[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MAIN STREET UNDER ATTACK: THE COST OF
CRIME ON SMALL BUSINESSES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
UNITED STATES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD
DECEMBER 2, 2025
__________
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Small Business Committee Document Number 119-024
Available via the GPO Website: www.govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
62-204 WASHINGTON : 2026
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas, Chairman
PETE STAUBER, Minnesota
DAN MEUSER, Pennsylvania
BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas
JAKE ELLZEY, Texas
MARK ALFORD, Missouri
NICK LALOTA, New York
BRAD FINSTAD, Minnesota
TONY WIED, Wisconsin
ROB BRESNAHAN, Pennsylvania
BRIAN JACK, Georgia
TROY DOWNING, Montana
KIMBERLYN KING-HINDS, Northern Marina Islands
DEREK SCHMIDT, Kansas
JIMMY PATRONIS, Florida
NYDIA VELAZQUEZ, New York, Ranking Member
MORGAN MCGARVEY, Kentucky
HILLARY SCHOLTEN, Michigan
LAMONICA MCIVER, New Jersey
GIL CISNEROS, California
KELLY MORRISON, Minnesota
GEORGE LATIMER, New York
DEREK TRAN, California
LATEEFAH SIMON, California
JOHNNY OLSZEWSKI, Maryland
HERB CONAWAY, New Jersey
MAGGIE GOODLANDER, New Hampshire
Lauren Holmes, Majority Staff Director
Melissa Jung, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Hon. Roger Williams.............................................. 1
Hon. Nydia Velazquez............................................. 3
WITNESSES
Mr. Thomas Wickham, Vice President, U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
Burke, VA...................................................... 6
Ms. Lisa Plaggemier, Executive Director, National Cybersecurity
Alliance, Winston-Salem, NC.................................... 7
Mr. Hrag Kalebjian, Owner, Henry's House of Coffee, San
Francisco, CA.................................................. 9
The Honorable Gregory Jackson Jr., Former Deputy Director, White
House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, Washington, DC........ 10
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Mr. Thomas Wickham, Vice President, U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
Burke, VA.................................................. 44
Ms. Lisa Plaggemier, Executive Director, National
Cybersecurity Alliance, Winston-Salem, NC.................. 47
Mr Hrag Kalebjian, Owner, Henry's House of Coffee, San
Francisco, CA.............................................. 53
The Honorable Gregory Jackson Jr., Former Deputy Director,
White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, Washington,
DC......................................................... 56
Questions for the Record:
None.
Answers for the Record:
None.
Additional Material for the Record:
National Retail Federation (NRF) Letter...................... 59
Center for American Progress (CAP) Letter.................... 61
Ms. Lauren Zabierek and Mr. Bob Lord Letter.................. 69
ACT Letter................................................... 78
GOVCON Small Business Coalition Letter....................... 84
National Apartment Association (NAA) National Multifamily
Housing Council (NMHC) Real Estate Technology and
Transformation Center (RETTC) Letter....................... 88
Violence Project Database of Mass Shootings in the United
States Letter.............................................. 90
Urban Institute Letter....................................... 91
Washington Post (WAPO) Letter................................ 141
MAIN STREET UNDER ATTACK: THE COST OF CRIME ON SMALL BUSINESSES
----------
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2025
House of Representatives,
Committee on Small Business,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in Room
2360, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Roger Williams
[chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Williams, Stauber, Meuser, Ellzey,
LaLota, Finstad, Wied, Bresnahan, Jack, Downing, King-Hinds,
Schmidt, Velazquez, McGarvey, Scholten, McIver, Cisneros,
Latimer, Tran, Simon, Olszewski, and Goodlander.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. Before we get started, I want to
recognize my friend, Mr. McGarvey, to lead us in the pledge and
the prayer, and he is from the great State of Kentucky. Would
you please rise?
Mr. MCGARVEY. Thank you. Everyone, please bow your heads.
Father, we ask that you watch over us and all our work, that
you guide us, that you give us the greatest patience and wisdom
to come together to work on behalf of the American people. We
accept your light at this time to help others, to do what you
require of us, for justice, for kindness, and welcome. Amen.
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.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Before we get started, one personal
privilege. I want to remind everybody on the Committee we have
our bipartisan Christmas party December 11 at 4:00 p.m. right
here in this room. So I hope everybody can come.
Good morning, everyone. I now call the Committee on Small
Business to order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized
to declare a recess of the Committee at any time.
Before we begin opening statements, I want to congratulate
my friend, Ranking Member Velazquez, as she will be retiring at
the end of the 119th Congress. She has been a leader for over
30 years in the House and for 27 years in the Committee, and I
am looking forward to continuing to work with her and next to
her through the end of this Congress.
Thank you for your patriotism and love of the country.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It has been the
honor of my life being in this Committee and serving small
businesses across the country. Thank you.
Chairman WILLIAMS. And she likes orange.
I now recognize myself for my opening statement.
Welcome to today's hearing entitled ``Main Street Under
Attack: The Cost of Crime on Small Business.''
Today's hearing on crime is unfortunately timely. As many
of you know, on the day before Thanksgiving last week, two West
Virginia National Guard members were violently ambushed in our
nation's capital. Tragically, the 20-year-old Sarah Beckstrom
lost her life and 24-year-old Andrew Wolfe continues to fight
for his. We continue to pray for their families during this
devastating time.
I want to thank our witnesses for joining us today. We
recognize many of you have traveled to be here, and we
appreciate your time and your perspective.
America's prosperity begins on main street. Small business
owners work hard to create jobs and build a community. However,
main street businesses are under attack in many cities across
the country. Violent crime, organized retail theft, and petty
shoplifting are hitting small businesses hard. As a small
business owner myself in the car--as a car dealer in the car
industry, we have seen an uptick in stolen inventory and cyber
attacks. This increased crime has a devastating impact on our
operations. These costs cannot be passed on to the consumer.
Unfortunately, the crime is being fueled by political
choices that embrace soft-on-crime policies at the expense of
hardworking Americans. Policies like cashless bail, defunding
the police, and prosecutorial decisions that fail to impose
consequences for repeat offenders make it extremely difficult
for mom-and-pop shops to operate. All too often, we see
headlines of repeat offenders committing horrific crimes.
In Charlotte, a 23-year-old Ukrainian refugee was commuting
home from her work at a pizzeria when she was horrifically
stabbed in the neck. The murderer had 14 arrests. And, last
month, a 26-year-old woman was set on fire in the Chicago
subway by a man who had 53 criminal cases against him with only
two resulting in jail time. This should not be possible in a
civilized society.
What is even more alarming, statistics from government
agencies are likely missing this spike in crime. More than half
of small businesses don't bother reporting thefts anymore
because of the limited police response, and crime creates
uncertainty, raises costs, and drives away customers. When
small business owners are forced to install expensive security
systems, lock goods away on shelves, and brace for a daily
theft, they divert capital from hiring, expanding, and
innovating.
These challenges are not limited to physical crime. Cyber
crime is growing and is significant to main street. Small
businesses are 210 percent more likely to experience a cyber
attack than large companies simply because they lack the
resources to implement strong cybersecurity policies. Attackers
know this, and our foreign adversaries knowingly target smaller
companies because they assume a weaker defense and faster
payout. As artificial intelligence becomes increasingly
prevalent, small businesses are at a greater risk of the AI-
generated emails, impersonation schemes, and scams.
That is why I am thankful that President Trump is taking
decisive action to make America safe again. President Trump is
restoring law and order in the cities across the country and
taking decisive action to deter cyber criminals by reversing
the weak Biden-Harris era mandates. By restoring law and order,
strengthening cybersecurity, and reversing failed soft-on-crime
policies, Republicans are giving small businesses stability and
confidence they need to grow, compete, and succeed.
I want to thank all of you again for joining us today, and
I look forward to the conversation ahead. I now yield to my
friend, the Ranking Member from New York, Ms. Velazquez.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
all the witnesses for being here this morning.
Unlike large corporations, small businesses often lack the
resources, expertise, and experience to address and recover
from a crime. In cyberspace, a Hiscox study found that 41
percent of small businesses were victims of a cyber-attack in
2023 with a median cost of $8,300. These attacks on Main Street
America--such as ransomware, data breaches, and email
compromises--result in business operation disruptions and the
theft of valuable assets and funds.
Under my leadership, Congress passed the bipartisan Small
Business Cyber Training Act of 2022, which President Biden
signed into law, requiring small business development centers
to train and certify staff to provide cybersecurity counseling
to small businesses. Democrats remain committed to supporting
and expanding cybersecurity resources for small businesses.
In real life, public safety has been a hot-button issue
since the onset of the COVID pandemic. Under the previous
administration, Democrats made landmark investments in keeping
our communities safe. The American Rescue Plan Act gave $15
billion to states and cities for their police forces and
violent crime prevention. Similarly, the landmark Bipartisan
Safer Communities Act closed key firearm safety loopholes and
appropriated $13 billion to law enforcement and community
violence intervention programs, keeping guns and violent crime
off our streets. In fact, over 700 defendants have been charged
on their offenses created by the BSCA, including traffickers
linked to transnational cartels and narcotic distributors.
In other words, Democrats are serious about safety, but it
seems that the Trump administration is not. Under President
Trump, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency
laid off a third of its workforce, firing dedicated experts who
kept our nation and main street safe from cyber-attacks, and
his allies in Congress neglected key federal cybersecurity
provisions. They failed to reauthorize a key cyber intelligence
sharing law, putting our cyber community in the dark about
significant cyber threats, and they allowed the State and Local
Cybersecurity Grant Program to expire.
At the Department of Justice, President Trump revoked $500
million in grants to programs carrying out vital work in
violent crime prevention, policing and prosecution, victim and
survivor support, juvenile justice and child protection, and
corrections. He also rescinded regulations making highly lethal
firearm attachments harder to obtain, empowering violent
criminals across the country.
For his part, the Trump DOJ claims that it will focus on
law enforcement operations, combating violent crime, protecting
American children, supporting American victims of trafficking
and sexual assault, and promoting coordination of law
enforcement efforts at all levels of government. But, clearly,
actions speak louder than words. President Trump's crime
control cost targeted empirical programs designed to achieve
his stated goals and ultimately hurt law enforcement and their
ability to fight crime.
Instead of real solutions, President Trump--wielding racist
rhetoric and sensationalized stories--has deployed federal
agents and troops to roam the streets of America's cities where
violent crime levels are at lows unseen in this century,
wasting vital resources for photo ops. President Trump has
chosen to make America more dangerous and exploit the problem
of crime for political gain. Main street is under attack, all
right.
Republicans think a hearing like this can help them
rationalize their agenda and impose draconian, fascist policies
upon the American people. So, to everyone watching, don't be
fooled. The federal government can act to improve our public
safety by protecting and expanding upon the investment we know
works.
So, today, I hope we can refocus the conversation and the
administration can refocus their attention on what will
meaningfully improve safety for small businesses and their
employees. I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentlelady yields back.
I will now introduce our witnesses.
Our first witness here with us today is Mr. Tom Wickham.
Mr. Wickham is the vice president and managing director of
government affairs to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce right here
in Washington, D.C.
For over 25 years, Mr. Wickham worked on Capitol Hill--many
of you know him--beginning under Speaker Newt Gingrich and
concluding under Speaker Nancy Pelosi, including serving as the
Parliamentarian of the U.S. House of Representatives. He is a
recipient of the Speaker John W. McCormack Award of Excellence,
serves on the advisory board of the Center of Effective
Lawmaking partnership between the University of Virginia and
Vanderbilt University--and they are doing pretty good, aren't
they, right now? You have got two winners there--and volunteers
as a citizenship teacher in the community.
Mr. Wickham earned a bachelor of arts in political science
and government from the University of Iowa and a JD from the
University of Iowa College of Law. We want to thank you for
being with us today, Tom.
Our next witness here with us today is Ms. Lisa Plaggemier,
and Ms. Plaggemier is executive director of the National
Cybersecurity Alliance based in Austin, Texas. Ms. Plaggemier
began her career with Ford Motor Company and later advanced
into technology, marketing, and cybersecurity leadership roles
at CDK Global, InfoSec, and MediaPRO. She serves on the U.S.
Secret Service Cyber Investigations Advisory Board, is a
volunteer advisory board member at Identity Theft Resource
Center, and is a two-time recipient of the CSO award.
Ms. Plaggemier earned a bachelor of arts from the
University of Michigan, majoring in marketing, psychology, and
German. We appreciate you being here today.
Our next witness is Mr.--I am going to get it right now--
Hrag Kalebjian. Okay. Got it. Mr. Kalebjian is the owner of
Henry's House of Coffee, a third-generation coffee business in
San Francisco. Before returning to the family business, Mr.
Kalebjian spent over a decade in corporate finance and
analytics, including roles at AAA, Blue Shield of California,
and Optimum Health Behavioral Solutions.
Mr. Kalebjian joined the coffee shop full time in 2013 and
is a certified specialty coffee sensory analyst and a Member of
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Small Business Council. Mr.
Kalebjian earned a bachelor of arts in economics from the
University of California, Davis and a master of business
administration in finance from San Francisco State University.
I want to thank you for joining us today, and I am looking
forward to our conversation.
And, with that, I now recognize the Ranking Member from New
York, Ms. Velazquez, to briefly introduce our last witness
appearing before us today.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gregory Jackson Jr. is the founder and owner of Safer
Futures LLC, a policy and strategic consulting firm
specializing in violent crime reduction and prevention. Mr.
Jackson's expertise on gun violence began in 2013 when he was
shot and seriously wounded as an innocent bystander. That
moment gave him his mission to ensure no family, business
owner, or community will ever endure the pain he did.
Eventually, Mr. Jackson was appointed to the previous
administration as a deputy director of the White House Office
of Gun Violence Prevention and special assistant to the
President. In these roles, he helped implement the Bipartisan
Safer Communities Act and oversaw the expansion of community
violence intervention resources in the federal government.
Mr. Jackson holds a bachelor's degree in government from
the University of Virginia and is currently studying for a
Master of Public Health degree at Yale University. Welcome, Mr.
Jackson, and good luck with your master. I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you, again, to all of you. We
appreciate all of you being here today.
Now, before recognizing the witnesses, I would like to
remind them that their oral testimony is restricted to 5
minutes in length, and we do stick with that. If you see the
light turn red in front of you, it means that your 5 minutes
has concluded, and you should wrap up your testimony. And, if
you still keep talking, you will hear this. That means quit
talking, okay?
And, with that in mind, I now recognize Mr. Wickham for his
5-minute opening remarks.
STATEMENTS OF TOM WICKHAM, VICE PRESIDENT AND MANAGING DIRECTOR
OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE; LISA
PLAGGEMIER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CYBERSECURITY
ALLIANCE; HRAG KALEBJIAN, OWNER, HENRY'S HOUSE OF COFFEE; AND
THE HONORABLE GREGORY JACKSON JR., FORMER DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
WHITE HOUSE OFFICE OF GUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION.
STATEMENT OF TOM WICKHAM
Mr. WICKHAM. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for
inviting me to participate in this hearing. My name is Tom
Wickham. I am vice president and managing director of
government affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. I have been
at the U.S. Chamber since 2021. From 1995 through 2021, I
served in the House Parliamentarian's Office, where I had the
honor of advising many of you on your constitutional and
institutional responsibilities.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the world's largest
business organization, representing companies of all sizes,
including small and mid-sized businesses. We also have local
Chambers of Commerce in leading industry associations as
members. The Chamber serves as the voice of American business
in Washington, across the country, and across the globe.
Since 2021, I have visited communities throughout the
country, meeting with policymakers, law enforcement,
prosecutors, and businesses to find solutions to the complex
problems of crimes against businesses. The U.S. Chamber is
committed to working with this Committee and small businesses
to combat crime and its negative impact on communities.
While higher profile crimes and finger-pointing often grab
the headlines, small businesses continue to struggle with
rising business-focused crimes. Retail crimes like organized
shoplifting rings and smash-and-grabs have been persistent
problems for America's businesses. Crime numbers often
fluctuate from year to year, but the long-term trends are clear
here, with larcenies involving shoplifting having doubled since
the 1970s according to statistics from the nonprofit Council
for Criminal Justice.
The effect of retail crime is widespread with innocent
consumers, employees, and business owners bearing the financial
and societal cost. Retail crime creates higher prices for
consumers, results in stores having to close their doors, and
communities are left without vital goods or services.
Cargo theft is another rising concern for the business
community. Cargo theft is increasing rapidly with a significant
shift towards sophisticated fraud and deception tactics. Cargo
theft results in higher costs throughout the supply chain,
ultimately impacting small business shippers and retailers. The
latest numbers from CargoNet show a 13 percent increase in
cargo theft incidents in the second quarter of 2025 over 2024,
following record-high numbers of cargo theft incidents in 2023
and 2024. Unfortunately, Texas is at the center of the problem,
with Texas, Illinois, and California as the top three States
for cargo theft with 53 percent of incidents occurring in those
States.
Crimes against small businesses are not just a matter of
national statistics but affect all businesses at the local
level. Hrag Kalebjian will testify to the continued problems
plaguing his family-run coffee shop in California. Hrag is a
proud Member of our U.S. Chamber's Small Business Council
where, unfortunately, these stories are all too common and
often include businesses in Texas and in New York.
According to a Texas study led by their comptroller's
office, organized retail theft costs businesses in the State of
Texas over $421 million annually. These skyrocketing costs are
in addition to the mental impact on small businesses owners and
employees.
The U.S. Chamber has summoned policymakers in the business
community to join us in our three-part call to action for
improved coordination, aggregation, and prosecution in
combating crimes against businesses. The U.S. Chamber stands
ready to partner with this Committee to pass effective laws and
policies to combat crime and ensure our communities are safe. I
am happy to take questions at the appropriate time.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you very much, and I now recognize
Ms. Plaggemier for her 5-minute opening remarks.
STATEMENT OF LISA PLAGGEMIER
Ms. PLAGGEMIER. Chairman Williams, Ranking Member
Velazquez, and distinguished Members of the Committee, thank
you for the opportunity to provide testimony today. I greatly
appreciate the Committee including cybersecurity in this
discussion.
The National Cybersecurity Alliance is a nonprofit on a
mission to educate people on how to protect themselves from
cyber crime, scams, and fraud. From families to Fortune 500s
and everyone in between, we work to make cybersecurity easier
and more accessible. We reach millions of people with our
campaigns on everything from AI deepfakes to avoiding scams
like pig butchering.
I haven't always worked in cybersecurity. I spent the first
15 years of my career in a large enterprise working with small
businesses: car dealers. I learned firsthand the importance of
small businesses to their communities and the value of
partnership between the factory and the franchise.
Cybersecurity is not just a technical issue. It is a
business risk that small businesses can learn to manage. The
majority of security incidents are not technology failures.
They are people and process failures. Many incidents have poor
basic IT management as their root cause, like employees using
the same passwords on multiple accounts, a lack of multifactor
authentication, or MFA, operating systems that are out of date,
and vulnerable software that goes unpatched.
There are a few myths we regularly hear from small
businesses. Myth: ``I just don't think I am on the radar of the
bad guys.'' Eighty one percent of small businesses have
experienced a cyber incident. Businesses with fewer than 100
employees are now two and a half times more likely to be
targeted than those with more than 500 employees. Small
businesses are also targeted by scammers because they don't
monitor for brand abuse like large organizations.
According to Visa, fraud has evolved from being
opportunistic. It is now strategic, automated, and scalable. We
are entering an era where nothing can be trusted at face value.
AI enables the creation of synthetic content--fake merchant
websites, fake identities, fake chat agents--that are all
indistinguishable from legitimate businesses.
Myth: ``We don't have anything of value to the cyber
criminals.'' From my auto experience, I can tell you that the
average car dealer has 50,000 consumer records that include
Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, and more.
Each of those records is worth hundreds of dollars on the dark
web. Small business intellectual property is also very valuable
to nation-state actors like the People's Republic of China.
There are multiple examples of small businesses operating
in highly specialized, niche markets whose businesses have been
threatened when their IP was stolen by the PRC who then spun up
a low-cost competitor producing the same highly specialized
product at a fraction of the cost.
I have met a small business owner who was the only
manufacturer in the U.S. of a piece of equipment necessary to
road paving, who said to me, ``Why would China attack us?'' He
had no understanding of the risk of IP theft to his business. I
have met a small business in a highly specialized segment who
unknowingly employed a Chinese spy for years. They didn't know
it until the spy went to work for a large enterprise that
detected the espionage quickly. The Chinese national was
convicted, but the small business still doesn't know what IP
was stolen from them because they had no monitoring in place at
the time they employed him.
State actors are also increasingly targeting small
businesses because they are entry points into supply chains.
Russia and China patiently make multiple hops through smaller
companies to get to their desired target.
Myth: ``I have got a guy, an IT guy.'' In our experience,
small business owners don't know enough about cyber to manage
it as a function of their business. They know enough about
finance, for example, to have a meaningful conversation with
their accountant, but the same is not true with their IT
person. Small businesses don't manage what they don't
understand, so our Cyber Secure My Business Program educates
owners using business terminology they can understand so they
can better manage risk.
Myth: ``Cybersecurity is too expensive. My IT person just
wants to spend money.'' Again, this lack of education and
communication. One example I heard at a car dealership involved
an end-of-life PC in the parts department running Windows XP,
introducing vulnerabilities into the dealer. When the IT
manager asked the owner to replace the PC, the owner said, the
parts manager says it works just fine, declining to make the
investment. The failure was a lack of communication on the
amount of risk to the business that that old PC represented. So
all these myths point to a dangerous disconnect between the
perception of risk and the adoptions of basic security controls
like MFA.
We believe that public-private partnerships are an
effective and efficient way to help small businesses learn to
better protect themselves. According to our research, most
people don't turn to the federal government for advice and
guidance. They look to the private sector: companies, vendors,
nonprofits. Our Cyber Secure My Business live-taught remote
course is just an hour a week for 6 weeks. Cybersecurity does
not have to be as intimidating and confusing as people perceive
it to be. Education works.
If we stand ready to work with federal agencies to better
educate small businesses on how to avoid being victimized by
cyber crime, IP theft, and scams through partnerships like
cooperative agreements between nonprofits and government, we
can work more efficiently and effectively than government can
alone. We are stronger together.
I would like to thank the Committee and offer our ongoing
partnership to support America's small businesses.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you very much.
I now recognize Mr. Kalebjian for his 5-minute opening
remarks.
STATEMENT OF HRAG KALEBJIAN
Mr. KALEBJIAN. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My
name is Hrag Kalebjian, and I am the third-generation of
Henry's House of Coffee, a small-batch, family-owned coffee
roaster that has been a part of San Francisco's Sunset since
1965.
Our business was founded by my father and grandfather who
immigrated to the United States from Lebanon. For decades, our
shop has been a place where generations of neighbors gather,
share stories, and feel a sense of community over a cup of
coffee roasted on-site. In recent years, however, that sense of
community and safety has eroded under the weight of rising
crime and lawlessness that small business owners like myself
face daily.
About 2 years ago, a mentally unstable individual began
repeatedly stealing from my store. He comes in, takes drinks or
food from our refrigerated case, sometimes three times a week,
and occasionally steals from our tip jar. On multiple
occasions, he has harassed me and my staff, once even
attempting to spit in my face. He has stolen from us more than
35 times. Repeat offenders not only hurt the bottom line but
drive away loyal customers and endanger staff.
I called the police numerous times. Officers respond
quickly, and I can tell they want to help, but they have told
me their hands are tied. One officer advised me that my best
option was to file a restraining order. I filed one, but
enforcement has proven impossible. He returns repeatedly, and
the police can't take meaningful action.
For employees and customers, this isn't about the cost of
stolen goods. It is about safety. I constantly remind my staff
not to intervene because no one cup of coffee is worth someone
getting hurt. Yet, some of our loyal customers feel so
protective of our shop that they have tried to stop the thief
themselves. My worst nightmare is that something will happen to
my employees or to my customers.
The toll of this criminal activity goes far beyond dollars.
It is exhausting, demoralizing, and deeply discouraging to work
hard every day only to feel that the system no longer values
your contribution. We have installed metal gates on our
storefront, shatterproof window screens, replaced stolen
equipment such as cash registers and iPads, all costly measures
for a small business still recovering from the pandemic. Our
shop even built a parklet during COVID so neighbors could enjoy
coffee, but it is frequently vandalized. Between security
costs, repairs, we have spent thousands simply to stay
operational while watching nearby businesses close due to the
same issues.
San Francisco's Sunset District was once a quiet, family-
centered neighborhood. Since the pandemic, criminal activity
that was once concentrated downtown has spread into our
residential communities. Break-ins, vandalism, and theft are
now common topics of neighborhood conversation. The closure of
a nearby essential business, like the only local pharmacy,
shows how crime affects not just merchants but the very fabric
of the community.
When businesses close, blight follows. Vacant storefronts
attract more crime, and a cycle of decay begins. Each closure
represents a lost opportunity for community connection and
economic resilience.
At the heart of this problem are policy failures. Local
prosecutors constrained by political and legal choices rarely
pursue these cases. Police officers, many of whom are
empathetic and dedicated, feel demoralized. From a
businessperson--owner's perspective, the absence of local
leadership compound these problems. Our city's supervisors have
rarely visited our shop. Promises are made about prioritizing
public safety, but in practice, laws and enforcement remain
unchanged.
My father always taught me that incentive drives the
behavior. Show me the incentive, and I will show you the
outcome. Right now, our incentives tell people that crime pays
and accountability doesn't. That cannot be the legacy we leave
for the next generation of small business owners.
Henry's House of Coffee is not just a business. It is a
testament to immigrant perseverance, family legacy, and
community pride. I love my city and my customers, and I want to
remain part of San Francisco's revival, but unless policymakers
act decisively to restore law and order, more small businesses
will make the painful choice to leave.
Thank you for listening to my story and for giving small
business owners a voice on this issue. I look forward to your
questions.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you very much, and I now recognize
Mr. Jackson for his 5-minute opening remarks.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE GREGORY JACKSON JR.
Mr. JACKSON. All right. Thank you, Chairman Williams,
Ranking Member Velazquez, and the Committee for having me. I am
Greg Jackson, a D.C. resident, a survivor of gun violence here
in the District, but also a small business owner and former
deputy director for the White House Office of Gun Violence
Prevention where we coordinated federal resources to implement
lifesaving policies and coordinated with local leaders to reach
a nationwide reduction of violent crime by 13.2 percent and
homicides by 31 percent in just 2 years.
I have spent the last decade of my life working to address
this crisis after being shot in 2013. I was shot by a stray
bullet while walking home, and that bullet hit two arteries and
left me with a 50 percent chance of survival. But, since that
fateful night, you know, nearly a million Americans have been
shot or killed. From Buffalo to Baltimore, Stockton to
Washington, we have seen how gun violence is driving violent
crime but also destroying families across our country. And it
also remains the leading cause of death for youth in America,
the leading cause of death for pregnant women in America above
childbirth complications, and now even the leading cause of
newly disabled Americans.
With one in five Americans being impacted by violence, this
has also become personal for too many, but we also know there
is a clear financial cost to this crisis. According to Brady
United and NICJR, we have seen this crisis cost our economy
upwards of $557 billion a year, equivalent to 2.6 percent of
the U.S. GDP, with southern States bearing the brunt of this
economic toll, owning 41.4 percent of firearm-related hospital
costs and having a firearm death rate of 2.3 times higher than
northeastern States.
Additionally, gun violence has a direct cost for employers.
The number of people shot increased by 400 percent between 2007
and 2020 according to data of individuals and dependents
insured by their employer. It is estimated that a firearm
injury costs employers $30,000 in direct medical spending in
the first year of injury alone. Employers must give employees
who are shot a leave of absence, adding to over a $535-million-
a-year estimated impact on our businesses and our country
according to a recent Harvard Medical School research report.
Gun violence is also estimated to cost private employers
roughly 535 million per year because of lost productivity.
People who survive firearm injuries experience a 40 percent
increase in pain disorders, a 51 percent increase in
psychiatric disorders, and an 85 percent increase in substance
abuse disorders, affecting their ability to work and contribute
to the business's goals and outcomes.
But, despite this crisis, in the last few years, we have
seen real solutions that work. In the last few years, we have
invested and seen historic reductions in violence--in violent
crime across our country without masked agents, without
military, but by investing in violence prevention, by investing
in law enforcement, and most importantly, pushing
accountability upstream to make sure illegal guns and firearms
don't flood our streets.
Recently, even the current FBI director Kash Patel
celebrated historic low levels of violent crime, but we know
these reductions are not a result of a few months of troops or
FBI actions. They are a result of the billions invested in
violence prevention as well as these key policies and the hard
work from business leaders and community leaders across our
country to make our communities safer.
In fact, we saw a 54 percent reduction in homicides in
Baltimore, a 41 percent reduction in Phoenix, a 38 percent
reduction in Chicago, and even a 20 percent reduction in
Atlanta. But, instead of investing more federal resources into
what we know works, the Trump administration has moved to
dismantle and defund bipartisan strategies passed into law that
reduce violence.
They shut down the White House Office of Gun Violence
Prevention. In the Big Beautiful Bill, they defunded law
enforcement--directly defunded law enforcement by $418 million,
cut over 1 billion in mental health resources for schools,
terminated 812 million for violence prevention and intervention
programs, and dismantled important regulations like the zero
tolerance policy for gun dealers that break the law, and now
there are further plans to defund critical resources like
housing, health, and employment programs that we know address
the root causes of violent crime.
This is not the federal support that our small businesses
or communities need. We need a government that is tough on
crime by preventing it before it happens, and that means
directing law enforcement to prevent illegal guns from flooding
our streets that we know are being used for robberies, crimes,
and homicides. Being tough on crime is funding ATF to catch gun
traffickers, to shut down rogue gun dealers, and disrupt
dangerous black markets that are selling illegal weapons that
land at crime scenes, and being tough on crime is funding
violence intervention and prevention programs, mental health
resources for youth, and other ways that we know we can reduce
violence.
We have real solutions to reduce violence, to reduce
violent crime, and help reduce the harm that gun violence
causes to our economy and small businesses, and I hope that we
will continue to build on that progress. Thank you.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back.
And now I want to say, as we get started, you will see
people moving in and out. It is not you said the wrong thing or
the right thing. There are other hearings going on, and you
will see that begin to happen.
We will now move into the Member questions under the 5-
minute rule, and I now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Mr. Wickham, in your testimony, you make it clear that most
small businesses across America have been victims of crime. You
note that these instances are becoming increasingly coordinated
and violent and that the economic impact on small business are
severe.
The question is, how many small businesses nationwide are
being affected by retail crime, and in which regions are you
seeing the most significant impact?
Mr. WICKHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is a good
question when it comes to the statistics, and continuing on a
theme that we heard earlier, one of the statistics that is most
distressing to the business community is the rise in violence
accompanying a criminal act. Recent studies by the National
Retail Federation found that there is a 17 percent increase in
violence accompanying these individual acts of criminality, and
that is something that is of grave concern to both small
business owners and larger members.
And, when we see that violence, we then look at the laws of
a specific jurisdiction and ask is there a prosecutorial
attitude towards certain crimes in that district, or is there a
lack of police resources? When we do a district-by-district
breakdown, that is the type of thing that we are looking for.
We will go to states like Ohio, Florida, Louisiana, where
businesses are reaching out because of rising crime, and we try
to meet with all of the stakeholders in place.
It is a multijurisdictional issue. So we are busy working
with policymakers, with prosecutors, and with law enforcement
to try to address these issues.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you.
Mr. Kalebjian, in cities where Democratic leaders have
embraced soft-on-crime policies like cashless bail and weakened
prosecution, small businesses are being hit the hardest. You
have talked about that. Your coffee shop has faced multiple
incidents of theft, and unfortunately, you are not the only
small business victim of these crimes.
So can you explain how repeat theft, rising security costs,
and the lack of meaningful law enforcement have affected your
ability to serve customers in your community and have a
successful business?
Mr. KALEBJIAN. Yeah. Thank you, Chairman. I think that is
the biggest issue, is you have a mental challenge of feeling
helpless. You have an embarrassment in front of customers where
the theft is happening, and the customers are looking at you
like, ``Are you going to do anything?'' And then you have the
liability of, in my case, customers acting and taking on to
prevent the theft, which is a big scare for me as a business
owner.
And, in my area specifically, a lot of East Asians are
hardworking, put their head down and don't complain, and I feel
like, as a member of the community, I have to speak up for them
because they don't feel comfortable speaking up.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Sometimes, too, your customers don't
come back sometimes. That is another issue.
Mr. KALEBJIAN. Yes, sir. That is definitely a concern. And,
as you mentioned, that goes straight to the bottom line.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Ms. Plaggemier, over the past few years,
we have watched foreign adversaries infiltrate American
networks and stealing sensitive data, intellectual property,
and even penetrating the State's Army and National Guard
systems. So how do these large-scale cyber attacks indirectly
affect small businesses like mine and others?
Ms. PLAGGEMIER. I think cybersecurity has turned into a
kind of tax that we all pay through ransomware attacks and just
the cost of protecting yourself. This has a sort of trickle-
down effect to--even to us as consumers because it causes
prices to go up, I think.
The biggest problem that we see with small businesses is
just getting their attention. They are very, very busy places,
and cybersecurity is intangible. Protecting your business from
physical theft is a very different thing. It is much more
tangible. You can see it. You can't see a malware infection
stealing information on your device. And so I think a lot of
small businesses just don't give it the priority that it needs
until it is actually too late and until they have been
affected.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay. Thank you. And my time is up, and
I now recognize the Ranking Member for 5 minutes of questions.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Jackson, how does the ability of guns escalate
otherwise nonviolent incidents inside retail spaces like
disputes, shoplifting encounters, or customer conflicts?
Mr. JACKSON. Yeah. I mean, we have seen, you know, the
presence of firearms really being the major driver of
interpersonal conflict becoming deadly. In fact, now, 81
percent of homicides in our cities are not connected to another
felony. They are interpersonal conflicts with the presence of a
firearm often in a public place.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you. Mr. Jackson, KFF found over one
in five American adults have been personally threatened with a
gun. Compared to other countries, how much worse of a problem
is gun violence here?
Mr. JACKSON. We are nearly triple to every other developed
nation when it comes to violent crime related to firearms. And,
if you need any proof, you can go to London where they are
worried about knife fights whereas we are still dealing with
mass shootings as late as this week.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Are gun homicides higher in the urban
centers compared to other parts of the country?
Mr. JACKSON. Homicides are, but violence as a whole is
still high even in rural communities. We don't talk enough
about suicide by firearm which also has a huge impact on rural
America.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into the
record this article entitled ``The Highest Rates of Gun
Homicides Are in Rural Counties.''
Chairman WILLIAMS. Accepted.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Ms. Plaggemier, what are the most common
cybersecurity threats facing small businesses today?
Ms. PLAGGEMIER. I see there is a lot of new threats. AI has
actually sort of jacked up the whole problem. It has made it
easier and faster and more scalable for criminals to be
effective.
So, when you think about--probably the most prevalent
problem is social engineering. Things like phishing emails,
scam texts, phone calls, malicious phone calls to your
business, trying to trick employees into doing things they
shouldn't do that create a vulnerability--those things have
just gotten ramped up. The volume and the quality because of AI
is so much better than it used to be.
I could have told you 6 months ago or a year ago that a
phishing email would look kind of obvious. I would tell you to
look for poor grammar or spelling or bad graphics. But AI has
given the criminals the ability to make something that is
indistinguishable from what is legitimate. I would actually say
that I think cyber criminals have adopted AI in their business,
if you will, faster than small businesses have.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. The SBA used to have an online cybersecurity
educational resource, but it was removed in 2018. Should we add
one back?
Ms. PLAGGEMIER. Well, actually, our link to our website,
staysafeonline.org, is listed on the SBA's website when you
look for their training.
I think the most effective thing is public-private
partnership. So the training curriculum that we have already
gone to the expense of creating that is very, very effective--
you know, we would be more than happy to work in conjunction
with the SBA to deliver that to more small businesses.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. We know that cybersecurity attacks and crime
are issues that are impacting small businesses. It will take
only one cybersecurity attack to a small business, and that
could put them out of business.
Given the fact that the mission of SBA is to provide
assistance and education, capacity building to small
businesses, don't you believe or don't you agree with me that
having an effective cybersecurity education at SBA should be,
you know, something that is common sense?
Ms. PLAGGEMIER. I think public-private partnerships are the
best way to deliver that kind of training. So working together
between nonprofits and federal government like we do today, I
think, is a really effective mechanism because we can be a
little bit more nimble. We can bring things to market faster.
So I don't think they--well, I think they should do it----
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. SBA has a network. It is partnering with a
national network of more than 2,000 small business development
centers and other small business development organizations. I
don't see why they don't make it part of the mission of the SBA
so that----
Ms. PLAGGEMIER. We have held events with them in person at
those centers, yes.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Yeah.
Mr. Jackson, Everytown Research found--oh, my time expired.
I yield back.
Mr. ELLZEY. [Presiding.] Thank you, Ranking Member.
I now recognize Mr. Stauber from Minnesota for 5 minutes,
my favorite law enforcement officer on the Hill.
Mr. STAUBER. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
You know, when crime increases, whether it is shoplifting,
burglary, organized retail theft, or vandalism, it is not just
a statistic. Small business owners are left to wonder whether
they will make payroll after covering the cost of damages, or
whether foot traffic will slow because community members feel
less safe walking around, or whether it is even worth their own
safety to keep the doors open.
We have heard the numbers across the country: 95 percent of
small business retailers report that they have experienced
theft, and most say it is getting worse. Nearly 80 percent of
the small business retailers report that their monthly losses
from theft are between $500 and $2,500 annually.
As a former police officer who served my community for over
two decades, I take this personally. When I talk to officers
and small business owners, the story is the same as we heard in
our crime hearing last Congress. Policies from weak-on-crime
cities and States are undercutting the people trying to do the
right thing and tilting the field toward the repeat offenders.
Mr. Wickham, from what you are hearing from small
businesses across the country, how have soft-on-crime policies
like cashless bail, raised felony thresholds, and lax
prosecution changed their day-to-day reality?
Mr. WICKHAM. As I said earlier, we really look at this on a
district or a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis, and the
criminal elements that we are dealing with are very
sophisticated, and they are hitting the areas where they know
they will not be prosecuted. So we have been working with
individual units of government, trying to be organized and
coordinate----
Mr. STAUBER. And then, when they are not prosecuted,
though, what does that do to the small business and the
community when the owners know that they can steal $300 because
they are--$300 or $450 worth of product, and the $500 threshold
is there. What does it do to the small business owner?
Mr. WICKHAM. Extremely demoralizing. The lack of
prosecution results in these repeat offenders that we hear
about time and time again, whether it be Mr. Hrag's story of
being hit 35 times or a big-box retailer being hit 600 times.
This is a message that gets out there----
Mr. STAUBER. Absolutely.
Mr. WICKHAM.--amongst the criminal network. We are working
very hard to change the laws in all the States to allow for
aggregation so that they are not allowed to hit these stores
just below the felony limit and then do so on a repeated basis,
and we would like to work with this Committee to push all the
States to allow for aggregation of prosecution.
Mr. STAUBER. We just can't be soft on crime. If you steal
$350 or $550, they have to be prosecuted and dealt with. As you
said, these criminals--they know if there is a small business
that you can just steal from. We see it on a daily basis on the
news across this nation. It is demoralizing, and it affects
people that want to go into retail business. Why would they
want to go into retail business when they know they are going
to lose $2,500 a month? Sometimes that is what makes or breaks
them to be able to stay in business.
Mr. Kalebjian, you talk about your coffee shop and you--it
is a third-generation now in San Francisco. I can't imagine
what your grandfather and your father and what you are going
through when you see this happening and the officers are
saying, my superiors, ``just let it go, let it go.'' It has got
to be demoralizing. Your customers see that. It has got to be
devastating.
Mr. KALEBJIAN. Yeah.
Mr. STAUBER. I would imagine that you would probably have
more business when they know they are going in there and they
are safe as customers, and you would probably be able to hire
more workers when you know that it is safe and in your
community that they prosecute----
Mr. KALEBJIAN. Yeah.
Mr. STAUBER.--even a cup of coffee, they prosecute. It is
that broken windows theory, right?
Mr. KALEBJIAN. Yes.
Mr. STAUBER. You prosecute the little things, right? Tell
us a little bit more what it has been like for you.
Mr. KALEBJIAN. Thank you, Congressman. Well, you can thank
Prop 47 that was passed in 2014 where our threshold is $950. So
you can steal anything.
Mr. STAUBER. Wait a minute. In California----
Mr. KALEBJIAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. STAUBER.--your legislators said $950?
Mr. KALEBJIAN. Yeah. And last year----
Mr. STAUBER. Wait a minute. I have got to get this right.
$950 in California, and you don't get prosecuted unless it is
above that?
Mr. KALEBJIAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. STAUBER. Unbelievable.
Mr. KALEBJIAN. And we tried--we passed another prop, Prop
37, which was a Band-Aid to Prop 47 that said, ``well, now you
can do it twice, but after the third time, then we will
prosecute.''
Mr. STAUBER. We cannot follow California in anything. This
is just another example. Can you imagine? I was a small
business owner for 31 years. We could never stand business.
That is ridiculous.
Mr. KALEBJIAN. Yeah.
Mr. STAUBER. I yield back.
Mr. ELLZEY. I now recognize Mr. McGarvey from Kentucky for
5 minutes.
Mr. MCGARVEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to start by echoing the words of the Chairman
and thank Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez for her amazing
service. La Luchadora has been a fighter for the people, for
small businesses across this country, and a historic tenure in
Congress, and we are all going to miss you incredibly. So I
just want to start by thanking you in what will be the first of
many times we thank you over the next year.
So I want to get into cybersecurity and go into that a
little bit right now. I was in a small business before coming
to Congress where this is a real threat. And this is the kind
of thing where, you know, people don't want to go through the
trainings, but they have got to go through the trainings
because the emails are coming through, and if you are a small
business, you cannot afford these types of attacks that are
coming from people who are trying to extort you for money. They
affect everybody, but for small businesses who have limited
resources, it is really and truly a problem. So you guys have
highlighted that problem today.
But I also want to say that, because we are here in
Congress, a lot of the problems you guys are talking about,
they are real problems. They are local problems. They are State
problems. And they are real, but here in Congress, we have got
to think, what can we do for everybody across this country from
the federal government?
And one of the things we have had is a Cybersecurity and
Infrastructure Security Agency known as CISA. This has been an
effective way of dealing with some of these cybersecurity
threats and helping out our State and local partners. However,
when President Trump came into office, he has gutted the
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. It is our
premier cyber agency. It has enjoyed years of bipartisan
support, but Donald Trump decided to tear it down. Now, why did
he decide to tear it down? He tore it down because he doesn't
like CISA Director Chris Krebs for stating that the 2020
Election was secure. That contradicts the President's lies
about widespread fraud.
But here is the thing. That personal vendetta he is
carrying out against CISA has real impacts because, while now
the agency in charge of combating cybersecurity is gone, the
cybersecurity is more relevant than ever, and people are
still--our small businesses, our local governments, and other
entities are at great risk of exploitation.
In Kentucky alone, we have seen ransomware attacks against
small businesses, county governments, local police departments,
schools, universities, and healthcare providers all happening.
Real problems. These attacks, they leave us all vulnerable. And
we have to take that seriously, even if the President is not
right now.
So, Ms. Plaggemier, on the National Cybersecurity
Alliance's website, CISA is listed as a government partner. Can
you tell us about how the cuts to the agency have been harmful
to the efforts to keep small businesses cyber secure?
Ms. PLAGGEMIER. Our relationship is mainly with external
affairs in the public campaigns that we run. So I don't have
firsthand knowledge of CISA's work with small businesses. I
know that all the resources that they provided in the past are
still available. You can use templates to make your own
tabletop exercise. There is a phishing simulation training
available. There is all the information that we work on
together with external affairs at CISA to provide public
education. But I can't speak specifically to how they may or
may not have helped small businesses in the past.
I can say that, when I talk to small businesses, you know,
it is not really the case--it is not really rational to think
that the federal government or even federal law enforcement can
provide hands-on support when every small business has a
security incident, right? It just doesn't scale in that way. So
that is why I think public-private partnership and the fact
that this is a--cybersecurity is a bipartisan issue--I think
that is really, really important. I mean, we have been
partnering with DHS before there was even a CISA for 22 years,
and we are really proud of that partnership over the years.
Mr. MCGARVEY. And I think it is important. I think it is
important that we focus on cybersecurity, particularly in the
federal government. There are crucial cybersecurity programs
that are essential to this objective, like those that focus on
cyber information sharing, but the federal provisions
facilitating this lapse at the end of September, which is why
we should reauthorize this, which is why we should have this
bipartisan----
Ms. PLAGGEMIER. We agree.
Mr. MCGARVEY. I want to change gears in the time I have got
left.
Mr. Wickham, you are with the Chamber of Commerce. And,
looking at the Chamber of Commerce and what you all have said
this year, the Chamber of Commerce estimates that the
President's tariffs will impose a tax of slightly more than
$200 billion on American small businesses this year. The
Chamber of Commerce also found that, in 2022--which is the year
with the highest rate of reported retail crime--retail losses
where organized retail crime was a significant driver amounted
to $100 billion.
Is $200 billion bigger or smaller than $100 billion?
Mr. WICKHAM. Congressman, it is definitely bigger.
Mr. MCGARVEY. It is definitely bigger. Twice as big.
And here is the thing. This is what I want to get at. This
is important. It is $100 billion. Cybersecurity is a big deal.
We need to focus on crime for small businesses. But, in this
Committee, where there is a $100-billion loss due to crime,
there is a $200-billion loss according to Chamber of Commerce
right now to small businesses because of the President's tariff
policies, and we have yet to have a single hearing on it or to
address this and how it impacts small businesses. I think we
need to focus on these types of things as well as some of the
local issues that we are talking about today.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. ELLZEY. Thank you.
I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Mr. Kalebjian, I would like to start with you. Did you come
out here from San Francisco? Is that where you said?
Mr. KALEBJIAN. Yes, Congressman.
Mr. ELLZEY. Okay. Well, thanks for coming out here and
joining us.
Mr. KALEBJIAN. Thank you.
Mr. ELLZEY. You are a third-generation business. Did your
grandfather immigrate from Armenia?
Mr. KALEBJIAN. Lebanon, sir.
Mr. ELLZEY. From Lebanon. And he started this business
after immigrating here and started this coffee business, which
has been in your family for three generations, except--I am
assuming at some point in time it was safe to operate and you
were profitable and you had no problems finding employees. When
did that stop?
Mr. KALEBJIAN. That has never--that has always been--that
has always been a challenge--ongoing challenge.
Mr. ELLZEY. But have you felt a lack of security and safety
recently----
Mr. KALEBJIAN. Yes, Congressman.
Mr. ELLZEY.--with the previous mayor in San Francisco? Is
it starting to turn around with the new administration?
Mr. KALEBJIAN. Yes, Congressman. Actually, Mayor Lurie, who
is an heir of the Levi's brand, has done a fantastic job so
far.
Mr. ELLZEY. And why has she done a good job where the
previous administration failed?
Mr. KALEBJIAN. Well, he is a businessman. And his number
one point is the city of San Francisco relies on small
business. And he spends every single day walking the streets
talking to small businessowners focused on security, crime, and
business.
Mr. ELLZEY. Has there been a change in police presence?
Mr. KALEBJIAN. Yes.
Mr. ELLZEY. And so the previous administration didn't do
that? I am really wanting to know because I haven't been to San
Francisco in years.
Mr. KALEBJIAN. Yeah, that was not the tactical decisions by
the previous administration.
Mr. ELLZEY. Okay. So are your employees starting to feel
safer in your city now, or are we still having problems?
Mr. KALEBJIAN. We haven't had an issue at my store in the
past 4 months, which is right around the time when----
Mr. ELLZEY. Can you explain that?
Mr. KALEBJIAN. Well, it is simple. We focus on preventing
homelessness, crime, theft, and you focus on what small
businesses need to survive.
Mr. ELLZEY. Do you have a police officer that comes in and
frequents your store for its fine coffee or something.
Mr. KALEBJIAN. We support the police officers often. And we
get fire department, the EMT, and the police officers coming in
all the time.
Mr. ELLZEY. Okay. So it is still a Democrat administration,
but a different law-keeping and police enforcement philosophy.
Correct?
Mr. KALEBJIAN. That is absolutely correct.
Mr. ELLZEY. So it is a nationwide problem based on
policies, not which side of the aisle you happen to sit on, but
recognizing--as a small businessman, your new mayor says, ``We
are putting cops on the street to protecting these small
businesses.''
Because you can't hire anybody if they don't feel safe at
work. If a homeless person is coming into your place, spitting
in your face and stealing money from the tip jar, people aren't
going to work for you.
Mr. KALEBJIAN. Not only will they not work for me, but
customers will not come by either. We get hit from both sides.
Mr. ELLZEY. And customers won't come in because there--if
there is somebody who is mentally ill/on drugs, which now the
line is a lot blurrier----
Mr. KALEBJIAN. Yep.
Mr. ELLZEY.--especially in some of these cities that have
been overrun by cheap drugs that are psychotic, you are going
to have a hard time continuing in your business. So I hope that
this new mayor continues those policies that are not partisan;
it is common sense----
Mr. KALEBJIAN. Common sense.
Mr. ELLZEY.--that you have to have a police presence in
your city to prevent crimes so businesses can thrive. Because
businesses can't thrive if people aren't walking down the
street. If there is needles and other stuff on the street,
people aren't going to walk on them. You feel like the new
mayor is doing a good job.
Mr. KALEBJIAN. He is doing a fantastic job. In fact,
starting next year, he is implementing new policy on the
streets.
If you are caught doing drugs, you have two choices: You
either get arrested, or you go to a clinic that is being built
on Sixth Street in downtown San Francisco.
Mr. ELLZEY. I am glad to hear that. Okay. Well, I hope you
many years of success. And thank you for coming down.
Mr. KALEBJIAN. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. ELLZEY. By the way, before I get over to Ms.
Plaggemier, I would like to address Mr. Jackson.
I am glad you survived. I am glad you are staying in your
community and working to make safer streets. And I just wanted
to say thank you for being here.
Ms. Plaggemier, as we talked to Mr. Kalebjian, the drip,
drip, drip of having money stolen from the tip jar, things like
that, that has a long-term effect. But I would like to also
point out that Ms. Velazquez mentioned, in one fell swoop, a
business can be completely destroyed, and nobody knows about it
except the businessowner. People don't understand; why did they
go out of business?
Tell me the rate of increase that we are seeing in small
businesses in the United States being cyber--having cyber
attacks and just completely being put out of business? What
does that look like?
Ms. PLAGGEMIER. There is not really reliable data on how
many businesses go--because of the fact that you mentioned,
right, there is a lot of victim shame, victim blame.
Mr. ELLZEY. Yeah.
Ms. PLAGGEMIER. We don't always have reliable data. We know
that, when it comes to cyber crimes and scams and fraud, only
about 15 percent of entities report that to IC3.gov, the----
Mr. ELLZEY. So it is much worse than even we understand?
Ms. PLAGGEMIER. It is probably worse than most of----
Mr. ELLZEY. Once they go out of business, there is no sense
in reporting it.
Ms. PLAGGEMIER. Exactly.
Mr. ELLZEY. Okay. Thank you very much. My time has expired.
I now recognize Ms. Scholten from Michigan for 5 minutes.
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Thank you, sir.
And thank you to our Committee for having this important
hearing today, and all of our witnesses for joining us to talk
about this issue. We take very seriously the impact that crime
has on our small businesses across the country. But I do take
issue with the Chairman's statements that these are Democratic
policies.
As we just heard from you, sir, Democrats can institute
policies that absolutely protect our businesses in even better
ways. And, currently, if we are going to have an honest
hearing, we need to look at the ways that Republican leadership
has failed to fully fund law enforcement policies and has even
further failed to hold criminals accountable.
President Trump has pardoned Juan Orlando Hernandez, the
former President of Honduras, who was convicted by a federal
court for drug trafficking and weapons charges, virtually
flooding our streets with illegal drugs and guns--the number
one killer of pregnant women. Thank you for pointing that out,
sir.
Mr. Hernandez once boasted that he would, quote, ``stuff
the drugs up the gringo's noses,'' end quote.
How does this make us more safe as a community? Let's look
at what our Republican President is doing or not doing to keep
our streets safe.
Earlier this year, Republicans introduced an appropriations
bill that would slash billions of dollars from public safety
funds. The Trump administration slashed millions in grant
awards--88 million--I want to read this because this is so
important--88 million in grant awards for substance abuse
treatment, mental health services, and programs that team with
police and with health professionals to help divert crime--
Programs that you are talking here that directly impacted your
small business.
If we are going to have a serious hearing about this, let's
have a serious hearing about this and talk about where the
policies are doing the most good work to keep our small
businesses safe.
Mr. Jackson, my first question is for you. How does the
availability of guns in the streets escalate otherwise
nonviolent incidents inside resale spaces, like disputes,
shoplifting encounters, or customer conflicts?
Mr. JACKSON. Yes, as I said earlier, it turns any situation
into a near fatal one. And I know we have a few members of law
enforcement that were here earlier. But the presence of a
firearm also makes it dangerous for our law enforcement
officials. And that is why States like Florida pushed forward
the first-ever red flag law at the State level to disarm those
folks who are in a moment of crisis. And we know that
Republicans have fought for this; law enforcement has fought
for this. But many leaders on both sides of the aisle have
fought to keep guns out of the hands of those who are in that
moment of crisis before that conflict happens that makes it
dangerous for everyone present.
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Absolutely. I couldn't agree more. And we are
so glad that you survived to continue to do the advocacy that
you do.
Gun safety remains a top issue in my district. In Kent
County alone, 14.2 percent of all fatal injuries are gun-
related. It comes as no surprise that the great threat of gun
violence has a huge threat on residents and small businesses
alike. I am glad that that is such an important part of the
conversation today.
I want to switch gears as well and turn to Ms. Plaggemier,
and second--my next question is for you. Your organization's
2025, 2026 cybersecurity attitudes and behaviors report found
that 52 percent of employed participants have never received
training on the security or privacy risks of artificial
intelligence tools. It is just astounding.
My bill, the AI-WISE Act, would help to educate small
businessowners on those risks. I am so proud of the bipartisan
support that bill has received in this Committee. Can you
explain why an AI user should be knowledgeable on the risks of
AI?
Ms. PLAGGEMIER. Yeah, because it is not just about what you
are getting back, the results you are getting from whatever AI
tool you are using. We are really focused on the work that we
are using it to do or the information that we are using it to
find. And we forget that it is not Google. What we are putting
in there, we are giving away to the world, literally.
So, if you look at this year's report, you will also see we
ask people how many people are actually giving away company
information to AI. It is a pretty high percentage. It is up
from last year. And then this year we asked them just what is
it that you are sharing with an AI tool that you probably
shouldn't be. It is confidential business plans. It is customer
information. It is, you know, things like code that your
company has produced that your developers have produced. It is
information that really shouldn't be public.
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. [Presiding.] The gentlelady yields back.
I now recognize Mr. Downing from the great State of Montana
for 5 minutes.
Mr. DOWNING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you to the witnesses for being here.
Preserving law and order is a fundamental component of
fostering a secure environment for small businesses and
entrepreneurship to thrive. Businesses depend on the protection
of property, employees, and customers in order to be profitable
and to attract investment.
Unfortunately, in cities across the United States, like
Washington, D.C.; Chicago; St. Louis, the embrace of radical
pro-crime policies like cashless bail, limitations on police,
restrictions on self-defense have empowered criminals and
victimized innocent citizens and businesses.
I am going to start with Mr. Wickham. In your testimony,
you highlight how small businesses have faced the brunt of
rising property and retail crime in the last few years. Can you
expand on what government policies you believed have
contributed most to the forms of crime that most commonly
victimized small businesses?
Mr. WICKHAM. Yes, Congressman.
Mr. DOWNING. Your microphone, please.
Mr. WICKHAM. Yes, Congressman. When we talk to our small
businesses, the issue that they are most concerned about is
lack of law enforcement funding and prioritization. The second
is decreased prosecution policies. Addressing it at the initial
reporting of the crime, we have statistics from our friends at
the National Retail Federation that 64 percent of businesses
reported less than half of the crime incidents in their stores.
And the reason most cited was lack of law enforcement support.
Mr. DOWNING. So, I----
Mr. WICKHAM. On the other hand, you have members who are
very concerned about repeat offenders where prosecution
policies--because the laws are not updated to allow for
aggregation of the thefts, the sophisticated criminals are
hitting the same businesses over and over again.
Mr. DOWNING. So how has this crime within these
neighborhoods, how has this impacted the ability of
entrepreneurs to attract investment?
Mr. WICKHAM. It is fundamental. One of our strongest
chambers is in the State of Missouri. And they were so
concerned about crime that they took the rarest step for a
Chamber of Commerce of surveying their members about crime. And
they found that 90 percent of their CEOs were concerned about
public safety and 70 percent of them saw it as a factor for the
State's competitiveness.
Mr. DOWNING. Thank you.
Mr. WICKHAM. But you cannot attract businesses to your area
if there is a public safety concern.
Mr. DOWNING. I appreciate your responses there. I can move
on a little here. I want to transition to discussing
cybersecurity threats that plague small businesses,
particularly given the rising impact of artificial
intelligence. So I am going to move to Ms. Plaggemier.
In your testimony, you alarmingly emphasize that cyber
criminals have adopted AI faster than most small businesses. So
what new capabilities has AI unlocked for cyber criminals in
targeting small businesses?
Ms. PLAGGEMIER. You don't need a bunch of criminals with
devices all launching attacks. You can use a bunch of devices
on one person with AI launching attacks at scale. It is--you
know, you have the scam centers around the globe where people
have been human-trafficked into these scam centers. Mainly in
Asia, there is hundreds of thousands of people in these scam
centers. And they aren't just perpetrating crimes like pig
butchering on individual citizens; they are also perpetrating
crimes on small businesses.
Mr. DOWNING. Right.
Ms. PLAGGEMIER. At the end of the day, we are all
individuals, and we are all targeted whether we work at a large
enterprise or whether we work at a small business.
Mr. DOWNING. Right.
Ms. PLAGGEMIER. So they were using a lot of automation to
conduct those crimes that is a way that really, really scales
for them.
Mr. DOWNING. No, I appreciate that. You know, as a former
securities regulator in dealing with things like, you know, pig
butchering and some of these--use of these tools for defrauding
people is really, really pretty alarming.
So how does a lack of knowledge about these cybersecurity
threats prevent small businessowners from implementing adequate
cybersecurity measures?
Ms. PLAGGEMIER. Our belief is that they just don't
understand enough about basic IT hygiene--some of the things
that I listed in my written statement. It is that lack of
knowledge, that lack of education, some of those myths that I
mentioned where they, you know--``Oh, my IT guy has it handled,
or my managed services provider has it handled,'' and they
don't know enough about the risk to manage the risks. So they
don't know what questions should they ask when they hire an IT
person or a manned services provider? How do they hold that
person accountable? What sort of data in reporting should they
be looking for to say that we are actually decreasing the risk
to the business? So that is where we come in with small
business education. In laymen's terms, there is a lot of tech
speak; there is a lot of jargon out there, and we try to cut
through all that so that the businessowner understands how to
manage it.
Mr. DOWNING. Right. I appreciate that. Unfortunately, I
have run out of time. I just want to acknowledge that the AI
WISE Act that I am coleading with Representative Scholten is
trying to at least attack a part of that. But I thank you for
that time.
And, with that, Mr. Chair, I yield.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize Mrs. McIver from the great State of New
Jersey for 5 minutes.
Mrs. MCIVER. Thank you, Chairman and Ranking Member, for
holding this hearing.
And thank you to our witnesses for joining us.
America's small businesses are the backbone of our
communities, the first employers for millions of families, and
the anchors of local economic life. I think we can all agree
crime holds businesses back from reaching their full potential
for their communities they serve. It makes it harder for
businessowners and workers to keep their families fed and bills
paid.
Protecting and supporting small businesses is the only way
for our economy to prosper. On top of everything, small
businessowners open their doors every morning only to be hit
from every direction in this Trump era. In spite of backward
Republican proposals that worsen crime, we have seen historic
drops in crime over the last few years, but we can still do
better. And we can reduce crime in ways that are smart and
empathetic. Our focus must remain on advancing evidence-based
policies that foster real stability for our small businesses.
Policies like those implemented in Newark, New Jersey, my home
city, and our great Congressional District 10.
We are very proud to be charting a pathway forward that
uses community-based holistic methods to reduce crime by
embracing a public health approach. Newark has seen a violent
crime drop over 50 percent in the last decade and, in 2024, saw
the lowest rate of homicides in 60 years.
This success is a testament to how we empower our community
to be coproducers of public safety instead of outdated policies
that do nothing more than lock people away and ignore the real
cause.
With that, I want to go to Mr. Jackson. Mr. Jackson, first
of all, I want to thank you for being here, and I want to thank
you for sharing your story and for all of the advocacy work
that you have done over your time, not just here in D.C. but
across the country. It is great to see you again, and thank you
for being here.
It is unfortunate that you have to be here and watch my
colleagues across the aisle talk out of both sides of their
mouths this morning. While we talk about small businesses, you
know, seeing an increase in attacks from, you know, violence,
we also see that they have reduced so much in antiviolence
funding from closing down and shutting down the Office of a Gun
of Violence Prevention, all of these things that we constantly
see happening, but yet they are concerned about law enforcement
and concerned about crime in our communities. I find it, you
know, baffling to hear that.
Small businesses often note that crime around their
storefronts is tied to broader challenges, especially in urban
communities. For example, lack of youth engagement, mental
health support, and neighborhood instability.
Based on your experience, how do investments in these
preventative services, such as job training and therapy,
improve safety outcomes and reduce risk and operating costs for
the small businesses located there?
Mr. JACKSON. Well, we, in the last 2 years, 2023 and 2024,
we saw a 31 percent reduction in homicides. And, this year, we
are on pace for another 18 percent reduction, which means we
have cut the crisis of gun violence and gun-related homicides
in half due to these investments and investing in mental health
where the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act put us at the gold
standard for youth mental health, investing in community
violence intervention, investing in law enforcement, investing
in victim services. We added $2 billion in victim services. And
all of that helps prevent violence before it happens, prevent
violent crime before it happens, as well as, when you couple
that with holding gun dealers and the gun industry accountable
from putting guns into communities or at the hands of those who
are most at risk.
But, right now, as you shared, it is all under siege. $820
million in grants were canceled, 373 awards in the Department
of Justice alone. That included $3.5 million in Project Safe
Neighborhoods, a law enforcement program created under the
President Bush administration. There was significant cuts for
police training. There was even a $13 million cut to the Rural
Violent Crime Reduction Initiative.
And so we are watching all the infrastructure that was put
in place that has seen historic results 3 years in a row, being
dismantled, defunded, and destroyed. And, luckily, we have
States like New Jersey that have their own Office of Violence
Prevention that are investing at the State level to offset
these slashes, but we are seeing so many States and cities
really suffer in this infrastructure being destroyed.
Mrs. MCIVER. Yes, thank you so much for sharing that. Once
again, you know, across the aisle, my colleagues--rather it is
a woman or a man always lying, but one thing that doesn't lie
is the number and the data. Thank you for sharing. With that, I
yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentlelady yields back.
I now recognize Mr. Meuser from the great State of
Pennsylvania for 5 minutes.
Mr. MEUSER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much to all our witnesses.
A very important subject. That is why we are happy to be on
this Committee and have you here testifying.
So we just heard my colleague talk about data and facts and
truth. You know, if it weren't for the amount of stress small
businesses would have if we did not pass the One Big Beautiful
Bill, as it is known, 199A--it is 20 percent tax increase on
small business. Bonus depreciation. R&D tax credit. No tax on
tips. Tax on overtime. Income tax reductions. Energy costs have
come down. Regulations are minimizing. Inflation is far lower
than it was before. And now we are talking about crime. These
are all things that Republicans voted for and Democrats' facts
and data voted against. I mean, almost a hundred percent of
them, if not a hundred percent, crime.
You know I am from Pennsylvania--Philadelphia. We have a
district attorney up there that thinks it is a wonderful idea
never to prosecute those who commit a gun--illegal gun carrying
crimes. Now somebody wants to blame it on guns. It is clear
that, when you prosecute less than 30 percent--it used to be 70
percent just a few years ago in Philadelphia. Our crime is over
the top.
Chicago, New York, Detroit, Charlotte, crime in San
Francisco. Okay. The crime levels are, in some cases, simply
not being reported, as they are not in Philadelphia. Yet, you
do know homicides--homicides are almost as high on a population
basis as Chicago. You know, what is even worse? I looked up
what were the worst cities in the world on a per capita basis
for murders? You know what is behind Chicago and Philadelphia?
Nairobi. And they have something there where they are out
killing women for some crazed reason. Okay.
This is the United States, and so we got a big problem, and
this is just one of the problems I think facing small business.
And, if we ignore it and act like money will save everything,
that is never going to get us there, frankly. I mean, it is
unbelievable. I mean, they want to double down on every mistake
being made with more cash.
So, Mr. Wickham, let me just start with you. What do you
say about this? You started saying how, when gun violence is
not being--people using guns is not being prosecuted, I mean,
what sort of effect is that on small business these days?
Mr. WICKHAM. It really sets up a challenging environment
for all businesses and communities where there is no
consequence for criminal activity. And, when a store is hit
repeatedly, the first thing they are going to have to do is
look at raising prices and eventually closing their doors. And
we have a saying at the U.S. Chamber: No business should have
to close because of crime.
Mr. MEUSER. And what about the fact that people don't want
to come downtown when they are seeing riots and problems and
all kinds of antipolice? They are saying we are not funding the
police. What about in the streets? I don't want to get
political here. But when was the last time we saw anybody in
the Democratic Party denounce the protesting that is existing
in front of all of these stores? Is that a problem too? Is that
less traffic?
Mr. WICKHAM. There is no challenging the fact that, when
you have high-crime rates in an area, it is extremely
destabilizing to businesses.
Mr. MEUSER. My little town of----
Mr. WICKHAM. As well----
Mr. MEUSER. Right outside my district, people aren't
showing up. Ms--sorry. If you could elaborate on cyber. Let's
veer a little bit here, Ms. Plaggemier. What are small
businesses--I know some companies that have been hit by cyber
don't report it, call me and ask, ``What should we do?'' That
sort of thing. What are the avenues that you could tell us that
we need to accentuate so small business, medium-sized business,
even large businesses, can find answers if they feel they are
under cyber threat?
Ms. PLAGGEMIER. We have a lot of answers on
staysafeonline.org. We have a lot of educational materials that
are free. We are a nonprofit. I think the--what we need are
more points of leverage to get businesses to be proactive,
right? I mean, cybersecurity people like to say there are two
kinds of businesses; there are the ones that have had a
security incident, and the ones that have had one and just
don't know it yet. So it is really about getting people to
engage sooner before something catastrophic happens that puts
them out of business.
Mr. MEUSER. Okay.
Ms. PLAGGEMIER. And that is really the problem that we see
is getting their attention. They are very, very busy places. So
finding those points of leverage, we have tried to work with
franchisers to get franchisees to take training. We have had
programs in the past with the SBA, and we will continue those.
It is just--it is finding more and more way to get with----
Mr. MEUSER. I am out of time. If you can provide us just
some of that information, I would appreciate it, and maybe in
your comments.
And, Mr. Kalebjian, I hope you get a chance to express your
situation and all. And I am sorry I missed it earlier. I yield
back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize Mr. Tran from the great State of California
for 5 minutes.
Mr. TRAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you to the Ranking Member and yourself for
convening today's hearing.
Thank you to all the witnesses who traveled here. I want to
address my colleague's comments slighting my State. I am proud
to represent California, the fourth largest economy in the
world, with 4.2 small businesses representing 99.9 percent of
all businesses in the State.
Let me just say that California farmers, many of them small
businesses, supply 62 percent of the country's fruit and nuts,
and 56 percent of the vegetables to feed our country.
California continues to be instrumental in the success of this
nation, economically.
Mr. Jackson, Jr., thank you for being so open and
vulnerable about your experience as a gun violence survivor.
According to the Trump administration fiscal year 2026 budget
request, they are proposing to cut $1 billion in funding across
40 Department of Justice programs supporting police departments
that directly impact enforcement in violent crime, hate crimes,
and drug crimes.
The Trump administration has also requested $545 million in
cuts from the FBI, $468 million from the ATF, and $212 million
from the DEA, which would limit the federal government's
ability to fight major crime and combat international drug
trafficking.
The Chairman's sentiment about small businesses not
reporting crimes because of lack of resources to address these
crimes is absolutely true. As a small businessowner, my wife
and I saw multiple break-ins last year. And there is just not
enough resources to help us and other small businesses with
these attacks. And that is why I am concerned about these cuts
the administration is directly and indirectly making to local
and federal law enforcement.
What are your thoughts on those cuts, and how would those
funding cuts impact America's public safety and small
businesses?
Mr. JACKSON. Yeah, again, I want to echo what you are
sharing is that we have solutions that work, and we know that
investing, especially in federal law enforcement has seen
significant results.
In the last 2 years, we were able to prosecute over 600 gun
traffickers. We shut down over 200 gun stores that were
violating the law. We even shut down 350 websites that were
illegally selling machine gun conversion devices. And all of
that has helped us get this reduction of 13 percent in violent
crime and 31 percent in homicides.
But, as opposed to being applauded for that and building up
the ATF, as you shared, there has been a 30 percent cut to that
with over $460 million being cut. And that is not the approach
that we need if we truly care about investing in law
enforcement and keeping our small businesses safe.
And we are also seeing, to build on your point, the cities
and States that are investing are seeing results. Philadelphia,
as you shared earlier, they are down 17.5 percent in homicides
this year. California is down 9.5 percent in violent crime. And
property crimes are down 15.4 percent in California. So we are
seeing that States and cities that lean in and invest in law
enforcement and community-based strategies in violence
prevention efforts are seeing tremendous results, historic
results, if you will.
Mr. TRAN. Thank you for that. Mr. Jackson, Jr., as you
know, the Trump administration is aggressively ramping up
immigration enforcement across the nation. In an effort to
fulfill his campaign promise of mass deportation, he has
terrorized immigrant communities across the nation, including
in my home district spanning both L.A. and Orange County.
The White House has also diverted a considerable number of
federal agents from their jobs of preventing serious crimes and
jeopardizing important public safety initiatives, including
protecting American families from gun crime to patrol the
streets of major cities.
And, according to a report published by the CATO Institute,
ICE has diverted more than 28,000 federal law enforcement
agents from their jobs of investigating and preventing serious
crimes to now conducting civil immigration operations.
Furthermore, reporting suggests that ATF has reassigned 80
percent of its special agents to immigration enforcement.
Likewise, the FBI has had 23 percent of agents allocated to
focus on immigration enforcement. How effective is that
diversion in fighting and preventing violent crime?
Mr. JACKSON. It is ineffective. It is dangerous, and
frankly it is a huge waste of resources. I mean, the
opportunity cost is major when you deplete a workforce that is
already very small, that is inspecting gun dealerships, that
are trying to break down black market rings of firearm sales.
And we know that illegally sold guns are the fastest guns to
arrive on the crime scene, whether it is a homicide or other
forms of crime.
And so to dismantle and pretty much shut down the ATF leave
cities and States really vulnerable to guns illegally influence
their communities and frankly get into the hands of those who
have the mindset of committing crime.
Mr. TRAN. Thank you. With that, Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize Mr. Bresnahan from the great State of
Pennsylvania for 5 minutes.
Mr. BRESNAHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to the Ranking
Member.
And thank you to our witnesses for being here today.
Although, I have had--I have to say I am disappointed that
we must actually have a hearing on this topic at all. But, as
we have heard today, American small businesses are increasingly
forced to factor in safety measures into their business plans
to guard against shoplifting and retail theft on top of
managing inventory, supply chains, and staffing needs.
Pennsylvania knows this reality all too well. Our
commonwealth ranks fifth in the nation for retail crime and
suffers the highest total value of stolen goods in the country,
averaging $430 per resident. This is unacceptable and
preventable. Retail crime threatens the very existence of mom-
and-pop shops in northeastern Pennsylvania. These businesses
simply cannot budget for loss or absorb the hit of merchandise
walking out the door.
Gerrity supermarkets, with 10 locations across northeastern
Pennsylvania, from Clarks Summit to West Pittston, reported
loss of theft can reach over $2 million a year.
As Members of the Small Business Committee, we have a
responsibility to focus on policies that help our small, local
businesses stay open and stay safe.
My first question, Mr. Wickham, can you explain or expand
more on the impact of retail theft and crime on the people that
experience it firsthand, small businessowners and their
employees, as well as the broader community, and the
neighborhoods these businesses operate in?
Mr. WICKHAM., stories like our colleague Hrag's are brought
to the U.S. Chamber whereby there has been an incident that
causes employees to want to leave, causes shoppers to not want
to come to that business. And then eventually that business has
to close its doors and that has a profound impact on the
community. We encourage those small businesses in the area to
coordinate, to try to take a preventative attitude towards
stemming some of these things because it is so systemic. It is
not just the small business down the block. It is the whole
block that has a problem when there is an incident.
Mr. BRESNAHAN. Has there been any case studies or
suggestions? Congressman Meuser had referenced Wilkes-Barre.
And we have cities like Scranton and Stroudsburg and Hazleton.
That we have big-city problems right in our own backyard. We
have five interstate highway systems that interconnect within
northeastern Pennsylvania. But is there anything specific that
you can point to within the community culture that you found to
be successful in mitigating some of these ramifications?
Mr. WICKHAM. Yes, the most successful cooperation I have
seen is when the prosecutors, law enforcement, and the business
community get together in an organized fashion. We refer to
them shorthand as ORCAS, Organized Retail Crime Associations.
Because the sharing of information is so important and it is so
challenging for small businesses that don't have a large
umbrella corporate office to unite their resources, so it is
very important for the small businesses to work together with
the prosecutors, with law enforcement, and with policymakers.
To commend your State, the Pennsylvania Chamber of Commerce
supported a State law that set up an Organized Retail Crime
Office within the Attorney General's Office. And, in just over
a year, they have opened over 65 investigations, made more than
40 arrests, and recovered nearly $2 million in stolen goods,
uniting those rural communities or smaller midsized communities
you are talking and some of the larger urban centers.
Mr. BRESNAHAN. Well, it is nice to know that, with the
Attorney General Dave Sunday, that there has been an initiative
there.
In my last life, I was a real estate developer, and we made
investments into downtown Pittston and getting to work with the
entrepreneur and, you know, just seeing the struggles in which
they go through every single day on making sure that their
stores are staffed, and, you know, they can keep up with
industry and process, you know, various different surges--
whether that is a brewery, Blind Cat Brewing or Grayson Park
or, you know, a hair salon. They are all dealing with the same
reality. But I think it is important that you have to have that
cultural impact. And I think you phrased it very eloquently
about having the culture of the community come together to
repeal or repel some of the crime. Also, what is unfortunate is
when you have a detective in the Scranton Police Department
that gets shot in the head--thank goodness he made a great
recovery--but it is still detrimental to the success of the
community. So I seem to be out of time. I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Then gentleman yields back.
I now recognize Ms. Simon from the great State of
California for 5 minutes.
Ms. SIMON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you to our Ranking Member.
Mr. Jackson, just briefly, thank you so much for being
here. And I followed the work of the office prior to betrayal
of this administration and then shutting it down. What I
thought was so interesting about the office is that the
initiating group that brought the Office of Violent Prevention
together--is this correct--was faith leaders from all over the
country. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you for your work.
My question next question is from my Bay Area brother. You
are in the sunset. My mama lives in the sunset. And I believe I
know where your coffee shop is, and I just really thank you for
traveling. It is a long flight. I take it every week, and we
are just honored and happy to have you here.
Just a couple questions that may seem a little off topic,
but I believe that they will come together. Do your employees,
sir, at the coffee shop have health insurance?
Mr. KALEBJIAN. Yes.
Ms. SIMON. And are you aware that the proposed cuts to the
Affordable Care Act and small business tax credits would make
it harder for small businessowners like yourself to provide
health coverage to your employees?
Mr. KALEBJIAN. Yes.
Ms. SIMON. Thank you, sir. You also told the Chronicle--and
I read the article, and I agree with you. I read the article
about five times in the last couple of days since I knew that
you were coming--out of deep respect. I agree with everything
that you said in that article.
But I want to be clear that I think it is going to get
worse. While you have a mayor--in fact, Mr. Lurie is actually
not a businessman. He led the Tipping Point Foundation, and I
was on his board for 8 years and really loved the work that
they were doing at Tipping Point to combat poverty and some of
these root causes. And I agree with your assessment at his
being on the streets every day working with small businesses,
asking the questions about root causes; it works. So I am
really excited that you are in communication with the
administration.
But this administration is cutting $1.7 billion from mental
health services that go into States, then counties, and in
cities. And, in fact, he has fired half of the mental health
staff from SAMSA, which is just shocking.
So my question is simple: How do we solve the mental crises
that you clearly and beautifully articulated in your Chronicle
article--mental health crises that are driving small crime,
which feels like big crime if you are running a small business
in our communities when this administration is defunding mental
health in real time? If you think it was bad last year, can you
imagine counties like San Francisco way to Louisiana, Denver,
you name it--they are going to see their mental health grants
slashed.
How do we support small businesses while stripping away
your ability to, one, keep your employees safe, insured? And
the folks who are causing the issues outside of your business,
they will receive a deeper cut to the small services that they
already receive in their struggle for mental health. I would
love to hear your thoughts on that.
Mr. KALEBJIAN. Yeah, my thought is, I mean, Congressman
mentioned that California is the fourth largest economy in the
world. We are a big country.
Ms. SIMON. Absolutely.
Mr. KALEBJIAN. We can figure it out. And I think California
should be able to solve for that. One example, we could stop
funding the train to nowhere that we have been spending $5
million per mile to build that hasn't been built for 10 years.
So that would be one example that I would give.
Ms. SIMON. Thank you so much. And I would--with my just
brief time left--want to bring it home that we have a federal
government that has been explicit about defunding mental health
services that reach our cities in real time. So, in San
Francisco and Oakland where I represent, should a police
officer take a mentally ill person into custody, we know now
that there are so few beds. And, with that the cuts to mental
health that are coming in real time, there will be fewer beds
and fewer services.
Now, train and infrastructures, those are very different
parts of our federal and local budgets. But health and human
services, when those real cuts hit our streets, I would hope
that this Committee, we find it in our hearts to figure out how
to push SBA, push other parts of our federal government to fund
real opportunities for our small businessowners to keep their
storefronts safe, to provide opportunities for our local and
regional and state and federal law enforcement officers to
actually have places to send folks in their midst of crisis.
And, again, I want that you for being here, and I appreciate
your advocacy.
Thank you so much, and I will yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentlelady yields back.
I now recognize Mr. Wied from the great State of Wisconsin
for 5 minutes.
Mr. WIED. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You know, it doesn't matter if your business is in Green
Bay or New York City, Appleton, or Washington, D.C., retail
crime negatively and disproportionately impacts small
businesses across the United States. As a former small
businessowner, I know firsthand how detrimental crime is for
small businesses.
A 2024 study found that almost 80 percent of small
businesses reported the annual cost of theft to be between $500
and $2,500 per year. While this may not seem like a lot to
some, businesses already operating on thin margins have a hard
time recovering from these losses, and it could be the
difference between ending the month in the black or ending the
month in the red.
Retail crime is not the only way crime impacts small
businesses. In blue Democrat cities where police are prohibited
from enforcing the law and district attorneys refuse to
prosecute crimes, people don't feel safe shopping. They don't
feel safe going out to eat or even going for a walk in the
local park.
Next time you are in a city like Chicago or San Francisco,
just walk down the street. What used to be a bustling area
filled with local businesses are now boarded up and abandoned.
This is a direct result of Democrats doubling down on their
failed soft-on-crime policies, such as reducing penalties for
retail theft and cashless bail, which allows criminals to
return to the street before the arresting officer has finished
their shift. These policies not only hurt the small businesses
but their customers and their staff as well.
Mr. Kalebjian, I always enjoy hearing directly from small
businesses, and you have obviously carried on the legacy that
you talk about your dad and some of his advice, and I love
hearing that. You know, your father always taught you that
incentives drive behavior, and that couldn't be more true. Show
me the incentive, and I will show you the outcome. And right
now our incentives tell people that crime pays and
accountability doesn't.
But I would like to hear from you here today. As a small
businessowner, you have faced the onslaught of theft from a
repeat offender, and I did as well. What impact have you seen
on people willing to come into your store based on your
experiences?
Mr. KALEBJIAN. You know, that specifically hasn't been as
big because we do have a really, really tight community. But
the impact has gone more on me and my staff feeling helpless,
feeling unsafe, and sad. You know, the conversations instead of
being, you know, ``It was busy today,'' or, you know, ``That
customer came by and said hi,'' it was more of conversations
like ``Stanley came in again, and this time he, you know,
dropped the tip jar. We got to replace it.'' Those kinds of
negative comments was impacting my retail side of the business,
as opposed to the customers because they were supporting us
throughout it.
Mr. WIED. So you have a good network of other
businessowners. I mean, tell us about your friends and
businesses that are around you. Tell me about----
Mr. KALEBJIAN. Yeah, I mean, the example we talk about is
only--it impacts small businesses. You know, it impacts large
businesses, too. We have a Walgreen's pharmacy down the street
that employees would come to our shop every day to grab a
couple of coffee. We would ask them, and we would talk about
how bad it was. Well, guess what? That pharmacy is now closed
because people were just coming in and stealing a hundred--950
bucks every single day. And even a big business like Walgreen's
can't afford it. And it is the only pharmacy in like a 2-mile
radius. So now that community has also lost a place to go get
prescriptions.
Mr. WIED. Sir, you talk about this--something Congress
could do, which is shine a spotlight on the problem. I think we
have to admit there is a problem.
Mr. KALEBJIAN. Yeah.
Mr. WIED. And I think people need to all admit there is a
problem--which--until you admit it, how do you find a solution?
But you talk about the heart of the problem as policy failures
and locally, local prosecutors, and you talk about being
constrained, they are constrained by political choices rather
than pursuing these cases. Can you explain locally how that has
impacted you--the local?
Mr. KALEBJIAN. Yeah, I mean, I mentioned this earlier on
Prop 47, which was passed in 2014, which took, you know, a
petty--petty theft down to a nothing burger. And so that
policy, granted it starting in 2014, when COVID hit, everybody
started to move away from the downtown into--or the
neighborhoods where we are. And now it is a free for all.
I mean, you are literally passing a bill that says you can
steal up to 950 bucks, and you won't get arrested. What is
going to happen? What is the incentive? And then we passed Prop
37 last year, which was a Band-Aid to it that said, ``Well, now
you can steal two more times, but, after that, then we might
arrest you,'' as opposed to just getting rid of Prop 47
altogether.
Mr. WIED. Well, thank you. And thank you for being a small
businessowner and continuing on the legacy that your--you know,
your family has done.
Mr. KALEBJIAN. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. WIED. We really appreciate that. You are the heart of
America. Thank you.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize Mr. Olszewski from the great State of
Maryland for 5 minutes.
Mr. OLSZEWSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and to
our Ranking Member. And, of course, to our witnesses, I
appreciate the opportunity to discuss the impact of crime on
small businesses across our country today.
And it is true: Surges in retail and cyber crime put both
our nation's employers and our consumers at risk. We in
Congress should be doing all that we can to stop crime. It is
an issue that I was passionate about when I was Baltimore
County Executive before I came here to Congress, where we made
combating crime central to helping small businesses grow and
thrive.
And, in stark contrast to some of the hyperbolic defund-
the-police rhetoric I have heard earlier today, I was a
Democrat, one of many over the past years who invested in new
and smart policing tactics. I spent tens of millions of dollars
in new local resources to support our police department and
public safety generally. But I also made investments in
prevention, because I know that we can be both tough on crime,
not only by holding people accountable--and we should for their
actions--but also by making those upstream investments to
prevent crime from happening in the first place.
Our efforts were strengthened by smart and efficient
federal funding made possible by laws like the American Rescue
Act and the bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which granted
billions of dollars to States and cities for public safety and
violence prevention initiatives.
Through a $12.7 million grant from the CDC, Baltimore
County's Department of Health and Social Services and the fire
department deployed peer outreach specialists and EMS
clinicians trained specifically for peer outreach for nonfatal
overdose victims and their families, reducing the downstream
impact of substance abuse on our communities and our commercial
users.
Just yesterday, I heard it from our county that they don't
readily know what the administration's cuts are to that grant
or what the subsequent impacts will be to that program. This is
a program that led to a decrease in fatal overdoses by more
than 40 percent in 2025, nonfatal overdoses down almost 25
percent, and fentanyl-related deaths down near 50 percent.
We sent corporals to the FBI on a cyber task force to learn
about how we can do more to fight cyber crime. We worked
directly with businesses and owners with programs like ROCA, an
organization that engages both young people and police officers
to heal trauma and drive change. Through federal grants, we
installed enhanced lighting, camera systems, and we also
deployed more license plate readers, expanding our mobile
crisis units. And we put a 911 clinician in our call center. We
put the resources where there was greatest need, and we saw
significant impact.
But, again, these results were possible because of that
strong collaboration among federal, state, and local leaders.
Unfortunately, as you have heard today, the Trump
administration is now handicapping public safety by cutting and
laying off people. States are now dealing with a collective
$500 million in revoked balances from 373 grants, undermining
the very programs that keep our communities and businesses
safe, and yet not a peep--not a peep--from the other side of
the aisle.
Still, I look forward to working with this Committee to
draft and uplift legislation that strengthens American small
businesses on this and many other issues.
I hope to get to two quick questions, Mr. Chairman. First
is to Mr. Jackson, the city of Baltimore, which you referenced,
which I am proud to now represent in Congress, has also
experienced a significant decrease in homicides, on track to
have the lowest homicide rate in 50 years. We have to keep
doing more, but we are proud of that progress. They were
recently awarded $62 million after a jury ruled in their favor
against a Hanover-based firearm shop for selling untraceable
ghost guns. Still sales have increased exponentially in recent
years.
How has the federal government acted to reduce the spread
of ghost guns in your opinion?
Mr. JACKSON. Yes, historically, especially during the
Biden-Harris administration, that was a top priority to crack
down on ghost guns. There were multiple executive actions to
move forward. And, frankly, the largest manufacturer of ghost
guns, Polymer 80, was shut down after we made changes that
required them to go through licensing and background checks
just like any other gun dealer. So it is huge priority, and we
also know that ghost guns are leading to a lot of death and
harm across our country.
And, lastly, I just wanted to congratulate you in
Baltimore. I mean, you all are seeing a 33 percent reduction in
homicides this year and literally are turning Baltimore into
one of the safest cities in the country. So congrats.
Mr. OLSZEWSKI. Thank you. And a lot of credit to the mayor
and the partnership we had. And we are hopeful we can get back
to that.
Lastly, quickly, with my 20 seconds left, Ms. Plaggemier? I
apologize. I get my name mixed up, too. With AI being an
important part of cyber crime, would you agree that we should
be wary about efforts that lead to blanket restrictions on the
regulation of AI, as it drives and fuels these cyber crimes?
Ms. PLAGGEMIER. Yeah, I would agree with that. I mean, AI
has just been--has poured fuel on the fire of cyber crime.
Mr. OLSZEWSKI. Thank you very much. I appreciate your time.
I yield, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize Mr. Schmidt from the great State of Kansas
for 5 minutes.
Mr. SCHMIDT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I appreciate the witnesses being here.
Before I started serving in this role, I spent 12 years as
a State-level law enforcement official as a prosecutor. And,
before that, I was a local prosecutor in municipal court.
Nobody has talked about municipal court that I have heard yet
today, but an awful lot of these retail crimes wind up in city
courts around the country, which is they are different animals
from State courts or federal courts.
In fact, I have got a friend who was a career federal law
enforcement official and has later in his career become a
State-level law enforcement person. And, when I was attorney
general in my State, we actually returned some federal money
back because it was just a pain in the neck to deal with all
the strain. Just let me do my job. I don't need help. I just
need you out of the way. I don't want to partner with the Feds.
I just want to do my job.
And this fellow called me the other day and said, ``You
know, now that I am on the State side of this; I have a new
appreciation for how difficult even well-intended federal
actions can be in some of it.'' So that is the context in which
I ask, you know, a handful of questions here.
Mr. Wickham, in your written testimony, you talked about
aggregating offenses. And I took your testimony to be how that
conversation usually unfolds, which is, you know, if you got
somebody who steals three different little amounts over a fixed
period of time within a window, you add them up, and you get a
bigger amount. So you get to a higher level crime, or you get
from a misdemeanor to a felony, or whatever--which by the way
is not--we used to actually sometimes deliver the charge as
misdemeanors, even though it was a felony amount, because you
could actually get time in the county jail for a misdemeanor,
but you were going to get probation for the low-level felonies.
So, if you wanted to take somebody off the street, you didn't
want to charge the felony. So my point is it is a little more
complicated sometimes than we make it in this town.
But my question for you on aggregation, have you had any
discussions, thoughts, or otherwise on perhaps a little bit of
a different type of aggregation. Is there benefit to having a
conversation about whether aggregating repeated State crimes--
for example, stealing something in interstate commerce, which
almost all of this is--should at some point become a federal
offense, a freestanding federal offense in and of itself so you
can get, not low-level guys, but repeat offenders that do a lot
of small things, into the federal system?
Mr. WICKHAM. That is a great question. And I appreciate
your perspective. Being in the room with experts like you and
hearing you saying that things are a little more complicated or
there is a little more nuance are the best way to pass
information from policymakers, from prosecutors, to our small
business members. So I really appreciate that.
I think what underlies your concern is that oftentimes we
are seeing these networks are so broad that they can--with very
small amounts of people--be able to hit multiple jurisdictions,
not only in the State but outside the State. And is there a
federal aspect to it? We recently had an arrest in California
where there were just nine people hitting one specific big-box
retailer 600 times.
And that is a valid question--are we getting to a point
where there needs to be some sort of national crime? And we
support the CORCA bill, the Combatting Organized Retail Crime
Act, to have a larger federal role here so that we can put the
evolving nature of these types of crimes, whether it be just 9
people or 900 people throughout the United States, under a
federal lens and to right-size the laws to the problem at hand.
So that is something that I really hope that the upcoming
debate on CORCA will bring out.
Mr. SCHMIDT. Because there is a time--I mean, I believe
most of these ought to be dealt with State and local, and the
Feds ought to stay out of them. But you ought to figure out the
ones that are better dealt with under federal law with federal
tools and then give the federal authorities the tools to do the
job as opposed to having to rely on State folks to find them,
arrest them, stop them, ship them to the Feds, and then maybe
you get attention, and maybe you don't get attention, and it is
you know--pick a lane, right? Pick a lane.
So, you know, on that point, you know, one of the things we
did in Kansas on our watch--not really in this space, but a
related financial crime space--we finally got tired of dealing
with our friends in Washington, and we went to the regional
enforcement authorities and a number of the federal law
enforcement agencies. A lot of them were out of Kansas City, as
it happened to be. So they were close for us.
We sat down. We had a great working relationship with these
guys. And we said, ``Hey, you guys come across a whole lot of
lower level crimes in the course of your work that the U.S.
Attorney's Office will never take up because they are not big
enough. Can we enter into an agreement where you will ship them
to us, and we will prosecute them--under State law, which is
the key? Don't make me a federal prosecutor. I am a State guy.
But your law enforcement guys have investigated them and worked
them up.'' And we did that and got a lot of convictions. Is
there any merit in that? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. WICKHAM. I would just like to first commend Kansas for
a lot of innovation and leadership. Wichita had a really big
problem with retail crime in the last few years, and Kansas has
gotten them resources. And then, secondly, having this
conversation, homeland security investigations----
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman's time is up.
Mr. WICKHAM.--is really a critical--and they have regional
offices that can be helpful resources----
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman's time is up.
I now recognize Ms. Goodlander from the great State of the
New Hampshire for 5 minutes.
Ms. GOODLANDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you to our witnesses for being here today for
this really important hearing.
I came here to Congress to really make our country safer,
more prosperous, and more free. Those three pillars work
together, but safety, public safety is really at the core and
the root of the root of what we have got to be doing here.
And, before I came to Congress, I served for years at the
Department of Justice. And one of the things--with all due
respect to county and local officials--and actually the utmost
respect because what I see every day in this work is how
mission critical our State, local, county partners are.
And, Mr. Wickham, you have pointed this out powerfully in
your testimony. Mr. Jackson, you have as well. And I appreciate
all of your service in government and your testimony today.
But, you know, what I saw at the Justice Department and what I
see in this job is partnership--there is a through line, in
this hearing, what I am hearing from all of you, partnership is
at the core of how we combat crime in this country. Whether it
is partnership across government at every level and across
branches, partnerships with the private sector, partnership is
the key.
I want to start by asking about our partnerships with local
law enforcement. And, Mr. Wickham, you pointed out in your
testimony just how important county attorneys are as
gatekeepers in our criminal justice system. When I was at the
Justice Department, I saw how these federal dollars really make
a huge difference in the work that law enforcement is able to
do. We are asking them to do more with less every single day.
And so these grant programs--you know, I serve on the Armed
Services Committee. When I look at the budget of the Department
of Defense, nearly a trillion dollars, and you look at the
Department of Justice's budget, you know, they are being asked
to do more with less every day. So I am deeply concerned about
the millions of dollars in cuts that we have seen already this
year to really successful and important Department of Justice
programs. And billions of dollars in proposed cuts for next
year's budget.
So, Mr. Wickham, can you speak to what you have seen in
your work about the importance of federal programs--as much as
they need to be improved, how important they are as a lifeline
to local law enforcement?
Mr. WICKHAM. I think they are very important, and our
numbers back that up that, when you are asking, ``why is this a
persistent problem over time,'' and people will point back to
the fact that it is underreported. Why is it being
underreported? Our data shows that the majority of those small
businesses and retailers are not reporting it because there is
a lack of law enforcement support. So, if, as Hrag has
testified to, if there isn't an accompanying law enforcement
presence there, that is going to discourage the reporting of
this, and then we will just see repeat offenders. And then that
repeat offender builds up the frustration and increases the
risk of violence.
So resources is really something that we are talking to
both our small businesses and our larger retailers, is
something that is almost always brought up as a second or third
concern.
Ms. GOODLANDER. Well, I appreciate that.
I want to, Ms. Plaggemier, ask you to follow up on some of
the earlier discussion about how we measure the impact of cyber
crime. So, by some estimates, cyber crime is costing us more
than $10 trillion a year. Does that sound like a fair ballpark
estimate? Do we even have a way of estimating the overall
dollar cost?
Ms. PLAGGEMIER. I don't know that we do. I think right now
we are seeing this conflagration of cyber crime scams and
fraud. And, traditionally, those have been handled as, like,
three separate pillars by financial services institutions, by
corporations, even by small businesses. But, if you start to
peel the onion, you are going to see some of the same bad
actors, like the CCP, behind--things that we would have
considered just a run-of-the-mill scam is now highly, highly
organized and has a nation-state actor at the top of the food
chain. So it is hard to estimate.
Ms. GOODLANDER. If you had to give guidance to this
Committee on the most significant thing we could do to combat
cyber crime, what is your recommendation?
Ms. PLAGGEMIER. I think, for small businesses, it is
finding those leverage points to get them to engage before the
bad thing happens. Whether that is through the SBA or other
partnerships, finding a way to encourage more small businesses
to engage--the owner themselves--and not just to think, ``Oh,
my IT guy has it handled,'' because your IT guy might not have
it handled.
Ms. GOODLANDER. Well, I appreciate that. I will be
following up with questions for the record.
But I just note that the Cybersecurity Information Sharing
Act of 2015, an important provision of law that has allowed for
some measure of information sharing, is set to expire at the
end of January, and we would very much welcome all of the
witness' assistance in thinking through how we make sure that
we keep that critical lifeline of information alive. Thank you.
Ms. PLAGGEMIER. I agree. That is very important.
Ms. GOODLANDER. Thank you.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentlelady yields back.
I now recognize Mr. Jack from the great State of Georgia
for 5 minutes.
Mr. JACK. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. As a freshman,
one of the benefits of being a freshman is you get to ask
questions last.
And, as a component of that, I would welcome a chance, Mr.
Wickham, for you--I don't know if you want to continue on what
you were discussing with my colleague, Mr. Schmidt, on some of
those recommendations right before that time expired--but give
you an opportunity to further your comments there.
Mr. WICKHAM. I appreciate your service, Mr. Jack. We have
had very good partnerships with the State of Georgia and
attorney general Carr on combating retail crime. I like to joke
with your attorney general that he was in early on the issue of
verified transactions online. Georgia had that in place before
the Federal INFORM Act which we worked very hard to pass.
The issue of coordination is--seems so basic, but when you
and I have a discussion about jurisdiction--which is so
critical in this area--people's eyes roll back in their heads.
It is just that we have fiefdoms. What is the role of Congress?
What is the role of the policymaker? What is the role of the
prosecutor? And we really need to hit this particular problem
at all angles. We support CORCA, the bill to coordinate efforts
at the national level, and also those individual decisions by
prosecutors on what offenses they are going to charge because
those are equally important to this fight.
Mr. JACK. Thank you very much.
If I could shift to Mr. Kalebjian, I am curious. As we
close this hearing, it is important for us to hear from someone
like yourself who is directly impacted by this, and I welcome
any closing thoughts and comments from you as to how best our
Committee can serve you and serve our constituents combating
these retail crime thefts.
Mr. KALEBJIAN. Thank you, Congressman. I think having me
here speak on behalf of my brothers and sisters and making
everybody aware of the situation is great. I think we need to
put pressure on the States to have commonsense laws. I would
argue that what we had tried in the past has not worked. We
were trying to help people, but by pretending to help, we
actually hurt not only them but the communities and the small
businesses.
We just need to make sure that any crime is considered a
crime no matter how small, to be able to enforce it so we have
some type of stability that will then create a common sense of
community for people, for businesses, and everybody that wants
to do good and live a happy, healthy life.
Mr. JACK. You know, it is interesting. I want to pivot back
to Mr. Wickham. You mentioned that the enforcement mechanism--
you know, I find at least in my community that I serve, you
know, a lot of the local mom-and-pop shops, they suffer from,
you know, that threshold. If it is under a thousand dollars,
under $500, rarely will you see that prosecuted.
I am curious, in addition to CORCA, what other ideas you
may have for us to navigate that because, invariably, it seems
like the criminals figure out what that threshold is and they
pursue their illicit theft right under it.
Mr. WICKHAM. We have talked a lot about aggregation of
laws, and that is something we are very happy to see increased
action by the States to allow either the attorney general or
another prosecuting official to get these multiple offenders
who deliberately cross jurisdictional lines because they know,
one, they can either steal below the minimum or, two, just
commit what appears to be a one-off in a particular
jurisdiction.
But, going back to the example in California, where nine
individuals hit a big-box retailer 600 times, there is a point
at which you have to rule out these as one-offs, and we need to
work together to aggregate these offenses so that we can take
these people off the streets.
Mr. JACK. Thank you very much.
Ms. Plaggemier, I want to give you an opportunity in these
closing 47 seconds as they tick by to offer any closing
thoughts and comments before this Committee.
Ms. PLAGGEMIER. Yeah. One of the ideas that we have
actually considered is--or a question we have asked ourselves
is should collectively small businesses around the country be
considered a critical national infrastructure sector? And I
think there might be some merit into looking into that concept
because, when you look at small businesses holistically, they
are an enormous part of our GDP and our employment and drive a
huge part of the economy.
So I think looking at them like critical national
infrastructure, like we do utilities and financial services
sector and all the other sectors, might be one way to combat
the problem of cyber crime affecting small businesses.
Mr. JACK. Well, thank you all.
And, Mr. Jackson, thank you for your testimony as well. I
worked at the White House. So I have familiarity with that.
And I will yield back to our distinguished Chairman, Mr.
Schmidt.
Mr. SCHMIDT. [Presiding.] Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Cisneros from California for 5
minutes.
Mr. CISNEROS. Thank you very much, and I want to thank our
witnesses for being here today.
Mr. Wickham, welcome back. I am your last individual and
the last set of questions you will get here, so--before we can
wrap up.
But, you know, I don't want to restate the numbers and data
again that has been kind of mentioned throughout this hearing
but simply say that, when State and local governments focus on
crime and gun violence and invest in it, there is a change,
right? Gun violence goes down and crime goes down. It does make
a difference.
Unfortunately, the Trump administration cut--has cut
programs and diverted resources to fight gun violence and crime
and instead has diverted those resources towards immigration--
you know, towards targeting our immigration communities,
immigrant communities that are not only the workforce for many
of these small businesses, but they also shop at small
businesses. And, for many of them, these immigrants are the
entrepreneurs who have started thriving businesses in our
communities. And, with that, I will get to my questions.
Mr. Jackson, according to the Giffords Law Center, multiple
studies show a link between weakened public carry laws and
increased violent crime rates, some indicating an 11 percent to
15 percent increase in homicide and violent crimes after States
deregulate concealed carry. As someone who has worked at both
the federal level and at the community level, how do you
respond to arguments that more guns in public equals less
crime?
Mr. JACKSON. Well, all the studies that we have seen in
recent history have showed that that is false. And, if you need
an example, you can look at what is happening in our southern
States across the country. The States with the weakest gun laws
and the least amount of resources to prevent violence are
seeing the harshest impact of violence, and not just in cities,
but in rural communities who are losing veterans and our elder
folks to moments of crisis after being armed and not having the
resources to remove those firearms at least temporarily.
And so this is huge. We have to make sure we continue to
build on progress to keep guns out of our public spaces and out
of the hands of those who are most at risk or most vulnerable,
and the States that are doing that are seeing tremendous
results. States like Massachusetts, New Jersey, and even
California are seeing historic reductions because of their
strong gun laws combined with those resources.
Mr. CISNEROS. And, just to expand on that, can you explain
how weak gun laws in one State can directly increase shooting
risks for small businesses across State lines?
Mr. JACKSON. Well, yeah. D.C. is a perfect example. We
talked about the terrible incidents that have happened in this
city, including the attacks on even our Armed Services. But 95
percent of the guns that arrive in Washington, D.C., come from
outside of the city, and the same--it is the same case for
Chicago. A third of the illegal guns come from Indiana.
And so we know that a neighboring State with weak gun laws
is a breeding ground for illegal guns to flow into inner cities
and into communities. And, again, it is not just homicides. It
also leads to other forms of violent crime. Whether it is
robbery or theft or even retail crime, many of those guns are
illegally trafficked.
Mr. CISNEROS. Thank you. Now, look, my grandfather was a
World War II veteran who came back from the World War II and
used his VA benefits to start a small business, a market.
Unfortunately--this was a long time ago, but, unfortunately,
that store was robbed one day, and he became a victim of gun
violence and died.
I want to thank you, Mr. Jackson, for sharing your story.
But, based on your understanding, what survivors--what do
survivors need most in the months and years after experiencing
gun violence?
Mr. JACKSON. Yeah. In the short term, we need victim
services. We looked at--when someone is shot, the employer
themselves--the cost for their medical fees is upwards of
$30,000. When I was shot, it cost me around $20,000 in hospital
costs alone.
But those victim service dollars are under siege. In fact,
the Trump administration has already cut $2 billion from the
Crime Victims Fund, and in fact, 24 States are now suing the
Trump administration because they don't have those funds to
support victims of violent crime. And so we start with that as
well as focusing on efforts to prevent violence and then
efforts to make sure we are holding those accountable who cause
that crime.
Mr. CISNEROS. With that, thank you all again for being here
today. Thank you for your answers, and I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. [Presiding.] The gentleman yields back.
And I also would like to thank our witnesses for being here
today and for your testimony.
Without objection, Members have 5 legislative days to
submit additional materials and written questions for the
witnesses to the Chair which will be forwarded to the
witnesses. So I will ask the witnesses to please respond
promptly if that happens.
If there is no further business, without objection, the
Committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:14 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Ms. Lisa Plaggemier did not submit her responses to QFR's
in a timely manner.]
[Hon. Gregory Jackson did not submit his responses to QFR's
in a timely manner.]
A P P E N D I X
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]