[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9328-9330]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          THE FERGUSON EFFECT

  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, last month I was here on the Senate floor 
to address the topic of the riots in Baltimore and the unfortunate and 
completely misguided scapegoating of police officers that has been 
going on far too often in parts of our country today. So I rise again 
today on the same topic because in just the last month or so there have 
been some more very harmful developments in this area.
  One of those developments is the dramatic decline in police arrests 
and a massive increase in violent crime and murders in the city of 
Baltimore. Now, some of my friends would say: Why is the Senator from 
Pennsylvania speaking out so often about these tragic circumstances 
that are happening in Baltimore? Well, first of all, as a U.S. Senator, 
I am concerned with what goes on

[[Page 9329]]

in our entire country, not just my State. Baltimore is a great American 
city that is going through a very difficult period, and we should all 
be concerned about it. Second of all, Baltimore is, of course, less 
than 100 miles away from Pennsylvania. Most importantly, what is 
happening in Baltimore is not happening only in Baltimore. The 
scapegoating of police and the rise of violent crime is happening in 
New York City and in other places as well. And, frankly, it is a threat 
to public safety and security in every city.
  Some, including the police chief of St. Louis, MO, have described 
what has come to be known as the Ferguson effect. This can be traced 
back to the riots and lawlessness that followed the unfortunate death 
of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO, last August. As you will remember, in 
the Ferguson case, Officer Darren Wilson acted in self-defense and shot 
and killed Brown when Brown attacked him while he was resisting arrest. 
In the weeks and months that followed the incident, and after Officer 
Wilson was cleared of wrongdoing, violent protests erupted. Protesters, 
police, and bystanders were injured. Buildings were burned to the 
ground. Property was destroyed. But instead of placing the onus on 
those who were actually causing the havoc, it was portrayed by many as 
if law enforcement was somehow responsible for the violence and unrest. 
Anti-law enforcement sentiments were even expressed by some of the 
local officials in Ferguson. This endorsement of violent protesters 
empowered those who wished to turn peaceful protests into violent 
riots, and it also left the police feeling powerless.
  What has happened in Ferguson since is as tragic as it was 
predictable. The homicide rate in Ferguson increased 47 percent in the 
latter portion of 2014, and robberies in St. Louis County jumped by 82 
percent. This really should be no surprise. This is what happens when a 
city puts these views of ``police as the problem'' into practice, such 
as when a city determines that police are the cause of the violence as 
opposed to the brave defense against it, when a city justifies 
lawlessness, stops law enforcement from doing its job, and allows law 
breakers to go unpunished. The results of those practices are that the 
innocent members of those very communities pay a horrible price.
  These tragic circumstances are now playing out in the city of 
Baltimore. On April 18 of this year, many Baltimore residents began 
peaceful protests over the injury and eventual death of Mr. Freddie 
Gray while he was in police custody. As I mentioned in my speech about 
this last month, in my view, Freddie Gray's death absolutely calls out 
for justice and calls out for a thorough investigation, and the 
judicial process is now proceeding and playing out exactly as it 
should. But what has happened in Baltimore since then is not about 
Freddie Gray.
  A week after the Baltimore protests began, on April 25, they turned 
violent. Over the next 5 days rioters damaged 200 businesses. They set 
fire to a newly constructed senior center, burned down a CVS drugstore 
and cut the fire hose of the firemen who were trying to put out the 
flames, and set fire to 144 cars. And 130 law enforcement officers were 
injured, many seriously. The chaos was so extreme that the city had to 
impose a curfew for 5 days and had to call in 3,000 National Guard 
troops.
  Now with all that mayhem, how did the public officials of Baltimore 
respond? On the first day of the violence, the mayor held a press 
conference in which she legitimized the violence. She said: ``We also 
gave those who wish to destroy space to do that as well.''
  Seriously, space to destroy? Destroying other people's property, 
setting buildings and cars ablaze, attacking police officers? These are 
not legitimate acts, and no mayor should be accommodating those kinds 
of acts with ``space.'' In fact, they are criminal. They are harmful. 
These are exactly the kinds of activities that a mayor should be all 
about stopping and preventing. But that is not all.
  Next the Baltimore police were given a stand-down order, and they 
were forbidden from arresting the looters and the rioters. Then 
officials announced that half of all those arrested for the destruction 
and violence would be released without charges. Mobs would gather 
around police when they tried to enforce the law. All this is a clear 
illustration of the impact that the Ferguson effect is having on 
Baltimore.
  Lawbreakers are in control, and the city's residents are at the mercy 
of the lawbreakers. Law enforcement has been limited because of a lack 
of support from the community and the civic and the political leaders.
  Baltimore has seen the disastrous effects of this policy. The riots 
began to subside on April 30 when six police officers were arrested in 
the death of Mr. Gray, but the violence has continued. The month of May 
that just passed was Baltimore's deadliest month in over 40 years. 
There were 43 homicides in the month of May alone. Shootings have more 
than doubled compared to May of the previous year. These murders have 
nothing to do with anger over the death of Freddie Gray; they have 
everything to do with public policy that disparages police and turns a 
blind eye on criminal activity. You see, in Baltimore in the month of 
May, arrests were nearly 70 percent lower than the same month last 
year.
  Some attempt to portray this whole crisis in racial terms, but 
tragically all too often the victims of this surge in violent crime are 
innocent African Americans who live in cities in which the police are 
no longer permitted to do their jobs.
  Consider the case of an 8-year-old boy police found shot in the head 
on Thursday, May 28 at 8:20 a.m. He was lying dead beside his mother, 
who had also been fatally shot in the head.
  Take the case of 23-year-old Charles Dobbins, who was killed on 
Monday, May 25. Charles' cousin reports that Charles was killed in a 
robbery. Charles worked at BWI. He worked transporting handicapped 
people to and from the terminals. He loved kids. When he graduated from 
high school, he worked for Baltimore city schools as a bus aid 
assisting disabled children.
  Consider the case of 4-year-old Jacele Johnson. She was in a car with 
her teenage cousin when someone opened fire on the car, seriously 
wounding them both.
  These are not just statistics; these are real people who are now lost 
to us. Their lives matter. That 8-year-old boy and his mother, 23-year-
old Charles Dobbins, a little 4-year-old girl, Jacele Johnson, and her 
cousin--their lives matter.
  The Ferguson effect, unfortunately, is not the only phenomenon that 
is at work here. Unfortunately, our President seems to have bought into 
the notion that the police are the problem and the solution is to deny 
them valuable tools.
  This last month, the President announced extensive restrictions on 
when local police may access lifesaving Federal surplus equipment. The 
gear we are talking about is almost all purely defensive. It is riot 
helmets, riot shields, armored personnel transport vehicles. This is 
surplus gear. The Federal Government has already paid for it but has 
decided it has no use for it. It has long been the practice that this 
surplus protective gear has been made available to local police forces.
  Why is this administration making it harder to send this purely 
defensive gear--gear that would otherwise go unused--to insufficiently 
protected police officers across the country? Why would the 
administration do that? Well, they released a report telling us why. 
Here is what they said in their own report. According to this report by 
the administration, the Federal equipment ``could significantly 
undermine community trust'' and that this concern outweighs the 
interest in ``addressing law enforcement needs (that could not 
otherwise be fulfilled).'' President Obama likewise opined that Federal 
equipment ``can sometimes give people a feeling like there's an 
occupying force'' and ``can send the wrong message.''
  So this is the concern that justified keeping lifesaving gear from 
police officers. So, according to the administration, the need to save 
police officers' lives in the line of duty is something that should be 
weighed against and, in fact, sacrificed to the desire to prevent 
distrust or discomfort on the part of

[[Page 9330]]

others. How many police officers' lives are we going to sacrifice? One? 
Twenty? One-hundred? This is outrageous.
  Each day across America, there are 780,000 law enforcement officers 
who put on a badge and uniform, and they answer the call of those in 
need no matter the danger. When others run away, they run to the 
problem. The rest of us in America rely on these law enforcement 
officers doing their job. The people who live in high-crime areas, 
often ethnic minorities living in high-poverty areas of our inner 
cities--these are the folks who most depend on those officers. When 
those officers are held back, we all pay a steep price, but the 
residents of those communities pay the steepest price.
  I just hope we in the Federal Government will stop putting obstacles 
in the way of law enforcement and start supporting them. I hope we as a 
nation will stop scapegoating law enforcement and start thanking them. 
If we fail to reverse the Ferguson effect, what we will see is more 
violent crime and more suffering of our people.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________