[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                    OVERSIGHT HEARING ON POLICING PRACTICES

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               ----------                              

                      THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2019

                               ----------                              

                           Serial No. 116-48

                               ----------                              

         Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
         
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]         


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

                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
47-451                      WASHINGTON : 2022                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------   
 
                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                    JERROLD NADLER, New York, Chair
               MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania, Vice-Chair

ZOE LOFGREN, California              DOUG COLLINS, Georgia, Ranking 
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas                Member
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee               F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., 
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,          Wisconsin
    Georgia                          STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida          LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
KAREN BASS, California               JIM JORDAN, Ohio
CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana        KEN BUCK, Colorado
HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York         JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas
DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island     MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
ERIC SWALWELL, California            MATT GAETZ, Florida
TED LIEU, California                 MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland               ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington          TOM McCLINTOCK, California
VAL BUTLER DEMINGS, Florida          DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
J. LUIS CORREA, California           GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas              BEN CLINE, Virginia
JOE NEGUSE, Colorado                 KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
LUCY McBATH, Georgia                 W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida
GREG STANTON, Arizona
MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas

        PERRY APELBAUM, Majority Staff Director & Chief Counsel
                BRENDAN BELAIR, Minority Staff Director
                                
                                ------                             
                                
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                      Thursday, September 19, 2019

                                                                   Page

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of New York...........................     2
The Honorable Doug Collins, Ranking Member of the Committee on 
  the Judiciary from the State of Georgia........................     5

                               WITNESSES

Gwen Carr, Mother of Eric Garner
  Oral Testimony.................................................    25
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    27
Ronald Davis, Former Director, Office of Community Oriented 
  Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice
  Oral Testimony.................................................    29
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    32
Patrick Yoes, National President, Fraternal Order of Police
  Oral Testimony.................................................    41
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    43
Reverend Al Sharpton, Founder, National Action Network
  Oral Testimony.................................................    63
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    58
James Blake, Former Tennis Professional and Commentator
  Oral Testimony.................................................    63
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    65
Gina Hawkins, Chief of Police, Fayetteville Police Department, 
  National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Professionals
  Oral Testimony.................................................    70
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    72
Heather Mac Donald, Fellow, Manhattan Institute for Policy 
  Research
  Oral Testimony.................................................    76
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    78
Phillip Atiba Goff, Co-Founder and President, Center for Policing 
  Equity
  Oral Testimony.................................................    81
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    84
Lynda Garcia, Policing Campaign Director, The Leadership 
  Conference on Civil & Human Rights
  Oral Testimony.................................................    88
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    90

          LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

Items submitted by the Honorable Doug Collins, Ranking Member of 
  the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Georgia for 
  the record
  A letter from Michael J. Palladino, President, Detectives' 
    Endowment Association, Inc...................................     8
  A letter from William J. Johnson, Executive Director, National 
    Association of Police Organizations, Inc.....................    12
A letter from Hilary O. Shelton, Director & Senior Vice President 
  for Policy and Advocacy, NAACP Washington Bureau, submitted by 
  the Honorable Steve Cohen, a Member of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of Tennessee for the record...........   136
Items submitted by the Honorable Louie Gohmert, a Member of the 
  Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Texas for the 
  record
  A study entitled, ``Officer characteristics and racial 
    disparities in fatal officer-involved shootings,'' 
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).......   140
  An article entitled, ``Diallo Truth, Diallo Falsehood,'' City 
    Journal......................................................   146
  An article entitled, ``Al Sharpton Just Won't Let Racial Wounds 
    Heal,'' Manhattan Institute..................................   168
A tweet by Joe Scarborough, July 29, 2019, submitted by the 
  Honorable Hakeem Jeffries, a Member of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of New York for the record............   190
H. Con. Res. 270, 106th Congress, submitted by the Honorable Matt 
  Gaetz, a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the 
  State of Florida for the record................................   204

                                APPENDIX

Items submitted by the Honorable Matt Gaetz, a Member of the 
  Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Florida for the 
  record
  An article entitled, ``Flashback: Al Sharpton Screaming At A 
    Crowd To `Off The Pigs' And `Crackers,' '' The Daily Wire....   216
  An article entitled, ``Lessons From Rev. Al Sharpton's $4.5 
    Million Tax Bill,'' Forbes...................................   220
  An article entitled, ``Al Sharpton Is Not a Civil-Rights 
    Hero,'' National Review......................................   223
  An article entitled, ``Al Sharpton sells his life story rights 
    for $531,000--to his own charity,'' New York Post............   226
  An article entitled, ``As Sharpton Rose, So Did His Unpaid 
    Taxes,'' The New York Times..................................   230
  An article entitled, ``Democrats' Embrace Of Al Sharpton 
    Exposes Their Hypocrisy,'' The Federalist....................   241
  An article entitled, ``Pols, Press Party with Sharpton and His 
    Corrupt Network,'' The Village Voice.........................   244
  An article entitled, ``Here's who Democrats are praising when 
    they praise Al Sharpton,'' Washington Examiner...............   246
A report entitled, ``Re-imagining Public Safety: Prevent Harm and 
  Lead with the Truth,'' The Justice Collaboratory, Center for 
  Policing Equity, Yale Law School, submitted by Phillip Atiba 
  Goff, Co-Founder and President, Center for Policing Equity.....   249
Items submitted by Heather Mac Donald, Fellow, Manhattan 
  Institute for Policy Research for the record
  A paper entitled, ``Reconciling Results on Racial Differences 
    in Police Shootings,'' Roland G. Fryer, Jr., American 
    Economic Review..............................................   264
  A statement from Heather Mac Donald, Fellow, Manhattan 
    Institute for Policy Research................................   270
  A study entitled, ``Officer characteristics and racial 
    disparities in fatal officer-involved shootings,'' David J. 
    Johnson et al., PNAS.........................................   276
  A paper entitled, ``Reply to Knox and Mummolo: Critique of 
    Johnson et al. (2019),'' David J. Johnson and Joseph Cesario, 
    PNAS.........................................................   282
  A paper entitled, ``Making inferences about racial disparities 
    in police violence,'' Dean Knox and Jonathan Mummolo.........   286
Items submitted by Reverend Al Sharpton, Founder, National Action 
  Network for the record
  A statement from Kadiadou Diallo, Mother of Amadou Diallo......   289
  A statement from Lesley McSpadden, Mother of Michael Brown.....   291
  A statement from Sequita Thompson, Grandmother of Stephon Clark   294
Items submitted by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) for 
  the record
  A paper entitled, ``ACLU of Maryland 2015 Update Regarding 
    Deaths in Police Custody,'' ACLU of Maryland.................   295
  A brief of amici curiae of Maryland and Chaz Slaughter, Jermaul 
    Rondell Robinson, Dexter Williams, Vernon Harvey Spriggs v. 
    State of Maryland............................................   298
  A press release entitled, ``ACLU Update: At Least 21 People 
    Died in Police Custody in Maryland in 2015,'' ACLU of 
    Maryland.....................................................   322
  A statement from the American Civil Liberties Union............   324
  An article entitled, ``Frederick Residents Challenge 
    Unconstitutional Policing of Latinx People by Sheriff Chuck 
    Jenkins,'' ACLU of Maryland..................................   331
  An article entitled, ``Montgomery County Police Hold African-
    American Family for an Hour to Conduct Illegal Search,'' ACLU 
    of Maryland..................................................   335
Items submitted by Lambda Legal for the record
  A report entitled, ``A Roadmap for Change: Federal Policy 
    Recommendations for Addressing the Criminalization of LGBT 
    People and People Living with HIV,'' Center for Gender & 
    Sexuality Law at Columbia Law School.........................   339
  A report entitled, ``Failing to Protect and Serve: Police 
    Department Policies Towards Transgender People,'' National 
    Center for Transgender Equality..............................   423
  A paper entitled, ``Policing and the LGBTQ community,'' 
    National LGBT/HIV Criminal Justice Working Group, Lambda 
    Legal, National Center for Transgender Equality..............   531
  A study entitled, ``Protected and Served?,'' Lambda Legal......   535
  An executive summary of a study entitled, ``Protected and 
    Served?,'' Lambda Legal......................................   543
Items submitted by the National Urban League for the record
  A statement from Marc H. Morial, President and CEO, National 
    Urban League.................................................   561
  A paper entitled, ``10 Point Justice Plan,'' National Urban 
    League Washington Bureau.....................................   563

 
                OVERSIGHT HEARING ON POLICING PRACTICES

                              ----------                              


                      Thursday, September 19, 2019

                        House of Representatives

                       Committee on the Judiciary

                             Washington, DC

    The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:18 a.m., in Room 
2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jerrold Nadler [Chair 
of the Committee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Nadler, Jackson Lee, Cohen, 
Johnson of Georgia, Bass, Richmond, Jeffries, Cicilline, Lieu, 
Raskin, Jayapal, Demings, Correa, Scanlon, Garcia, Neguse, 
McBath, Dean, Mucarsel-Powell, Escobar, Collins, Chabot, 
Gohmert, Jordan, Roby, Gaetz, Johnson of Louisiana, Biggs, 
McClintock, Lesko, Reschenthaler, Cline, and Steube.
    Also Present: Representative Pressley.
    Staff Present: David Greengrass, Senior Counsel; John Doty, 
Senior Advisor; Madeline Strasser, Chief Clerk; Moh Sharma, 
Member Services and Outreach Advisor; Susan Jensen, 
Parliamentarian/Senior Counsel; Charlie Gayle, Oversight 
Counsel; James Park, Chief Counsel; Keenan Keller, Senior 
Counsel; Milagros Cisners, Detailee; Brendan Belair, Minority 
Staff Director; Bobby Parmiter, Minority Deputy Staff Director/
Counsel; Jon Ferro, Minority Parliamentarian/General Counsel; 
Jason Cervenak, Minority Chief Counsel, Crime Subcommittee; 
Erica Barker, Minority Chief Legislative Clerk; and Anthony 
Angeli, Minority DEA Detailee.
    Chair Nadler. The House Committee on the Judiciary will 
come to order.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare 
recesses of the Committee at any time.
    We welcome everyone to this morning's oversight hearing on 
police practices. Before we begin, I want to briefly recognize 
Susan Jensen whose last day on the Committee after more than 20 
years of service is tomorrow. Susan is highly respected on both 
sides of the aisle as one of the preeminent experts on 
bankruptcy, administrative law, and the Federal court system. 
It is a testament to her knowledge and fairness that she worked 
as a counsel and later senior counsel for both Republican and 
Democratic Chairs of this Committee. First hired by former 
Chair Henry Hyde for her expertise in bankruptcy law, Susan 
later moved to the Democratic staff under former Chair and 
Ranking Member John Conyers, where she expanded her portfolio 
to include administrative law, the Federal courts, and ethics 
issues.
    When I was elected to serve as Chair, I also asked Susan to 
serve as the Committee Parliamentarian in addition to her other 
duties. In that capacity, she has worked on nearly every facet 
of Judiciary Committee operations, including preparing 
Committee reports and working across the aisle to develop 
procedures for hearings, markups, and other Committee 
activities.
    Regular viewers of this Committee will recognize her as the 
person sitting behind me, providing me wise counsel.
    Susan has been essential to the operations of this 
Committee, and she has been involved in nearly every piece of 
Committee business over the last year. Although she will be 
leaving the Committee, she will continue in public service as 
she transitions to a position with the Administrative Office of 
the U.S. Courts.
    I wish her well, and I thank her for all her years of 
service to this Committee.
    I now recognize the Ranking Member for any comments he may 
have.
    Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am glad we start off--
again, there are so many things we do agree, and this is one. 
As you just mentioned a minute ago, the two of our faces are on 
the screens of America a great deal. The greatest part about it 
is Susan being behind us to soften the blow and to make sure 
that I behave. Sometimes she will disagree. She can do that and 
make you and I work together. She has been amazing to work 
with. Sometimes people don't know--they know our faces. They 
know the Members, but they see these folks behind us. These 
folks behind us on both sides are amazing. The staffs of 
Democratic and Republican Members have to put up with us, which 
is amazing to start with, but in a Committee role like this, 
Susan, you have been a friend. You are probably the one that I 
hear the name most often. When I say ``John,'' he says, ``Well, 
Susan called.'' I said, ``Was I in trouble?'' She said, ``No.''
    Susan, you are going to be missed, and it will be hard to 
turn around and not see you here. I am so happy for you. The 
beneficiary here is what you have done for the Committee, but 
also what the Administrative Office of the Courts is going to 
do. They are gaining, we are losing, and we acknowledge that.
    With that, I yield back to the Chair.
    Chair Nadler. I thank the gentleman.
    [Applause.]
    Chair Nadler. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I 
will now recognize myself for an opening statement.
    Today's hearing furthers our Committee's longstanding 
commitment to conducting meaningful oversight of State and 
Federal law enforcement, as initiated by former Chair Goodlatte 
and his establishment of the bipartisan Policing Strategies 
Working Group. Together, we have had productive conversations 
about improving relations between law enforcement officers and 
the communities they serve, and today we continue that 
important discussion.
    Without question, the vast majority of law enforcement 
officers serve honorably under difficult conditions, often 
risking and sometimes losing their lives to protect us.
    There have been, however, a disturbing number of incidents 
of excessive force used by police against civilians--many of 
whom were unarmed, most of whom were people of color, and many 
of which resulted in tragic death--that have put incredible 
strain on the relationships between law enforcement and their 
local communities.
    For example, on July 17, 2014, five New York City Police 
Department officers attempted to arrest Eric Garner, a 42-year-
old father of six, for allegedly selling loose cigarettes by 
tackling him to the ground and placing him in an illegal 
chokehold. He repeatedly told the officers, ``I can't 
breathe.'' The officers ignored his pleas as he slipped into 
unconsciousness and death.
    No one was held criminally responsible for Mr. Garner's 
death. We are fortunate to be joined by Mr. Garner's mother, 
Gwen Carr, and I say to you that the criminal justice system 
and the justice system failed you, your son, and your entire 
family.
    Shockingly, the officer responsible for placing Mr. Garner 
in a departmentally banned chokehold remained on the force for 
5 years before being finally fired this past August.
    On September 9, 2015, James Blake, an African American 
professional tennis player, was standing outside the Grand 
Hyatt Hotel in Midtown Manhattan when Officer James Frascatore, 
for no apparent reason, charged him, wrestled him to the 
ground, and placed him in handcuffs.
    New York's Civilian Complaint Review Board, an independent 
agency that reviews complaints of police misconduct, determined 
that Frascatore used excessive force and recommended that the 
officer be punished with departmental disciplinary charges that 
could lead to suspension or dismissal. Instead, his only 
punishment was to lose 5 vacation days.
    Mr. Garner's death and the assault on Mr. Blake, both at 
the hands of police officers sworn to preserve and protect--to 
protect and serve, I should say, should alarm all Americans 
regardless of party, regardless of political ideology, 
regardless of race, religion, or gender. This is not a partisan 
issue. There are no ``sides.''
    Too often, the discourse on police misconduct descends into 
a false dichotomy of us versus them, Black lives versus--blue 
lives versus Black lives. This is a false and dangerous 
dichotomy.
    The United States stands as the world's greatest experiment 
in self-government. The legitimacy and authority of our 
Nation's Government rests upon the consent of its people--we, 
the people. This principle particularly applies to law 
enforcement, which has been given the authority to use deadly 
force under color of law.
    There can be no doubt, unfortunately, that communities of 
color perceive law enforcement as a threat to their everyday 
freedoms. These perceptions go back decades, predating both the 
1994 Los Angeles riots and the 1965 Watts riots, both of which 
were sparked by a lack of accountability for incidents of 
police brutality. These perceptions are reality for African 
Americans. According to the Center for Policing Equity, African 
Americans are two to four times more likely than White 
Americans to have force used against them. For far too long, 
however, pleas for more just and humane treatment from law 
enforcement have often fallen on deaf ears. Claims of police 
misconduct coming from communities of color have often been 
ignored or not believed.
    Mr. Garner's killing and a series of other examples of 
police misconduct against African Americans, many of which were 
caught on video, make it unmistakably clear that claims of 
police misconduct are all too often real. To list just a few:

          On August 5, 2014, John Crawford was shot and killed by a 
        police officer in a Walmart store in Beavercreek, Ohio, for 
        holding a toy BB gun.
          On August 9, 2014, Michael Brown, who was unarmed, was shot 
        and killed by police in Ferguson, Missouri.
          On November 22, 2014, 12-year-old Tamir Rice, who was 
        unarmed, was shot and killed by police in Cleveland, Ohio.
          On April 2, 2015, Eric Harris, who was unarmed, was shot and 
        killed by police in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
          On April 4, 2015, Walter Scott, who was unarmed, was shot and 
        killed by police in North Charleston, South Carolina.
          On April 19, 2015, Freddie Gray, who was unarmed, died in 
        police custody in Baltimore, Maryland.
          On July 6, 2016, Samuel DuBose, who was unarmed, was shot and 
        killed by police in Cincinnati, Ohio.

    The frequency of these killings and the absence of full 
accountability for those responsible sent a message to Members 
of the African American community that Black Lives Do Not 
Matter. Well, let me State clearly for the record that Black 
Lives Matter.
    Our criminal justice system, including our police 
departments, cannot function without African Americans knowing 
that their lives matter equally, and that the system works to 
protect them, just as it does every other citizen.
    We must also be able to put ourselves in the shoes of our 
law enforcement officers. We must be able to celebrate the 
service and sacrifices of our men and women in law enforcement, 
who put their lives on the line day in and day out. We must 
recognize the psychological toll that serving in such an 
inherently dangerous job can take on individual law enforcement 
officers and their families.
    It is also critical that we not paint law enforcement with 
a broad brush. The vast majority of officers execute their jobs 
with dignity, honor, and respect for the citizens they serve 
and protect. Every American should take pride in that. Research 
shows that a small percentage of repeat offenders are 
responsible for the majority of incidents of misconduct.
    Today's hearing presents a unique opportunity for us to 
hear from some of the individuals and families affected by 
police misconduct. So, I want to personally thank Ms. Carr, for 
speaking at this hearing on behalf of her son, and Mr. Blake, 
for sharing his personal story with us.
    Today presents an opportunity for us to explore bipartisan 
solutions to make policing a safer, more fulfilling job for law 
enforcement officers by restoring the trust and goodwill 
between police and the communities they serve. We can reexamine 
the efficacy of reforms advanced by President Obama's Task 
Force on 21st Century Policing and determine what further 
solutions are warranted.
    For example, we should examine whether the incentives 
created by the doctrine of qualified immunity remain useful in 
today's environment. We should consider legislative proposals 
to end racial profiling and to restore trust between law 
enforcement and the community. We should explore ways to 
strengthen data collection on use of force and racial profiling 
so that police departments can measure the practices they 
manage.
    Most important, we can all agree that too many lives are 
put at risk and have been lost in police/citizen encounters, 
and that it is incumbent upon each of us to work together as 
fellow Americans to solve this problem.
    I thank all our Witnesses for appearing, and I look forward 
to their testimony.
    I now recognize the Ranking Member of the Judiciary 
Committee, the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Collins, for his 
opening statement.
    Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that. 
Before I get started, I would like to add to the record a 
letter from the Detectives Endowment Association of New York 
and the National Association of Police Organizations, a letter 
for the record.
    Chair Nadler. Without objection.
    Mr. Collins. Thank you.
    [The information follows:]

    
                       MR. COLLINS FOR THE RECORD

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

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Mr. Collins. I appreciate the Chair's opening, and I think 
you covered a great deal of stuff. For me--and I have a lot of 
notes here in listening--I think one of the things to start out 
this is it is very important that excessive force where used 
ought to be punished. It should not be thought about. It should 
be punished, and it should be put before a proper due process 
procedure and then acted upon quickly. It shouldn't be drug 
out. It should not be--if it is in a minority community, in 
particular, or any other community, it needs to be looked at, 
it needs to be processed, and it needs to be done so in a fair 
way to all involved so that there is justice, there is 
plausibility, so that people do trust.
    The one thing that I do want to focus on--and the Chair did 
a good job, because it is very fair that there is a lot of 
things that have happened in communities that raise a lot of 
concerns. We on this Committee have a job to look over and say, 
``How do we fix this?'' There are actually officers on this 
Committee and I served with, and Ms. Demings is one of those 
who have done this, put on a uniform and been out there.
    I come at it a different position, though, and I do want to 
emphasize--and I think this is why we have this hearing today, 
because I am going to take it from a perspective that I don't 
think anybody wants to see justice go unserved. I think the 
interesting perspective here is my perspective that there is no 
one that wants the bad actors out of law enforcement more than 
law enforcement itself.
    I am the son of a Georgia State trooper. I have made the 
joke before that I fought the law, and the law won every time. 
Okay? Six-foot-two, 250 pounds, and a blue-and-gray uniform 
with a .357 on his hip. I was a scrawny kid from Gainesville. 
Daddy loved us, but he was in Georgia, he understood that, and 
he would come home. I am the little kid that would watch Dad go 
out to work, and when he would come home at night, he would 
come in with his uniform torn, blood on his collar. How does 
that affect an 8-9-year-old kid? That is my Daddy. That is the 
man that to this day--he is 80 years old. He is a big teddy 
bear now because of grandchildren. That is the big factor. This 
is the man that I admire to this day. I am who I am because of 
him.
    What would happen, my Dad was a strong man and is a strong 
man, and one of the interesting things that I always found was 
when something would go wrong with an officer--and we had an 
officer in Georgia who--it was a Georgia State trooper who I 
knew personally who--and I am tempted to call it a mistake. It 
is not. He committed a crime. He had a sexual encounter with 
someone in his custody, and he is in jail. It was rape. He was 
punished for it.
    What is even more amazing to me was my Dad's reaction to 
that. My Dad came home and didn't--he was upset. He was mad. I 
could tell it because--the Chair talked about how this plays 
out in the police force. It played out at home. It played out 
because my dad came home and didn't talk about it. My dad was 
mad as he could be about somebody tarnishing the badge and the 
uniform that he wore. There is no one, I believe honestly, in 
this country who wants bad actors who do bad things out of the 
police force more than the police themselves. As someone who 
understands this and watched my father live it every day when 
he was painted with that broad brush the Chair spoke of that I 
am glad we are not going to use, when he was painted because of 
others, then it affects everybody in a high-risk, many times 
low-reward area.
    Some of the things I would love to see us talk about, the 
blue line--the thin blue line denotes a separation from order 
and chaos. It should always be there. No one in our country 
should not look at our police force and know this is what keeps 
us all safe, no matter who we are or what our beliefs or what 
our color of our skin. It is what keeps us different than the 
rest of the world, a safe orderly police force that carries out 
our laws faithfully and executes them to the best of their 
ability.
    I served on that Police Working Group, and I have been all 
over the country, in Georgia and other places, and we have 
problems in our police force because there is too many folks 
who are bad actors who get pushed from one job to another. Let 
us talk honestly. Let us talk honestly. You have got bad actors 
who can't make it at one job, they go to another police force, 
and it is sort of like, yeah, do you know him? Yeah, okay, 
yeah, he got another job. One police chief is saying, ``Thank 
God,'' the other police chief is saying, ``I don't know what I 
got into.''
    You know why? Because pay, benefits, the issues of 
communities. I live in a rural community in North Georgia. My 
North Georgia kids who live in some of my smaller counties, 
they are going to go to work if they can with the sheriff's 
department, but they are making an amount that they can 40 
miles down the road and double their salary. Or if they can't 
make it in one of those, they know they can go somewhere else 
and get another job, no matter what their record is.
    So, as we come to this hearing today, it does need to be a 
hearing of what I will call the ``terrible acts.'' We need to 
acknowledge them, and we need to admit that justice needs to be 
served. There is nothing about this hearing that all should 
think--that the 98 or 99, whatever percent you want to do, of 
those men and women who wake up every day with only one 
responsibility: Taking care of their communities and taking 
care of the lives that they have. They want nothing more than 
these bad actors to go away so that they can do their job. When 
they lay their head down at night, they know they have done 
their best. They want to be respected because they have done 
their job, and not because somebody else has acted badly. When 
that happens, then our law enforcement understands that we 
respect them, we love them, and we are going to help them where 
they need help. For every other 10-year-old kid who watched 
their Dad go out, not knowing if they are going to come home, 
or when they do come home, they are beat up and battered 
because they were out helping others. When they see their Dad, 
or their Mom, upset because their profession--their calling is 
tarnished by those who would tarnish it, justice must be swift, 
it must be firm, and it must be fairly applied, because if not, 
we lose who we are. We would not be who we are without our 
police force. We now need to help them make it better.
    With that, I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. I thank the gentleman.
    Without objection, all other opening statements will be 
included in the record.
    I want to note that the gentlelady from Massachusetts, Ms. 
Pressley, is here with us, and we thank her for attending.
    I will now introduce today's Witnesses.
    Gwen Carr is the mother of Eric Garner, who died during the 
course of his arrest by police officers. As a result of this 
tragic event, she became a leading advocate for improving 
policing practices and currently facilitates the This Stops 
Today Program through the nonprofit ERIC, Eliminating Racism 
and Inequality Collectively. She is here today to share her 
personal experience.
    Ron Davis served as Director of the U.S. Department of 
Justice's Community Oriented Policing Services Office from 
2013-2017. In December 2014, he was appointed to serve as 
Executive Director of the President's Task Force on 21st 
Century Policing. Prior to serving as COPS Director, he was the 
Chief of Police of East Palo Alto, California, for more than 8 
years and previously served 20 years with the Oakland Police 
Department. Director Davis received his B.A. from Southern 
Illinois University and completed the Senior Executives in 
State and Local Government Program at Harvard University 
Kennedy School of Government.
    Patrick Yoes--I hope I pronounced that right--Captain 
Patrick Yoes is the National President of the Fraternal Order 
of Police. Since 1984, he has served in a variety of roles in 
the St. Charles Sheriff's Office in St. Charles Parish, 
Louisiana, and currently is the Commander of the Special 
Services Department. He earned a Bachelor of Science from 
Mountain State University and an Associate of Science from 
Nichols State University. He is also a graduate of the FBI 
National Academy.
    The Reverend Al Sharpton is the founder and President of 
the National Action Network, a national civil rights advocacy 
organization. He attended Brooklyn College and received an 
honorary Doctorate of Divinity from Bethune-Cookman University, 
Virginia University--Virginia Union University, as well as an 
honorary degree from AP Bible College.
    James Blake is a former tennis professional and currently 
is a correspondent and host for the Tennis Channel. He is also 
the tournament director for the Miami Open, so I suppose we can 
get good tickets. Mr. Blake is here today to speak about his 
personal experiences with law enforcement.
    Gina Hawkins has served more than 30 years in law 
enforcement and is currently the Chief of Police for the 
Fayetteville, North Carolina, Police Department. She also 
serves as an Executive Board Member of the National 
Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives. Chief Hawkins 
received her Bachelor of Science from Georgia State University 
and a Master of Science from Johns Hopkins University. She is 
also a graduate of the FBI National Associates Academy.
    Heather Mac Donald is the Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the 
Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. She has written 
numerous books on the criminal justice system and previously 
clerked for Judge Stephen Reinhardt on the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Ms. Mac Donald received her B.A. 
from Yale University, her M.A. from Clair College, and her J.D. 
from Stanford University Law School.
    Philip Atiba Goff is the co-founder and President of the 
Center for Policing Equity. He also serves as a professor of 
police equity at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. 
Professor Goff has written extensively on policing issues. He 
received his A.B. from Harvard University and his M.A. and 
Ph.D. from Stanford University.
    Finally, Lynda Garcia is the Policing Campaign Director at 
the Leadership Conference on Civil & Human Rights. Before 
joining the Leadership Conference, Ms. Garcia served as a trial 
attorney in the Special Litigation section of the Civil Rights 
Division of the Department of Justice. She also served as a law 
clerk to Judge John Gleeson of the Eastern District of New 
York. Ms. Clark received her B.A. from Hunter College and her 
J.D. from Fordham Law School, my alma mater.
    We welcome all our distinguished Witnesses, and we thank 
them for participating in today's hearing. Now, if you would 
please rise, I will begin by swearing you in.
    Raise your hand, please. Do you swear or affirm under 
penalty of perjury that the testimony you are about to give is 
true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information, 
and belief, so help you God?
    [Response.]
    Chair Nadler. You may be seated. Let the record show the 
witnesses answered in the affirmative.
    Please note that each of your written statements will be 
entered into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, I ask 
that you summarize your testimony in 5 minutes. To help you 
stay within that time, there is a timing light on your table. 
When the light switches from green to yellow, you have 1 minute 
to conclude your testimony. When the light turns red, it 
signals your 5 minutes have expired.
    Ms. Carr, you may begin. Good morning. Turn the mic on and 
speak closely into it.

                     TESTIMONY OF GWEN CARR

    Ms. Carr. Okay. Yes, Chair Nadler and the Members of the 
Judiciary Committee, I thank you for having me this morning. My 
name is Gwen Carr. I am the mother of Eric Garner.
    Five years ago, my beloved son, Eric, was murdered by 
people who were supposed to serve and protect. On July 17th, 
the NYPD police officers approached my son. One of them put him 
in an illegal chokehold. Eric cried out 11 times, ``I can't 
breathe.'' Eleven times he said, ``I can't breathe.'' Those 
officers who were on the scene that day, they didn't seem to 
care.
    Eric died that day. There was a video that captured the 
incident, including the chokehold and my son's cry saying that 
he couldn't breathe. This went viral around the world.
    So, my thought is today, how come no one was held 
accountable, no one was held--and charged for my son's death?
    Not only the officer that murdered my son, but all the 
officers who were on the scene need to stand accountable for 
his death that day. I will never forget that day in July. I got 
up that morning. I spoke to Eric. I spoke to him for about 10 
minutes. Afterwards, we said our good-byes. He said, ``I love 
you, Mom.'' I said, ``I love you, too, Eric.'' Never knowing 
that would be our last and final conversation.
    My entire life was uprooted on that July day. I felt 
helpless, in a dark place, scattered in millions of pieces. It 
is impossible to describe the pain that I felt that day. Losing 
a child is just indescribable, having the burden of finding out 
exactly what happened to your child by the police who was 
responsible for his demise. How is a person supposed to get 
answers? Who do she go to for help?
    Most people can't even comprehend how difficult it is to 
suddenly lose a child and to fight for 5 years and just get an 
ounce of accountability. It has impacted our lives in many 
devastating ways.
    Almost 2 months ago, I lost my husband. He was my partner 
in every sense of the word. He fought the long fight with me. 
Even though he wasn't in front of the cameras, he supported me, 
and he really supported the cause.
    My granddaughter, Erica, she died December 17th of a heart 
attack. She was only 27 years old. When my son was murdered, 
she fought the good fight. She found until she became ill. I 
say she died of a broken heart.
    These are the wounds of the seen and unseen from the police 
brutality. The loss of loved ones and no recourse, no 
accountability. The entire family is traumatized, each and 
every time we enter the courtroom or watch the officer 
responsible for my son's death get a pay raise or hear the 
Department of Justice saying they are not going to seek charges 
or when the officer who is the commanding officer of the person 
who was on the scene when my son was murdered said it was not a 
big deal that Eric laid on the ground DOA.
    I come before you today not only to share my son's story or 
the long quest of justice that we have been seeking for 5 
years, but I urge you to take immediate action to imply the 
national changes and standards towards policing. In 2015, I 
stood with Representative Hakeem Jeffries as we introduced the 
bill that would make chokeholds illegal under the Federal Civil 
Rights Law. Once the bill is reintroduced this season, I call 
for you to support and vote for legislation.
    The Excessive Force Use--the Excessive Use of Force 
Prevention Act of 2019, please vote for it. Violent police have 
no place in this society, so like you said, Mr. Nadler, let's 
get them out of there. No officer who is not there to do his 
job should be on the police force.
    So, again, I ask you to please, please vote on this bill.
    [The statement of Ms. Carr follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chair Nadler. Ms. Carr, thank you for your moving 
testimony. The Committee understands how difficult this was for 
you and has agreed not to subject you to questions out of 
respect. We now invite you to join us for the remainder of the 
hearing in the front row if you so desire.
    Mr. Davis?

                   TESTIMONY OF RONALD DAVIS

    Chief Davis. Good morning, Mr. Chair, Ranking Member 
Collins, and distinguished Committee Members. My name is Ronald 
Davis, and I had the distinct honor of serving as Director of 
the United States Department of Justice Office of Community 
Oriented Policing Services in the Obama Administration. I also 
served as the Executive Director of President Obama's Task 
Force on 21st Century Policing. Before my service in the 
Administration, I spent close to 30 years in local policing--20 
years in the great city of Oakland, California, and 8 years as 
police chief in the great city of East Palo Alto. My testimony 
is based on these perspectives as well as my perspective as a 
Black man and the father of Black children.
    First, as a 20-year police veteran, I know firsthand the 
complex, challenging, and dangerous nature of being a police 
officer. As a police chief, I had to tell a wife that her 
husband, one of my brave police officers, was shot and killed 
in the line of duty. I have personally seen the toll being a 
police officer takes on so many. I have lost friends and 
colleagues to suicide, a threat which is now growing at an 
exponential rate. I have also seen a lot of positive changes in 
policing in areas such as technology, crime reduction, 
diversity training, and in community policing.
    However, as a Black man, I know that despite these efforts, 
significant racial disparities still exist in our policing and 
criminal justice system. I do not believe these disparities 
exist because the profession is full of racists. I believe they 
exist because of structural racism. Many of the systems and 
practices in policing that exist today were designed for the 
1950s and 1960s to enforce discriminatory laws and to impress 
Black Americans. We must acknowledge the history of policing in 
this country and the role that police have played in enforcing 
discriminatory laws and continue to play through draconian 
discriminatory policing practices.
    With that being said, I think it is fair to say that 
positive changes have started, especially through the seminal 
work of President Obama's Task Force on 21st Century Policing. 
So, as I testify today here, Mr. Chair, my concern is not that 
we haven't made progress. My concern is that this Department of 
Justice is attempting to stop this progress by returning to the 
failed policies and practices of the 1980s and 1990s, policies 
that resulted in unequal justice.
    I was a street cop in Oakland during the 1980s and 1990s, 
and I can tell you firsthand that this nostalgia for the 
policing practices of those years is dangerously misplaced. I 
worked in units that made thousands of arrests of mostly young 
men of color while simultaneously watching the homicide rate 
climb to record levels. I also witnessed these practices 
destroy the future of thousands of young men of color without 
unfair sentencing practices. We now know that these practices 
caused significant collateral damage and they did not work. 
What did work in Oakland and some of the other communities was 
community policing and the use of evidence-based programs such 
as Operation Ceasefire and focused deterrent strategies.
    Now, there will be those that will argue that the tactics 
of the 1990s did work, and I guess if taking a lot of people to 
jail and having statistical crime numbers go up and down for a 
couple of months is success, then it worked. In our democracy, 
public safety is not just the absence of crime. It must include 
the presence of justice. This idea, taken from Dr. King's 
quotable piece, must serve as the foundation for how we 
evaluate all policing practices in our criminal justice system.
    As most of you know, the American policing system is by 
design decentralized and controlled locally so that policing 
practices are accountable to local community values and their 
priorities. So, it is especially disheartening to hear the 
Attorney General of the United States attack local mayors and 
prosecutors for their efforts to respond to their local 
community.
    It is also disheartening to hear people, including those in 
this Administration, talk about how they support the men and 
women of law enforcement, yet their actions do not back this 
rhetoric. Don't tell me you support law enforcement and local 
control of police and then threaten to take away grant funding 
if local police refused to enforce Federal immigration laws. 
Don't talk about cops having the resources necessary to do 
their job and then vote against funding for their COPS office 
to hire and train more cops. Do not demand community respect 
for law enforcement while advocating for those very policies 
that you know will destroy their trust.
    I remind you that in New York it was first the officers and 
their union that was against Stop, Question, and Frisk, but it 
was implemented, nonetheless. When it went bad, the officers 
were blamed.
    Now, the Justice Department is advocating for a return to 
those same types of policies. They are ignoring the lessons of 
the past while ignoring the voices from the field, once again 
placing officers and the community in untenable positions. This 
is why this hearing is so important. Through its grant 
programs, technical assistance, and civil rights enforcement, 
the Justice Department can play a role to help the 16,000-
18,000 police agencies in the United States, to make sure that 
whether a department has 4 cops or 40,000 cops, that they have 
access to the best policies and training and practices in the 
country.
    There is much the Federal Government can do to help police, 
and since my time is winding down, let us give you a couple of 
the recommendations.
    The first recommendation is that we rescind the Sessions 
memo and restore the ability for the Civil Rights Department to 
conduct pattern and practice investigations; that we work 
collaboratively with local law enforcement and communities to 
develop and implement new and innovative strategies to enhance 
public safety; that we restore funding to train officers and 
deputies in implicit bias and procedural justice; that we 
increase funding to the National Institute of Justice to expand 
its capacity to conduct research and evaluate crime strategies; 
that we work with local prosecutors instead of criticizing them 
to reform the criminal justice system; that we expand the 
efforts to develop strategies to enhance officer safety and 
wellness; and that we support the End Racial Profiling Act to 
make sure that that accountability is in every department in 
this country.
    As a Black man and as a former cop, I should be able to 
drive anywhere in this country and expect the same 
constitutional treatment, and it should not be depending on how 
big the department is or how much money that they have.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    [The statement of Mr. Davis follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chair Nadler. Thank you.
    Mr. Yoes?

                   TESTIMONY OF PATRICK YOES

    Mr. Yoes. Good morning, Chair Nadler, Ranking Member 
Collins, and distinguished Members of the Committee. I thank 
you for the opportunity to appear here today and speak on 
behalf of the nearly 350,000 members of the Fraternal Order of 
Police. My name is Patrick Yoes, and just over a month ago, I 
was elected President of the National Fraternal Order of 
Police. We are the Nation's oldest and largest law enforcement 
organization. My full testimony has been submitted for the 
record, and with the Chair's permission, I would like to 
summarize it at this point.
    My profession is evolving. Some of these changes are driven 
by technology, others by society, and, of course, by our 
internal efforts to improve public safety and the services we 
provide to our communities.
    As a law enforcement officer, I have spent 35 years of my 
career answering calls for help, and I am here today to let you 
know that the Fraternal Order of Police is ready to sit with 
anyone who genuinely wants to work collectively to help improve 
policing in this country. Today we are calling on you for your 
help.
    Law enforcement officers were once universally respected. 
Parents would tell their children, ``If you need help, find a 
police officer.'' This may no longer be true. Recent events 
indicate that a growing percentage of the general public view 
officers with suspicion and disdain. In far too many cases, it 
has escalated into physical hostility.
    We are public servants. We are not public enemies. We live 
and raise our families in the same communities, and we are 
vested in the success of these communities.
    Our jobs are becoming increasingly dangerous. Ambush 
attacks on law enforcement officers have been increasing over 
the last 8 years, and a recent study by the FBI concluded that 
many of these cases were motivated by the desire to hurt or 
kill a police officer.
    Congress needs to Act to reduce this type of targeted 
violence by once again passing H.R. 1325, the Protect and Serve 
Act, introduced by Representatives Rutherford and Demings. 
Chief, thank you. Thank you for your steadfast support for law 
enforcement.
    This would not make every attack on an officer a Federal 
crime. What it will do is give the U.S. Department of Justice a 
tool in certain limited circumstances to fight back against 
targeted attacks like those that occurred in Dallas, Texas, and 
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, my home State.
    Last year, this Committee passed this legislation 
unanimously, and the House passed it overwhelmingly on a vote 
of 382-35. Passing this legislation again would demonstrate 
that this House supports the men and women in law enforcement 
because right now we are feeling abandoned.
    These changes in attitudes are having an impact on our 
ability of our profession to retain and recruit the very best 
and brightest. Applications for positions in law enforcement 
have decreased this year by as much as 66 percent, leaving too 
many agencies short-shifted and overworked.
    My organization is also working to improve. We have engaged 
with many of the organizations here today, represented here 
today on issues of body cameras and improving law enforcement 
transparency while still protecting privacy rights.
    We have participated in each and every public meeting of 
the President's Task Force on 21st Century Policing, and we 
have supported the majority of that body's findings, and we 
have worked with this Committee to implement many of them. We 
have engaged with the Administration and many of the groups 
represented here today to support the historic FIRST STEP Act. 
While many of our fellow law enforcement organizations chose to 
withhold their support, the FOP was able to support it because 
we were engaged in the conversation and we're committed to 
improving not just our profession, but the criminal justice 
system as a whole. I think everyone can be proud of the results 
because we achieved it by working together.
    Another issue of which there is bipartisan support is 
addressing the issue of mental health and wellness among the 
men and women in law enforcement. Being a police officer is not 
an easy job. It has evolved into including the role of 
therapist, marriage counselor, addiction specialist, and 
spiritual adviser. Some statistics suggest that a police 
officer will experience more traumatic events in a 6-month 
period than an average person will experience in a lifetime. It 
can take a tremendous toll on a person's physical and mental 
well-being. First responders have five times more PTSD and 
depression than a civilian, yet there is little that has been 
done to address this, and the number of police suicides seem to 
be grossly underreported.
    In 2017, there were 140 officers that took their own lives. 
In contrast, in that year 46 officers were fatally shot and 
killed in the line of duty. Police officers run towards danger 
while most runaway. Rather than cast them aside, we have a 
moral and a fiduciary responsibility to fix that which has been 
broken in the service of our communities. The passage of 
legislation like the Law Enforcement Mental Health and Wellness 
Act and the Supporting and Treating of Officers in Crisis Act, 
also known as ``STOIC,'' will certainly help us grapple with 
this issue.
    Finally, my profession must continue to work hard to build 
trust and respect for the communities we protect. There must be 
an open dialogue and a willingness to build consensus. We 
cannot do it alone, and I promise you the Fraternal Order of 
Police will do its part.
    I thank you again for the opportunity to speak here today, 
and I will be available for questions.
    [The statement of Mr. Yoes follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chair Nadler. Thank you.
    Reverend Sharpton?

               TESTIMONY OF REVEREND AL SHARPTON

    Rev. Sharpton. Thank you, Chair Nadler and Ranking Member 
Collins. As President of National Action Network, I have 
submitted my testimony. I would like to summarize it by saying 
that what we really seek is this Committee to begin moving 
toward Federal law and Federal standards that would define 
clearly where the line is in terms of excessive force and take 
this argument from a State and local level to where there is a 
Federal standard that all must abide by.
    What we have seen in the last several years is that in 
different cities where we are called in, in every case we have 
fought, including the Eric Garner case and the cases that we 
have submitted this morning, the mother of Michael Brown has 
submitted a testimony from Ferguson, Missouri, the mother of 
Stephon Clark has submitted testimony, we have seen different 
counties react different ways.
    It reminds me of my studying the early stages of the 1960s 
of the movement for civil rights. Until the Federal Government 
stepped in, they would have to fight State by State, county by 
county, against segregation. So, it was the judgment of Martin 
Luther King, Jr., and others to appeal for Federal Government 
intervention rather than fight in Alabama, then have to fight 
in Georgia, et cetera, et cetera. Unless the Federal Government 
steps in and deals with Federal standards and Federal laws, we 
will be subjected to the local politics and at the whims of 
local back and forward that could differ in another State.
    We need to have Federal law that sets various unimpugned 
standards that will be followed. What do I mean by that? The 
Federal Government determined in several States, several 
counties, several cities that they were going to place certain 
police departments in where the Justice Department would be 
over and supervise them because there was a pattern and 
practice that demonstrated excessive force.
    When this present Administration came in, they immediately 
suspended that in several of those cities. They had not been in 
long enough to make an investigation. So, what was the 
determination that made them decide that they would stop what 
had been determined by the Justice Department before them after 
an investigation? This Committee needs to investigate why 
incoming Attorney General Sessions, upheld now by Barr, 
withheld and removed this designation because it really sends 
the signal that we will allow patterns and practice to continue 
even though a Justice Department--not National Action Network, 
not activists, not Black Lives Matter--the Justice Department 
said there was a pattern.
    I think that we also must have certain standards in terms 
of when we talk about body cameras that they must be regulated 
where they cannot cut the body camera off. We must define--when 
we look at Gwen Carr, 5 years waiting on a decision from the 
Federal Government on whether charges would be brought, and we 
read public notices that the Civil Rights Division wanted to 
charge, but the locals didn't want to charge, for families to 
have to go through this, it shows again how nebulous and 
undefined the Federal laws are. Just as civil rights activists 
had to appeal to the Federal Government 50 years ago to 
intervene and save us from States rights mentality, we need to 
rise above States rights mentality in law enforcement and set 
Federal law.
    I am heartened to hear the head of FOP said that they are 
willing to be at the table in these discussions to see where 
there can be consensus, because we do need consensus. Let me 
repeat: When police are killed, we are standing firmly against 
that. Ms. Carr and I led a march when two policemen were killed 
in New York. Another was killed. The family had invited me to 
see them. Some of the unions got angry. We gave $5,000 for a 
fund with that. We are not anti-police. We are anti-police 
brutality. Even when we stand up when police are killed, we 
have yet to see police unions stand up one time when one of 
their officers killed someone in the community unjustifiably.
    I am not saying every policeman is wrong. The majority of 
them go out with many reasons to wonder whether they will come 
home, and they protect all of us. Those that step outside the 
law must be punished, and the Federal Government must make that 
happen. This is not about anti-police. This is about upholding 
the law. No one should want bad cops punished more than good 
cops whose names are smeared because people get to choke people 
on tape, hearing 11 times, ``I can't breathe,'' and you have 
got to go through 5 years of torment and finally be turned down 
and got to beg, pray, and march to just take his job.
    This is not what America should be about. The President and 
others can excuse it. I think it is on the Congress to act. The 
President says I hate cops. No, I just dislike the President. I 
don't hate cops.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    [Applause.]
    [The statement of Rev. Sharpton follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chair Nadler. Mr. Blake?

                    TESTIMONY OF JAMES BLAKE

    Mr. Blake. Chair Nadler and the Members of the Judiciary 
Committee, thank you all for this opportunity to speak here.
    In 2015, I was standing and waiting for a car at 42nd 
Street in Manhattan outside the Grand Hyatt Hotel, when--I 
believe we have the video--this happened.
    [Video presentation.]

        Video presentation is provided at the following link: https://
        www.dropbox.com/s/k0pmz6cvjj3wbgy/
        Blake%20Video%20Presentation.mp4?dl=0.

    Mr. Blake. This was an extremely vulnerable and infuriating 
situation when I knew I had done nothing wrong, and this is 
entirely an abuse of power and intimidation.
    Luckily for me, I made it out alive. What happened to me 
was unfortunate, but it could have easily been tragic with only 
minor changes. I was aware of that as a possibility as the news 
prior to this had been peppered with cases from Alton Sterling, 
Terence Crutcher, Laquan McDonald, Tamir Rice, and the list 
goes on and on. Those are tragedies that didn't need to happen.
    When I realized how common these occurrences were and still 
are, it forced me into action. I had to speak up to give a 
voice to those that didn't have that option.
    It was amazing to me as I was in New York after this 
incident occurred how many people came up to me with similar 
stories, worse stories, or repeated instances. They didn't have 
the benefit of being able to raise awareness or talk about the 
case on ``Good Morning America'' the next day or meet with the 
mayor and police chief personally. I got those benefits because 
of my previous career as an athlete, and I am fully aware that 
the video showing the attack clear as day made all the 
difference.
    Before anyone was aware of the video, the police department 
was already in damage control and stated that they were 
investigating whether force was used and that I was only in 
cuffs for less than a minute. Had there been no video, it would 
have been my word against the police. I think we all know how 
that goes, no matter how credible the victim is. Because there 
is a video and it entirely backed my account of the incident, 
there was a public apology and meeting with the mayor and 
police chief. That gave me more responsibility to find a way to 
hold the city accountable. Not all are able to have the benefit 
of video evidence when these abuses happen. Even with video 
evidence, too often families of the deceased are undermined and 
not believed.
    As we have tragically seen with clear-cut cases, including 
Eric Garner and Delrawn Small, our police have raised questions 
and alternate theories in spite of what our own eyes see on the 
tape.
    Accountability is an issue that strikes a nerve with me for 
this case. The State that this country is in right now is in a 
crisis with regard to the lack of police accountability. I am 
confident there will be plenty of statistics and data to 
support the lack of accountability many police officers face, 
but I feel compelled just to give my personal experience.
    I was attacked in broad daylight, without even raising a 
hand or making any move to run. This was done by an officer who 
already had numerous complaints and even settlements for 
excessive force. This information was leaked to the press when, 
in my opinion, there should be a national database that is 
public information for all officer abuse and brutality cases.
    So, this led me to believe that the solution should be 
termination from the NYPD. Instead, the hearings for discipline 
were dragged out over nearly 2 years and he lost 5 vacation 
days, one week of work, which I would have lost far more had I 
still been on tour at this time from the injuries sustained. 
All the while he was still collecting his paychecks from the 
city of New York.
    This gets at one of the serious problems I have seen. All 
the consequences are based on past precedent. Past precedent 
has been set from the times when the police were policing 
themselves, so the punishments were far too lenient. When I 
asked the Civilian Complaint Review Board to suggest firing, 
they clearly let me know that they could not and would not do 
that. My status, they feared, would hinder any hope of getting 
that as it would look like preferential treatment for a 
celebrity. I didn't want preferential treatment. I wanted 
justice and what was best for the city.
    I couldn't think of a more appropriate case to set a new 
precedent with. If this is what is supposed to be a deterrent, 
I cannot imagine this would slow anyone with the attitude of 
abusing power and authority. Worse still, it may embolden 
someone to do much worse and feel like they can again get away 
with this behavior. To me, this leaves blood on the hands of 
those in power that can do something to stop these abuses 
before they escalate.
    I am just one example of the harm suffered by countless 
people at the hands of police in this country. There are 
numerous stories that remain untold. Until we know these 
stories, it will be difficult to obtain police reform. The 
Congress must require that States collect data on all police-
community encounters and must ensure that the death in custody 
reporting law, which requires an accounting of deaths in police 
custody, is enforced by the Department of Justice. Congress 
must also advance legislation like the End Racial Profiling 
Act, sponsored by Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, and the 
PRIDE Act, sponsored by Congressman Joaquin Castro. These bills 
require reporting on law enforcement stops, searches, use of 
force, and other interactions.
    I think about my encounter with the NYPD, and I think how 
lucky I was that I had no fight-or-flight response. I think 
about those who weren't so lucky. Eric Garner was put in a 
chokehold by an officer. That chokehold had been banned decades 
earlier but was still used and led to his death. The Congress 
must take up the Excessive Use of Force Prevention Act, 
sponsored by Hakeem Jeffries, which designates the chokehold as 
excessive and prohibited use of for in law enforcement.
    These acts cannot change what happened to me. They can't 
bring back Walter Scott or Ramarley Graham, but they can 
hopefully make a difference in thwarting those types of 
situations before they happen and adding a level of 
accountability if they do happen.
    Thank you all for allowing me to use my voice here to bring 
attention to some possible solutions, to save future lives and 
improve community and police relations.
    [The statement of Mr. Blake follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chair Nadler. Thank you very much.
    Chief Hawkins?

                   TESTIMONY OF GINA HAWKINS

    Chief Hawkins. Committee Chair Nadler, Ranking Member 
Collins, and the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives, 
Committee on the Judiciary, I bring you greetings on behalf of 
the executive board and Members of the National Organization of 
Black Law Enforcement Executives, NOBLE. My name is Gina 
Hawkins, and I am the national treasurer of NOBLE and the Chief 
of Police for the Fayetteville Police Department in 
Fayetteville, North Carolina. It is an honor to be here for 
NOBLE to provide written testimony on the topic of policing 
oversight.
    NOBLE has been at the forefront of promoting police 
accountability since the organization's inception in 1976. Our 
mission is to ensure equity in the Administration of justice 
and the provisions of public service to all communities and to 
serve as the conscience of law enforcement by being committed 
to justice by action. Law enforcement agencies and their 
leaders have a responsibility to ensure that justice is 
administered fairly in all communities.
    NOBLE Member Chiefs and Sheriffs hold ourselves and our 
agencies to a high professional standard, ensuring that 
officers and committees--communities we serve and protect are 
aligned with a priority for everyone's safety. Police are not 
perfect, and we recognize the need to take steps to improve 
service, build trust in our communities, and increase 
operational transparency.
    NOBLE has been actively involved in national-level 
discussions on the key areas of police accountability, use of 
force, and reducing gun violence. There has been universal 
recognition expressed by NOBLE to the United States Department 
of Justice on the importance of maintaining a level of police 
accountability in the form of the previous model of the 
collaborative reform initiatives or similar style Federal 
resources.
    Law enforcement agencies that seek to improve their 
operations use the nationally adopted blueprint for 21st 
century policing and build trust and legitimacy with their 
communities should be afforded the technical assistance 
resources available for improvement without any punitive 
Federal-level recourse.
    Agency leaders should also have access to high-quality 
policing professionals who can assist that agency with 
assessing areas for improvement and developing strategies to 
modernize their police operations and culture to best meet the 
needs of the 21st century policing as already outlined by the 
Department of Justice.
    As Chief of the Fayetteville Police Department, my 
predecessor used the technical assistance resources provided 
through the Collaborative Forum to help the agency develop a 
strategy to improve engagement at all levels of the department, 
and particularly with communities of color. Our department did 
not shy away from taking a close look at our training, traffic 
and pedestrian stop data, and our citizen engagement to 
identify areas of improvement.
    Today we are a better informed and engaged department 
because of the leadership that I and other NOBLE leaders 
provide to their agency, because we recognize the need to 
measure up to the expectation of our communities and ensure 
policing is a credible profession, respected in our communities 
for being honest, trustworthy, fair to everyone we serve and 
protect.
    The Federal Government can play an important role in 
influencing local municipalities and their police agencies to 
address systemic issues that are adversely impacting their 
ability to protect and serve their communities.
    A key assumption that has been challenged by NOBLE is that 
policing organizations can easily police themselves without the 
best practices and following the nationally adopted blueprint 
for 21st century policing.
    As the data shows, it is very rare for the Federal 
Government to enforce a consent decree. Since 1997, there have 
only been 21 court-enforced consent decrees on law enforcement 
agencies compared to the over 18,000 agencies that serve our 
communities. Most law enforcement agencies are filled with 
committed, fair, and honest men and women who put our police 
uniforms on every day with the sole intent of keeping everyone 
safe.
    In the instance where deadly force is used, a third-party 
intervention could be beneficial, and many States and even 
agencies have adopted policies that already implement this 
critical public trust component. The ultimate goal in police 
accountability is to strengthen trust and legitimacy between 
law enforcement and the community. A strong, trustworthy, 
legitimate agency can create a safer environment for law 
enforcement officers and the citizens of that community.
    NOBLE police chiefs and sheriffs provide law enforcement 
agencies leadership to over half of the largest cities in the 
nation. We are committed to effective community policing and 
holding our agencies and officers to the highest standards in 
the policing profession.
    On behalf of the law enforcement leaders of NOBLE, thank 
you for supporting law enforcement and our ability to maintain 
public safety while continuing to build strong relationships 
with our communities. Our Members stand ready to meet the needs 
of our diverse communities.
    Thank you again for this opportunity to provide testimony.
    [The statement of Chief Hawkins follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chair Nadler. Thank you.
    Ms. Mac Donald?

                TESTIMONY OF HEATHER MAC DONALD

    Ms. Mac Donald. Thank you, Chair Nadler, Ranking Member 
Collins, and the Committee Members, for the opportunity to 
speak today. My name is Heather Mac Donald. I am a fellow at 
the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research.
    Since the 1990s, felony crime in the United States has 
dropped 50 percent. 10s of thousands of lives, the majority 
Black and Hispanic, have been saved, closing the life 
expectancy gap between whites and blacks by 17 percent. This 
crime drop was the result of a policing revolution that began 
in New York City in 1994 and spread nationwide.
    Upon taking office, New York Police Commissioner William 
Bratton dared something that few police chiefs had ever risked. 
He publicly set himself a target for crime reduction. Bratton 
not only met his 1-year goal of 10 percent; he beat it with a 
crime decline of 12 percent. The next year, he upped the ante, 
declaring that the New York Police Department would lower crime 
by 15 percent. That year's crime drop locked in at 16 percent.
    The idea that the police would take measurable 
responsibility for public safety was transformative. Bratton 
accomplished his crime rout with three main strategies: Timely 
information, accountability, and proactive policing.
    Deputy Commissioners started demanding crime information in 
real time so that crime patterns could be addressed as they 
first broke out. Top brass held precinct commanders ruthlessly 
accountable for crime in their jurisdictions, and officers on 
the beat were asked to intervene proactively when they observed 
suspicious behavior.
    Broken windows policing was a crucial aspect of this 
policing revolution. It addresses low-level social disorders 
such as loitering, unruly conduct, and public drinking and drug 
use. Broken windows policing is not just a crime strategy, 
however. It is a moral imperative. It is the hardworking, law-
abiding residents of high-crime neighborhoods who beseech the 
police to address street disorder. Go to any police community 
meeting in a high-risk community, and you will hear the good 
people there beg the police to get the drug dealers off the 
streets, to clear the corners of rowdy youth, and to crack down 
on loud music and illegal street parties. The residents know 
that it is out of such unchecked social disorder that more 
serious crime emerges.
    A 2015 Quinnipiac poll found that 61 percent of Black 
voters in New York City wanted the police to issue summonses or 
make arrests in their neighborhood for quality-of-life offenses 
compared to 59 percent of White voters. Should the police 
ignore their voices because the activists say that broken 
windows policing is racist?
    We are also told that we are living through an epidemic of 
racially biased police shootings of Black men. This, too, is 
false. A study published this August in the proceedings of the 
National Academy of Sciences is just the latest research 
undercutting the media narrative about race and police 
shootings. It is the rate of violent crime that determines 
police shootings, the study found. The more frequently officers 
encounter violent suspects from any given racial group, the 
greater the chance that Members of that group will be shot by a 
police officer. In fact, Black civilians are shot less compared 
to whites than their rates of violent crime would predict, the 
study found. If there is a bias on police shootings, it is 
against White civilians.
    The anti-police narrative deflects attention away from 
solving the real criminal justice problem, which is high rates 
of Black victimization. Blacks die of homicide at eight times 
the rate of Whites. The homicide death rate for Black males 
between the ages of 15 and 24 is 16 times higher than that of 
young White men. That is the civil rights problem that should 
most concern us. Those Black victims are killed not by cops, 
not by whites, but by other Blacks. Blacks commit homicide 
nationally at eight times the rate of whites and Hispanics 
combined. In 2017, there were nearly 8,000 Black homicide 
victims, more than all White and homicide victims combined. 
Only 2.8 percent of those Black casualties, the vast majority 
armed with a gun or otherwise dangerous, were killed by a cop.
    The best solution to urban crime is to reconstruct the 
family. That is a long-term project, however. In the meantime, 
the policing revolution that began in New York in the 1990s and 
spread nationwide has given law-abiding residents of high-crime 
communities greater freedom to take their children to school or 
to go to the grocery store without fear, an expectation that is 
the Government's most fundamental obligation to meet.
    Policing today is more professional and restrained than at 
any time in its history, and there is no Government agency more 
dedicated to the proposition that Black lives matter than the 
police. Thank you for your attention, and I look forward to 
your questions.
    [The statement of Ms. Mac Donald follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chair Nadler. Thank you.
    Dr. Goff?

                TESTIMONY OF PHILLIP ATIBA GOFF

    Mr. Goff. Thank you, Chair Nadler, distinguished Members of 
the Judiciary Committee. My name is Phillip Atiba Goff. I am a 
professional nerd. I am also by disposition a relatively 
conflict-averse person. My love of country and my respect for 
this body and mostly my vocation as a scientists will not allow 
me to move to my prepared remarks just yet. I feel I must at 
least correct the record on some statistical elements.
    The fall of crime over the course of the last quarter 
century is just abjectly not in response to police behavior 
alone. If the Members would like further reading on this, I can 
highly recommend Pat Sharkey's book, ``Uneasy Peace,'' which 
identifies quite clearly that community-based anti-violence 
work is a large and underappreciated component of reductions in 
crime, not just police behavior.
    I should say that I believe that a 2015 Quinnipiac poll was 
just cited as evidence perhaps implying that Black people 
actually liked broken windows policing. If memory serves, that 
exact same Quinnipiac poll showed that Black people were 
concerned about racial bias within law enforcement, a trend 
that has escalated over the period of time since 2015. To 
suggest that Black people enjoyed the treatment in New York or 
anyplace else of broken windows policing is what scholars Vesla 
Weaver and Elizabeth Hinton refer to as ``selective hearing''--
hearing only what is convenient to an ideological narrative and 
not the fullness of what those communities are calling for, 
which is safety and justice at the same time, surely not too a 
high a bar for law enforcement.
    Last, in terms of clarification, a study of the proceedings 
of the National Academy of Sciences was just cited, and I have 
to say, first of all, no, that is not what it said. Most 
importantly, the authors of that study have recently 
acknowledged to the rest of the scientific community--or, I 
should say, to some Members of the scientific community that 
their central causal claim is unsupported by the data and 
factually wrong. This Committee hearing should not be a dumping 
ground--
    Chair Nadler. Dr. Goff, we have heard a lot of Witnesses, 
and you are testifying now about a central causal claim. Could 
you just tell us which causal claim you are refuting, I mean, 
what you are talking about?
    Mr. Goff. The study just cited by Ms. Mac Donald in the 
proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences does not show 
that White officers are less or more likely to be involved in 
deadly shootings. It simply does not. It is a correlational 
study, and the authors themselves have admitted to others in 
the scientific community that the central causal claim that 
they make, which is that there is no bias in this, is 
unsupported by the data that have been made public and having 
publicly analyzed by scholars like Jonathan Mummolo at 
Princeton University.
    I do not like to be part of anything that becomes a 
laundromat for junk science, and so I apologize for stepping 
out of my character to say so.
    I would like to thank you for the privilege of being 
invited to testify. May I return to my prepare remarks?
    In my day job, I am a professor--as I said, I am a nerd--at 
John Jay College of Criminal Justice, a position I accepted 
after receiving tenure at UCLA in the psych department. I was a 
witness for the President's Task Force on 21st Century 
Policing, a member of the National Academy of Sciences 
Committee that issued a consensus report on proactive policing, 
and I was one of three leads on the recently concluded 
Department of Justice National Initiative for Building 
Community Trust and Justice. I am likely best known for my work 
with the Center for Policing Equity.
    For the past decade, I have had the pleasure of being the 
President of the Center for Policing Equity, CPE, which is the 
largest research and action organization focused on equity in 
policing, and my testimony today is in that capacity.
    CPE is host to what is, to our knowledge, the largest 
collection of police behavioral data, the National Justice 
Database funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation. Today 
I have been asked to talk about what science has to say about 
public safety.
    So, what does it have to say? Well, first, as with all 
science, it is important that we define the problem correctly. 
If we speak only about the role that law enforcement has in 
keeping communities safe, our conversations will never elevate 
above blaming people or communities for crime rates, public 
mistrust, or violence. Framing should be public safety, not 
just law enforcement, and I cannot echo the comments of Mr. 
Yoes strongly enough. If we are talking about public safety, 
both communities and law enforcement understand the officers 
that patrol these neighborhoods need to be of sound mind; they 
need to have the resources to make sure that mental health and 
officer wellness are central.
    Now, having defined the problem as public safety, what are 
some of the solutions? My colleagues at CPE and at the Yale 
Justice Collaboratory recently articulated five policies rooted 
in science and practice, called for by the large majority of 
our law enforcement partners, that we believe have the best 
chance to produce the biggest returns on law enforcement 
reform.
    They are from the front to the back end of accountability, 
a national model policy for use of force similar to the one 
recently articulated by the Camden Police Department. Previous 
research demonstrates this can reduce harm both by communities 
and officers without elevating risk.
    I see I am out of time because of my impromptu remarks at 
the beginning. Those five policies are also introduced into the 
record, and I would encourage the Members to look at it.
    One last word. Within this, we have heard a lot of talk 
about data. I think it is important that we move the 
conversation from data to analysis. My recently released TED 
talk this past September 9th, we talked about an issue called 
``COMPSTAT for Justice,'' because it is possible to measure 
crime, and Ms. Mac Donald was quite right that COMPSTAT was a 
revolution in policing and helped to reduce crime across the 
country. You can measure not just racial disparities but the 
portion of those disparities for which law enforcement is 
responsible. Importantly, this initiative at CPE and similar 
initiatives elsewhere is at the request of law enforcement. 
They want to know, and they want to lead on that.
    I would be remiss if I got out of here without saying that 
there--or leaving you with the impression there wasn't already 
legislation that has been introduced that moves us forward. 
Obviously, the End Racial Profiling Act sets up the 
infrastructure for that.
    I apologize for going over my time. I thank you for the 
invitation, and I absolutely look forward to your questions.
    [The statement of Mr. Goff follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chair Nadler. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Garcia?

                   TESTIMONY OF LYNDA GARCIA

    Ms. Garcia. Chair Nadler, Ranking Member Collins, and the 
Members of the Committee, my name is Lynda Garcia. I am the 
Director of the Policing Campaign at the Leadership Conference 
Education Fund and the Leadership Conference on Civil & Human 
Rights. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and 
thank you, Chair Nadler, for your leadership in calling this 
hearing to discuss policing best practices.
    Safety is a civil and human right without which society 
cannot thrive and democracy cannot function. Yet. in recent 
years, tragic incidents of police violence have deepened 
distrust in law enforcement and made people feel less safe, 
especially within communities of color.
    It is time to rethink antiquated approaches to public 
safety that rely on criminalization, and which 
disproportionately affect Black and brown people and fail to 
address public health issues. When police practices harm 
communities, it sows mistrust and hinders community engagement, 
both of which are critical for realizing public safety.
    The Federal Government has a role and, indeed, a 
responsibility to promote the values of fairness, equity, 
procedural justice, transparency, and accountability within law 
enforcement agencies. However, the current Administration has 
severely curtailed the Department of Justice's use of consent 
decrees to address police civil rights abuses. It has also 
abandoned collaborative reform efforts of the Office of 
Community Oriented Policing Services under which police 
departments voluntarily sought audits and recommendations to 
improve trust between the public and police. This does a 
disservice both to the communities suffering from systemic 
misconduct and police officers who are left without the tools 
to police safely.
    High-profile police shootings of unarmed Black men and 
other incidents of police misconduct, coupled with the heavy 
enforcement of low-level offenses, have eroded trust in law 
enforcement in many communities, including those that are 
discriminated against on the basis of race, ethnicity, national 
origin, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, 
age, disability, proficiency with the English language, 
immigration status, and housing status. Where people perceive 
the criminal legal system to be arbitrary, biased, and unfair, 
they are less likely to cooperate with police, making us all 
less safe.
    In March of 2019, the Education Fund launched the New Era 
of Public Safety initiative and report to help build trust 
between communities and police departments, restore confidence, 
and reimagine a new paradigm of public safety. While much of 
the reform has happened at the State and local levels, success 
will require the leadership, support, and commitment of the 
Federal Government, including you, Members of Congress. Every 
year Congress provides millions of dollars to law enforcement 
agencies through Federal grant programs to support police. This 
creates a duty for Congress to conduct oversight to ensure that 
funds are not supporting police practices that harm public 
safety and erode community trust. Additionally, this 
responsibility empowers Congress to incentivize police 
departments to adopt 21st century best practices in community 
policing.
    To promote transparency, accountability, and public safety, 
the Leadership Conference offers the following recommendations 
to the Committee:

          Reduce the use of excessive force by passing the Police 
        Exercising Absolute Care with Everyone Act of 2019;
          Prohibit discriminatory policing by passing the End Racial 
        and Religious Profiling Act;
          Mandate robust data collection;
          End the militarization of law enforcement agencies by passing 
        the Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act;
          Promote officer health and well-being by redirecting grant 
        monies towards officer support programs and services;
          Invest in non-police responses to crises by expanding 
        community-based mental health and substance use services;
          Strengthen accountability systems and hold officers 
        accountable for constitutional violations for criminal conduct.

    Congress has the power to bring about transformative 
policing that benefits communities and officers. You can 
provide the support and funding to jurisdictions to implement 
21st century policies and practices that are fair, safe, and 
effective. To realize this vision of public safety, communities 
and police departments must rebuild trust. This new era of 
public safety will require community-driven solutions and 
investment in community services, including education, housing, 
employment, and health care. Our coalition is committed to 
ensuring policing practices that respect the dignity and 
humanity of all people.
    We look forward to working with you until the day these 
reforms are signed into law.
    Thank you.
    [The statement of Ms. Garcia follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chair Nadler. Thank you very much.
    Since one of our Witnesses has specifically commented on 
the testimony of another Witnesses, we have been asked by the 
minority if she can comment, and I will grant 1\1/2\ minutes to 
Ms. Mac Donald for that purpose.
    Ms. Mac Donald. I think it is ironic to call a study in the 
Proceedings in the National Academy of Sciences ``junk 
science.'' The fact that it is correlational means it is not a 
regression analysis1; nevertheless, the findings remain 
accurate; that they found no bias in police shootings. This is 
a finding that has been supported by numerous other studies. In 
a paper from 2017, Harvard economist Roland Fryer found no 
evidence of racial discrimination in shootings. The most 
sophisticated lab study of police shoot/don't shoot decisions 
to date from the University of Washington found that officers 
were three times less likely to shoot unarmed Black suspects 
than unarmed White suspects and took significantly longer to 
decide to shoot unarmed Black suspects than armed White 
suspects.
    Other shoot/don't shoot studies by the University of 
Chicago's Josh Correll have also found no police bias against 
Black civilians.
    I submit that the belief that we are living through an 
epidemic of racially biased police shootings is a creation of 
selective reporting. In 2015, the same year from which the 
Academy of National Sciences report data came from, the White 
victims of fatal police shootings included a 50-year-old 
suspect in a domestic assault in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, who ran 
at the officer with a spoon; a 28-year-old driver in Des 
Moines, Iowa, who exited his car and walked quickly towards an 
officer after a car chase; and a 21-year-old suspect in a 
grocery store robbery in Akron, Ohio, who had escaped on a bike 
and who did not remove his hand from his waistband when ordered 
to do so.
    Had any of these victims been black, the media and 
activists would have jumped on those stories--
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Regular order, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Nadler. Finish the sentence. Your time has expired.
    Ms. Mac Donald. Thank you. --and added their names to the 
roster of victims of police racism. Instead, because they are 
white, they are unknown. Thank you for the opportunity.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you very much. I thank the victim--I am 
sorry. I thank the Witnesses for their testimony, and we will 
now proceed under the 5-minute rule. I will begin by 
recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
    Dr. Goff, my first question is: Dr. Goff, would you comment 
on what we have heard on the evidence, et cetera?
    Mr. Goff. I think I can stay under my time. None of that is 
true. If you would like me to elaborate, I can.
    Chair Nadler. Please do.
    Mr. Goff. The citing of the Roland Fryer study is a study 
that he has confessed to being embarrassed about. It has been 
roundly debunked. To say that--I should also clarify that I 
believe the study you are talking about in terms of the shoot/
don't shoot, Ms. Mac Donald, is not from the University of 
Washington but from Washington State. I believe you are talking 
about Lois James. Everybody who studies that research commented 
on the fact that there was actually no time pressure in the 
simulation. So, with an infinite amount of time when you know 
you are being studied for racial bias, it turns out you can 
correct for it. When you are under time pressure, you have a 
harder time. That is why it didn't replicate the literally 
thousands of other research.
    To say that Josh Correll's research revealed no racial bias 
is simply inaccurate. It absolutely did. There are two forms of 
racial bias that you can see in these studies. One is in the 
error rate, and the other is in terms of the length of time it 
takes. Black suspects were shot more quickly; White armed 
suspects were shot more slowly. It was only the case that there 
was a zero error rate for officers who had been well trained 
and were not in specialty units like the gang and SWAt unit. 
Newer officers had a rate of error that was as high, if not 
higher than regular civilians.
    All of this is beside the point. The idea that there is not 
bias is a--it is just not a serious position when you look at 
the corpus of the science. Where there is bias, why there is 
bias, and what the definition of bias is, that is a worthy 
discussion. We have defined the problems of racism in terms of 
defective hearts and minds, and when you are looking at just 
the hearts and minds of officers, you often do not see it.
    I am not saying that because there are disparities out 
there on the street that officers hold in their heart defective 
character. In fact, it is frequently not that, but situations 
that produce disparate outcomes. So, we need to have a way to 
identify what those situations are and then keep officers out 
of it.
    The incident of Tamir Rice was noted by the Chair earlier. 
The officers were very close to an individual who might have 
had a weapon, but that is, in the words of my chief that I deal 
with, often a situation that can be avoided. The way that you 
avoid that is you don't put your car up next to someone you 
think is armed. You maintain a safe distance.
    Now, the officers don't need to be bigoted in their hearts 
to have engaged in something that was detrimental and a pattern 
of detrimental of findings towards Black communities. So, if we 
define that narrowly as the only problem, again, we cannot 
elevate to solving it.
    So, the question of the science, none of that was right. To 
the question of how we move forward, we should define the 
problem more precisely so that we are not debating whether or 
not officers are good or bad people. That is not scientifically 
nor useful from a policy perspective.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you very much.
    Reverend Sharpton, you have--
    [Applause.]
    Chair Nadler. Reverend Sharpton, you have had experience 
representing multiple victims of police misconduct. Can you 
describe your experience navigating the process for filing and 
pursuing misconduct complaints?
    Rev. Sharpton. I think that the process begins--first, 
National Action Network never gets involved unless we are 
asked, as I said earlier. The first part is to try and pursue 
with the local authorities to convene a grand jury and to deal 
with the possible criminality of the Act and to support the 
family. National Action Network at the same time will provide, 
as Ms. Carr and others will tell you, whatever resources we can 
and whatever help we can because they have been traumatized. 
Even when there are settlements, some of them large, we do not 
even ask for reimbursement. There is nothing in this for us.
    I think that the premise of fighting, though, is, one, 
against those that may discriminate, but also against excessive 
force if it is not a person of color. As I listened to the 
exchange between the nerds on the panel, we are willing to 
fight for whites that are victims of excessive force. There was 
an Orthodox Jewish young man killed by police in New York named 
Gidone Busch. We went out and supported him.
    I am here for White people and Black people and any other 
people that are victims of excessive force. When we talk about 
consent decrees, when we talk about body cameras, when we talk 
about the things that we have said today, Mr. Chair, we are not 
talking about for blacks only. Police ought not violate 
anybody's civil rights, and I think that that is what is 
important.
    [Applause.]
    Chair Nadler. Thank you.
    Chief Davis, before my time expires, in your testimony you 
recommended the Sessions memo be rescinded. Could you describe 
the Sessions memo and describe its effects on policing 
practices and why it should be rescinded?
    Chief Davis. Yes, Mr. Chair. Shortly after taking office as 
the Attorney General, Attorney General Sessions put out a memo 
that curtailed the activities of the Civil Rights Division in 
conducting pattern or practice investigations. That memo also 
stopped the volunteer organizational assessments that Chief 
Hawkins talked about in Fayetteville. The impact of not having 
pattern or practice investigations, not having organizational 
assessment means that departments cannot learn what is 
happening in their own organizations. There is no transparency. 
You can't do an internal review or assessment. In many cases, 
the agencies ask for this review. In fact, Mr. Chair, not only 
was that memo signed that curtailed that activity, there were 
at least four or five reports that were completed as I ended my 
Administration with President Obama that they failed to release 
with communities begging for their release--North Charleston 
with Walter Scott, Fayetteville with Chief Hawkins, a few other 
places, Milwaukee.
    So, this idea that we heard from the Department of Justice 
that we will not author any report that is critical of law 
enforcement is, quite frankly, a disservice to law enforcement. 
When you talk to chiefs around the country, they want to know 
what is inside the organization, what is working, what is not 
working, and to do so.
    My last point I would make about the consent decrees. 
People think about the consent decrees, in my opinion, as 
somehow a detriment to policing or an attack on the officers. 
Consent decrees are usually signed with the city, not the 
police department, because in many cases it is dysfunctional 
city government that also needs oversight, to make sure 
officers have the training, have the equipment, are held 
accountable, that there is a strong disciplinary process. It is 
not just about the police. It is about doing so. Those 20 or 27 
consent decrees, when I was in the Justice Department, have 
served as the foundation for thousands of agencies to 
voluntarily make the changes and implement the best practices.
    As you mentioned, as was mentioned, 16,000 agencies in the 
United States, Mr. Chair, and the average is smaller than 100 
officers. They do not have the capacity to do research and 
development to identify best practices and to understand what 
is happening in the industry. This profession must become a 
profession, and we need to have national coherence, national 
best practices, and the kind of accountability that comes with 
consent decrees.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you very much. My time has expired.
    The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Collins?
    Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    The last conversation, I want to pick up some of this. 
There are a lot of ways we can go with this question, but I am 
one especially serving on this Committee, having the background 
that I do, and I think what you just said was vitally 
important. Community policing is actions that actually work. I 
think they just need to be--in fact, we had to put money back 
in this year because it was getting stripped out. We actually 
put that money back in in the accounting process. So, we 
believe it works. We believe it works on a lot of levels. I 
think this is the part--I am considered, crazily enough, a nerd 
on the panel up here, Mr. Sharpton, because I believe facts 
matter and I believe that we can deal in emotion all day long 
but let us hit some things. Chief, I want to talk--you are in 
Fayetteville, North Carolina, a military community. It is an 
interesting place that is a very nice place. I have been there. 
I am from the Air Force, Pope, of course. The one thing that I 
am seeing a lot of this and we hear this from our smaller 
forces, and you represent the national organization. How do we 
come to grips without a national here is how you do it? Again, 
leaving it to States--how do we come up with a system where we 
are better reporting, as I said in my opening statement, the 
bad actors? Because I am sure that you as chief want the bad 
ones out now. Put them in jail. The Government--how do we do 
that to give the smaller forces, the four-man forces, the five-
man forces--and, again, the big ones always get--New York City 
always--we talk about--but there is an underlying current here 
that we don't talk about because, frankly, they don't have the 
news coverage. How can we do this through the national 
organizations, through others, to help police chiefs, police 
commissioners, others, and just share, get a better quality 
there? It can't be just all money because we are all dealing 
with budgets. You have got to deal in the budget. How do we do 
that? I would love to hear your comments on it.
    Chief Hawkins. Thank you. So, as I mentioned in the 
testimony, all agencies and all departments need to have the 
ability to ask for assistance in examples like the 
Collaborative Forum or any other type of method, to be able to 
ask that question or to be able to ask another professional who 
has figured out some things and provide those resources. That 
is NOBLE's stance in regard to how we can go make those 
requests to do best practices. A small agency may not have the 
resources, but they may have the ability to make a phone call 
to a national organization, saying, ``Can you send someone that 
is near your area?'' Anyone can call me and my agency, and we 
do it all the time. We share information consistently. What did 
you do? What else are you doing? We don't have to reinvent the 
wheel, but we can get some guidelines, and that is what we need 
resources--
    Mr. Collins. Shouldn't there be--and, Patrick, I want you 
to engage in this because I think the two of you is where I 
am--this is where the rubber hits the road kind of thing 
because you are having to deal with it. I am concerned that not 
only they can call and ask questions, but how much are we 
seeing this, I need a new officer, I want to get rid of this 
one, and say, ``Oh, how did he do?'' ``Oh, he is a good guy. I 
have known him awhile.'' Click. So, we are missing this sort 
of--is there any way that we can look at that a little bit 
farther?
    Chief Hawkins. So, I will share a little bit because I am 
from Georgia, actually, and did most of my law enforcement 
career.
    Mr. Collins. What part?
    Chief Hawkins. What Georgia did and what North Carolina 
does as well is the certification. Whenever someone leaves the 
organization, both certifications outline why they left and 
what is going on, so the next organization is well aware of 
what the--any issues going on and why they have been released 
from the organization.
    Mr. Collins. Because in Georgia we have actually seen--it 
has been amazing--they are saying it is the hip-hop. They hip-
hop from one job to the next, the ones that is in trouble, 
they--and it is a consistent pattern.
    Chief Hawkins. It is less and less--
    Mr. Collins. It is getting there. Yes, I agree.
    Patrick, just your thoughts on this?
    Mr. Yoes. Well, I agree with her comments. I can tell you 
my experience is in law enforcement, and when officers leave 
from agency to agency, every agency does an extensive 
background to determine their liability and everything else 
associated with it. So, there are standards in given States 
that determine, that follow that officer, and that 
certification with their State. Everyone for the most part, 
even though every State has its own standards, police 
standards, they are all based on the same criteria. So, they 
are--
    Mr. Collins. Let me stop you because I agree with what you 
said, but I want to take it--let us peel the onion back a 
little bit. That is the way it is supposed to happen. We also 
know if you are down two officers, you have got a five-person 
force, and this person--it is harder sometimes, and you are 
tempted to hire that person in who is already certified. I 
don't have to send him to school. I don't have to pay for their 
schooling. I can get them in now. Yeah, they may have had a 
little bit--he told me that it was a problem with the police 
chief, and I agree the certification in Georgia, we have seen 
this. How do we--I know what the national--the story is. The 
question is, though: How does that seep down to the departments 
that, frankly, don't have the resources to do that and are 
under pressure to keep up their force?
    Chief Hawkins. I can only speak as a leader, as leader of 
NOBLE, as a police chief, that there is no standard that I am 
going to--that is going to weigh out the need to have someone 
qualified and someone who will represent me, because basically 
when I hire someone and all the background investigation is 
done, that is what I--
    Mr. Collins. You and Mr. Yoes, you are the standard, you 
are the gold standards here, and that is why we are asking 
these questions. I think in the bigger picture, I think it 
helps that we don't just look at the bigger picture and we 
don't just discuss the problem. Those are all there. These are 
the real nuts and bolts issue. I think it was Mr. Goff who said 
you have got to find their mentality. There is a temperament to 
being on a police--there is a temperament to a police officer. 
I call it the ``state patrol face.'' They never smile. There is 
a temperament to this because you have got to take it into 
account. You have got to sort of eat everything and go for it 
and still divert it fairly.
    There is a lot more stuff we can discuss here. I am glad we 
are here with it. One quick question. Does your department use 
body cameras?
    Chief Hawkins. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Collins. Have you all had a cost issue, especially with 
storage and other things with that?
    Chief Hawkins. Of course, sir.
    Mr. Collins. That is the biggest one, I think. Again, 
standard practice, we could put out best practices all 
together, but if you have got a small community, that is a 
tough, tough issue right there. I do appreciate the Chair's 
indulgence over time, and I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentlelady from Texas.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me thank the Chair and Ranking Member 
for this hearing, and let me say to all the Witnesses, every 
aspect of your testimony is vital to a construct that we in the 
Judiciary Committee now feel is long overdue, which is a 
policing agenda that acknowledges the basic facts that every 
human being deserves to go home to their family. I hope that 
that is the most striking point that comes. To our friends in 
law enforcement, you are no more diminished than Tamir Rice; 
you are no more diminished than Eric Garner, who, as his loving 
mother said, was her son but he was a father of six and a 
grandfather. Maybe there is a grandchild now that he has missed 
who has been added to this wonderful family.
    I hope that we don't have to take a litmus test to tell you 
all our friends in law enforcement, all our neighbors, all the 
prayers, the time I flew to Dallas when those officers fell in 
their duty, or the many funerals that I have gone to of the men 
and women in blue.
    We won't get together if we fall into the divide of the 
emerging White nationalism and White supremacy and begin to be 
the sea parted and separated from each other.
    So, I want to just ask these questions that would hopefully 
get us to the point that we can resolve this. President Yoes, 
your predecessor, Chuck Canterbury, committed to working with 
the Congress to ensure data collection and reporting on police-
community encounters. Can you make the same commitment by 
ensuring that States and police departments will comply with 
the death in custody reporting law? Will you work with us in 
Congress to advance legislation, really a law enforcement 
agenda that would require data collection, reporting, and other 
police-community encounters and also to end racial profiling?
    Mr. Yoes. Ma'am, we are very much committed to data 
collection. Data collection has some valuable information for 
us to know how to move forward and how to police properly. 
There are a number of agencies that have the ability--they 
collect that data, and it is available now, and it is usable. 
It is something that we can readily put our hands on and help 
us move in the right direction.
    The one concern that we do have is the smaller agencies and 
their capacity to be able to collect that data. Our concern 
would be that agencies that are small having to collect that 
data may in essence affect their ability to be able to police.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. We are going to respond--
    Mr. Yoes. So, to respond to that, I think the important 
thing is the collection of data needs to not be tied to any 
type of grant funding or anything like that because agencies--
that is counterproductive.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Do you believe that law enforcement, 
however, should not engage in racial profiling?
    Mr. Yoes. It is unconstitutional. I absolutely agree.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. So, any legislation that would make that 
simple point you could take back and support?
    Mr. Yoes. I think the Constitution is very clear that it is 
illegal, and it is already law--it is there. It exists.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. So, then it would not be offensive to have 
legislation that provides grants and opportunities to ensure 
that does not happen.
    Mr. Yoes. I think it is unconstitutional. The law has 
already spoken.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I take that as a yes, and I thank you for 
that.
    Let me ask the question to Mr. Blake. Do you--we are 
speechless, but we are also speechless for the lives lost whose 
names I recall. Clearly, you were racially profiled. Did you 
have an encounter, a language, a comment, ask who your name was 
or anything of the sort?
    Mr. Blake. No. I have thought about my opening remarks, but 
I didn't have any sort of fight-or-flight response. I 
actually--if you watch the video closely, which we don't need 
to do again, but I was actually smiling. It was due to my 
previous life as a tennis player, I actually was under the 
misguided opinion that this may have been someone coming to 
give me a hug or a fan in some regard. I find myself extremely 
lucky because I thought what could have possibly happened had I 
thought this was someone coming to do me harm. After speaking 
to many officers since then, I have thought about--I asked them 
what would have happened if I had put my arms up, if I had 
actually made an effort to fight, or if my brother or one of my 
best friends was with me, or my wife, and had acted in any way 
accordingly.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. You were clearly a man of color standing 
in front of a prominent hotel in downtown--in Manhattan.
    Mr. Blake. In Manhattan, 42nd, right outside Grand Central 
Station, and had something else happened, I--
    Ms. Jackson Lee. We need to pass the End Racial Profiling 
among other very important legislative initiatives.
    Mr. Blake. Yes, absolutely, because it happens far too 
often.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Can I ask--thank you.
    Can I ask Dr. Goff--because of my time, let me respect all 
the Witnesses. Let me as well thank Ms. Garcia for indicating 
it is Black and brown, it is women, it is other individuals 
that may be profiled in different ways. When we have 
statistics--and I want Reverend Sharpton to answer this as 
well--that clearly indicates the higher number of African 
Americans that are killed by law enforcement, I think the point 
I want to distinguish is this whole question that comes back to 
us about black-on-black crime. What I hope that we will pass 
H.R. 40, the Commission to Study Reparations, so we can address 
the systemic issue and the impact of slavery.
    As it relates to this bias about, Black people kill 
themselves, make the distinction of color of law, because what 
we are talking about is democracy. We are talking about the 
response. So, if both of you would answer the difference when 
law enforcement is engaged in the likes of Tamir Brown--excuse 
me, Tamir Rice, Walter Scott, Michael Brown, and Eric Garner, 
the color of law. Mr. Goff?
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady's time has expired. The 
Witness may answer the question.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Reverend Sharpton, please. Go ahead, sir.
    Mr. Goff. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman Jackson 
Lee. It is different because it feels different for the 
community. There is a difference between a neighbor who is 
violent, which is, obviously, scary. When the State says it is 
okay, it is terror. We see that both in the responses from 
communities and in the responses, frankly, from law 
enforcement. I think one of the things that you mentioned was 
really important, and I want to put a fine point on the 
statistical element.
    The idea of black-on-black crime is a trope that gets 
raised in response to the idea that is the reason why law 
enforcement is disparately using force in Black communities. As 
distasteful as that may seem, it is a reasonable statistical 
question. It may be that crime or poverty are driving this and 
there is no bias within law enforcement. It is an answerable 
question as well. There is not a study that takes into account 
crime rates, violent or otherwise, poverty rates, school 
achievement, housing inequality that yields anything other than 
those elements, crime and poverty are not sufficient to explain 
racial disparities. Right? So, we should be able to distinguish 
between the two.
    Chair Nadler. Reverend Sharpton, briefly.
    Rev. Sharpton. I would concur with Dr. Goff's answer. I 
would also say for the record that when we had campaigned 
against stop and frisk in New York saying it was 
discriminatory, and the new Administration came in and reduced 
it down to nothing, crime went down. Crime is at an all-time 
low. So, I am not a nerd, but I can read and write. Crime went 
down with stop and frisk gone, and I think that we need to be 
very, very clear about that.
    As far as black-on-black crime, I think in any community 
most people are the victim of people of their same race. The 
problem in the Black community is that we have a fear of cops 
and robbers.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman from Ohio.
    Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I want to thank all 
the Witnesses for appearing here today. We really do appreciate 
it.
    Earlier this year, we held a hearing on universal 
background checks, and a few weeks ago, this Committee held a 
hearing on red flag legislation. As I understand it, next week 
the Committee will hold a hearing on assault weapons and gun 
violence in urban areas. While I appreciate the majority's 
focus on gun control legislation and think it is important that 
this Committee Act in a responsible manner, I think that their 
efforts are misdirected.
    I am a firm believer in the Second amendment rights and 
laws like the ones that are proposed by the majority this year, 
unfortunately, I am afraid would do little more than restrict 
the rights of hardworking, law-abiding gun owners. The majority 
tends to focus on remedies which may sound good but would have 
done little to stop the attacks that we have seen occur in this 
Nation and, unfortunately, I am afraid would do little to do 
anything about future attacks that might occur. We do need to 
work together to find a way that we can make Americans safer.
    Mr. Yoes, let me ask you, first, you are the national 
President of the FOP, the Fraternal Order of Police. Is that 
correct?
    Mr. Yoes. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Chabot. Thank you. I want to thank you for being here 
today and for representing the men and women across America who 
keep us all safe. So, thank you for that.
    In my home State, Ohio, it is a priority that those who 
shouldn't have firearms can't get access to those firearms, and 
that is what we ought to be working on, making sure that those 
people who aren't eligible can't get them. They shouldn't--guns 
should not be in the wrong hands.
    One way that this could be accomplished is to ensure that 
the NICS system, the National Instance Criminal Background 
Check System, is accurate, that it is up to date, that it is 
checked before obtaining a firearm, that it really works. Would 
you agree with that?
    Mr. Yoes. Sir, I think everyone in law enforcement will 
share the same opinion that we would like to take guns out of 
the hands of people who mean harm. We would rather fix that 
rather than respond and explain why it happened. Certainly, we 
are in favor of any process that is going to allow us greater 
ability to be able to do that.
    Our concern is and should be that it should have a strong 
due process for--to work through the issues.
    Mr. Chabot. Thank you. I am sure you are familiar with the 
gunfire detection technology that is out there today and that 
some cities, including my city in Cincinnati is currently 
using. At the Federal level, I would say that we should try to 
help cities and counties invest in that technology to help 
reduce gun violence. In effect, it is a technology where you 
have microphones or you have sound wave equipment who can 
identify very quickly where this shooting is taking place, and 
you can oftentimes get there quickly, stop something that has 
happened, capture a criminal, pick up casings from the gun that 
has been fired.
    Do you have an opinion about that type of--
    Mr. Yoes. Well, my opinion is this: That law enforcement 
officers have a very difficult job, and any tools that we can 
give them to more effectively and efficiently do their job 
should absolutely be a priority. Our effectiveness to be able 
to respond accurately and at times of very stressful or very 
tense situations could mean a matter of life and death. So, any 
tools that we have available to law enforcement absolutely 
should be explored and made available.
    Mr. Chabot. Thank you. Let me follow up. Also, some of our 
most highly trained individuals about how to handle an active 
shooter situation, whether it is in a school or in a place or 
worship or anywhere, are law enforcement people. They are 
trained. They are the most highly trained people in our 
society. They tend to retire after 25 years or whatever. They 
may be in their 50s, and oftentimes are seeking other 
employment. It would seem that you have a source of trained 
people perhaps a school resource officers in the schools. Do 
you have an opinion--have you thought about that?
    Mr. Yoes. Actually, I served as a resource officer for 
several years. Best job I ever had working in the schools, 
interacting with youth, changing attitudes towards law 
enforcement. I absolutely agree that a presence in school plays 
a pivotal role. In my agency, we started it long before it 
became a trend across the country, recognizing that it was 
important to be able to protect the safety of children in 
schools. If you have a safe school environment, you are going 
to have learning occur.
    So, I absolutely totally agree that there are definitely a 
positive element to resource officers, and that is the reason 
why it is across the country. The ability to include other 
people into protecting schools, any efforts we do to protect 
schools and protect the security within schools is well worth 
it.
    Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much. Mr. Chair, my time has 
expired, but I want to thank the Committee and hope that we can 
work together to keep the American people as safe as possible. 
Thank you.
    Chair Nadler. We will certainly do our best to do that, and 
I thank the gentleman.
    The gentleman from Tennessee.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I am deeply concerned about the crisis of trust between law 
enforcement and the communities they serve, and this is true in 
my home city of Memphis, unfortunately, because we are not a 
stranger to the issue. From my perspective there are several 
things we can do here in Congress to help. I have introduced 
bills to address many of these issues.
    One would be a way we could use technology and data to 
improve police-civilian interactions. The Police Camera Act, 
H.R. 120, would provide grants for State and local 
jurisdictions to purchase cameras for their officers. We also 
need to collect data and technology to be useful about policing 
practice, to make law enforcement more responsive and 
responsible, and that is why I have introduced the National 
Statistics on Deadly Force Transparency Act of 2019, which is 
H.R. 119. Communities need to feel safe that law enforcement 
agencies are accountable for their actions, that nobody is 
above the law. It is a shame the Department of Justice, which 
has been effective in the past, has stepped back from providing 
independent review and accountability for police practices. 
Along with Congressman Lacy Clay, we have introduced the Police 
Training and Independent Review Act, H.R. 125, and at this 
point, Mr. Chair, I would like to introduce a letter of support 
for that Act from the NAACP in June of 2019.
    Chair Nadler. Without objection.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir.
    [The information follows:]

    
                        MR. COHEN FOR THE RECORD

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

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Mr. Cohen. I would like to ask Chief Hawkins, what our bill 
would do besides have sensitivity training for policemen about 
minorities and different areas that might not be of their 
history, it would say that a law enforcement agency that would 
determine if there should be a grand jury and determine whether 
or not there should be a prosecution and also prosecute the 
case should come from a jurisdiction other than that from which 
law enforcement came. In my experience, I started my 
professional life after law school as the attorney for the 
police in Memphis. There is no question there is home cooking. 
Many people from law enforcement go and work as investigators 
for the DA, and it is almost like a farm team. So, from my 
perspective, you can't have absolute independence if the DA has 
to go to the grand jury and if the DA indicts a policeman, gets 
a policeman indicted, then the police, as we saw in New York--
and I think it might have been in the--I don't know if it was 
the Garner case or another one, but the police all went out 
against the DA. They protested.
    Chief Hawkins. Are you saying change jurisdictions, sir?
    Mr. Cohen. Yes, ma'am.
    Chief Hawkins. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohen. You think that is a good idea?
    Chief Hawkins. I think so, sir. That gives an unbiased 
ability to gauge the facts of the situation and facts of the 
case and a good review of it.
    Mr. Cohen. Mr. Davis, do you have any thought about that 
type of concept?
    Chief Davis. Yes, sir, I do. There were actually two 
recommendations in the President's Task Force on 21st Century 
Policing. The first was start with the investigation, that it 
should be an investigation by the department not overseeing the 
officer who was involved in the shooting.
    Mr. Cohen. So, it would be a separate total law enforcement 
agency.
    Chief Davis. Yes, so that I as the detective don't have to 
interview or investigate somebody, I worked with for 20 years.
    The second part would be that as prosecutors and police 
work together on a daily basis and just the things necessary to 
make communities safe, that you then go outside that 
jurisdiction as well so that you can have a separate 
jurisdiction look at the prosecution and convene a grand jury. 
So, I would agree with you. This level of independence is 
important to build trust in a process that people think is so 
insular and so designed to benefit the officer, that we need 
that--those were two recommendations from the President's task 
force.
    Mr. Cohen. Now, I am going to take a long shot. You are not 
supposed to ask a question where you don't have an idea of what 
the answer is going to be. The gentleman from the Fraternal 
Order of Police, and I appreciate your position, and I am a 
former IACP person, but do you not see the benefit that might 
give to law enforcement, everybody else seen as a fair shake?
    Mr. Yoes. Sir, I can tell you that I think that a 
collaborative effort on a local level of which law agencies are 
based on local jurisdictions, that that should be the very 
first part of reviewing any systemic problems there are within 
agencies. There are processes within each State of how they 
handle them, and we support those positions that are taken 
within those States to investigate crimes or incidents.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir.
    Later this week, I am going to introduce the Deadly Force 
Independent Review Act, which would provide independent review 
of instances when a Federal law enforcement officer has used 
deadly force. I think that will help, too.
    Reverend Sharpton, what do you think? You have been active 
for many years in all these issues. What do you think are the 
most important reforms that we can take up to try to cure these 
problems? What works best?
    Rev. Sharpton. I think that what we need is clear 
legislation on where the police are dealing with Federal 
charges in excessive force, what raises to the bar of a Federal 
crime. It is too nebulous now.
    Secondly, that we would have some preventative measures in 
like cameras on police that cannot be turned off, and that when 
consent decrees or audit by the Justice Department, they 
remain, even if Administrations change that they remain, and 
that we have constant reviews by the Justice Department with 
the Department there on policing around the country, 
particularly looking for pattern and practices. I think if we 
start with legislation, not just with feel-good programs but 
legislation, so police know they are accountable legislatively, 
not just on a local and State level, which is what had to 
happen with voting and other things in the civil rights era.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir. I yield back the balance of my 
time.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from Texas.
    Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate all the 
Witnesses being here, and I appreciate the comments. It does 
help if you have someone who is not bigoted or prejudiced 
against the person that they are either pursuing or 
investigating. Hopefully at some point our Attorney General 
will have somebody independent review the investigation and the 
determinations made by Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. They 
obviously hate President Trump.
    I was concerned about the exchange by Dr. Goff and Ms. Mac 
Donald. I would offer for the record this from PNAS, from David 
Johnson, Trevor Tress, Nicole Burkel, Carley Taylor, and Joseph 
Cesario, ``Officer characteristics and racial disparities in 
fatal officer-involved shootings.'' I didn't know--I would ask 
that it be made part of the record.
    Also, Ms. Mac Donald, I had a couple of articles from her, 
one about Vow of Truth from City Journal, Summer 1999, and one 
from August 31, 2000, the Manhattan Institute. I offer those 
for the record.
    Chair Nadler. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]

    
                       MR. GOHMERT FOR THE RECORD

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

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Mr. Gohmert. Thank you.
    In looking at this that my staff just brought me from this 
study Ms. Mac Donald references, I don't know the statistics 
underlying this. I am just reading from their results. It said, 
``We find no evidence of anti-black or anti-Hispanic 
disparities across shootings, and White officers are not more 
likely to shoot minority civilians than non-white officers. 
Instead, race-specific crimes strongly predicts civilian race. 
This suggests that increasing diversity among officers by 
itself is unlikely to reduce racial disparity in police 
shootings.''
    I don't know the underlying statistics, but that is what it 
says on its face.
    During my days as a prosecutor, I would ride along with law 
enforcement, and I will never forget, we had a threat in my 
home county against some law enforcement folks, and I went with 
them, and he was supposed to be there and have an arsenal. 
There is nothing like standing outside the door--and I was 4 
years in the Army. We were never in combat, but lots of 
training. Standing outside the door of somebody that has 
threatened to kill the people that you are with, and knowing 
that person has an arsenal, and you are about to go in this 
home, and officers all over the country do that each day; put 
their life at risk so that others hopefully don't end up 
killed.
    As a judge, I can acknowledge not all officers are paragons 
of virtue, but it seemed to me from what I have dealt with 
there is a lower percentage of bad apples in law enforcement 
than there is in the general population, but one of the things 
that was said earlier about the family, I will never forget the 
testimony of a gang leader. He had been convicted of murder. 
His attorney had wisely advised him not to testify. He refused 
the advice of his attorney on sentencing, took the stand, for 
one reason. He made it very clear: ``I am not following my 
lawyer's instruction because I can't sit there anymore. I sat 
through this whole trial and listened to people talk badly 
about my gang.'' He was a gang leader, and he had killed a guy. 
He said, ``I am sick of it. That is my family. I don't know my 
father. My mother is never around. That is my family, and I 
couldn't sit still and not say something about people bad-
mouthing my family.'' Boy, that comes home. He never knew his 
father. He never had a mother that was around. I just can't 
help but think if he had one or both of those, he wouldn't have 
ended up in my courtroom having a jury sentence him to life in 
prison.
    So, there are a lot of things we need to look at, and I 
appreciate the effort of everybody trying to get back to more 
civility. I hope that we don't overlook the importance of the 
family and what it used to be in America.
    I appreciate all your time. I have read your statements and 
thank you for going to the trouble to be here.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from Georgia.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for holding 
this very important hearing, and I want to thank each of the 
Witnesses for their testimony today.
    Let me begin by saying that the men and women who serve in 
law enforcement in this country are for the most part brave, 
dutiful, honorable, and they keep us safe. That is not a 
question for debate.
    However, it is undeniable that there is an epidemic of 
police shootings of unarmed civilians in our country, and by 
failing to recognize that, we are contributing to the problem.
    I want to point out the fact that I believe that police 
should be accountable just as the citizens who they seek to 
hold accountable, and so that means that just as citizens have 
to be questioned by police after an incident happens, why 
should it be that police are protected from having to answer 
questions from law enforcement agencies when they have been 
involved in a police shooting, when they have killed somebody, 
or when they have choked someone to death? Why should they have 
a week of respite with a legal right to not be questioned about 
what happened because they have it in their employment 
agreement, their collective bargaining agreement?
    So, these kinds of rules that insulate police from 
accountability need to be removed from our practice, and that 
is why I am going to be filing what will be called ``The Cool-
off Period Elimination Act,'' so that we can make sure that 
police officers are treated the same way citizen suspects are 
treated.
    With respect to investigating police misconduct, what 
happens is the same agency that employs them is the one that 
does the investigation. The same prosecution authority that 
would prosecute the case is the one that presents the case to a 
grand jury if it ever gets to that point. It usually takes in 
many cases years before it gets to that point, and it is kind 
of lulling the people to sleep, the public to sleep, and then 
you announce with regularity that there will be no prosecution. 
So to alleviate that, for the last couple of terms of Congress, 
I have filed the Grand Jury Reform Act which would cause police 
shootings to be investigated by a State's highest law 
enforcement authority, such as in the case of Georgia, the GBI, 
Georgia Bureau of Investigation, that would assume 
investigatory authority, and also an independent prosecutor 
would be appointed by the Governor to preside over these 
investigations, and then the results would have to be submitted 
to a judge in open court, not a grand jury but a judge in open 
court for a preliminary hearing, and that would be the way that 
these cases are disposed of. So, in the event that a 
jurisdiction declined to prosecute an officer for what might be 
an obvious offense, like the Eric Garner situation, live and on 
camera, choked a man to death, why shouldn't the Federal 
Government be able to prosecute for murder? In that way, you 
bring about some accountability. When police officers are held 
accountable, it sends a strong message to others that they need 
to conform their conduct to society's norms. So, I look forward 
for your support on the Grand Jury Reform Act, the Police 
Accountability Act, and the Cool-Off Period Act.
    Let me last say that a lot of our law enforcement officers 
are straight from the military. When they went to the military 
as young men, they were trained in terms of what kind of 
instinct that they should have. General Mad Dog Mattis got his 
nickname because he said that it was during the training 
session, he told his Marines to be polite, be professional but 
have a plan to kill everybody you meet. He said, ``that a good 
soldier follows orders, but a true warrior wears his enemy's 
skin like a poncho.'' That is the military ethos of going into 
battle. When you have a police officer that has been trained in 
that way, it is hard when that police officer gets trained to 
become a police officer to put aside that instinct that has 
been bred into them and put into operation suddenly a protect 
and serve mentality. So, we have a lot of local law enforcement 
who are military veterans, and they are also Reservists and 
National Guardsmen who are trained to kill, to occupy and 
destroy. They are roaming our streets. More police officers die 
every year of suicide than they do from being killed in the 
line of duty.
    So, our police officers are under a lot of stress out 
there. It plays out in terms of their reactions to situations, 
their overreaction to situation. Then people of color are 
predominantly the victims of that. So, I think we need to take 
a comprehensive view in terms of mental health as it is applied 
to our law enforcement officers.
    With that, I have run out of time. I don't have a chance to 
ask anybody for any feedback, but I want everyone to think 
about that carefully. Let us work on that issue.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    I would like to briefly address the Members of the audience 
in the hearing room today. We welcome you and respect your 
right to be here. We also ask, in turn, for your respect as we 
proceed with the business of the Committee today. It is the 
intention of the Committee to proceed with this hearing, but it 
is against the rules to permit any applause or, for that 
matter, negative applause or disruption of any kind. So please 
refrain.
    The gentleman from Florida?
    Mr. Gaetz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Reverend Sharpton, your current MSNBC coworker Joe 
Scarborough is my former congressman. When Joe Scarborough 
served in the Congress, he had quite a bit to say about your 
contribution to the national discussion. It was in the 106th 
Congress that Joe Scarborough filed House Concurrent Resolution 
270, entitled, ``Condemning the racist and anti-Semitic views 
of the Reverend Al Sharpton.'' Mr. Scarborough's resolution 
began by saying, ``Whereas the Reverend Al Sharpton has 
referred to Members of the Jewish faith as `bloodsucking Jews,' 
and `Jew bastards.' '' So, my question to you is, Mr. 
Scarborough's assertion that you said these things, is that 
true or did you not say those things?
    Rev. Sharpton. They are patently untrue. I never said that.
    Mr. Gaetz. Okay. Well, maybe--
    Rev. Sharpton. Well, can I finish my answer?
    Mr. Gaetz. No. It is actually my time, but you will be 
able--
    Rev. Sharpton. Well, I thought you raised a question. Can I 
answer the question?
    Mr. Gaetz. So, the next question relates to Mr. 
Scarborough's second comment. It says, ``Whereas the 
Reveren''--
    Chair Nadler. Since aspersions were cast on the Witness, 
the Witness will be permitted--
    Voice. Absolutely.
    Mr. Gaetz. No, no. I am sorry, Mr. Chair. Aspersions 
weren't cast. I asked--
    Chair Nadler. Well, the aspersions were--
    Rev. Sharpton. You asked, was it true that I said that?
    Chair Nadler. The Witness will be permitted--
    Mr. Gaetz. I can't reclaim my time, Mr. Chair?
    Chair Nadler. You will have your time. The Witness will be 
permitted to answer.
    Rev. Sharpton. You asked me, was that true? The answer is 
no, that was not true. As you know, Mr. Scarborough and I work 
very closely together. He comes to National Action Network 
conventions. He comes and I think he is a great guy, and we do 
each other's shows often.
    Chair Nadler. Thirty seconds.
    Mr. Gaetz. Mr. Scarborough also said--
    Chair Nadler. Excuse me. The gentleman whose--the 
timekeeper will add 30 seconds to Mr. Gaetz's time.
    Mr. Gaetz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Mr. Chair, parliamentary inquiry.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman will State his parliamentary 
inquiry.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Is it appropriate for a Member of 
the body to personally attack a Witness before the body or 
shall I say can a Congressman's words be taken down in the 
event that he cast aspersions on a Witness?
    Chair Nadler. We ask everyone to adhere to rules of 
decorum.
    The gentleman will proceed.
    Mr. Gaetz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Joe Scarborough then wrote, ``Whereas the Reverend Al 
Sharpton has referred to Members of the Jewish faith as `white 
interlopers' and `diamond merchants.' '' Have you ever referred 
to Members of the Jewish faith as ``white interlopers'' or 
``diamond merchants''?
    Rev. Sharpton. No, sir. I referred to one in Harlem, an 
individual, who I didn't even know was Jewish, as an interloper 
and said I should never refer to his race. I said that I was 
against those that were using apartheid diamonds.
    When I did a funeral in Crown Heights in '91 because we 
were boycotting Oppenheimer and those that were selling 
diamonds from apartheid South Africa and the same sermon--
    Mr. Gaetz. Thank you, but I am going to reclaim my time.
    Rev. Sharpton. I am trying to--
    Mr. Gaetz. Mr. Scarborough--
    Rev. Sharpton. May I finish my answer, sir?
    Mr. Gaetz. No.
    Rev. Sharpton. Am I allowed to finish my answer?
    Mr. Gaetz. I am allowed to reclaim my time.
    Chair Nadler. No.
    Rev. Sharpton. You asked a question, and I am answering it.
    Mr. Gaetz. I have got a few more.
    Rev. Sharpton. I have a few more answers.
    Mr. Gaetz. I can't wait.
    Chair Nadler. Let me--
    Rev. Sharpton. Well, apparently you do because you don't 
want me to answer.
    Mr. Gaetz. No. I want to know if you--
    Rev. Sharpton. So, since you raised it, let me finish.
    Mr. Gaetz. I have a right to ask you questions.
    Rev. Sharpton. I also talked about people--
    Mr. Gaetz. It is more than just a filibuster by talking--
    Rev. Sharpton. --snatching the pocketbooks that are in 
the--
    Mr. Gaetz. That is not how this will work, Reverend.
    Rev. Sharpton. I am not filibustering any--
    Chair Nadler. Everyone will--
    Rev. Sharpton. I am answering your question.
    Chair Nadler. Everyone will suspend, please.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chair? Mr. Chair, a parliamentary 
inquiry.
    Chair Nadler. Everyone will suspend.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Parliamentary inquiry.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady will State her parliamentary 
inquiry.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. It will be in the form of an inquiry 
statement. Is it appropriate for a Member to do a constant 
tirade of attacking the Witness and then not allowing the 
Witness to answer?
    Chair Nadler. My personal opinion is that it is not proper, 
but that is not a proper parliamentary inquiry. The gentleman 
controls the time.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. May I make a statement, a statement to the 
gentleman?
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman controls the time.
    Mr. Gaetz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Scarborough continued, ``Whereas the Reverend Al 
Sharpton led a protest in the Crown Heights neighborhood and 
marched next to a protester with a sign that read, `The White 
Man is the Devil.' '' Did you march next to sign that said--
    Rev. Sharpton. I have no recollection of that. I have 
marched in many things where there were signs that I did or did 
not agree with.
    Mr. Gaetz. Scarborough continues, ``Whereas the Reverend Al 
Sharpton''--
    Rev. Sharpton. I would say that if I was aware of that, I 
would have said--
    Mr. Gaetz. `vicious verbal''--
    I ask that my time--
    Rev. Sharpton. --that I would not want to have that sign.
    Mr. Gaetz. --that I would have the opportunity to question 
the Witness and not just have him continue to--
    Rev. Sharpton. Well, then you shouldn't ask me your 
questions if you don't want an answer.
    Mr. Gaetz. Well, I want to know if you said them. You could 
say, ``Yes'' or ``No.'' You said--
    Rev. Sharpton. No. Well, I cannot answer, Mr. Chair, on 
``Yes'' or ``No'' when he is asking me whether or not--
    Mr. Gaetz. Can I ask for my time? The Witness is obviously 
disrupting the Committee.
    Rev. Sharpton. The Witness. First, this has nothing to do 
with policing.
    Mr. Gaetz. Mr. Chair?
    Rev. Sharpton. Since he wants to--
    Mr. Gaetz. This is outrageous.
    Rev. Sharpton. Since he wants to make the subject Joe 
Scarborough and I, then let me answer it. I had nothing to--
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman--
    Rev. Sharpton. Last, I know, Joe Scarborough nor I are 
Members of the police department or has anything to do with 
excessive force.
    Chair Nadler. What is outrageous, what is outrageous--
    Rev. Sharpton. I would love him to engage this if he lets 
me finish.
    Chair Nadler. What is outrageous is a matter of opinion. 
The gentleman controls the time.
    Mr. Gaetz. Mr. Chair, I ask that it be restored.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman controls the time.
    Mr. Gaetz. So, you are not going to restore my time?
    Chair Nadler. No.
    Mr. Gaetz. Joe Scarborough continues, ``[T]he Reverend Al 
Sharpton's fierce demagoguery incited violence, riots, and 
murder in the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn.'' Do you agree 
or disagree with that statement?
    Rev. Sharpton. As a matter of fact, New York State did an 
extensive study on the Crown Heights riots, said I was not even 
there until after there was death of Yankel Rosenbaum. I was 
not even called by the family until the day after.
    Mr. Gaetz. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will reclaim my time.
    Rev. Sharpton. We had nothing to do with it. When I came to 
Crown Heights--
    Mr. Gaetz. Mr. Sharpton, did you ever refer--
    Rev. Sharpton. --I led the first nonviolent march there.
    Mr. Gaetz. Mr. Chair? Are you really--
    Chair Nadler. Go ahead.
    Mr. Gaetz. Fine. Mr. Sharpton, have you ever referred to 
African Americans who disagree with you as ``cocktail-sip 
Negroes''?
    Rev. Sharpton. I have.
    Mr. Gaetz. Have you ever referred to African Americans who 
disagree with you--
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman will State his parliamentary 
inquiry.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. If a Congress person is 
persistently questioning a Witness about a non-germane matter, 
is it proper--
    [Applause.]
    Chair Nadler. I think the gentleman makes a fair point, but 
the rules provide Members with very wide latitude.
    Mr. Gohmert. Parliamentary inquiry.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman will State his parliamentary 
inquiry.
    Mr. Gohmert. Does it violate any rules of decorum for a 
Member to read specifically verbatim from a document filed in 
the Congressional Records as a resolution?
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman from Florida may proceed.
    Mr. Gaetz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Have you ever referred to African Americans who disagree 
with you as ``yellow'' and then the ``n'' word?
    Rev. Sharpton. I don't know that I have referred to people 
as names. I don't know if it is because they disagree with me, 
but I have said things about blacks and whites. I am glad you 
made it clear that I don't only attack whites. Thank you for 
that.
    Mr. Gaetz. Have you ever referred to African Americans who 
disagree with you as ``Negro militants''?
    Rev. Sharpton. I didn't know that was a derogatory 
statement.
    Mr. Gaetz. I didn't say it was, just asked if you used it.
    Rev. Sharpton. I don't know. I don't recall.
    Mr. Gaetz. Have you ever said, ``If the Jews want to get it 
on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my 
house''?
    Rev. Sharpton. No. There was a man named Mordecai Levy who 
had been charged with some terrorist acts who threatened to 
march on me and several activists in New Jersey. He said he was 
going to come deal with my hairstyle. In referring to his 
hairstyle, I said for him to pin it and come on.
    Mr. Gaetz. So, you did say it?
    Rev. Sharpton. I was not talking about all Jews, no.
    Mr. Gaetz. You said those words?
    Rev. Sharpton. No. I said about getting Mordecai Levy.
    Mr. Gaetz. Okay. Have you said, ``I am in Hell already. I 
am in Israel''?
    Rev. Sharpton. Yeah, because I had been threatened that if 
I came over to deal with a--
    Mr. Gaetz. One more question.
    Rev. Sharpton. No. Well, first--
    Mr. Gaetz. Did you say the words, ``I believe in''--
    Rev. Sharpton. I believe that you can deal with the decorum 
of the Congress, but you cannot disrespect a Witness. You 
cannot ask a question and tell the Witness he can't answer the 
question.
    Chair Nadler. The Witness is permitted to answer the 
question.
    Mr. Gaetz. You are welcome to answer them. How about--
    Rev. Sharpton. Well, then let me answer, sir.
    Mr. Gaetz. Okay. Did you ever say the words--
    Rev. Sharpton. Let me answer because I am enjoying this.
    Voice. Mr. Chair, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
    Rev. Sharpton. I think that you have--
    Mr. Gaetz. We are in a Committee about policing.
    Rev. Sharpton. Don't get upset. Calm down. Calm down.
    Mr. Gaetz. I am calm.
    Rev. Sharpton. You are yelling. You are yelling. You are 
yelling. Calm down.
    Mr. Gaetz. Did you talk about offing--?
    Rev. Sharpton. I am trying to answer your last question.
    Chair Nadler. The Witness would be permitted--the time of 
the gentleman has expired. The Witness may answer the question.
    Mr. Gaetz. The one about offing the pigs, answer that one.
    Chair Nadler. The Witness may answer the question. The time 
of the gentleman has expired. The Witness may answer the 
question.
    Rev. Sharpton. The question that he raised, what I was 
saying was clearly that I have disagreed with blacks and 
whites. I have used the language graphically sometimes to do 
so, some of which I have grown beyond but none of which shows 
anything other than I am an equal-opportunity attacker.
    Voice. Mr. Chair, a parliamentary--
    Rev. Sharpton. I am glad that Joe Scarborough and I both 
are equal-opportunity attackers that now work together.
    Mr. Gaetz. Mr. Chair, I ask to be recognized for a 
unanimous consent request.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman will State his unanimous 
consent request.
    Mr. Gaetz. Mr. Chair, I seek unanimous consent to introduce 
the Scarborough resolution as a part of the committee's 
permanent record.
    Chair Nadler. I object.
    The gentleman from Georgia is recognized.
    Mr. Gaetz. Mr. Chair, I have a motion. Now that--
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized.
    Mr. Richmond. Fox audition is over? Who? Who?
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman from Louisiana.
    Mr. Richmond. Okay. So, the audition is over? Okay. Just 
checking.
    Mr. Chair, now that we just wasted five minutes that had 
nothing to do with the subject of how we make our communities 
safer, both Black and white, how we make our officers safe, I 
want to start with Mr. Yoes, who is in my district and 
represents Fraternal Order of Police. We met with Fraternal 
Order of Police last year, and I brought in NOBLE and Fraternal 
Order of Police. I thought we had a good meeting. What I want 
to ask on the record is that we come together. Those 
recommendations from the 21st Century policing model, those 
that the FOP is behind, can you all submit to us the 
recommendations you are for, the ones you are against, and the 
ones you are neutral on so we will know where there is common 
ground? I think that NOBLE has adopted the entire report. If 
you all could give us that, then at least we know where the two 
law enforcement groups stand on the 21st Century policing 
recommendations.
    Mr. Yoes. Yes, sir, I absolutely can forward that 
information to you. It is documented. It is prepared. I can 
send it. We can make it part of the record.
    Mr. Richmond. Okay. Second, Dr. Goff lists some 
recommendations in his testimony. I don't know if you have 
them, but if you could, there are five recommendations. If you 
can look at those recommendations and get us your position on 
those five, it would be very helpful.
    Second, part of your testimony, you talked about making it 
a Federal offense to target law enforcement officers, which I 
agree with. You use as an example Dallas and Baton Rouge. Baton 
Rouge was very personal to us. I want to point out that this 
not necessarily apples to apples when you talk about community-
police relations. Baton Rouge was Sovereign Citizens. They are 
a domestic terrorist organization. They target police officers.
    So, that has a lot less to do with community relationships 
with the police, and I didn't want it to seem that way. Since 
you did mention Baton Rouge, which was Sovereign Citizens, then 
I will point you next door to St. John Parish, where we lost 
two officers and two were ambushed. The thing that both of 
those incidents have in common besides the loss of multiple 
police officers is that they were outgunned by the perpetrator. 
Both of them had AR-15s. So, when we mention assault weapons 
ban, let me just ask you very specifically. In those cases, 
were the police outgunned by the perpetrator?
    Mr. Yoes. Well, sir, thank you for bringing up Brandon 
Nielsen and Jeremy Triche. Both were friends of mine. That 
incident occurred probably 10-15 minutes from my house. So, I 
am very much familiar with it. Yes, I would say, absolutely, 
they were armed with weapons, and the officers were not 
prepared for what happened.
    Mr. Richmond. The Baton Rouge incident was also an AR-15. 
So, when we talk about assault weapons, we are really talking 
about weapons of mass destruction and the question of whether 
they have a place on the streets in a civilized community. I 
won't put you on record as to whether you are for or against 
assault-weapons ban, but I would like to ask you, are you 
troubled by the fact that ordinary citizens are more equipped 
and more weaponized than the police officers in many incidents?
    Mr. Yoes. Well, as a law enforcement officer, I am very 
much concerned about our ability and the safety of officers.
    Mr. Richmond. The other thing I would point to--and, Dr. 
Goff, I will ask this question of you or maybe even Chief 
Hawkins--the mentality that we have in terms of police, so we 
have a warrior mentality. We can have a guardian mentality. In 
the warrior mentality, you are rewarded in terms of how many 
stops you make, how many tickets you issue, how many summonses 
you give out, which encourages that mindset. Then in the 
guardian mentality, it is how often you engage with citizens.
    So, in that setting--and my time is going to run out, and I 
hope you will comment on it. Let us take the Alton Sterling 
case as an example. He sold DVDs outside the same store for 
years. So, when there is a call to a police officer to come 
check on what Alton is doing, whether he may or may not have a 
weapon, where is the breakdown in community policing that the 
police that responds to that does not know who he is? I mean, 
if you are the same person in front of the same store, do the 
police officers never go get a sandwich or a drink from those 
community stores? Where is the breakdown? I am trying to 
understand why did the police not already have a relationship 
with a guy who has a business set up in front of another 
business for years? So, if you could answer that in terms of 
community policing, guardian relationship versus warrior? With 
that, I yield back the rest of my time.
    Chief Hawkins. I will start really quick. In regard to the 
guardian and warrior mentality, the way that you described it, 
sir, I am going to have--I believe in both, but I don't believe 
in that perspective. I believe it as the citizen that I am of 
my community. I am a mother. So, I am going to be a warrior if 
someone comes for my family. In that aspect, law enforcement 
are warriors in protecting the community. That is what we train 
for. That is what we prepare for, so that if we are outgunned, 
we have better tactics. The mindset is a dual relationship of 
the guardian. We are there because we are protective.
    Having community policing is more than just the notion. It 
is the actual engagement of knowing everyone that is selling 
anything in that community, whether it be ice cream or a t-
shirt. So, that comes with a lot of work. That comes with 
effort and action and proactive action, proactive discussion in 
addressing all the biases, all the theories that you may have 
in your mind personally in training and even acknowledging the 
fact that you might personally have some type of belief, but 
when we address it and we have talks and discussions with our 
community Members and actually bring out hardcore discussions, 
then we can get past it. So, I believe personally that there is 
the ability to have a warrior and guardian mindset work 
together.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman's times has expired. On 
consideration, I will withdraw my previous objection. The 
document will be entered into the record. The gentleman from 
Ohio is recognized.
    Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield to the gentleman 
from Florida, Mr. Gaetz.
    Mr. Gaetz. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I was 
reviewing your prior answer, Rev. Sharpton. You are cited in a 
Washington Examiner piece July 30, 2019, as having said, ``If 
the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes 
back and come over to my house.''
    In your response to my question, you said you were just 
referring to one person. So here is my very limited question 
for you, Reverend. Were you misquoted in this story when you 
say, ``the Jews'' and ``them,'' referring to a plural group of 
people, rather than one person you seem to have a grievance 
with.
    Rev. Sharpton. Am I allowed to answer? My name is Sharpton, 
not Lewandowski. I will answer the question if I am allowed.
    Chair Nadler. Please.
    Mr. Gaetz. We know your name, sir. Go ahead and answer.
    Rev. Sharpton. You then know that I am going to answer. I 
was referring to an incident and a threat to come to my home by 
Mordecai Levy and to the homes of I believe of Rev. Daughtry 
and others. How the examiner I think you said or someone else 
wrote I am not looking at it. So, I do not know whether they 
misquoted me or not. I do know what I said and who I was 
referring to.
    Mr. Gaetz. Well, did you say, ``them''?
    Rev. Sharpton. I just said that I am not looking at the 
statement. I do not--
    Mr. Gaetz. I just want to--
    Rev. Sharpton. You are talking about a situation that 
happened in 1991. If I said, ``them,'' ``the,'' or ``those,'' I 
don't know. I know that incident, and I know what I was 
referring to. A man threatening to come down home who had a 
criminal record and I had two young children, I think under 
five years old--
    Mr. Gaetz. I thank you. I appreciate the answer.
    Rev. Sharpton. Again, I am not Lewandowski. Let me talk. I 
will talk.
    Mr. Gaetz. No. You don't control the--
    Rev. Sharpton. I will talk. I have testified before this 
Committee.
    Mr. Gaetz. As will I. So is it your belief that--
    Rev. Sharpton. If I said, ``them'' or not, would that help 
or hurt excessive force of policing?
    Mr. Gaetz. Well, I think it is pretty significant when 
someone wants to come and preach to us about police and then--
    Mr. Cicilline. Mr. Chair, point of parliamentary inquiry. 
Point of parliamentary inquiry.
    Chair Nadler. Who announced it first? The gentleman will 
State his point of--
    Mr. Richmond. I don't believe you are talking about the 
people that come before you.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman will suspend. The gentleman 
will State his point of parliamentary inquiry.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chair, when a Witness is asked a 
question in a hearing before this Judiciary Committee, do our 
rules provide that the Witness is permitted to answer the 
question?
    Chair Nadler. The Witness is permitted to answer the 
question.
    Mr. Cicilline. I have a parliamentary--
    Chair Nadler. The Member controls the time.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Parliamentary inquiry.
    Chair Nadler. Hold on. The Member controls the time. If the 
Member judges that the question is answered to his 
satisfaction, he may go on to another question.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Parliamentary inquiry.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady will State her point of 
parliamentary inquiry.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. When a Witness is attempting to answer the 
question, is it the rules of this Committee that the Witness be 
allowed to answer the question? Is it also in the decorum of 
this Committee to not badger the Witness if the Witness is 
attempting to answer the question?
    Chair Nadler. Well, there are two answers. The Member 
controls the time. If the Member thinks that the question has 
been answered to his satisfaction, he may cut off the answer 
and go to a further question. However, it is not permitted to 
badger a Witness. We do afford Members considerable latitude, 
but Witnesses, the badgering of Witnesses, is inappropriate. 
Our Committee should not conduct itself in that manner. It is 
expected that all parties to these proceedings comport 
themselves with decorum and professionalism and at all times in 
a manner that reflects creditably on the House of 
Representatives. House rules require the Chair to maintain 
order and decorum, and I will do so. The gentleman controls the 
time.
    Mr. Gaetz. Thank you, Mr. Chair. ``I ain't having no march. 
I believe in fighting. Well, fight, then. Ain't nobody holding 
you. I will off the man. We will off him. Plenty of crackers 
walking around here tonight.'' Did you say those words?
    Rev. Sharpton. I do not recall saying, ``I will not 
march.'' I think for the last 40 years, I have marched. I think 
that you are referring to, and I am not sure, but I think you 
are referring to when I was dealing with some people that said 
that they don't want to march and that they are going to off 
people. I told them there are plenty of people walking around 
that they called the name. They are not offing anybody because 
I felt that they were just trying to disrupt our--
    Mr. Gaetz. Thank you, Mr. Sharpton.
    Rev. Sharpton. --asking people to march.
    Mr. Gaetz. In that statement, did you refer to White people 
as crackers?
    Rev. Sharpton. So, in the context of I was quoting, as I 
said--
    Mr. Gaetz. Could you--
    Rev. Sharpton. --I was quoting, as I said, the reference 
made about ``I don't want to march.''
    Mr. Gaetz. Did you say, ``We taught philosophy and 
astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos 
ever got around to it?'' Did you say that, Mr. Sharpton?
    Rev. Sharpton. I talked about African history, and I talked 
about how we had dealt with astrology as well as mathematics 
and philosophy and religion in Africa.
    Mr. Gaetz. You referred to people as ``Greek homos,'' 
didn't you?
    Rev. Sharpton. I do not recall how I referred to anyone.
    Mr. Gaetz. That is quite--
    Rev. Sharpton. You would have to cite. You would have to 
cite.
    Mr. Gaetz. Do you think that your bigoted statements in 
1991 are excusable just because they were in--
    Rev. Sharpton. I think that any statement that I have made 
that was wrong, I have clearly said that we should not make 
bigoted statements, including me. I also think that to 
distort--
    Mr. Gaetz. Have you made bigoted statements?
    Rev. Sharpton. I think that also to distort--
    Mr. Gaetz. Have you made bigoted statements, Reverend? Have 
you? Have you made bigoted--
    Rev. Sharpton. You can ask--
    Mr. Cicilline. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Point of order.
    Rev. Sharpton. You can ask all the questions you want.
    Mr. Cicilline. Will the gentleman yield?
    Rev. Sharpton. I am going to answer the question.
    Mr. Cicilline. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Gaetz. When you call Greek homos, when you talk about 
White crackers, those are bigoted statements.
    Rev. Sharpton. No. I think I made it clear that I was 
quoting what somebody said.
    Mr. Gaetz. No. You--
    Rev. Sharpton. Yelling and getting upset is beneath your 
office. You should calm down.
    Chair Nadler. You will suspend. The gentleman will State 
his point of order.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Once again, Mr. Chair, after a 
sustained attack on the character of a Witness that has been 
called by people on this panel and that panel then attacks that 
Witness in a sustained, deliberate manner, which is non-germane 
to the subject at hand, is it appropriate for a Member to ask 
that the offending Member's words be taken down?
    Chair Nadler. It is not under the rules appropriate. The 
time is the gentleman's.
    Mr. Gaetz. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would note these are 
highly relevant to the issues that we are facing. Rev. Sharpton 
has come before the House Judiciary Committee as a purported 
expert on policing.
    Chair Nadler. The clock should be running.
    Mr. Gaetz. Yet, his bigoted statements undermine the 
bipartisan work we should be doing to ensure that all citizens 
are able to come together and have safe communities.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Point of order, Mr. Chair. How is 
this germane?
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman will State his point of order.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. How is this line of inquiry 
germane? If it is not germane, is it appropriate?
    Mr. Gaetz. To the point? May I speak to the point?
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Mr. Chair, we have had a series. We 
had a Witness who came before us two days ago, Mr. Lewandowski, 
who totally contemptuously dealt with this panel. Now, we have 
a reverse of that. We have one of our Members doing the same 
thing to a Witness whom we have called. I don't think it is 
within our best practices to allow our process to get down to 
the level that we have now sunk. I am asking the Chair to in 
the wise use of discretion Rule that the gentleman from 
Florida's line of inquiry with this specific Witness who he is 
trying to attack his character--there is no question about that 
but--
    Mr. Gaetz. I am reading his own words back.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. --doing it in a sustained way and 
doing--
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman has the time, not you.
    Mr. Gaetz. He does? I have the time, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. --and not having--
    Chair Nadler. No, you do not.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. --uttered a single--
    Mr. Gaetz. Is this regular order? Is this a point of order? 
What is--
    Mr. Cicilline. Point of order, Mr. Gaetz. You don't have 
the floor.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman is being heard on the point of 
order, not--
    Mr. Gaetz. Will I be heard on the point of order?
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman is being heard on the point of 
order.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Not having uttered a single word of 
relevance to the issue at hand, is it appropriate for this 
Committee to allow the misuse of this platform to attack the 
character of a witness? I mean, this is taking our process down 
to a level that we should never allow it to descend to. I am 
objecting to us wallowing in the mud down here with these 
comments. I mean, it is not whether or not it is true or false. 
It is the fact that it is non-germane.
    Mr. Gaetz. To the point?
    Chair Nadler. The Chair will Rule on the point.
    The Chair will Rule on the point of order. Although the 
gentleman's comments may be obnoxious, although they may--
    Mr. Gaetz. I object to that. Point of order. That is an 
improper characterization for a Member of the Committee.
    Chair Nadler. Though the gentleman's comments may be 
characterized as whatever you want to characterize them as--
    Mr. Gaetz. I have a point of order that your words be taken 
down--
    Mr. Richmond. Oh, woe is me.
    Chair Nadler. Gentlemen.
    Mr. Richmond. I pick a fight.
    Chair Nadler. Gentlemen.
    Mr. Richmond. Now I need help.
    Chair Nadler. Under the rules, the gentleman has wide 
latitude, both on the question of germaneness and on the 
language that he uses. Unfortunately, under the rules, I cannot 
overrule him.
    The gentleman will proceed.
    Mr. Gaetz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    You sold your life story, Mr. Sharpton, to your own 
charity. How much money did your charity pay you for the rights 
to tell your story?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Parliamentary inquiry. Mr. Chair, this is 
an outrage. The question is whether you can impugn the motives 
and/or insult or badger the Witness or cost or characterize his 
presence at the table?
    Chair Nadler. Objection. The gentlelady was not recognized.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
Chair.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady is not recognized. All right. 
Stop the clock. Stop. All right. You will State the 
parliamentary inquiry.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank you, Mr. Chair. I think the 
gentleman from Georgia made a point about a Witness that we had 
just two days ago, which the impugning of the motive, the 
character destruction was not in the course of our questioning. 
What I say to our good friend from Florida, that you are now 
not only not being germane, but you are pointedly attacking the 
character and, in addition, bringing up information that--
    Chair Nadler. It is not--
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, let me just finish. B ringing up 
information--it is an inquiry--bringing up information that is 
a character destroying, the question is, in the questioning of 
a Witness. Can you use items that refer to the Witness' 
character? Demeaning the Witness' character, is that an 
appropriate line of questioning?
    Chair Nadler. Whether it is an appropriate line of 
questioning is not relevant. With respect to the parliamentary 
inquiry, questioning a Witness' character and motives, which 
may go to ascertaining the credibility to give to the 
testimony, we have always given very wide latitude. The answer 
has to be that I cannot object to that.
    The gentleman will proceed.
    Mr. Gaetz. How much money did your charity pay you, you 
personally, for the right to tell your life story?
    Rev. Sharpton. My charity owed a certain amount of money to 
me and asked could they use that money to have the right to 
sell any rights to my life, be it documentary, one-man play, or 
other items that they have already began reaping dividends. 
They would have paid, had to pay me the same sum anyway because 
it was owed to me. So, the answer--
    Mr. Gaetz. Was that sum over half a million dollars?
    Rev. Sharpton. Can I finish?
    Mr. Gaetz. Was it over half a million dollars?
    Rev. Sharpton. Can I finish? Whatever the sum was--
    Mr. Gaetz. --or was it half a million dollars that your 
charity--
    Rev. Sharpton. Whatever the sum--
    Mr. Gaetz. --gave you to tell your life story because I 
think most people would see that as fraud?
    Rev. Sharpton. The charity again--
    Mr. Gaetz. It is a great fraud--
    Rev. Sharpton. The charity, again, owed me a certain amount 
of money--
    Mr. Gaetz. Over 500,000?
    Rev. Sharpton. --that they would have had to pay anyway.
    Mr. Gaetz. I want an answer.
    Will you instruct him to tell us--
    Rev. Sharpton. They--well, I agreed to allow them--
    Mr. Gaetz. --whether or not it was more than 500,000 or 
less than 500,000 that his--
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman's--
    Mr. Gaetz. --charity paid him for his life's story?
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Rev. Sharpton. I allowed them to use--
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman's--
    Rev. Sharpton. --those funds to have--
    Mr. Gaetz. Mr. Chair, I ask you to instruct the Witness. 
Was it more than half a million bucks?
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman will suspend. His time has 
expired.
    The gentleman from New York is recognized.
    Mr. Jeffries. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Before I begin, let me just take a moment to thank Ms. Carr 
for her presence here today; of course, for sharing her 
thoughts with this Committee. What Ms. Carr experienced; no 
parent should ever have to experience. No parent should ever 
have to bury their child, particularly when that child has been 
killed by those who were sworn to protect and serve. So, I want 
to thank you for turning your pain into progress, for your 
willingness to share the story in such an authentic and 
compelling way.
    Today, I will be reintroducing the anti-chokehold 
legislation that you made reference to in your testimony. We 
will be renaming it the Eric Garner Excessive Use of Force 
Prevention Act in tribute to your son. Thank you again for all 
that you have done.
    I want to enter into the record and ask unanimous consent a 
tweet from Joe Scarborough from July 29th of 2019. The entire 
line of inappropriate questioning from Matt Gaetz was based 
purportedly on a resolution that had been introduced over 20 
years ago by then Congressman Joe Scarborough. The tweet reads, 
``Thanks to those reminding me of how stridently Al Sharpton 
and I opposed each other 20 years ago. We take pride in our 
friendship today because of that history, recognizing Jesus' 
words that all have fallen short of God's glory, and we should 
forgive each other 70  7 times.'' Unanimous.
    Chair Nadler. Without objection, which will be entered into 
the record.
    [The information follows:]

     
                      MR. JEFFRIES FOR THE RECORD

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

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Mr. Jeffries. Let me also thank Rev. Sharpton for 
continuing to be a voice for the voiceless; a defender of the 
disenfranchised; for all that you have done throughout the 
country in the context of this issue, police violence; and for 
the manner in which you have stood with individuals over the 
years in New York, whether that was Amadou Diallo, who was 
felled by 42 shots at his doorstep unarmed, African can; 
whether that was Patrick Dorismond, a security guard who so-
called Mayor Rudolph Giuliani maligned by releasing his 
juvenile records--it turned out that Mr. Dorismond was actually 
an altar boy who went to the same Catholic school as the so-
called Mayor Giuliani--whether it was Sean Bell, who was shot 
dead, 50 shots, on the eve of his wedding; whether it was Omar 
Edwards, who was an off-duty Black police officer, who was 
killed in Harlem; of course, whether that was Eric Garner, who 
was killed for all of the world to see, unarmed and given a 
death sentence for selling loose cigarettes. So, thank you, 
Rev. Sharpton.
    In all those instances, unfortunately, there was no measure 
of justice to the officer who had engaged in the Act resulting 
in the death of those individuals. What can be done to create a 
greater degree of accountability, recognizing that in my view, 
the majority of police officers are there to protect and serve 
with the best of intentions? Like any avenue of human endeavor 
in life, there are bad apples. When a bad apple engages in an 
action that results in the death of an individual, what can be 
done to make sure that there is a greater degree of 
accountability?
    Rev. Sharpton. Are you asking me?
    Mr. Jeffries. Rev. Sharpton?
    Rev. Sharpton. I think that we need to have--and thank you 
for your comments on my work. I thank the gentleman from 
Florida for allowing me to straighten out the distortion and 
lies on the record that I have been misquoted. He has done a 
great service to my reputation.
    I want to say I think that the Federal Government has an 
obligation--and the Congress can initiate that--to really set 
certain laws in place that become Federal law that override 
State laws and that in many ways stop State prosecutors and 
others from mishandling police matters: One, by having 
independent review in the Justice Department, a group in the 
Justice Department that can handle that and determine whether 
to go criminal or consent decrees of his police forces, things 
like training must reach a certain bar. Otherwise, they violate 
Federal law. You have to have things, again, like camera on 
police that can--that has to be mandated on how they are 
handled. There must be Federal standards on policing subject to 
criminal or civil law that cannot change by Administrations. I 
think we have not answered when all that has happened in the 
last decade or more. We have not answered that with any new 
Federal legislation. I think it is important we do. I am glad 
you are beginning again with this Eric Garner chokehold law.
    Mr. Jeffries. Thank you, Rev. Sharpton. The time has 
expired.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The gentleman from California, Mr. McClintock?
    Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would first observe 
that every police officer that I have spoken with on this 
subject strongly supports body cameras because they provide an 
accurate record of encounters. That protects every honest 
officer just as it protects every honest citizen.
    I saw the video of the killing of Eric Garner, and it is 
appalling, particularly when you consider the fact the only 
crime that was even alleged was selling loose cigarettes. I 
mean, who would make that a crime to begin with, let alone one 
to be enforced by lethal force?
    Mr. Blake, the attack on you clearly appeared unprovoked. I 
am just curious. What was the justification the officer used 
for that attack?
    Mr. Blake. Apparently, the suspect that they claimed I 
looked like was making credit card fraud, was ordering bags and 
expensive clothes to that hotel on fraudulent credit cards.
    Mr. McClintock. So, he thought you were somebody else when 
he attacked you like that?
    Mr. Blake. Apparently. That is what he claimed.
    Mr. McClintock. Did he ask for any ID or--
    Mr. Blake. No. He never even declared that he was an 
officer, NYPD. I only knew later when I saw badges on the other 
four officers that were on the scene.
    Mr. McClintock. I don't know what the statistics are, and I 
intend to trust the accuracy of Ms. Mac Donald's study, but, 
clearly, that is not the public perception at least among a 
significant portion of the population.
    I used to work for the former chief of the LAPD, the 
legendary Edward Davis. He was chief from '69 to '77 or '78, I 
think. During the time he was chief, crime nationally exploded. 
It went up 50 percent. In Los Angeles under Chief Davis, it 
actually went down. He was not averse to the use of force, but 
he had a very unique philosophy of law enforcement. He once 
told me, ``It is not the job of the police department to 
enforce the law.'' He said, ``That is the job of every citizen. 
The police department is there to help.''
    He is the chief who pioneered Neighborhood Watch in Los 
Angeles. He introduced community-based policing. He introduced 
the L.A. Basic Car Plan. Because he viewed law enforcement as a 
partnership between citizens and police. Of course, the Basic 
Car Plan says, ``We are going to become a partnership with the 
local neighborhoods. We are going to have the same officers in 
the same neighborhoods who know the people who are involved.'' 
It seems to me that philosophy works. It is the essence of law 
enforcement in a free society and in a self-governing society.
    In fact, he was very much opposed to gun-control laws that 
would disarm law-abiding citizens because he believed that law-
abiding citizens were the first line of defense and an 
important part of that partnership to enforce the laws that are 
enacted on behalf of all of us.
    Ultimately, that philosophy requires a mutual respect 
between the police officers and the neighborhoods and between 
the neighborhoods and the police officers. Clearly, we have 
lost that. Maybe it is too much to ask for in this day and age 
when we can't seem to summon a degree of mutual respect among 
ourselves on this Committee, but I would ask Commander Yoes and 
Chief Ron Davis. You have obviously different perspectives but 
together a great deal of experience with law enforcement. How 
do we go about restoring that mutual respect that is essential 
for law enforcement in a free society?
    Mr. Yoes. Well, I thank you for that question because I 
really think that is the root of everything that we should be 
talking about here today.
    At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what we do or who 
we are. At the end of the day, it really is all about the 
relationships. When you apply this to law enforcement, it goes 
back to our same community, our communities. We are allowed to 
do certain things as law enforcement officers. What gives us 
the right to do it is the very trust of the people who have 
empowered us to do that. Along the way, we have clearly lost 
that way. We have lost our way because we have gotten changes 
in technology, changes in the way we interact, interpersonal 
skills, and social media. All these things have changed our 
world and have changed it drastically.
    Mr. McClintock. I think that technology would help, though. 
I mean, with DNA and GPS and surveillance cameras, it should 
make the job easier.
    Mr. Yoes. I agree. I don't disagree with that. The point I 
am making is that at the end of the day, it really comes down 
to the relationships. It is easy to point out and say that 
there is us and there is them. The reality is there are people 
on both sides of this issue. In those relationships that we 
foster, what is going to actually make the difference at the 
end of the day?
    It doesn't matter what we are doing. In this case, we are 
talking about law enforcement. We need to get back to the 
basics. We need to have an understanding on what is important 
for law enforcement and why, what is important to our 
communities. When we have that dialogue and we have that 
understanding, we can find solutions to real problems and tear 
down some of the walls and the destruction that we see across 
this country.
    Mr. McClintock. I assume that is not involving the 
federalization and nationalization of police policy but, 
rather, getting back to the neighborhood level.
    Mr. Yoes. I would argue that all politics are local and 
that in this case, if we are going to be policing our 
communities, what gives us the power is to trust those 
communities, the people within that community. It is how we do 
it and how we interact with our public will determine whether 
or not they are pleased with the services we provide and accept 
the services we provide.
    Chief Davis. Congressman, thank you for the question. I am 
going to start with the end first. I don't think it is a 
question of federalizing or nationalizing. I don't agree with 
that. Like any profession, whether you are an attorney, whether 
you are a doctor, the idea that the profession would not have 
national standards. I expect that, no matter what hospital I go 
to in this country, that if the best evidence says, ``You take 
out an appendix this way,'' that is what you are going to do. 
The failure to do that and cause me harm would be malpractice. 
We have 18,000 agencies that are engaging in malpractice 
literally on a daily basis because of the lack of national 
standards. So, the idea that you set national use of force 
standards, national standards for accountability is not counter 
to the idea of decentralized or local policing.
    Your question about how do we get back to that, I have got 
to push back just a little bit, Congressman, in saying that for 
many, this is not a question to get back to. The trust has 
never been there. It is just now visible. It is visible because 
of videos. It is visible because of marches and demonstrations. 
For many communities, the trust level has always been strained 
based on historic abuses and current practices.
    It goes to the question Congressman Richmond asked about, 
how do you not know? I think they did know. When we have 
policies and practices that tell the officers, ``You shall 
enforce the law so that these statistical crime rates,'' that 
Ms. Mac Donald is talking about ``goes down'' and counts that 
and you are sitting there now talking about crime in numbers of 
``went up 10 percent,'' ``2 percent,'' and ignoring the people 
that are involved is counterproductive. The idea that police 
themselves can reduce crime is false. It is completely false.
    We had a lot of discussion here today, Congressman, about 
the issues of firearms. Not to get into the gun debate, but as 
a Black male, I ask one simple thing. Is it my body has more 
privilege than a gun? Why are we so willing to fight and push 
back on anything that would restrict the Second amendment but 
when it comes to the Fourth Amendment, the Fourteenth, the 
seizure of my Black body, all of a sudden, there are all kinds 
of reasons to do it? We need to show respect to the communities 
and move forward.
    Chair Nadler. The time of the gentleman has well-expired.
    The gentleman from Rhode Island?
    Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Ms. Carr, 
for your grace and your very powerful words. Thank you for 
being with us. Mr. Blake, thank you for sharing your story. I 
am sorry that you had that experience.
    I approach this from kind of an unusual perspective. I was 
a civil rights lawyer and criminal defense lawyer before I 
became mayor of Providence. I was responsible for their 
greatest number of cases against the Providence Police 
Department, civil rights cases. I then became the public safety 
commissioner.
    Providence Police Department today is one of the best 
police departments in America. We went from a department that 
had two Federal investigations, including a practices and 
standards investigation, to a fully accredited department and 
the lowest crime rate in 40 years. What I learned in that 
experience is that--and my chief used to always say this--the 
most powerful weapon we have to reduce crime in the city is not 
any of our guns or other equipment. It is the trust of the 
community. We built a community policing model that divided the 
city into substations where police officers walked beats in the 
neighborhood and built relationships with community leaders.
    One of the early challenges was we didn't have a police 
department that reflected the diversity of the city it served. 
I found that to be one of the most powerful ways to build that 
trust, that people saw people from their community that were in 
the department. So, I am wondering, Chief, whether you have any 
ideas of what Congress can do to incentivize the diversity of 
departments, the recruitment, the retention, the challenges 
that are faced, particularly for communities that may have not 
historically been part of the police department that are 
interested, that what can we do as Members of Congress to help 
departments work aggressively to reflect the diversity of the 
communities they serve?
    Chief Hawkins. Thank you for that question. That is a very 
great question because, trust me, not only am I thinking of 
different ways to recruit to make it more diverse or to make it 
more open for the field of law enforcement alone, but that is 
also, we are being affected drastically with not being able to 
recruit individuals. So, in regards to what Congress can do, 
maybe incentivizing opportunities for funding support. I know 
we had it in the past in regards to being able to recruit with 
a better salary. Of course, the equipment that is coming that 
is being offered, that assists, but even if there is a think 
tank with other opportunities of incentives that can be 
offered, trust me, I will be the first one to raise my hand and 
say, ``I want to be a part of to figure out what else we can do 
to recruit within our communities.''
    Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Chief.
    My other experiences--and I think there is a recent study 
that confirmed this. I think everyone recognizes the vast 
majority of law enforcement officers are doing their job, doing 
it well, and never get enough credit for the good work that 
they do. In fact, the number of incidents come from a very 
small number of Members at each of these departments.
    There was a recent article published called ``Good Cop, Bad 
Cop: Using Civilian Allegations to Predict Police Misconduct.'' 
It advances the theory that a small minority of repeat 
offenders are responsible for the vast majority of misconduct 
within police departments. If you consider in the case of Mr. 
Garner and Mr. Blake, the offending officers had previous 
misconduct complaints sustained against them. So, one of the 
things that we did in Providence was we created an early 
detection system because what we learned is that sometimes 
these things start off as small things, which were evidence of 
something else going on in the officers' life, something at 
home, a substance abuse issue. It was an early system to detect 
that someone needed to intervene and find out what was going on 
to prevent a more seriousness.
    So, I am wondering, anyone on the panel, whether or not we 
might incentivize the creation of some of those early detection 
systems so we can prevent some of the things that are subject 
of today's hearings and whether to not your experience is that 
it is, in fact, a small subset within most departments where 
the most problems persist. Rev. Sharpton or the chief?
    Chief Hawkins. I would concur. It is called an early 
warning system. Most leading agencies have that. Being able to 
offer more incentives, more awareness, more training, not just 
for the system of if we have repeated complaints that come in 
to our internal affairs unit or from the community but other 
aspects, giving the supervisor the oversight internally to be 
able to offer wellness issues, be able to ask questions, ``What 
is going on?'' You are correct. It is an early warning system 
that assists departments with identifying things that are 
outliers for those individual officers and extra training as 
well.
    Rev. Sharpton. I agree. I think that there clearly needs to 
be inside the departments, really under the supervisors, to 
monitor and really guide a lot of the behavior of the officers 
that they keep getting repeat complaints with because those 
human factors outside of the job does bear a lot of what 
happens in the job. The public could become--I am not saying in 
all cases but could become the ones that bear the brunt of 
whatever situation they may be facing.
    Mr. Cicilline. Yes. I will just end where I began, and that 
is that this issue about the trust development between the 
communities and police is a key. I knew we had been successful 
in the City of Providence when I drove down the street in one 
neighborhood and saw these two very big officers playing 
hopscotch with a little girl in the neighborhood because they 
had become so much a part of that community and so respected. I 
think that is one of the things that we can work on to provide 
resources so departments can build those trusting relationships 
between the police and the community.
    With that, I yield back and thank the Witnesses.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from Louisiana?
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks to 
everybody for being here.
    Commander Yoes, I had a couple of questions for you. First, 
I want to thank you for your long service in law enforcement. 
Congratulations on your well-deserved election as the national 
President of the Fraternal Order of Police.
    Mr. Yoes. Thank you.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. You do all of us in Louisiana a 
great service, and we are very proud of you. So, thank you for 
that.
    You shared some statistics earlier today that I just think 
are really alarming. I wanted to reiterate 2 of those: Sixty-
six percent reduction in the recruitment of new police officers 
nationwide. Is that what you said?
    Mr. Yoes. That is what I understand, yes.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. First responders have about a 
five times the rate of PTSD occurrence than the general 
population? I mean, these are things that are alarming and 
should--
    Mr. Yoes. Well, I think--and this is the elephant in the 
room. We don't like talking about it because it is 
uncomfortable, but if you think about the demands that are 
placed on a person in the law enforcement profession, the shift 
work they work, the level of the calls that they respond to, 
the things that they see and the things that they deal with in 
trying to compartmentalize within their own lives, all that 
takes a toll on an individual. For far too long, we refused to 
talk about it. We wanted them to be strong. We expect our 
officers to be strong. It wasn't until we realized that we were 
doing a disservice by not recognizing the impact that it is 
having.
    Often, we will see officers that we think that they are 
acting out. We think that they are bad officers. In a lot of 
cases, we really need to acknowledge the fact that there is a 
reason why there are some actions being taken. It is signs. It 
is signs of something much greater than that and I will argue, 
I feel very strongly of the fact that when someone subjects 
their life, their family, and everything to the profession of 
law enforcement to do good within their community, we need to 
recognize these things. We need to not push them aside. We need 
to find programs to help them and save those officers. We have 
a fiduciary and a moral responsibility to save that which has 
been broken in the service of our communities. I think that is 
very important to recognize it, to focus on the fact that it 
does exist and we need to tackle it and we need to get some 
serious consideration and thoughts to a holistic approach of 
saving officers who are damaged because of the type of work 
they are doing.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I appreciate you saying that. I 
grew up in the household of a first responder. My dad was an 
assistant chief, Shreveport Fire Department. He was permanently 
disabled, critically injured in a fire in 1984. So, I have a 
real appreciation of the danger that is faced by first 
responders.
    I grew up in the Fire and Police Training Academy because 
my dad was a training officer. I heard a metaphor one time. It 
is pretty well-known now, but basically society is divided into 
three groups of people. There are sheep, which defines most 
people, not in a derogatory manner, but we are all peace-loving 
folks who wouldn't do harm to anybody else.
    There is a second category. It is the wolves. These are the 
people, evil men, and sociopaths that prey upon the innocent 
without mercy.
    Then there is a third category. Those are the sheepdogs. 
The sheepdogs are called to protect the sheep and confront the 
wolves. I am so grateful that we have sheepdogs in our society. 
That is our law enforcement officers, military, and first 
responders. Thank you. Thank all of you that serve because it 
is a thankless job.
    A couple of questions in the short time that I have left. 
Commander Yoes, I guess you first. Have you yourself or have 
you witnessed reduced reaction times by police officers 
confronted with violence because somewhere in their thought 
processes, they are afraid of being fired or sued or 
prosecuted?
    The second part is, if so, does that affect their safety 
and, by extension, the safety of innocent bystanders and the 
community at large?
    Mr. Yoes. I will speak in general terms if I can.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Sure.
    Mr. Yoes. I know of having discussions with officers to 
where their decision to take action was delayed with the 
thought process of how it would affect their family. So, the 
good news is we were able to have that conversation because it 
turned out with a peaceful resolution. I could also tell you 
that I know a number of officers who found themselves in 
situations where a noncompliance has escalated and because we 
have a noncompliance and there is an escalation, then there is 
an uncertain outcome. That uncertain outcome affects a lot of 
people. It affects the officers. It affects the person that is 
having the encounter. It also affects the bystanders. What we 
need to do is we need to focus. We need to focus a tremendous 
amount of our energy on de-escalation techniques in training 
because, really, when it comes--when we look at all these 
situations, they have elevated to a point because it is 
escalating. We definitely need to improve on our skills in 
order to de-escalate these because of the uncertain outcomes. 
At times, it can be irreversible.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I see heads nodding all over 
across the table. I think that is universally understood.
    Last question with the short time left. Do you see policing 
ultimately as being the responsibility of police and government 
or maybe also an obligation of the public as well?
    Mr. Yoes. Oh, it is clearly an obligation of the public and 
police. I think it is a partnership. Anything less would not be 
effective.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you. I am out of time. I 
yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentlelady from Washington?
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for holding 
this important hearing.
    Thank you all very much for being here. Ms. Carr, I want to 
thank you, in particular, for channeling your anger and your 
grief around the brutal killing of your son, Eric Garner, and 
giving inspiration with a mother's love, giving inspiration to 
the movement for justice and an end to this kind of violence. I 
deeply, deeply appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Blake, also for 
sharing your story.
    I wanted to start by saying that I think, Chief Davis, you 
mentioned this in your opening remarks--when we refuse to 
acknowledge the structural biases that are within our 
institutions, when we refuse to acknowledge the 
institutionalized racism that exists within all systems here in 
government, in law enforcement, in every system, when we, 
unfortunately, have colleagues who mock and try to malign 
witnesses and discredit the idea that we are all working 
together to try to get to a solution here, but we have to 
acknowledge the biases that exist. If we don't acknowledge that 
White supremacy, if we don't acknowledge the history of 
institutionalized racism in this country, we cannot move 
forward. I do believe that all of us, law enforcement, 
community, we do want--for the vast majority of people, we do 
want to find a way forward.
    I come to this. I represent Seattle, the Seattle area. 
Before being a Member of Congress, I was a civil and immigrant 
rights leader. We wrote to--I was a signatory to the letter 
that went to the Department of Justice asking for a pattern in 
practice investigation into use of force and police brutality, 
police violence in our community. We got that. I am deeply 
grateful for those patterns in practice investigations that the 
Department of Justice used to conduct. I am sorry because we 
are still not through the process. It is not an easy process. 
We are not through it. I wish we could go to the Department of 
Justice for support. We can't do that right now.
    We also recently passed as a State a Deescalate Washington 
initiative. Ms. Carr, you will be happy to know it came from 
the families of those who were killed who came together and 
said, ``We have to take on what is one of the most restrictive 
laws in the country that essentially made it impossible to have 
any accountability in police shooting incidents,'' because we 
needed to prove according to our Constitution a standard of 
malice that was essentially impossible.
    What happened is those families got together with law 
enforcement and put together an initiative that also has had 
bumpy fits and starts, but was passed. Part of that included 
de-escalation. I have heard--Mr. Yoes, I know you just spoke 
about this. I saw Dr. Goff nodding. Part of what it did, in 
addition to changing the standard and making it very clear that 
we needed a different standard to hold police officers 
accountable, it also provided resources to the frontline 
offices because I do think that our law enforcement is being 
forced to address issues on the front lines that are, frankly, 
the negligence of underfunding that the Federal Government has 
been doing, austerity spending that we have been doing that 
creates people who are homeless or creates hunger it creates 
all kinds of issues in our communities.
    So, I wanted to ask--maybe I will direct this at both Chief 
Davis and Mr. Yoes--do you support an approach to policing that 
encourages de-escalation and makes it clear that use of force 
is a last resort? Let me start with you, Chief Davis.
    Chief Davis. Thank you, Congresswoman. Yes, I do. I think 
it is a good policy to take a look at Camden, New Jersey and 
also the Police Executive Research Forum 30 guiding principles, 
where the force should be a necessity.
    Ms. Jayapal. Right.
    Chief Davis. Although it is a last resort doesn't mean that 
that sometimes that is the first option, that it should be 
proportionate and that it should be with strong tactics of 
really sticking to time, distance, and cover. So yes, I do.
    Ms. Jayapal. Mr. Yoes, do you want to add anything to that?
    Mr. Yoes. I agree that de-escalation is going to be a very 
big key of stopping or preventing things from hurling in a very 
unpredictable way. We clearly need to focus as much energy as 
we can to increase that. I think that there is no doubt that in 
instances, force is going to be required. Because of that, 
there needs to be a balance.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you.
    I should have mentioned that the initiative had the support 
of law enforcement. The Black Law Enforcement Association of 
Washington and our local sheriff both endorsed that initiative.
    My last question in my remaining time, Ms. Garcia, as a 
former DOJ official in the Civil Rights Division, you conducted 
these investigations into law enforcement agencies to determine 
whether law enforcement actions were pattern and practice. You 
helped to enforce consent decrees. In your experience, why is 
that DOJ oversight so critical for addressing excessive use of 
force of police?
    Chair Nadler. The time of the gentlelady has expired, but 
you can answer the question.
    Ms. Garcia. Thank you.
    First, when DOJ initiates a pattern of practice 
investigation, it is because there has been such a severe 
breakdown at the State and local level to keep those 
departments accountable that they do need an outside Federal 
agency to come and correct them. Once DOJ finds the systemic 
constitutional violations, the consent decrees that result are 
actually court-enforceable and overseen by independent 
monitors. So, that is what is crucial to correcting all the 
problems that come with the constitutional violations, 
everything from the training to the resources to the policies 
and to officer wellness programs and, most importantly, the 
community engagement because community engagement in that 
matter is really what is going to take hold and help see that 
through once DOJ is gone.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you. Our Federal monitor is playing a 
big role in that still.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back.
    The gentlelady from Arizona?
    Ms. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, all of you, for 
being here today. I think both Republicans and Democrats would 
agree that we need to penalize bad actors and bad actions, but 
what I am concerned about today and in the media is that the 
sole focus has been on the relatively small number of bad 
actors and bad actions. We heard it from our Chair Nadler at 
his beginning statement. He listed a whole bunch of instances 
that were not a good outcome. Then we see on the screens all 
day today as we are talking just that.
    How about all the good things that law enforcement has 
done? I really think we need to focus on that, too. Because of 
that, I want to give you some examples of good things that have 
happened just recently that law enforcement has done in 
Arizona.
    On August 26, first responders in Arizona, including the 
Arizona Department of Public Safety, rescued an 8-year-old girl 
who had fallen about 75 feet into Oak Creek Canyon in Arizona. 
On August 23rd, Arizona police officers rescued a baby left in 
a car in 100-degree heat for nearly an hour, and she survived. 
On August 6th, a Tucson police officer spotted a kitten locked 
inside a car in Midtown Parking Lot on Saturday and rescued it. 
On July 11th, there was a fire at a Mesa, Arizona apartment 
complex where officers bravely placed themselves in harm's way 
to rescue a family. In Phoenix, just the other day, there was a 
severe traffic collision where one of the motorists, 
unfortunately, lost his leg. Due to the quick thinking of the 
police officers, who were the first to arrive prior to medical 
units, his life was preserved by the makeshift tourniquet that 
was applied.
    One of the things that the police, Phoenix police, is doing 
now is they have--their newest unit on the force is an ice 
cream truck. They are using it in lower socioeconomic 
neighborhoods, where they are concerned that there is a bad 
feeling about police officers. So, they are trying to mitigate 
it.
    Yesterday afternoon, a suspect entered a store full of 
customers and robbed the store at knifepoint. Then he fled the 
store. He carjacked another victim at knifepoint and was 
arrested. I am just saying we need to take care of bad actors, 
but let us not forget that our law enforcement are doing so 
many great things each and every day, so many heroic things, 
and I want to thank them for what they do.
    I have a question for Mr. Yoes. In his previously 
testimony, one of the Witnesses suggested that we support a 
bill that would prohibit chokeholds. I just want your 
professional advice on that. If we prohibited chokeholds, would 
it then lead to not having an option on the table and you would 
actually have to use lethal force more?
    Mr. Yoes. Well, that is a very complicated and fluid 
question asking for an outcome. That is very much 
unpredictable. There is an escalation. The escalation causes 
actions. It progresses up. At some point, there becomes an 
issue of whether or not what is necessary to maintain or to not 
lose control of a situation? So, it is a very fluid concern. It 
is not an easy answer. I am not too sure I can answer that. I 
can just tell you that everyone every time we find ourselves in 
a situation where it escalates to a point where it becomes some 
physical altercation, then the outcomes are always going to be 
different.
    Ms. Lesko. Mr. Yoes, this has been touched on a little bit, 
but do you think all the publicity and focus on negative actors 
actually hurts the morale of the law enforcement and causes 
problems with retention and hiring law enforcement officers?
    Mr. Yoes. No, ma'am, I don't think so. I know so. I think 
we are in a point now where it is easy to demonize law 
enforcement. Often, it is done without knowing all the facts. 
We are a Nation of laws. Those laws have due process. We are 
quick to rush to judgment on making assertions on what is 
happening. I think it has created an atmosphere in this country 
that is making it very difficult for law enforcement officers 
to do their job. We were once very respected. Now, as you 
mentioned, there are incidents that certainly should be 
reviewed and handled, but it doesn't reflect on every law 
enforcement officer, but every law enforcement officer is 
taking a burden for it.
    Ms. Lesko. Thank you.
    Mr. Chair, I would like to yield any time I have left to 
Mr. Gaetz.
    Mr. Gaetz. Mr. Chair, on the unanimous consent request--
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The gentlewoman from Florida, Ms. Demings?
    Ms. Demings. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
    Thank you to all our Witnesses who are here today. As I 
have listened to your testimony, I feel very hopeful about the 
subject that we are discussing today. This is a serious topic. 
Some of the statements today have been helpful, and some have 
been downright disgraceful and shameful. I think through all 
the yelling and carrying on that we have seen, the theatrics, 
some of my colleagues forgot that Ms. Carr was in the room. 
They forgot there were other families in the room who lost 
their loved ones. So, on their behalf because I know they 
forgot, I want to say we are sorry for your loss.
    We are talking about a profession that I loved, a 
profession that I worked in for 27 years. My first floor speech 
as a Member of Congress, I thought it would be about healthcare 
or some other topics. It ended up being about a female 
sergeant, an African American sergeant, whom I promoted as the 
Chief of Police, who was shot and killed trying to arrest a 
murder suspect, who had shot and killed his pregnant 
girlfriend. I have worked with some of the finest men and women 
who wear the badge. Good police officers are like my family, 
but we have had some problems. We have an obligation, 
Republicans, Democrats, and every person in this room, to work 
to make sure that police officers are celebrated but bad cops 
are held accountable. The Ranking Member said it correctly, 
that there is no one who wants to get rid of bad cops more than 
good cops do. I can tell you as a former Chief of Police, I 
spent every doggone day trying to get rid of the bad cops.
    We wear the badge, law enforcement wears the badge, over 
our hearts. We wear the badge over our hearts as a constant 
reminder that you have to have the heart for the job, right? 
That we are dealing with people and families.
    Mr. Yoes or Captain Yoes, you talked about what the men and 
women go through. It is a tough job. I know it is tough from 
having done it. If we are going to save this profession and get 
it back to the level which it deserves to be, we have got to 
work together to do that.
    I don't have a question for you today, but when I hear the 
discussion about Federal--what role can the Federal Government 
play? When we talk about leaving it up to individual states, 
that scares me. We tried that with the Voting Rights Act. Look 
what is happening. I do believe the Federal Government can play 
a direct role in helping to create standards. It doesn't matter 
whether you are a 1-officer department, 4-, 1,000-, or 30,000-
officer. When you put on that badge and the gun, the standards 
in which you police with, there should be standards. I believe 
you said it, Chief Davis, that if you were going for any other 
profession, there are some minimum standards that you should 
have: Hiring standards. Do we want anybody doing the job of a 
law enforcement officer, one where he or she will be out there 
on the streets by themselves making life and death decisions? 
We want the brightest and the best. Every agency should spend 
their time trying to hire the best and the brightest men and 
women to do the job. We know it is going to cost, Ms. Carr, to 
do that, but we need to work together and see how we can get it 
done with training standards.
    We not only want the brightest and the best, Captain. We 
want the best trained so that when our men and women--if we 
want them to survive, not just physically, but to survive their 
jobs and not be in front of a courtroom, then we have to give 
them the tools to survive. Training is one of those tools, use 
of force training, standardized training that involves use of 
force, across the Nation, and then community partnerships. I 
can tell you in Orlando, where I served as a Chief, we would 
not have survived. I went to the community every time we had a 
good day and every time we had a bad day and asked the 
community to help me create a police department that knew how 
to police the community in which they serve.
    So, I don't have a question, Mr. Chair. I feel extremely 
hopeful today if we continue to work together. I believe the 
people in this room who have endured and are still here want to 
get this done.
    So, I thank you. God bless you all. Thank you very much.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    The gentleman from Florida has a unanimous consent request 
to admit a document. Without objection, the document will be 
admitted.
    [The information follows:]

     
                        MR. GAETZ FOR THE RECORD

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

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chair Nadler. They just called votes on the floor, but I 
hope we can finish so we don't have to come back. The 
gentlelady from Pennsylvania is recognized.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. I do want to thank Ms. Carr and Mr. 
Blake for being here and for all the families who are here to 
represent their experiences. I also want to thank the law 
enforcement officers who do lay their lives on the line every 
day, including former Chief Demings, for their commitment to 
excellence because I think that is what we are all looking for 
here.
    Representative Demings talked about the tools that we need 
our law enforcement officers to have. As a representative from 
Philadelphia, I am both familiar with and a huge supporter of 
the robust community-oriented policing work of Charles Ramsey, 
who was the former police Chief in Philly and DC, and then of 
course was one of the co-chairs of the 2015 presidential task 
force, I guess it was, on 21st century policing. That report, 
which I think is an excellent document to guide us forward, and 
I wish we had been able to work more robustly with that 
already. It set forth six core principles, starting with a 
broad challenge to change the culture of policing, but also 
including attention to office wellness and safety and cutting-
edge technology.
    So, in the limited time and with votes coming, I wanted to 
focus on some of the tools that the Department of Justice has 
used in the past, which aren't currently available, and they 
were sort of a carrot and a stick. Ms. Garcia, can you comment 
on the impact of the Department of Justice's reversal of policy 
regarding consent decrees and how that makes it more difficult 
for the DOJ to obtain court enforcement agreements to stop 
civil rights abuses? This would be the carrot that could be 
held over a police force that perhaps was not meeting its 
obligations to the public.
    Ms. Garcia. So, Jeff Sessions' memo that he issued on the 
last day that he was overseeing DOJ severely undercut the 
efficacy of consent decrees by doing things such as placing 
time limitations on them of a couple of years, and really 
stripping the discretion of the career attorneys from crafting 
the remedies that are necessary for systemic reform. They are 
the folks that are doing the fact-finding inquiry, and talking 
to the communities, and really handling the investigations. 
They are not political appointees, so they are really in the 
best position to actually deliver justice to the communities 
that need it because of all the systemic violations that have 
occurred.
    Ms. Scanlon. Okay. I understand the U.S. Commission on 
Civil Rights has also been critical of that decision.
    Ms. Garcia. That is correct.
    Ms. Scanlon. Okay. Chief Davis, I also wanted to focus on 
the carrot, which was the opportunity for police forces to 
request assistance because the two major cities in my district, 
Philadelphia and Chester, both reached out and participated in 
the COPS CRITI Program.
    Chief Davis. Yes.
    Ms. Scanlon. In Chester, there was a police shooting after 
a suspect was chased, and a man was killed after 100 bullets 
were pumped into his car. So, there was community outrage. 
There had been a series of police-involved shootings, but that 
police department reached out and requested help. My 
understanding is that the Department of Justice has ended that 
program, which was designed to provide advice and 
recommendations on how police departments could do a better job 
of engaging their community. Can you talk about that?
    Chief Davis. Yes. What the department has done was to, 
there was a critical collaborative reform program, but it no 
longer does the type of organizational assessments, and 
Philadelphia is a perfect example. We went into Philadelphia 
and spent close to a year, at the commissioner's request, 
looking from top to bottom at use of force training policies, 
and found some serious deficiencies in training, found some 
deficiencies on what we call threat perception failures, that 
there were racial disparities. When people were perceived to 
have a gun but didn't and were shot anyway. By changing 
policies and training and response, when the commissioner left, 
officer-involved shootings were down almost 50 percent. We did 
the same thing with Chester technical assistance.
    For a lot of the partners, the Chief would call us saying, 
look, I really want to find out what is going on in the 
department. I need to find out what I need to fix, and could 
you help. That is no longer there, which means they are going 
to keep operating, making the same mistakes. Depending on the 
size of the organization, there could be some systemic 
challenges or failures that may take years to get to the point 
where they are going to fix them, but usually that is a lot of 
victims.
    So, I mean, I would strongly recommend that such a program 
be brought back. It is a good carrot to what Lynda is talking 
about, which is for the agencies that can't reform, that won't 
reform, and the leadership is not committed to reform, you need 
a consent decree. Some are prepared. They want to do it. If the 
leadership is there, the community is working with them, then 
you can help get them get there in a most efficient way.
    Ms. Scanlon. Okay. I would be wholly supportive of having 
multiple tools. So, thank you. I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back. The gentlelady 
from Texas.
    Ms. Garcia of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I do want to 
thank all the Witnesses for being here, and I apologize that I 
have had to step out a lot during this hearing. We have a 
markup next door in Financial Services where my vote was 
needed.
    Mr. Chair, the relationship between law enforcement and the 
community is a very important one, which is supposed to promote 
the safety and wellbeing of all people. So, where this activism 
increases, so much our commitment to a vision for public safety 
that honors the humanity of all people. Throughout my career, I 
have spent time with community Members, local leaders, and 
police officers. I was the founding Chair of the Independent 
Police Oversight Board, appointed by former Mayor Elise Parker 
in Houston, so I am familiar with the issues that involve the 
relationship between law enforcement and the communities they 
are supposed to protect.
    Houston Chief of Police Art Acevedo testified in this 
Committee earlier this year. He shared that the Hispanic 
community has suffered a chilling effect in reporting violent 
crimes since 2017 when our anti-immigrant racial profiling 
bill, S.B. 4, became law. Unfortunately for many of us in 
Houston and other parts of the country, the old driving while 
Black has now turned into driving while brown. We have seen 
that even more against some of our immigrant community.
    This Texas law forces local governments and law enforcement 
agencies to Act as Federal immigration officers. It diverts 
limited resources away from the communities, corrodes public 
trust in law enforcement, and drives witnesses and victims of 
crime into the shadows. According to Chief Acevedo, 
undocumented immigrants and even lawful immigrants are now even 
afraid to report crime. In Houston, women advocates, domestic 
violence shelter workers, and immigrants shared stories of 
women who are now afraid of contacting law enforcement because 
of deportation threats and threats of abuse. Across the USA, 
authorities have documented declines in crime reported by 
immigrants.
    The pain and frustrations are real. We are facing serious 
challenges and an erosion of trust between the police and 
communities, so we must do more. I thank the Witnesses who have 
come here today, and I hope that working together we can work 
on national standards on guidelines and policies to ensure that 
when it comes to public safety, all will be protected.
    I want to start with you, Ms. Garcia, and I don't start 
with you because you are a cousin because I have not met you 
before. I want to start with you. I read with some interest, 
you handed out this book, and I wanted to refer to you on the 
use of police oversight boards. Like I said, I started the one 
in Houston under the guidance of Mayor Parker. Others call them 
police civilian review boards. You did list it in your book as 
one of the tools that would help among, I guess, 14 or 15 
others. How many cities are doing that and are they working? We 
have only got less than 2 minutes.
    Ms. Garcia. Hi. In terms of whether they are working, they 
are actually one of the biggest tools for community engagement 
and transparency for the community to be involved in that 
oversight process. So, they are extremely important actually in 
your home State, Dallas. Just recently the Chief there worked 
with a local community coalition to institute a community 
oversight review board. So, they are really an important step, 
and we would encourage that.
    They actually have the ability to also recommend 
discipline. Some of them don't. In terms of the numbers, I 
would have to get back to you on the total number across the 
country.
    Ms. Garcia of Texas. Okay. I would ask the Chief over 
there, sir, in your experience and your discussions with others 
of your colleagues, are we seeing an increase only in the 
impact of the influence of the new White supremacy rhetoric and 
things that are going not only that are anti-Jewish, anti-
black, anti-people of color, anti-immigrant, in terms of what 
is going on even in policing?
    Chief Davis. Yes, I think we are seeing an increase in hate 
crime and violence external in the community. We are seeing, 
quite frankly, an infiltration of White supremacists into law 
enforcement, which is also a challenge. So, we are seeing that.
    Ms. Garcia of Texas. How can we get at that, though? You 
have made my point. I mean, what do we do other than the 
cultural training and things that some of the grants can do so 
we can make sure that we get that element out of policing?
    Chief Davis. So, one of the things I found when I was in 
the Administration, there is still significant under reporting 
of hate crimes. When you look at the numbers, you got a whole 
State that said they had five hate crimes. So, making sure 
there is clarity of exactly what is and is not a hate crime, 
making sure officers are treating hate crimes for the severity 
that they represent. Inside police departments, making sure 
that we do thorough background investigations that go to their 
culture.
    Most agencies do it, but they can't be superficial. They 
need to do character references so that they can find out of 
the views, and today can even be on social media and others, to 
make sure that the person you are hiring for the job, as Chief 
Demings mentioned, Congressman Demings mentioned, is prepared 
to make these independent life and death scenarios.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you.
    Ms. Garcia of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back. There are 3 
minutes and 50 seconds left for votes on the floor, but there 
are 321 people who haven't voted yet. So, I think we can have 
one more Witness now, one more question. The gentlelady from 
Florida. From Georgia, I am sorry.
    Ms. McBath. Thank you, Chair, and I don't have any 
questions today, so I will be brief. I do have a statement I 
would like to make.
    Thank you, each and every one of you, today for being here 
today. It is vitally important. I know that I was running back 
and forth between other hearings as well, but I definitely 
wanted to make sure that I was here today. I want to give an 
exceptional thank you and welcome to Mama Gwen, as I call her, 
Ms. Gwen Carr. She and I have worked together as one of the 
mothers of the movement, traveling around the country on this 
very vitally important issue. Your testimony was powerful and 
just so invaluable, and I will say more about that in just a 
minute.
    First, I want to say how much I appreciate the law 
enforcement officers who do put their lives on the line every 
day for the communities that they serve, and those officers who 
serve their communities with dignity and respect that they 
deserve. Our officers do face difficult situations, and we must 
empower them to respond appropriately. It is imperative we give 
them evidence-based training and implicit bias. We must also 
invest in community-based policing. Most importantly, we must 
hold individuals accountable when they abuse the power that we 
the people have given them.
    No doubt we have more work to do to build bridges that 
connect law enforcement and our communities. Our communities 
must respect law enforcement as our protectors, not the enemy, 
but our police must continually earn that respect. Police 
cannot see their communities as the enemy either. Rather, they 
must respect the human dignity of every person that they 
encounter, even and especially when it is challenging for them 
to do so. That is much easier when our law enforcement officers 
look like the communities that they serve and see that 
community as their brothers, their sisters, and their 
neighbors.
    When that fails to happen, the costs are great. We know 
this from the personal stories that we have heard today, and we 
also know it from the data. A 2017 study of over 1,100 law 
students against law enforcement, the largest study of its kind 
to date, found that our legal framework for these cases, the 
doctrine of qualified immunity is not even achieving its stated 
goals. It is often raised as a defense at a trial, not in the 
early stages of litigation as it was intended. Of course, the 
human toll is the most significant reason for the need for 
reform, but the financial costs are also significant.
    Contrary to what you might hear, a study found that 
taxpayers ultimately pay for 99.98 percent of the amount paid 
to victims and families when an officer abuses his or her 
power. Those who abuse their power often serve no time and 
don't pay families a single cent for the immeasurable harms 
they have caused. Not enough can ever be said about the lives 
that we have lost when officers dehumanize and devalue the life 
of another person.
    I want to say to my mother sister, I want to say her as I 
call ``Mama Gwen,'' thank you for sharing your story, a story 
of injustice you and your family and your son, Eric Garner, 
should never have ever had to bear. We will keep fighting for 
Eric. We will honor his memory and all those that are taken 
from us by abuses of power. We will not forget Eric, and we 
will not forget the stories of those who are speaking out.
    Mama Gwen, your voice is truly a catalyst for change, and I 
thank you for that. I speak to you mother to mother, and I hope 
that we can make sure that another person ever bears the pain 
of losing a child such as you have or such as I have. Until you 
suffer the death of your child, you can never truly understand 
the depth of inequity and inequality that we still face in this 
country. I vow to you that we will take action. We will hold 
people accountable when they have the power to do right and 
choose instead to devalue life.
    When our systems failing to hold those who abuse power 
accountable, we must see to it that these systems change. It is 
imperative our law enforcement and our citizens work together 
to build the trust, the respect, and the community that every 
American in this country deserves. I yield back the balance of 
my time.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back. The gentlelady 
from Florida.
    Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you so 
much to the Witnesses for coming here and to all of you in the 
audience. I know that you come here today to this hearing 
seeking justice, seeking equal treatment. It is okay to have 
these conversations despite what you hear from some of the 
minority Party on the other side. It is not just okay to have 
this conversation. I think it is incredibly important for us to 
have this conversation today and all over America because the 
facts are that people of color are affected by acts of police 
brutality 2-4 times more than others.
    I represent a district. It is a minority-majority district, 
and we have had those issues. I also want to point out that I 
have met many Members in law enforcement whom I respect 
greatly, who understand the intricacies of our communities, and 
who have been working so hard to build the trust which I think 
is so important. We know that there is tension between 
communities and law enforcement, and we have seen through now 
phones and social media, which has shed light on the lack of 
trust between the police and the populations that they serve.
    I think that, most importantly, we need to start building 
trust, but we can't do that without acknowledging that there is 
inherent racism in this country. We can't do that if we can't 
have an honest conversation, which is why I think it is such an 
important moment for us to discuss this here today.
    So, police involvement is more than just enforcing the law. 
It is more than just making arrests. I think that it is 
important to start building trust in these communities, 
bringing police officers together to build an understanding of 
one another. We have started those programs. I am very proud to 
share with you that in my district in Goulds and in the 
Hammocks, which are communities in my district, the police 
district regularly puts on events designed to get cops acquired 
with the city's residents. Police Major Michael Dieppa and his 
deputies hold regular coffee with cops at local restaurants, 
and they schedule bike rides around different neighborhoods to 
engage with the people that they are protecting.
    Events like these help foster a real and open relationship 
in vastly different communities. At a Federal level, I think 
that is our duty to make sure that community policing 
initiatives are fully funded and continue to succeed. Sadly, 
though, many of the essential Federal programs have been cut or 
pushed out of the existence under the current Administration. 
So, my first question is to Chief Davis. Given the cuts to the 
Federal Community COPS Program over the past couple of years, 
especially the Technical Assistance Program, what 
recommendations do you have for local communities and police 
departments to continue to build these relationships even as we 
see more decreased Federal funding?
    Chief Davis. Thank you for the question. I will say in many 
cases, Congresswoman, States have been stepping up. So, in 
California, Illinois, where the Department of Justice walked 
away either from a consent decree or from a collaborative 
reform, the State attorney generals have stepped in. So, I 
think if you go to the State level, I would still talk to 
agencies, as Chief Hawkins mentioned, the agencies that have 
experience and have the best practices, and get engaged with 
the national associations and organizations that are working to 
establish these national best practices.
    There definitely are significant gaps, but they can be 
filled in. The real challenge for many communities is all the 
technical assistance provided was at no cost to that 
jurisdiction so small or large can have access to it. The 
challenge now is most agencies now have to go out and pay for 
consultants, pay for that technical assistance, so it becomes a 
challenge. They can probably turn to their State, turn to their 
associations, and turn within their own group to understand 
what are the best practices.
    Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you for that. Mr. Goff, as 
Members of Congress, what do you think we can do or bring back 
to our communities to optimize the relationship between law 
enforcement and the communities that they serve?
    Mr. Goff. That is a great question, and I thank you for it. 
I would say that the Department of Justice put forward an 
initiative that just concluded, the National Initiative for 
Building Community Trust and Justice. The goal of that 
initiative was to take the science that we already knew worked 
in the laboratory and in a one-off do it in six cities across 
the United States, from focused deterrence, to racial 
reconciliation, to both training and culture shifts in 
procedural justice, to training and culture shifts and the use 
of data to reduce racially disparate elements. So, given the 
time, I will say it is in the proposal and in the record.
    Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you, Mr. Goff.
    Mr. Goff. Yep.
    Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. I yield back to my time.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 
5 minutes. (This statement is not audible on the hearing 
recording)
    Mr. Raskin. Dr. Goff, I am impressed by the remarkable work 
you are doing to advance community safety. The question that 
has been running through my mind is how America's vast and 
quite unique problem of gun violence complicates the problem of 
police-civilian relations. We have lost more than 1 million-
and-a-half of citizens since 1968 to gun violence. The rates of 
gun violence in America are 25 times higher than 22 other 
wealthy countries on average. So, this must be a very serious 
problem in terms of community civilian relations, and I wonder 
if you would opine on that.
    Mr. Goff. Sadly, there is not as much good research on 
exactly that question as there should be, but I can tell you 
the things that we know both from the science and from mine and 
CPE's exposure to law enforcement, which, of course, it has a 
huge impact on it. If you look at Chief Art Acevedo in Houston, 
who every time there is a shooting understands that his 
officers are going out to a place where you can't escalate by 
simply putting hands on somebody because they might be armed, 
right?
    I think one of the elements that we are not talking about 
nearly enough is that just as much as gun violence, shooting 
other people, homicides makes the job of law enforcement 
infinitely more dangerous, it is suicides that are responsible 
for a larger proportion of lost officer lives, right? So, we 
have to go back to officer wellness to talk about it, so both 
as they are going out on the jobs and then as they are having 
to metabolize it and live with it at home. The availability of 
guns and gun violence are epidemic not just on the streets, but 
in the private homes of law enforcement as well.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you. Can I ask one yes or no question?
    Chair Nadler. Yes or no.
    Mr. Raskin. Okay, and I think this is for Chief Davis. You 
mentioned the problem of White supremacists entering police 
forces, and we have certainly heard reports of that. Do you 
have any research suggesting that this is actually a conscious 
strategy by White supremacist groups to send people into local 
police forces?
    Chief Davis. No, sir, just anecdotes at this time.
    Chair Nadler. All Members have 5 legislative days to submit 
additional written questions for the Witnesses or additional 
materials for the record.
    We thank our Witnesses. Without objection, the hearing is 
adjourned. There is zero time left for votes on the floor.
    [Laughter.]
    [Whereupon, at 1:56 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

     
                                APPENDIX

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

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 [all]