[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]