the way back in 2005, was a victim
    of a violent crime. I was robbed at gunpoint. Unfortunately,
    the crime rate in that region has only gotten worse.
        Just this last year, Missouri's Attorney General testified
    before this Committee that the State had to remove a St. Louis
    prosecutor for prioritizing politically motivated cases over
    violent offenders, including murderers.
        The families hardest hit are in these neighborhoods, these
    inner city neighborhoods, are the ones that pay the price. For
    years, failed leadership in neglected public safety of left
    entire communities trapped in fear.
        In St. Louis, Democrat policies have worsened a crisis that
    was undermining law enforcement and refusing to hold violent
    criminals accountable.
        The primary responsibility of government has always been to
    protect citizens by upholding law and order. When local
    officials abandon that duty, communities crumble. When
    prosecutors refuse to prosecute, crime grows.
        When politics outweigh public cities, the results are the
    experience of St. Louis, Chicago, New York City, Charlotte, and
    others. Record violence, collapsing trust in institutions, and
    violent neighborhoods.
        These policies trap generations, they crush hope, and we
    have to break that pattern. Real compassion means telling young
    people that we believe that we can do better, and that choices
    have consequences.
        Accountability is not punishment for its own sake. It is a
    path to safer streets, stronger families, and communities that
    can thrive.
        Mr. Mangual, is there a way that Congress can hold local
    officials accountable for refusing to enforce the law and
    refusing Federal assistance during periods of sustained violent
    crime?
        Mr. Mangual. The best thing that Congress can do in this
    way, to hold these local officials accountable, is to condition
    more of the funds that so many American cities depend on best
    practices with respect to law enforcement and prosecution.
        Mr. Onder. Yes. That makes sense. Not only in New York City
    do you lock up the toothpaste, not the perpetrators, but that
    my staff tells me that in the Navy Yard area of Washington, DC,
    they lock up the toothpaste at the CVS.
        Ms. McKinney, just a quick question for you. I am so sorry
    for the loss of your brave and heroic son. You mentioned one of
    the murders was out on a bond.
        Do you know, was he out on a cash bond, or was he just
    released without, essentially without any financial incentive
    to return?
        Ms. McKinney. Sir, I am really not sure.
        Mr. Onder. OK. That is a no. That is all right.
        Ms. McKinney. Yes.
        Mr. Onder. It is very common these days. One of these soft-
    on-crime policies that so many times is instituted in some of
    these soft-on-crime cities and States, has been the end of what
    is called cash bail.
        Which is to say no bail at all. Just letting the suspects,
    letting them go free.
        Mr. Mauro, you are with the Manhattan or Mangual, you are
    with Manhattan Institute.
        Mr. Mangual. Yes.
        Mr. Onder. Shortly after I was elected to the Missouri
    Senate in August 2014, of course, very famously, the Michael
    Brown death and the subsequent riots, led to just some very
    unfortunate, the very unfortunate phenomenon, which Heather
    MacDonald at Manhattan Institute--
        Mr. Mangual. The Ferguson Effect, yes.
        Mr. Onder. Kind of popularized the Ferguson Effect. Explain
    that, and what, how can we turn things around?
        It is the opposite of what Mr. Mauro describes with broken
    windows policing, enforcing fairs, and so on.
        Mr. Mangual. That is exactly right. The Ferguson Effect
    basically describes a phenomenon in which, in the wake of a
    viral police incident that was controversial, so much public
    scrutiny and vitriol was lobbed at the institutions of law
    enforcement that it basically discouraged line officers from
    being proactive.
        One of the best sort of academic demonstrations of this was
    done in a study by Roland Fryer and Tanaya Devi out of Harvard,
    where they looked at five American cities over a two-year
    period, and looked at which ones were targeted by the Federal
    Government under either President Barack Obama, most of them
    under President Barack Obama, for civil rights enforcement
    actions in the wake of viral police use of force incidents.
        What they found was a massive increase in felony offenses,
    homicide offenses specifically. The mechanism that they believe
    most explained that increase in crime was a pullback on the
    part of line officers with respect to proactiveness.
        Mr. Onder. Every law enforcement fears being the next
    Darren Wilson. Thank you. I yield back.
        Ms. Crockett. Mr. Chair, before--
        Mr. Van Drew. I thank the gentleman. Yes?
        Ms. Crockett. Sorry, before you go on, I have two UC
    requests. First, from the Council on Criminal Justice, which
    states, examining trends over a longer period, St. Louis has
    had a far larger reduction in some violent and property crimes
    than other large American cities.
        The homicide rate in St. Louis was 40 percent lower in the
    first half of this year than it wasn't the first half of the
    first year of the pandemic.
        Second, I ask unanimous consent for an article that was
    written by Stephanie Wylie, titled, ``How Profit Shapes the
    Bail Bond System,'' published by the Brennan Center.''
        Mr. Van Drew. Without objection.
        Ms. Crockett. Thank you.
        Mr. Van Drew. I now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr.
    Raskin, from the great State of Maryland.
        Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ms. McKinney, I want to
    extend to you my sympathy for your horrible loss. As a father
    who lost a son who was a year younger than your son, I cannot
    know your pain or your experience, but I know you live with it
    every day. My heart goes out to you.
        Ms. McKinney and Mr. Mauro, in fact, all the witnesses have
    underscored the importance, as Mr. Mauro put it, of voicing
    support for the police.
        We voted to create a plaque. It wasn't a memorial fund for
    anyone. It wasn't money to go to families. At least it was a
    plaque to honor the work of the officers who defended us with
    their lives.
        It reads, on behalf of a grateful Congress, this plaque
    honors the extraordinary individuals who bravely protected and
    defended this symbol of democracy on January 6, 2021. Their
    heroism will never be forgotten.
        It was supposed to have been put up in the Capitol two
    years ago. It has still not been put up. I thought I would
    start with an easy one, just a yes or no question.
        Would you agree that Speaker Johnson should put this plaque
    up as provided for in Federal law? Dr. La Vigne, I can start
    with you.
        Dr. La Vigne. Yes.
        Mr. Raskin. Ms. McKinney?
        Ms. McKinney. Yes.
        Mr. Raskin. Mr. Mauro?
        Mr. Mauro. Yes.
        Mr. Raskin. Mr. Mangual?
        Mr. Mangual. Yes.
        Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much. I want to go to, just
    quickly back to the question of the pardons, because it seems
    like our soft on crime President is so beholden to the MAGA
    militia that he has actually pardoned some of the people he
    already pardoned, because they have gotten back in trouble.
        As I was reading the long list of crimes they have already
    engaged in, he recently pardoned a woman who was separately
    convicted of threatening to shoot FBI agents who were
    investigating a tip that she may have been at the Capitol, and
    she threatened to shoot them.
        Then, he pardoned another insurrectionist from Kentucky,
    who had been arrested for illegally possessing six firearms and
    4,800 rounds of ammunition.
        Just a question to you, Dr. La Vigne, what message is sent
    by these repeated pardons for people who just participated in
    the insurrection surrounding the attempted overthrow of the
    2020 Presidential Election?
        Dr. La Vigne. I think the best way to answer that is to
    quote Chair Van Drew who said in his opening remarks, ``when
    you take away consequences, you get chaos.''
        Mr. Raskin. OK. Mr. Mauro, let me come back to you, because
    you invoked the broken windows thesis by James Q. Wilson. It
    piqued my ears. He was my professor when I was in school.
        I was always--I wrote a paper about it. I was always
    fascinated by it. Also, we had a lot of broken windows here on
    January 6, 2021, in addition to a lot of broken bones.
        I wonder, I read that long list, I won't go through the
    whole thing again, but of crimes that have been committed since
    the pardons took place by people who were pardoned, including
    terroristic threats, home invasion, burglary, vandalism, and
    theft. Not offenses directed at politicians.
        I am afraid the Chair misunderstood my point. He seemed to
    think that I was talking about these crimes being directed just
    at politicians.
        I am talking about these common crimes that were committed
    by people who were pardoned. People going out and robbing other
    people's houses, having nothing to do with politics.
        My question for you on broken windows, are you surprised
    that people who were given the remarkable, extraordinary,
    almost unheard of privilege of a Presidential Pardon, quickly
    going back out on the road and doing things like burglary,
    vandalism, theft, home invasion, and terroristic threats?
        What does that say in the context of broken windows?
        Mr. Mauro. All I would say relative to January 6th, is that
    if we are going to speak about the conditions in our cities, I
    am hearing a great deal about January 6th, I'm hearing a
    tremendous amount about Donald Trump.
        That is not what you feel on the street. January 6th,
    nobody supports. Certainly, I don't. Nobody wants to see people
    in Viking horns walking around inside our Capitol, behaving
    that way. I can't.
        Mr. Raskin. OK. I am reclaiming my time.
        Mr. Mauro. I am not making excuse--
        Mr. Raskin. I am sorry.
        Mr. Mauro. You said--
        Mr. Raskin. I am sorry, sir. Did you read James Q. Wilson
    about the broken windows hypothesis, which is that to apply
    it--
        Mr. Mauro. Well, we have got to apply it--
        Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair, will you direct him to respond and
    stop talking.
        Mr. Mauro. I am trying to tell my--
        Mr. Raskin. I have reclaimed my time. You might not
    understand the rules.
        Mr. Van Drew. Mr. Mauro, Mr. Mauro. Actually, your thought
    was one of the better thoughts I have heard all day today. I
    appreciate it, but it's the gentleman's time, the Ranking
    Member's time. Thank you.
        Mr. Raskin. Please restore my time if you would. Let me
    come to you, Dr. La Vigne.
        Mr. Van Drew. We will restore your time.
        Mr. Raskin. The broken windows hypothesis is that if you
    allow people to get away with a crime at a certain level, and
    you send them the message, it is OK, then they will go out and
    commit other crimes and more serious crimes.
        That is what we are seeing here. What do you think, and I
    know you haven't written a paper on this, because I looked at
    your extensive scholarship.
        What do you think about the proposition, well, that there
    are political crimes and we can forgive all those, and those
    people will not take it as a permission slip to go out and
    commit other crimes. Does that seem right?
        Dr. La Vigne. No, sir. It doesn't. Although I am so tempted
    to geek out on what broken windows really was, according to
    George Kelling and James Q. Wilson.
        George Kelling was on the faculty at the Rutgers School of
    Criminal Justice for years. It wasn't about enforcement.
        It was really about how visible signs of disarray and
    disorder can send a signal that places are vulnerable to crime.
    Fixing those broken windows. It wasn't about a vast--
        Mr. Raskin. Which is why I was pointing out, we had
    millions of dollars of broken windows here, in addition to all
    the bloodshed--
        Dr. La Vigne. Yes.
        Mr. Raskin. The people.
        Mr. Van Drew. Time has expired.
        Mr. Raskin. I yield back.
        Mr. Van Drew. I thank the gentleman. I will yield myself
    five minutes.
        Just a few quick questions and a couple thoughts. Just, I
    agree with you, by the way, Mr. Mauro. Right now, we can have
    another hearing on Epstein. We can have another hearing on
    January 6th.
        We are really trying to talk to people about the people on
    the street and what they are going through when they live in
    many of these areas throughout the country. That is what we are
    supposed to be here for.
        With that, I am sorry, I have to just digress a tiny
    second. The Epstein files, just so we all know, Epstein was
    indicted under President Trump's Administration. He was
    arrested during Trump's Administration.
        Maxwell was indicted during the Trump Administration. Was
    arrested during the Trump Administration. Let's set the facts
    straight.
        Mr. Mauro, I have a question for you, and if you can answer
    briefly. The Democratic party has changed. Again, I don't want
    to get political here.
        You are right. If I understood what you were saying, there
    used to be a bipartisan agreement, probably back around the
    1990s, I don't know the exact years.
        President Clinton, other noted Democrats that really cared,
    that as Democrats, they might have differed in vision with
    Republicans on some issues, fiscal and otherwise, but keeping
    our streets safe for the men and women who live in the country,
    especially in urban areas, wasn't that a bipartisan effort?
        Wasn't that a different kind of Democrat than what we are
    seeing now?
        Mr. Mauro. The tremendous success in New York City relative
    to driving down crime that began in the 1990s began post-
    Giuliani.
        Everybody thought it was going to go away under a Democrat
    mayor, a police commissioner serving under a Democratic mayor,
    in fact two, Raymond Kelly and William Bratton.
        Mr. Van Drew. Mr. Mauro, thank you for that. My point is,
    this is a whole new deal now going on with Democrats. This is a
    different world.
        This isn't those Democrats back then. This is Mamdani is
    not Bill Clinton, is not that type of a Democrat at all.
    Mamdani, in fact, wants to take, I am sure you heard about it,
    I am sure you are upset about it, all misdemeanors, there will
    be no more misdemeanors. It is unbelievable.
        The second issue I wanted to talk about is, really quickly,
    this sounds like a stupid question. Why are we locking up our
    toothpaste, our mouthwash, our just common things, and cough
    medicine? What is going on?
        Mr. Mauro. This is a salient question. Three hundred
    twenty-seven career perpetrators identified by The New York
    Times now, account for a full one-third of all the shoplifting
    in New York City. That is driving these numbers.
        The point that I tried to make in my opening statement was
    that we are not talking about locking up vast numbers of people
    now to change the dynamic on the street.
        We had learned from broken windows and where we are right
    now, is if there was some surgical enforcement on people who
    are identified, and we just took those steps, conditions would
    be greatly improved.
        These are the kinds of real things that I was hoping we
    could talk about today.
        Mr. Van Drew. The stuff that affects people because they
    are paying more for their goods and services because of it.
    That makes them feel nervous. They don't like it. It shouldn't
    be that way.
        Next question, isn't part of this, you can cook the books
    in statistics. We keep hearing about the statistics. Go out in
    the street.
        I know Newark well, Doctor, I know it well. I spent plenty
    of time there going to continuing education courses at Rutgers
    University.
        I am going to say that if you went to Newark and North
    Jersey, or Irvington, or many of the other cities up there, and
    if you go to the cities in my area, Pleasantville, Atlantic
    City, there is a lot of concern for safety. Particularly,
    people of color, because they live there and they have that
    concern.
        With that said, isn't part of the statistics, there is low
    morale, there is less staffing, there is less prosecution,
    there is less arrests, if you just let it go by.
        Of course, with less prosecution and less arrest, you are
    going to have lower numbers. Is there any accuracy to what I
    say?
        Mr. Mauro. Yes.
        Mr. Van Drew. Exactly. Let's do the real deal. Let's talk
    about what's really happening.
        We made it so damn hard for a cop to be a cop, and just so
    disgusted and demoralized with it, they just don't bother,
    unless it is the most serious of situations. I had cops in D.C.
    last year, tell me that when I actually witnessed something.
        Let me ask this, Ms. McKinney, again, sorry to ask
    questions to you, because I know you have gone through a lot.
    Thank you for being here.
        I know condolences and the sorrow means a lot. Would it
    maybe mean more to you if we enacted policies so that what
    happened to your son never happened to somebody else again?
        Ms. McKinney. Definitely.
        Mr. Van Drew. That means more than the condolences, doesn't
    it?
        Ms. McKinney. It would. Especially in Memphis.
        Mr. Van Drew. Yes.
        Ms. McKinney. That is why I have, with the National Guard
    there, I know some people are against having the National Guard
    in big cities or anywhere on U.S. territory.
        Mr. Van Drew. Yes.
        Ms. McKinney. I feel that the National Guard in Memphis,
    just their presence alone, has made a difference. They don't do
    police work.
        Mr. Van Drew. May I ask a question related to that. Really
    quick for all of you, and then I am done.
        Do you believe that the National Guard, the men and women
    in the Guard, are capable of being on those city streets and
    doing good and not doing harm?
        That they are not just going to be warriors that are going
    out shooting people and beating them up? Mr. Mangual, yes or no
    answer?
        Mr. Mangual. Yes, I do.
        Mr. Van Drew. Mr. Mauro?
        Mr. Mauro. Yes.
        Ms. McKinney. Yes.
        Dr. La Vigne. Yes.
        Mr. Van Drew. OK. That puts that away. I thank you and I
    thank all of you. With that--
        Ms. Crockett. I have UCs.
        Mr. Van Drew. I bet you you do.
        Ms. Crockett. I mean, you asked different questions. I got
    answers.
        My first UC, I asked unanimous consent to enter into the
    record an article titled, ``DOJ Cancels $500 Million in Public
    Safety Grants, Cuts Officer Safety and Crime Prevention
    Programs,'' published by Police1 on August 18, 2025.
        I also have one where, it is entitled, ``Public Safety
    Groups Face an Uncertain Future Months After Federal Grant
    Cuts,'' published by the National Public Radio.
        I also have one that says, ``Justice Department Slashes
    Essential Services for Crime Victims,'' published by the
    Brennan Center.
        I have one that says, let's see, this is by The Guardian.
    It is published March 27, 2025. ``Trump Cut 69 Global Programs
    Tackling Child Labor and Human Trafficking.''
        I have another one that says, this is written by Michael
    Waldman, titled, ``Trump Defunds Effective Crime Prevention
    Policies, published by the Brennan Center,'' July 2025.
        I have another one that says, it is by Nicole, I can't
    pronounce Nicole's last name. ``Crime Prevention Efforts Face
    Setbacks After Federal Cuts.''
        I have another one that says, ``Federal Cuts to Behavioral
    Health Will Harm Public Safety,'' from September 23, 2025.
        My final one on this issue, so we can put this to rest. I
    asked unanimous consent, this is written by Nick Wilson,
    titled, ``The Trump Administration's Budget Will Undermine
    ATF's Efforts to Prevent Violent Crime.'' This was published by
    the Center for American Progress on July 9, 2025.
        Mr. Van Drew. Without objection. I would remind everyone
    that those are, in sincerity, mostly Left-wing publications. I
    could come and put a lot of UCs in for publications that would
    disagree with that totally.
        Ms. Crockett. I have--OK.
        Mr. Van Drew. My point being, let me just finish my point.
    It is not going to put anything to rest and you know that.
        Ms. Crockett. Well, but Mr. Chair, I will ask, if you do
    have any UCs that say the opposite about these Federal cuts as
    if they didn't happen, please enter them into the record, so
    that we can have it in the Congressional Record that these cuts
    were not made. I just would like it to be, I want us to have an
    accurate record.
        Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair?
        Mr. Van Drew. Not necessarily the cuts, but the results of
    the cuts are two different things. Where you are spending
    money, and if you are spending money that is effective.
        Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair, if I could, I just have four, not
    seven, I think I just counted.
        Mr. Van Drew. Without objection.
        Mr. Raskin. This is in Reuters, ``Federal Drug Prosecutions
    Fall the Lowest Level in Decades as Trump Shifts Focus to
    Deportations.''
        This one is the Washington Post, November 10, 2025, no
    longer a liberal publication, by the way. ``Justice Department
    Struggles as Thousands Exit and Few Replaced.''
        This one is from ProPublica, ``How Trump Has Exploited
    Pardons and Clemency to Reward Political Allies and
    Supporters.''
        Finally, this one from the Cato Institute, ``ICE Has
    Diverted Over 25,000 Officers in Their Jobs at the FBI.''
        Mr. Van Drew. Without objection.
        Mr. Raskin. OK.
        Mr. Van Drew. You are next?
        Ms. Crockett. Yes.
        Mr. Van Drew. OK. I now recognize the Ranking Member, I am
    sorry, I don't, yes, the Ranking Member of this Committee, I
    do, Ms. Crockett.
        Ms. Crockett. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. If we have
    learned anything this year, is that Congressional Republicans
    are more interested in serving Donald Trump than they are in
    serving their constituents.
        Over the past 10 months, they have given away permanent tax
    cuts to the wealthiest people on earth, demolished half of the
    White House, pardoned violent insurrectionists, significantly
    driven up cost of living across the country, and then given
    themselves a taxpayer-funded eight-week vacation.
        Also, they could delay, as long as possible, Congress
    voting to release the Epstein files. Now, they are trying to
    gaslight you into believing that you should trust them on crime
    policy.
        They want you to believe that living in a Police State is a
    good or normal thing. They want you to be OK with having armed
    soldiers and Federal agents monitor you as you shop for
    groceries or take your children to school.
        They want you to think that you won't be affected. We have
    already seen Americans detained, arrested, injured, and some
    nearly killed because of this Administration's reckless
    approach to handling crime.
        They are doing all this without acknowledging the fact that
    Republican led States are experiencing a murder and crime and
    violent crime crisis. Have so, and they have, for the last two
    decades.
        The Republicans murder State rates were 33 percent higher
    than Democratic State murder rates in both 2021-2022. In fact,
    over the past 22 years, the Republican State murder rates were
    nearly a quarter higher compared to States that are led by
    Democrats.
        Even when you remove Democratic cities and counties from
    the Republican State's data, their murder rate is still nearly
    a quarter higher than States run by Democrats.
        Ms. La Vigne, how long have you studied crime?
        Dr. La Vigne. You are going to have me show my age. Is that
    nice?
        Ms. Crockett. It doesn't show in your face, honey. That is
    all that matters.
        Dr. La Vigne. Let's just say about three decades.
        Ms. Crockett. OK, very good. Would you agree that factors
    like poverty, lax gun laws, and a lack of public services, can
    lead to higher crime rates?
        Dr. La Vigne. Yes. I agree with that.
        Ms. Crockett. According to the Census Bureau States with
    the highest poverty rates are disproportionately Republican
    governed and often have laxer gun laws and less public
    services.
        Wouldn't you agree that these factors are likely why
    Republican led States have higher murder rates than Democratic
    States?
        Dr. La Vigne. I would. In fact, I would like to lift up
    some research from one of our faculty members, Dr. Robert Apel.
        He recently conducted a study looking at the relationship
    between levels and quality of public assistance and crime.
    Found that there is the relationship in the expected direction.
    That is, lower public assistance, more crime, and more
    recidivism.
        Ms. Crockett. Thank you so much for that. Not only are you
    likely to be a victim of violent crime in a Republican led
    State, you are now less likely to receive victim assistance,
    because of Republican cutting resources for food, shelter, and
    transportation.
        This is what Donald Trump's America looks like. Never let a
    wannabe tyrant convince you that the only way for you to be
    safe is to live under a Police State where he controls your
    day-to-day activities by means of military or armed Federal
    agents.
        That is what we call a dictatorship. I just want to be
    clear, because I appreciate what you just brought up, because I
    did serve as a public defender and a court-appointed attorney.
        As we sat here, I remembered that one of the witnesses'
    opening statements, they mentioned the word why. As Michael
    Jackson used to sing, why, why, why, we have not dealt with the
    why. We have not dealt with why crime happens.
        If you understand the why, then maybe you can come to a
    conclusion. As someone who has sat there with people that were
    too poor to be able to afford their own attorneys, I can tell
    you some whys.
        What I am going to do, is talk to you about why the idea
    that incarceration is the only thing that can fix anything. The
    fact that we have two witnesses that are telling us that we
    need to go back to the 1994 Crime Bill, when we learned that
    all that did was drive up incarceration.
        It didn't drive down addiction, because addiction is
    actually an illness. That is a whole other issue. You can't
    incarcerate your way out of an illness just like you can't
    incarcerate somebody that has cancer and believe that somehow
    they now will be cured.
        I digress. What I will tell you, is that we also know that
    the U.S. has the highest incarceration rate of any independent
    democracy on earth.
        Worse, every single State incarcerates more people per
    capita than most Nations in the global context. Even
    progressive U.S. States like New York and Massachusetts appear
    to be extreme just like Louisiana and Mississippi.
        In addition to that, the United States has the highest
    incarceration rate, the highest average firearms per 100
    people. Highest homicides per 100,000 people. The lowest safety
    and security rate of 12 countries in comparison.
        I had a 17-year-old that was charged with stealing food out
    of the concession stand at his high school. Unfortunately, in
    the State of Texas at the age of 17, you are considered an
    adult. So, what did they do?
        They decided to charge him with burglary of a habitation.
    He had an attorney that was not me when he went through this.
    They put him on felony probation.
        Ultimately, they revoked his probation because he was too
    poor to show up to his actual probation officer, as his mom was
    the one who was required to take off work so that she could
    take him in.
        I am going to wrap up. This is really important for people
    to understand. At the end of the day, they ended up giving my
    kid the maximum punishment for less than $20 worth of candy
    that he stole out of the concession stand.
        Ultimately, I told them that it was a mistake to send him
    to prison. When he went to prison, he learned how to be a
    criminal. That is where he learned how to cook meth.
        The next time that I saw him, it was because he had
    committed a real crime. Ultimately, all that did was harm our
    communities.
        I will be clear, this was a poor young man, but he was not
    Black. This was in rural Texas. This was East Texas.
        Mr. Van Drew. Time has expired.
        Ms. Crockett. I want to be smart about what we do with
    crime. I want to make sure that we are putting our money in
    smart places.
        Mr. Van Drew. Time has expired.
        Ms. Crockett. Thank you so much for being kind.
        Mr. Van Drew. I thank the gentlewoman. With that, I
    recognize the former Attorney General and from the great State
    of Kansas, Robert Onder.
        I am sorry. It is mistaken, I am sorry. Derek Schmidt. I
    got to get my people straight here, right?
        Mr. Schmidt. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You are promoted.
        Mr. Van Drew. I made you an attorney. I made a doctor an
    Attorney General. I guess that makes you a doctor? I don't
    know.
        Mr. Schmidt. Oh yes, just don't put me in Missouri and we
    will be OK.
        Mr. Van Drew. OK.
        Mr. Schmidt. No, it is all good.
        Mr. Van Drew. That is the deal.
        Mr. Schmidt. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank our
    witnesses for their time. It has been nearly two hours.
        I spent 12 years as the, what our law calls the chief law
    enforcement official of my State, and got to work with a lot of
    prosecutions directly. We ran our victim support programs for
    the States.
        I worked with a lot of crime victims. I have been sitting
    here over the course of this hearing, and I have made a list of
    a few terms that in 12 years interacting with literally
    hundreds of crime victims and their families.
        In fact, this time of the year, we always hosted around the
    holidays, a series of holiday remembrance receptions for crime
    victims' families. Because we understand that the unique
    experience of going through the loss of a loved one or being
    victimized yourself, sometimes just being together with others
    at the holidays who have had a similar experience, can be
    powerful.
        So, hundreds. This is a list of terms I never heard once
    for many of them. I never heard the term Trump. I never heard
    the term Biden. I served during the Biden years.
        I never heard the term Obama. I served during the Obama
    years. I never heard the phrase unanimous consent. I never had
    one of them quote crime statistics or theory to me.
        I never heard one of them say Republican. I never heard one
    of them say Democrat. I heard a lot of them cry. I heard a lot
    of them tell me stories about their loved one who was lost or
    about what happened to them.
        Some were police officers. Ma'am, we lost, I believe it was
    13 on my watch. It might have been 14. I would have to go back
    and count name by name.
        We have lost four police officers to homicide on duty this
    year in Kansas. I had four others shot, by the grace of God,
    none are dead, just this last week in my district.
        This is real. It is sad that this conversation has gone off
    in many different directions. I want to thank our witnesses for
    wanting to talk about what we can do about all of this.
        For me, the measure is how do we have fewer Kansans killed,
    raped or robbed? That is what this ought to be about.
        With that, I want to turn to the testimony from Mr.
    Mangual. You recommend a crime bill. You gave us four elements
    that you think ought to be in there. Some of which, by the way,
    sounds remarkably like, I heard Bill Clinton's voice in my head
    when you said a hundred thousand more cops on the street, hire
    and retain more police officers.
        You added a fifth one that wasn't in your written
    testimony. You said condition grants on best practices. I want
    to ask our other witnesses, just start with Mr. Mauro and go
    down the line, do you think it is a good idea that we ought to
    look at some type of broad or comprehensive crime bill in this
    Congress?
        If so, what else or what would you put in it?
        Mr. Mauro. I do think it is a good idea. It worked once.
    Frankly, if we don't learn from history as the saying goes, we
    are doomed to repeat it.
        It may surprise the Committee to hear me say that I agree
    with Ms. Crockett. Low-level offenses, if you incarcerate
    people, actually among the perps, among the perpetrators, they
    call prison school.
        That goes back to the mafia. They go to prison; they are
    all in jail together. They have nothing but time. That is how
    they learn to do other crimes and develop criminal schemes.
        The point I was trying to make in my opening remarks, and
    it is where we should be looking at anything like a crime bill,
    is that if it is surgical, data-driven, and intelligent.
        If you have somebody who has committed, as I was saying
    earlier, the rest, the 327 perpetrators of the shoplifting I
    was talking about, they have committed over 9,000 at the last
    check--shop-liftings.
        That is not sending somebody to school. That is getting
    somebody off the streets that is going to continue to do it.
    That is why we lock up the toothpaste.
        I would argue, and as I said, the sweet spot for me was in
    the 2014-2015 era there, where under a Democratic mayor and
    Democratic administration in New York, we drove down not only
    crime, but incarceration rates. That can be done if it is done
    intelligently.
        My hope had been that we could speak about that in a
    bipartisan way, because both sides have, in my opinion, good
    points to make. You don't want to lock everybody.
        You don't want to incarcerate your way out of these things.
    If it is done intelligently, surgically, you can make progress.
    We have done that before.
        I don't think, to answer your question, we need to reinvent
    the wheel. We should just look at what worked in the past.
        Mr. Schmidt. Thank you, Mr. Mauro. Ms. McKinney, do you
    have any thoughts on whether there is anything, in particular,
    we ought to do that could be helpful?
        Ms. McKinney. As far as policing goes, that just the local
    leaders and also government leaders should definitely have a
    hard stance on crime. Come forward and just denounce and stop
    being soft.
        Just this repeat offender stuff, telling the criminals that
    it is OK with what they can do and releasing them. Give them a
    three strikes and you are out.
        We used to have that in Memphis years ago, and it did deter
    crime. It showed the younger people that they were not allowed
    to go back out and do it again. That there would be
    consequences for what they were going to do.
        A lot of the problems that we have in Memphis is through
    leadership. They are very neglectful in their duties.
        They don't prioritize education for the children. A lot of
    the children in Memphis don't know how to read. They don't know
    how to do basic math. That is an issue.
        Parent accountability is an issue. Parents just let their
    kids run wild. They don't know where their kids are at.
        I don't know what you can do about that. I don't agree with
    having parents be held accountable for their children's
    decisions in some instances, because parents can only do so
    much.
        The children do what they do because that was their choice.
    They--
        Ms. Van Drew. The lady's time has expired.
        Ms. McKinney. Thank you.
        Mr. Schmidt. Thank you.
        Mr. Van Drew. Thank you. I thank the gentleman. That
    concludes today's hearing. We thank our witnesses for appearing
    before this Subcommittee.
        Without objection, all Members will have five legislative
    days to submit additional writing in question form for the
    witnesses, or additional materials for the record.
        Without objection, this hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 4:03 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

        All materials submitted for the record by Members of the
    Subcommittee on Oversight can be found at: https://
    docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=118671.

                                     [all]