[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



 
       JUVENILE JUSTICE PIPELINE AND THE ROAD BACK TO INTEGRATION

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                   SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,
                         AND HOMELAND SECURITY

                                 OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                         THURSDAY, MAY 13, 2021

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-21

                               __________

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


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

             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
46-140              WASHINGTON : 2021 
               
               
               
                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                    JERROLD NADLER, New York, Chair
                MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania, Vice-Chair

ZOE LOFGREN, California              JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Ranking Member
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas            STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee               LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,      DARRELL ISSA, California
    Georgia                          KEN BUCK, Colorado
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida          MATT GAETZ, Florida
KAREN BASS, California               MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York         ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island     TOM McCLINTOCK, California
ERIC SWALWELL, California            W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida
TED LIEU, California                 TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin
JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland               THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky
PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington          CHIP ROY, Texas
VAL BUTLER DEMINGS, Florida          DAN BISHOP, North Carolina
J. LUIS CORREA, California           MICHELLE FISCHBACH, Minnesota
MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania       VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana
SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas              SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin
JOE NEGUSE, Colorado                 CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon
LUCY McBATH, Georgia                 BURGESS OWENS, Utah
GREG STANTON, Arizona
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
MONDAIRE JONES, New York
DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
CORI BUSH, Missouri

                PERRY APELBAUM, Majority Staff Director
              CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Minority Staff Director 
                                 ------                                

        SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

                 SHEILA JACKSON LEE, California, Chair
                    CORI BUSH, Missouri, Vice-Chair

KAREN BASS, California               ANDY BIGGS, Arizona, Ranking 
VAL DEMINGS, Florida                     Member
LUCY McBATH, Georgia                 STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania         LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania       W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida
DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island        TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin
TED LIEU, California                 THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky
LOU CORREA, California               VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas              SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee               BURGESS OWENS, Utah

                   JOE GRAUPENSPERGER, Chief Counsel
                    JASON CERVENAK, Minority Counsel
                    
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                         Thursday, May 13, 2021

                                                                   Page

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, Chair of the Subcommittee on 
  Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security from the State of Texas     2
The Honorable Andy Biggs, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on 
  Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security from the State of 
  Arizona........................................................     3
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of New York...........................     5

                               WITNESSES

Bryan Stevenson, Esq., Founder and Executive Director, Equal 
  Justice Initiative
  Oral Testimony.................................................     9
  Prepared Statement.............................................    12
Marsha Levick, Esq., Co-Founder and Chief Legal Officer, Juvenile 
  Law Center
  Oral Testimony.................................................    33
  Prepared Statement.............................................    36
Brett Peterson, Director, Utah Division of Juvenile Justice 
  Services
  Oral Testimony.................................................    40
  Prepared Statement.............................................    42
Aaron Toleafoa, Chair, Emerging Leaders Committee, Coalition for 
  Juvenile Justice
  Oral Testimony.................................................    47
  Prepared Statement.............................................    49
Jessica Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies, Center for 
  Immigration Studies
  Oral Testimony.................................................    51
  Prepared Statement.............................................    53

           STATEMENTS, LETTERS, MATERIALS, ARTICLES SUBMITTED

A picture of a juvenile brain submitted by the Honorable Sheila 
  Jackson Lee, Chair of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 
  Homeland Security for the record...............................    66
Articles submitted by the Honorable Thomas Massie, a Member of 
  the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security 
  from the State of Kentucky for the record
  An article entitled ``Kyle Rittenhouse Deserves the Kind of 
    Mercy My Son Did Not Receive,'' The Atlantic.................    82
  An article entitled ``Not Even Rittenhouse Should be Tried as 
    an Adult,'' Marcy Mistrett...................................    86
Materials from WA State Court of Appeals Division III, 
  UNPUBLISHED OPINION, submitted by the Honorable W. Gregory 
  Steube, a Member of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 
  Homeland Security from the State of Florida for the record.....   106

                                APPENDIX

Statement from an individual inside prison walls ``system does 
  not work,'' submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, 
  Chair of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland 
  Security from the State of Texas for the record................   124
Materials from WA State Court of Appeals Division III, 
  UNPUBLISHED OPINION, submitted by Aaron Toleafoa, Chair, 
  Emerging Leaders Committee, Coalition for Juvenile Justice for 
  the record.....................................................   126
Articles submitted by the Juvenile Law Center for the record
  An article entitled ``Broken Bridges, How Juvenile Placements 
    Cut off Youth From Communities and Successful Futures''......   130
  An article entitled ``Debtors' Prison for Kids? The High Cost 
    of Fines and Fees in the Juvenile Justice System''...........   161
  An article entitled ``Unlocking Youth--Legal Strategies to End 
    Solitary Confinement in Juvenile Facilities''................   200
  An article entitled ``Transforming Justice--Bringing 
    Pennsylvania's Young People Safely Home From Juvenile Justice 
    Placements''.................................................   240
  An article entitled ``Racial Inequality in US youth detention 
    wider than ever, experts say,'' The Guardian.................   283
  An article entitled ``National Trends in Sentencing Children to 
    Life Without Parole,'' Death Penalty Incorporation Center 
    (DPIC).......................................................   287
  An article entitled ``Debtors' Prison for Kids? High Cost of 
    Fines and Fees in the Juvenile Justice System,'' Executive 
    Summary, Jessica Feierman and Naomi Goldstein, Emily Haney-
    Caron, and Jaymes Fairfax Columbo............................   297


       JUVENILE JUSTICE PIPELINE AND THE ROAD BACK TO INTEGRATION

                              ----------                              


                         Thursday, May 13, 2021

                        House of Representatives

                   Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism,

                         and Homeland Security

                       Committee on the Judiciary

                             Washington, DC

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m., in 
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sheila Jackson 
Lee [chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Nadler, Jackson Lee, 
Demings, Bass, McBath, Dean, Scanlon, Bush, Cicilline, Correa, 
Escobar, Biggs, Chabot, Gohmert, Steube, Tiffany, Massie, 
Spartz, Fitzgerald, and Owens.
    Staff present: David Greengrass, Senior Counsel; Moh 
Sharma, Member Services and Outreach Advisor; Cierra Fontenot, 
Chief Clerk; John Williams, Parliamentarian; Monalisa Dugue, 
Deputy Chief Counsel; Veronica Eligan, Professional Staff 
Member; Jason Cervenak, Minority Chief Counsel for Crime; Ken 
David, Minority Counsel; and Kiley Bidelman, Minority Clerk.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. The Subcommittee will come to order. 
Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess 
of the Subcommittee at any time.
    We welcome everyone to this morning's hearing on Juvenile 
Justice Pipeline and the Road Back to Integration. I must say 
how excited I am about the many witnesses and their 
perspectives on talking about fixing, helping, overhauling a 
system that protects our children.
    Before we begin, I would like to remind Members that we 
have established an email address and distribution list 
dedicated to circulating exhibits, motions, or other written 
materials that Members might want to offer as part of our 
hearing today. If you would like to submit materials, please 
send them to the email address that has been previously 
distributed to your offices and we will circulate the materials 
to Members and staff as quickly as we can.
    I would also remind all Members that guidance from the 
Office of Attending Physicians states that face coverings are 
required for all meetings in an enclosed space such as 
Committee hearings. You may remove your mask only when 
recognized to speak.
    I would also ask Members to mute your microphone when you 
are not speaking. This will help prevent feedback and other 
technical issues. You may unmute yourself any time you seek 
recognition.
    Now, I will yield myself time for an opening statement.
    Today, this subcommittee, and I must say with a great deal 
of excitement because this is an area of great love and 
affection for me and the work that we have done in years past 
in this committee, but this is an exciting time that this 
Subcommittee will discuss several issues that impact youth and 
the juvenile justice system. It will examine recent trends in 
law and policy and their impact on the prosecution, 
incarceration, and treatment of juveniles. It will also explore 
effective methods by which we can reform our juvenile justice 
system.
    Historically, reform has been a monumental challenge 
particularly when addressing our justice system, for reform 
always requires those whose hands are free, whose hearts are in 
the works, and who care for the results. As Abraham Lincoln 
once put it in his speech, a house divided against itself 
cannot stand. United we need to stand on behalf of our 
children.
    When a series of litigation challenges across the Nation 
demonstrated the lack of due process and protection for youth 
in a justice system, we came together as a Congress to pass the 
preliminary juvenile justice Act and that is the Juvenile 
Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA). With JJDPA as 
their guide, many states have taken up the task of reforming 
their juvenile justice system and are doing well in places like 
Utah, California, Massachusetts, Illinois, the District of 
Columbia, Connecticut, and Washington State. Thank them for 
their vision, but there is so much more work to do.
    They recognized that an investment in our children and 
their future is an investment in America. As we make this 
investment, we must take into consideration childhood trauma 
and its impact on an already undeveloped brain when 
prosecuting, punishing, and incarcerating our youth.
    Scientific-based research has shown that adolescence is a 
distinct development stage that lasts from the mid-teens years 
into the mid-20s. In essence, the brain doesn't fully mature 
until at least 25-years old. Does that tell us about high 
school students, middle schoolers, and yes, young people who 
may make rash or irreverent or spontaneous decisions? Should 
that be their life? Should we have a way of addressing these 
young people?
    It tells us that during that time, brains continue to 
mature and develop throughout childhood and adolescence and 
well into early adulthood. As such, adolescents do engage in 
behaviors that are risky and sometimes dangerous. It is our 
responsibility as guardians of the future to be able to help to 
steer those individuals that have made such decisions to a 
brighter future.
    Even the Supreme Court recognizes this fact as demonstrated 
in its line of landmark cases from Roper v. Simmons, to Graham 
v. Florida, to J.D.B. v. North Carolina, Miller v. Alabama, and 
Stevenson and Montgomery v. Louisiana when determining the 
legal culpability of juveniles facing life without parole 
sentences.
    Although the conservative majority in the Supreme Court 
stated in Jones v. Mississippi that it does not overrule 
Miller, this deviation from precedent is a clear reminder that 
we must remain committed to enacting legislation that addresses 
juvenile life without parole more effectively. It is 
unacceptable. The United States stands alone as the only Nation 
that sentences people to life without parole for crimes 
committed before turning 18. Twenty-five states and the 
District of Columbia banned life sentences without the 
possibility of parole for juveniles, while several others have 
no one serving this sentence.
    Congress has much work to do to make this policy 
consistent, meaning that it is irrational and may be inhumane 
to sentence young people to life without parole for acts they 
committed before the age of 18. This work must be done in 
addressing this and other issues like juveniles in adult 
facilities, age appropriate prosecutions, reentry fines and 
fees, probation, status offenses, and solitary confinement. 
According to the ACLU, research has shown that solitary 
confinement can cause extreme psychological, physical, and 
developmental harm resulting in persistent mental health 
problems or even suicide.
    Kalief Browder, whose family I met, whose brother I met, 
was a tragedy and a prime example of the psychological harm 
that may result from excessive isolation when he took his young 
life in 2015 after remaining in solitary confinement in Rikers 
Island even to the point of being in his own feces for simple 
allegations of taking a backpack. I might add that it was 
determined that the owner of the backpack wasn't in the country 
and it wasn't an offense in the first place, but he couldn't 
get a lawyer. He couldn't get representation and remained there 
for a very long time.
    We are at an inflection point where we can no longer sit on 
the sidelines and hope and pray things get better. We are 
summoned by our better angels to take up this task to do what 
we are sent here Congress to do to act. I paid tribute to 
Kalief with legislation named after him, but we must do more.
    I look forward to hearing your testimony on how we can help 
the states in addressing these pivotal issues and thereby 
saving our children.
    It is my privilege now to recognize the Ranking Member's 
opening statement for five minutes.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to all the 
witnesses for being here, both in person and remotely.
    At today's hearing, the Subcommittee will examine the issue 
of juvenile justice. We should be discussing President Biden's 
inhumane border crisis. I was at the border again last week and 
what I saw was maddening.
    The Biden Administration is not acting to resolve the 
crisis. The solutions are not difficult, but it requires the 
Administration to admit that there is a crisis and they created 
it.
    I think we should explore some simple statistics at the 
beginning of this hearing today. Over the past 2 months, 35,000 
unaccompanied minor children have been apprehended by border 
patrol. You should see the conditions that most of them are in. 
I have visited those facilities. I have been in virtually every 
sector in the last eight weeks. There isn't a single one of 
those children who hasn't been trafficked or transported by the 
transnational criminal organizations called cartels. These 
children have been placed into hands of very dangerous and 
inhumane coyotes who abuse and victimize many, if not most, of 
these children.
    There is evidence of an additional pernicious problem 
affecting children crossing our southern border. They are being 
rented and recycled.
    Testimony before Congress asserted that children as young 
as five-years old are used by dozens of adults to cross our 
border and obtain release into the interior of the United 
States. In one case, a 51-years-old man bought a 6-month-old 
child for $80.
    On the other hand, there are exactly zero juveniles being 
held in the United States Bureau of Prison facilities; zero. 
Those are federal prisons. According to the Bureau of Prisons' 
website, there are 15 juveniles being held in three contract 
facilities. We are here today talking about those 15 ostensibly 
instead of the 35,000.
    Police Executive Research Forum tracks crime trends and 
recently found that ``Juveniles seem to be''--this is a quote, 
``increasingly involved in shootings and other violence in part 
because they are not in school and school resource officers 
have been reassigned.''
    Don't forget an emerging policy objective from some of the 
Democrats on the left to defund police or even elimination of 
police departments altogether. The concomitant spike in crime, 
including juvenile crime, has already demonstrated the danger 
in this rather facile and wrong-headed idea.
    Issues surrounding juvenile justice are State issues and 
should be left to the states. The only nexus the Federal 
Government has to the juvenile system in America is when 
Congress inserts itself into the process through the 
Administration of grant programs. There are myriad issues that 
this Subcommittee could be looking that are relevant to the 
jurisdiction of this Committee and the role of the Federal 
Government, issues that are of great importance to the American 
people.
    As I mentioned previously, the Biden Administration has 
refused to address the humanitarian and security crisis at the 
southern border that continues to worsen every day. It has been 
50 days since President Biden appointed Vice President Harris 
to solve the crisis and she still has not even visited the 
border. I invited her and any member of this Committee to join 
me at the border to see and hear first-hand what is happening. 
It is hard to solve a crisis when you refuse to acknowledge 
that there is a crisis.
    Over two months ago, I and other Members of this 
subcommittee, sent a letter to the chair requesting a hearing 
to examine how the Biden Administration's crisis along the 
southern border affects homeland security and public safety. Of 
course, we have not had such a hearing and we renew our request 
to hold such a hearing in the near future.
    The President needs to reinstate successful Trump 
Administration policies such as the Migrant Protection 
Protocols that were working. We need to update our asylum laws 
and address loopholes in our immigration laws that serve as 
magnets for UAC, unaccompanied children, and families in our 
country illegally because they know that once they get here 
they will most likely never be removed.
    Specifically, we need to amend the Trafficking Victims 
Protection Reauthorization Act so that UAC from noncontiguous 
countries are treated the same as UAC from contiguous 
countries. When you address the impacts of the Florida 
Settlement Agreement that require UAC to be released from 
custody even if they are with their parents, even the Obama and 
Biden Administration advocated for those fixes. That is why I 
introduced the Stopping Border Surges Act to make these 
changes.
    The Biden Administration's border crisis also raises 
serious concerns about violent, criminal gang activity. 
According to a 2018 Congressional Research Service report, 
there are also concerns that MS-13 may exploit the U.S. 
southwest border by bringing young gang Members from Central 
America to the United States as unaccompanied alien children or 
may recruit some of the vulnerable UACs to join the gang once 
in the United States. This is exactly where we see the 
intersection of the Biden Administration's border crisis and 
the topic before us today. These policies have very real and 
sometimes very deadly consequences.
    Not too long ago, four juveniles were charged with murder 
in West Palm Beach, Florida. They were Members of the violent 
MS-13 gang, in the country illegally, and suspected of being 
unaccompanied children. This was not an isolated incident. MS-
13 is taking advantage of our open southern border and bringing 
in unaccompanied children who actively participate in criminal 
gang activities. When these unaccompanied children enter our 
juvenile justice system, they divert resources that could be 
used to help serve those who are not in this country illegally. 
So, we see yet another disastrous consequence of the Biden 
Administration's lack of border security policy.
    I again thank each of the witnesses for being here today. I 
look forward to your testimony and hearing what you have to add 
to this important topic. I thank the chair and I yield back.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the Ranking Member and was 
delighted to yield to him, thank him for his passion, and to 
remind him of the great work of the Biden-Harris 
Administration, particularly the humanitarian response that 
they have offered and the intensity of their work on the issues 
of the border and unaccompanied children. So, I thank you, Mr. 
Biggs, very much.
    I now recognize the distinguished Chair of the Full 
Committee, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler, for his 
opening statement.
    Mr. Nadler.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you, Chair Jackson Lee for holding this 
importing hearing on juvenile justice, not, by the way, on 
immigration.
    It is particularly important to hold this hearing on 
juvenile justice in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's recent 
decision in Jones v. Mississippi. That decision which makes it 
easier for courts to sentence children to life in prison 
without the possibility of parole, marks a significant break 
from the court's prior precedent.
    Previously, the court had issued a string of decisions 
restricting the imposition of these harsh sentences, based in 
large part on the significant and growing scientific consensus 
regarding the differences between children and adults and the 
recognition that we should view, treat, and rehabilitate 
children in our justice system accordingly.
    Prior to the progressive era, the period of widespread 
activism and social reform spanning years from the 1890s to the 
1920s, child offenders over the age of 7 were punished and 
confined with adults in harsh and overcrowded penal 
institutions. Early reformers and psychologists opposed 
incarcerating youth with adults and urged the creation of new 
institutions for youth that focused on rehabilitation. This 
work led to the creation of the New York House of Refuge in 
1824, the first juvenile reformatory in the United States and 
the pioneer in the treatment of children.
    By 1899, other states had followed suit and recognized that 
children who commit crimes are different from adults. By the 
1920s, our juvenile justice system had emerged, but over time a 
system originally focused on rehabilitation and the differences 
between children and adults shifted to one fueled by tough-on-
crime laws in response to an exaggerated rise of juvenile crime 
and delinquency. These laws resulted in disparate sentences, 
especially for African American children, deplorable conditions 
of confinement for sentenced youth, and the depravation of 
constitutional rights.
    According to the Death Penalty Information Center and the 
Equal Justice Initiative, at least 366 people have been 
executed for juvenile offenses by 2005. Thousands more, 
including children as young as 13, were sentenced to life in 
prison without the possibility of parole.
    The Supreme Court slowly recognized that children are 
different. In 2005, it held in Roper v. Simmons that ``that the 
death penalty cannot be imposed upon juvenile offenders.'' In 
doing so, the court acknowledged ``the overwhelming weight of 
international opinion against the juvenile death penalty 
resting in large part on the understanding of the instability 
and emotional imbalance of young people may often be a factor 
in the crime.''
    In 2010, the court held in Graham v. Florida, that the 8th 
amendment forbids life without parole sentences for juveniles 
convicted of non-homicide offenses. In 2012, it held in Miller 
v. Alabama, a case argued by Bryan Stevenson, one of our 
witnesses, that mandatory life without parole sentences for 
juveniles violate the 8th Amendment.
    The court's 2016 decision Montgomery v. Louisiana, applied 
Miller retroactively, finding that children are 
constitutionally different from adults in their culpability and 
that the severest punishments should be reserved for ``the 
rarest of juvenile offenders, those whose crimes reflect 
permanent incorrigibility.''
    The recent Jones decision, however, guts this precedent and 
it sadly reaffirms our standing as the only country in the 
world that sentences children to life imprisonment without the 
possibility of parole for offenses committed before they turned 
18-years old.
    As we examine the impact of this decision and possible 
solutions, it is important that we also explore the full range 
of issues affecting justice-involved youth. This includes early 
intervention strategies for at-risk youth, particularly those 
who experience childhood trauma; developing appropriate 
confinement settings and rehabilitation programs that will ease 
reentry when sentences are over.
    Some states have led the way on juvenile justice reform. I 
hope these efforts, these reform efforts, will mitigate some of 
the harm caused by the Jones decision, retroactively and 
prospectively. Our treatment of justice-involved youth should 
not be based on geography. Congress must be an equal partner in 
these reform efforts which includes examining the way our 
federal laws treat youth in our justice system.
    I look forward to hearing from our witnesses as we continue 
to explore these important issues. Thank you. I yield back the 
balance of my time.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. The gentleman yields back. It is now my 
privilege to recognize the distinguished Ranking Member of the 
Full Committee, the gentleman from Ohio. We thank Mr. Jordan 
for this hearing and happens to have stepped away for another 
hearing. We thank him very much. The Ranking Member will submit 
his written statement and we appreciate that (no statement 
provided).
    We will now proceed with witness introductions. We have 
heard the stories presented in our opening statements, mine and 
Mr. Nadler's, where we are in this issue. A quintessential 
leader, visionary in this effort, along with our other 
witnesses, is Mr. Bryan Stevenson.
    Mr. Bryan Stevenson is the founder and executive director 
of the Equal Justice Initiative, a human rights organization in 
Montgomery, Alabama. Under his leadership, EJI has won major 
legal challenges eliminating excessive and unfair sentencing, 
exonerating innocent death row prisoners, confronting abuse of 
the incarcerated and the mentally ill, and aiding children 
prosecuted as adults.
    Stevenson has argued and won multiple cases at the U.S. 
Supreme Court and he and his staff have won reversals, relief, 
or release from prison for over 135 wrongly condemned prisoners 
on death row and won relief for hundreds of others wrongly 
convicted or unfairly sentenced.
    We are seeking a journey to reform and we thank Mr. 
Stevenson for being willing to be part of that journey and that 
victory.
    Ms. Marsha Levick is a legal chief counsel and co-founder 
of the Juvenile Law Center since 1975, and is a nationally-
recognized expert in juvenile law. Levick oversees Juvenile Law 
Center's litigation and appellate docket and has successfully 
litigated challenges to unlawful and harmful laws, policies and 
practices on behalf of children in both the juvenile justice 
and child welfare systems.
    Ms. Levick has authored or co-authored numerous appellate 
and amicus briefs in State and federal appeals courts 
throughout the country, including many before the U.S. Supreme 
Court and has argued both State and federal appellate courts in 
Pennsylvania and numerous other jurisdictions. She realizes the 
wrongness of the Jones case and we are glad to have here to 
help us reform the system.
    Mr. Brett Peterson, he is one who is working in the 
vineyards. Brett is the director of the Utah Department of 
Juvenile Services. He is responsible for the operation and 
management of Utah's Division of Juvenile Justice Services. 
Brett also oversees the continuum of care in juvenile justice 
including early intervention, shelter, detention, and long term 
secure settings. He is committed to reducing the need for out-
of-home placements, correlating the services provided with the 
leading research related to the adolescent brain development. 
He oversees the ongoing implementation of significant juvenile 
justice reforms in Utah. He is working in the fields and the 
vineyards and he sees our children and what can be done on 
their behalf. Thank you so very much.
    Let me thank Mr. Aaron Toleafoa. He is reality check for 
all us, a young man who we should listen to. Aaron is the chair 
of the Emerging Leaders Committee with the Coalition of 
Juvenile Justice and has been a long term advocate for youth 
justice reform. Aaron's advocacy efforts have led to the 
passage of numerous legislative reforms in Washington State, 
including Senate Bill 6160 which would allow minors convicted 
in the adult court to stay in the juvenile correction system 
until they turn 25 rather than being transferred to prison when 
they turn 21-years old.
    Aaron was given 21 years for felonies he committed when he 
was 15-years old. He was sentenced to Green Hill School, a 
Washington State juvenile correctional facility that focused on 
juvenile rehabilitation, treatment with education and 
vocational training. He is there now.
    There he has become a leader in the community and joined in 
lobbying efforts for felon incarcerated youths to promote 
juvenile justice reform. His voice is one that should not be 
ignored.
    Ms. Jessica Vaughan, Jessica is the Director of Policy 
Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington, 
DC, based research institute that examines the impact of 
immigration on American society and educates policymakers and 
opinion leaders on immigration issues. She has been with the 
Center since 1992. Her area of expertise is immigration policy 
and operations covering topics such as visa programs, 
immigration benefits, and immigration law enforcement. Thank 
you for being here.
    I want to take just a moment to do something somewhat 
unusual and that is to thank my Members for being here because 
this is important work and we have experienced a pandemic and a 
COVID-19. We know that time is of the essence as we move to 
make change. So, I want to thank Karen Bass, Val Demings, Lucy 
McBath, Madeleine Dean, Mary Gay Scanlon, Cori Bush, David 
Cicilline, Ted Lieu, Luis Correa, Veronica Escobar, and Steve 
Cohen for their presence here along with Chair of the Full 
Committee, Mr. Nadler.
    I thank my Members of the minority, Mr. Jordan, Mr. Biggs, 
Mr. Chabot, Louie Gohmert, W. Gregory Steube, Tom Tiffany, 
Thomas Massie, Victoria Spartz, Scott Fitzgerald, and Burgess 
Owens. I know that we will work together for what is good for 
young people.
    It is now my obligation as I welcome all our distinguished 
witnesses to thank them for their participation. I will begin 
by swearing in our witnesses. I ask that our witnesses in 
person please rise and raise your right hand. I ask that our 
remote witnesses please rise and raise your right hand. The 
witnesses who are in the room please rise and raise your right 
hand. I ask that our remote witnesses please turn on their 
audio and make sure that I can see your face and your raised 
right hand while I administer the oath. May I see a raised 
right hand while I administer the oath. Witnesses unmute and 
raise your right hands in a way that is visible in the screen.
    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.
    Let the record show the witnesses have all answered in the 
affirmative. Thank you all very much.
    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 five minutes. To help you 
stay within the time, there is a timing light on the witness 
table. When the light switches from green to yellow, you have 
one minute to conclude your testimony. When the light turns 
red, it signals your five minutes have expired.
    For our witnesses appearing virtually, there is a timer on 
your screen to help you keep track of time.
    To my fellow Members on this committee, I want to indicate 
how much the witnesses are part of the process of democracy, so 
we are very grateful.
    As I yield to Mr. Stevenson, it should be known as Ms. 
Levick that they have just recently been engaged in a Supreme 
Court case. Mr. Stevenson has a graduation speech, but he was 
willing to be with us because we must make change.
    Mr. Stevenson, you are now recognized for five minutes.
    Thank you so very much.

                  STATEMENT OF BRYAN STEVENSON

    Mr. Stevenson. Thank you, Madam Chair, and it's my great 
honor to be with all of you this morning.
    I want to begin by just emphasizing the childhood trauma 
epidemic that we are seeing across this country. I don't think 
we have talked enough about the fact that there are hundreds of 
thousands of children in this country who are born into violent 
families, that live in violent neighborhoods, that are being 
shouted at, abused, and mistreated, in their early years.
    What happens when children are treated in this way is that 
they develop trauma disorders just like our combat veterans 
coming back from combat.
    When someone is constantly being threatened their brain 
begins to produce these chemicals, cortisol and adrenalin, and 
they become hyperreactive and these trauma disorders have 
lifelong consequences if we do not intervene, and we have the 
power and the knowledge to intervene and to deal with this 
trauma epidemic and I believe it would not only lower crime and 
improve public safety but it would save lives.
    Instead of doing that, when these children get to schools 
we do the opposite. We don't make them feel safe. We threaten 
them. We have too many schools where teachers react to these 
children like the teachers are correctional officers and the 
children are prisoners.
    We have too many principals that Act like wardens. We say, 
do this and we'll suspend you. Do that we'll expel you. That 
threat mindset aggravates the trauma, and by the time some of 
these kids are 9- and 10-years old and someone gives them a 
drug and for the first time in their life they feel three hours 
of release and peace from the trauma and the stress, what do 
they want?
    They want more drugs, and some of these kids get to 11 and 
12 someone says, join my gang, we'll help you fight the forces 
that make you feel threatened, and what do they do? They join 
that gang, and we have to understand that dealing with trauma 
is at the heart of how we improve the lives of so many of our 
children.
    We haven't done it, in part because we have had too many 
people preaching a false narrative about children. Some have 
said that some children aren't children. Some kids look like 
kids, but they're not kids.
    Super predator myths and other distorted notions of child 
development have dominated our policymaking. Today is a day, I 
hope, we will recognize the error of that and change things.
    I believe that all children are children. I don't believe 
we show our commitment to children by looking at how well we 
treat talented kids, gifted kids, and privileged kids. Our 
commitment to children must be expressed by how we treat poor 
kids, abused kids, and marginalized kids. That's the context 
and we haven't done very well. There are these things that I 
believe we must do.
    Last month, Maryland became the 25th State that banned life 
without parole sentences for children. I believe the Federal 
Government has a critical role to play in leading this country.
    The United States Congress should end and ban life without 
parole sentences for children. Not just because the Supreme 
Court has recognized that that's important, but because this 
country has an obligation to lead in rebutting the false 
narratives that have shaped these policies.
    There is a critical need for us to do something about the 
fact that we still have children in adult jails and prisons.
    In 2003, a bipartisan Congress passed something called the 
Prison Rape Elimination Act. One of the critical provisions of 
that Act was a prohibition on putting children in adult jails 
in prisons.
    Notwithstanding that act, today there are thousands of kids 
in adult jails and prisons where they're threatened, where 
they're sexually assaulted, where the risk of suicide is 
dramatically higher, and that abuse continues and I believe we 
have to create an enforceable ban on placing children in adult 
jails and prisons, a ban that applies both at the State and the 
federal level.
    The bill was introduced in 2003 by Senator Sessions in the 
Senate, Bobby Scott in the House. It passed unanimously. I have 
to believe that this Congress recognizes the importance of 
ending the shameful practice of putting children in adult jails 
and prisons.
    Finally, I think we have to reckon with the distortions 
that have been created by lowering the minimum age of trying 
children as adults. We have 13 states in this country that have 
no minimum age of trying a child as an adult. I've represented 
9- and 10-years-old kids facing 40- and 50-years prison 
sentences in adult jails and prisons.
    Last week, I was in California. I was celebrating a book 
release by one of my clients, a 13-years-old boy named Ian 
Manuel who was arrested and convicted in Tampa, Florida. He was 
born into violence. His mother was put in prison for a violent 
act.
    He was abused. He was homeless. He tried to join a gang at 
13-years old and he ended up attempting a robbery where he shot 
someone. For that crime, he pled guilty and the judge sentenced 
him to life imprisonment without parole at the age of 13-years 
old.
    They sent him to an adult prison, and even though he was 
14-years old, they couldn't put him in the population so they 
put him in solitary confinement. He spent 18 years in solitary 
confinement where he cut himself, where he was abused.
    We won his release after the Supreme Court banned life 
without parole sentences for children. He spent five years in 
our re-entry program and today, he is a published author. He 
issues poetry.
    He is very, very acclaimed. He is an example of the problem 
and the solution. He represents the challenges but also the 
hope of what happens when we commit to recognizing that all 
children are children.
    That's what I hope this Congress will do today in changing 
this narrative and lifting up the children who are most 
vulnerable in American society.
    [The statement of Mr. Stevenson follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]       
       
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me thank you very much for your 
testimony, Mr. Stevenson, and the passion in which you have 
given it.
    I now yield to Ms. Levick for five minutes.
    [Pause.]
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I think you need to turn on your mic. 
Thank you.
    Ms. Levick. Happy to do that.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Yes, thank you.

                   STATEMENT OF MARSHA LEVICK

    Ms. Levick. I'll start over.
    Madam Chair Jackson Lee, Chair Nadler, Ranking Member 
Biggs, and distinguished Members of this subcommittee, thank 
you for welcoming me today.
    At a press conference this past Saturday to address the 
civil rights charges recently filed by the Justice Department 
against convicted Officer Derek Chauvin and three other 
officers charged in George Floyd's death at which Chair Jackson 
Lee was also present, Congressman Al Green from Houston 
proclaimed, ``The winds of change are blowing.''
    The winds of change are, indeed, blowing. I've been 
advocating for youth in the justice system since 1975. I co-
founded Juvenile Law Center one year after Congress passed 
JJDPA and just eight years after the United States Supreme 
Court first declared that children are people too under our 
Constitution.
    The cries for transformation have never been louder or more 
urgent. Since 1975, I have seen the highest levels of youth 
arrests and incarceration, and I have also seen the lowest.
    In 2019 the lowest number of youth arrests in more than 40 
years and youth incarceration has dropped by 70 percent since 
1996. Even in the face of such steep drops, youth incarceration 
remains too high and our youth are still suffering Children are 
still experiencing physical, emotional, and sexual abuse in 
custody.
    We remain the last country in the United Nations to 
sentence children to die in prison and racial disparities have 
only worsened in the youth justice system.
    Federal leadership can make a difference. Several bills 
have now been introduced that will set standards and provide 
guidance on how to establish a more humane justice system for 
our children.
    I will briefly highlight a few of these opportunities.
    Costs and fees--over 10-years ago, I litigated the Kids for 
Cash case in Pennsylvania, an international scandal in which 
two judges were alleged to have taken nearly $3 million in 
kickbacks from the developer and owner of private for-profit 
youth detention centers. The greed and corruption were 
unprecedented.
    The case also exposed the largely hidden system of fines 
and fees charged directly to kids and their families that kept 
them embroiled in the legal system even after their cases were 
essentially resolved.
    Just in the past three years, seven states have passed 
legislation to abolish or substantially limit fees. Nine have 
legislation pending this term.
    We're just at the beginning of this transformation. Federal 
level incentives to reduce fines and fees would further spur 
these reforms.
    Conditions--even one day of incarceration harms children's 
future outcomes. We still lock too many children up, and while 
these youth are often portrayed as dangerous, here's some 
important data.
    The majority of youth are detained--62 percent of them are 
detained for property, public order, or drug offenses, not 
offenses against persons. The pandemic actually underscored our 
propensity to over incarcerate. Custody levels dropped by about 
24 percent at the beginning of the pandemic last spring and 
these numbers have remained low.
    Too many children are still placed in isolation, pepper 
sprayed, and assaulted by staff and others while in custody 
with little recourse available unless they can jump through 
very complicated administrative hoops required by PLRA.
    Research has shown us that rehabilitation and programming 
are much more effective and economical when delivered to 
children and their families in their communities rather than in 
out-of-home placements.
    While the number of state-run facilities has dropped by 
more than half since 2000, federal investments to continue this 
trend and support a continuum of care from prevention to 
intervention is essential and it costs much less.
    Extreme sentencing--when Juvenile Law Center opened in 
1975, children could still be executed. After the Federal Crime 
Bill in 1994, nearly a quarter of a million children were sent 
into the adult criminal justice system every year.
    Today, children as young as six and seven can be arrested 
in half the states across the country. The emergence of 
developmental and neuroscientific research in the last 15 years 
has changed or eliminated some of these practices.
    I served as co-counsel in Montgomery v. Louisiana and on 
leading amicus briefs in the earlier U.S. Supreme Court 
decisions that struck certain extreme sentencing practices for 
youth based on their developmental immaturity.
    The United States still remains alone in its harsh 
treatment of children. That children are different from their 
adult counterparts is now established both in science and in 
the law. This principle must inform every aspect of our youth 
justice system.
    We must keep the youngest children out and provide those 
who remain the care and treatment and rehabilitation the system 
was designed to provide. The states have made good progress 
here.
    Nearly all states set 18 as the age of criminal 
responsibility. More than half have eliminated life without 
parole and half the states have eliminated the automatic 
transfer of children to adult court.
    Yet, our federal statute has no such boundaries. These 
aren't radical ideas. Reforms in the states, like at the 
federal level, are bipartisan. Conservative groups as diverse 
as Freedom Action Network, Americans for Prosperity, Our 
Streets Strategies, and Right on Crime support these efforts 
locally and nationally.
    Let me close with two final points. In 1985, Nelson Mandela 
famously observed, ``There can be no keener revelation of a 
society's soul than the way in which it treats its children.''
    More recently, Justice Sotomayor wrote in her dissent from 
the Supreme Court's denial of cert in a case in which 
incarcerated individuals in Texas sought greater health and 
safety protections in the face of COVID-19, she wrote, ``It has 
long been said that a society's worth can be judged by taking 
stock of its prisons. May we hope that our country's facilities 
serve as models rather than cautionary tales.''
    I urge the Members of this Committee to keep these two 
truths close. Change and transformation are indeed possible in 
our youth justice system, but only if that system mirrors the 
core values of human dignity, racial equity, and true justice 
for all.
    Thank you.
    [The statement of Ms. Levick follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
      
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Ms. Levick. Time has 
expired.
    Now, we recognize Mr. Peterson.
    Mr. Peterson, you are recognized for five minutes.

                  STATEMENT OF BRETT PETERSON

    Mr. Peterson. Thank you. Chair Nadler, Chair Lee, Ranking 
Member Biggs, and esteemed Members of the subcommittee, my name 
is Brett Peterson and I am the director for the Division of 
Juvenile Justice Services within the Utah Department of Human 
Services.
    It is an honor to be here today. Our division operates 
early intervention, detention, community-based placements, 
long-term secure care, transition, and parole for youth up to 
25-years old.
    We align within Utah's system of care model to change young 
lives while holding them accountable and keeping communities 
safe.
    System transformation does not happen overnight. It 
requires philosophical, policy, and practice change, and it 
will not occur without an unrelenting commitment to 
partnership.
    With this focus, Utah pivoted our treatment approach with 
public input and Pew Research-based legislation in 2017. The 
fundamentals of reform include actively challenging the 
relativist system that wrongly believed the best response to 
low-risk behavior was to incarcerate and institutionalize.
    We do not criminalize adolescent behavior, especially when 
overwhelming research shows treating children as adults only 
puts them on a path to worse behaviors and worse public safety 
outcomes.
    Buy in involves consistent education about adolescent brain 
science, that children are different from adults. Not to 
mention, we know our youth are more likely to have challenges 
stemming from socioeconomic and racial bias, to be victims of 
trauma, and to be involved in other areas of human services, 
including mental health, behavioral health, disability 
services, and child welfare.
    Systemically we promote and engage in policy decisions that 
support prevention, research models, equitable treatment, and 
the best public outcomes.
    In Utah, transformative policy change includes the 
following: Strict limits on when a youth can be tried as an 
adult, the elimination of life without parole and death penalty 
for anyone under 18, the entitlement to free and effective 
legal counsel for every youth, the requirement of parental 
consent or legal counsel for a youth to waive Miranda, 
limitations on when and how school-based offenses can be 
referred to juvenile court, strict limits on lengths of stay 
and the use of contempt, assurances that youth may only be 
detained if they pose a public safety risk, mandates that 
programming must be evidence based, the elimination of 
incarceration or court for youth younger than the age of 12 
except for aggravated offenses, and the elimination of 
isolation, indiscriminate shackling, and limits on room 
confinement.
    A critical element of our pivot is to flow resources and 
savings to a no-wrong-door early intervention model. We deliver 
trauma-informed care and ensure youth receive the right amount 
of treatment in the right settings.
    We establish free and voluntary services in the community 
to help youth improve risk behaviors, avoid any involvement or 
deepening in juvenile justice or child welfare system. We are 
pioneering new models and partnerships for vocational, 
employment, and higher education for every incarcerated youth.
    Data indicates our endeavor to transform a system is 
working. Since 2018, I can report the following: A 46 percent 
reduction in detention admissions, a 26 percent reduction in 
risk to reoffend, over 130 locked rooms taken offline, over $9 
million in savings captured from a reduction in out-of-home 
placements, a 19 percent increase in early intervention 
programs, especially in our rural communities. Nearly 100 full 
time employees have been reassigned from locked settings like 
detention to early intervention.
    Reform is a journey. It is not a destination. I recall 
speaking to a small child of 11, shaking as they sat in a 
detention center. I have come to know a youth who grew up in 
our facility, seeing them leave at 21 for prison for an offense 
committed when they were 15. We still witness heartbreak, 
tragedy, and loss every day. Our data shows disproportionate 
system involvement for youth of color.
    We do not have all the answers. However, we believe we will 
continue to see positive results through our proven philosophy, 
policy changes, and practice change.
    Youth today and generations to come will benefit from our 
nation's commitment to changing young lives when they need us 
most.
    Thank you.
    [The statement of Mr. Peterson follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
        
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Peterson, for 
acknowledging that this is a journey. Thank you for your work.
    Mr. Toleafoa, and it's Aaron, and you can let me know 
whether I pronounced that last name right, sir. Good to have 
you here.
    We recognize you now for five minutes. Thank you.

                  STATEMENT OF AARON TOLEAFOA

    Mr. Toleafoa. Good morning, Madam Chair, to the Committee 
as well. I thank you all for this opportunity to speak with you 
today.
    My name is Aaron Toleafoa. I'll be speaking to you from the 
State of Washington, where I am incarcerated.
    Since the age of 15-years old and going through the system, 
I've learned that the system was created for us, but the 
thought of us being involved in the creation itself had not 
occurred.
    In other words, the system wasn't built by us and therefore 
it makes sense that the system doesn't work for us. I say us 
directed at people of color and people from poor communities 
who are disproportionately impacted by the system.
    Many people who I've worked with and as well as myself have 
tried to stress the importance of bringing individuals who were 
and are currently incarcerated to the table when making 
decisions that may impact them or decisions that would make 
sense to have their input.
    Without authenticity, real change doesn't exist. So, 
including those with lived experience alongside community 
outreach programs and organizations is the most effective way 
to ensure that our youth are properly provided the tools and 
are equipped with the skills to succeed wherever they are.
    For example, here in Washington State, for Asian and 
Pacific Islander youth like myself, we have an organization 
from my community called Tough Love that meets with the youth 
in the facility and in our group meetings we--that we have we 
learn about our culture and where we come from. We learn the 
values and morals and ways of our culture that we have been so 
out of touch with.
    We learn from someone who comes from a similar background 
as us, and when you find out more about yourself you get a 
sense that you belong, and how many times do youth try to 
belong but find themselves looking in the wrong places.
    For instance, when suspended or expelled from school, youth 
aren't receiving education at that time. Now, with this idle 
time often find others who give them a sense of belonging, 
which is where we see youth engaging in criminal activity, 
hence the school to prison pipeline.
    Now, with our youth who enter the system, we speak about 
rehabilitation. We need to ask ourselves how exactly we expect 
our youth to find rehabilitation in a prison setting.
    Since the beginning of COVID, those inside the system have 
experienced isolation even more. Knowing the impact isolation 
has on brain development, you can assume right that 
incarcerated youth are experiencing a greater amount of stress 
and anxiety because of the many outlets and ways of coping that 
were closed off due to the pandemic.
    We're essentially helping the at times hopeless and for the 
most part helpless youth to find hope and help within the 
environment they're thrown into. It's almost as if we're 
helping a flower to bloom in a dark room.
    We have to become the light for our youth to grow and not 
the dark room that prevents growth. How this can happen is 
through understanding things like generational trauma, 
understanding what rehabilitates as much as what dehabilitates, 
understanding that a duty to the individual doesn't end upon 
release, this as well as introducing love and care into the 
lives of youth who have been deprived of those essentials 
growing up.
    What I feel is very important is actually talking to the 
youth who are incarcerated. Our youth who enter the system may 
often leave the system as legal adults. Not knowing how to 
function as an adult in society is a big factor in why they 
experience recidivism.
    If we are to stop our youth who become young adults from 
reoffending upon release, we need to offer them real help. For 
youth with no money, we need to get them help financially.
    This means financial literacy programs and jobs where they 
can actually earn money and learn how to manage it.
    For youth with no housing, we need to offer them housing or 
they are literally just being thrown out into the streets. So, 
we see that our system does a good job at holding those inside 
accountable for their actions, but what about the 
rehabilitation and re-entry parts, which are just as important 
for not only our communities but the youth themselves.
    For the youth who are sentenced as adults, one message from 
the system is very clear, that the system doesn't care about 
you. I believe in keeping our youth from the adult system.
    Being a part of passing legislation in my state, I've seen 
the positive impacts of extending the age a youth is able to 
spend in the juvenile system.
    Instead of being shipped off to DOC before their 21st 
birthday, they're able to make the best of the opportunities 
that are offered in the juvenile institution until their 25th.
    Opportunities like going to a community placement program 
instead of an adult prison where recidivism rates are tripled 
once you walk through the doors.
    So, by keeping youth out of the adult system, we offer them 
better outcomes in their future. When it comes to passing--when 
it comes to changing how the system operates and what it looks 
like by passing bills into law instead of talking about why it 
shouldn't work, we should ask how it will work.
    Thank you.
    [The statement of Mr. Toleafoa follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
       
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much for your testimony, 
for your life story, and for your commitment. We hear you very 
loudly.
    I now recognize Ms. Vaughan for five minutes.

                  STATEMENT OF JESSICA VAUGHAN

    Ms. Vaughan. Thank you. My testimony will focus on a 
specific serious problem that is imposing an enormous burden on 
American communities and which will have lasting effects, 
including making it more difficult to resolve the justice 
pipeline issues under discussion today, but which this Congress 
so far has failed to address, and that is the crisis at the 
border.
    We are experiencing a border policy disaster. The number of 
apprehensions in April were the highest monthly total in 20 
years, and Border Patrol agents say that the number who are 
successfully evading capture is higher now too, potentially 
double or triple that.
    Mr. Biggs went through the statistics and they're very 
concerning. In addition to the huge numbers of families and 
kids arriving illegally and being released into the country, 
Border Patrol has seen a huge increase in opioids, fentanyl, 
and other lethal drugs that are coming in that is fueling the 
spike in overdoses in many communities today that we're seeing.
    The cause is obvious. The migrants call it la invitacion 
from President Biden. The invitation they're referring to is 
the loudly and clearly proclaimed reversal of the Trump 
enforcement policies that had successfully worked around 
loopholes in the law, and the Biden Administration's move to 
essentially abolishing interior immigration enforcement through 
executive action plus the promise to enact a mass amnesty for 
all those living here illegally and even many were deported in 
the past.
    The resulting new surge of illegal arrivals is a major 
burden on American communities, so much so that two days ago 
the governors of 20 states sent a letter to President Biden 
imploring him to end this crisis.
    The governors wrote, quote, ``At a time when our country is 
trying to recover from once in a generation pandemic, the last 
thing we need is a self-created crisis that exploits families, 
undermines public safety, and threatens our national 
security.''
    The border crisis is a giant unfunded mandate for State and 
local governments. It severely strains schools, foster care 
programs, health care, and other support systems, the very same 
systems that are critical to shutting down the juvenile justice 
pipelines like the foster care system. Kids in foster care are 
facing a disproportionate risk of incarceration and any of them 
are Blacks, Latinos, and other minorities.
    Piling on huge new caseloads of unaccompanied minors will 
not help solve this problem. That is why four states so far 
have refused to participate in the Biden Administration's 
Unaccompanied Minor Resettlement Program.
    It's not just the numbers. The policies on placements of 
unaccompanied minors with sponsors are inadequate to prevent 
kids from being put in inappropriate and even dangerous 
environments.
    There is no meaningful screening of home placements or the 
people who come forward to take custody. Most of them are here 
illegally, and no meaningful monitoring of their welfare or 
activities after release from government custody.
    They are here to stay. Our dysfunctional immigration system 
offers several pathways to permanent legal status for these 
minors, which they access with legal services provided by 
taxpayers, and those pathways include the Special Immigrant 
Juvenile program and asylum.
    Another problem is the lenient policies at the border are 
deliberately exploited by transnational street gangs, 
especially MS-13, enabling them to significantly boost their 
activity here both by sending gang Members across our border to 
join cliques here and also by providing the opportunity to 
recruit other vulnerable newly arrived youths.
    There is a clear nexus between the border crisis and the 
resurgence of MS-13 violence and crime, and especially juvenile 
crime.
    My analysis of 500 recent MS-13 arrests revealed that 43 
percent of the MS-13 Members that were arrested for murder in 
the last five years were under the age of 21 and many of their 
victims were young, too. Twenty-three percent of these murder 
suspects had apparently originally entered this country 
illegally as unaccompanied minors.
    Obviously, Congress cannot fix all of the social and 
economic problems that set the stage for juvenile delinquency, 
but Congress can Act to fix our immigration laws that are 
making it so hard to resolve these problems.
    What Congress can do is update the TVPRA to clarify how 
arriving minors should be handled, with emphasis on swiftly 
returning them to their families in their own countries, 
override the unreasonable Flores settlement agreement, require 
meaningful consultation and coordination with State and local 
governments on resettlement programs, end or rewrite the 
Special Immigrant Juvenile program, reform the dysfunctional 
asylum laws, establish a baseline for mandatory minimum level 
of interior immigration enforcement, and especially Act to 
preserve job opportunities for marginalized Americans, 
including young offenders, by boosting worksite enforcement and 
reducing issuance of certain temporary work visa programs.
    Thank you.
    [The statement of Ms. Vaughan follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
        
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me thank you, Ms. Vaughan, and 
continue to emphasize the respect for the humanitarian approach 
that the Biden-Harris Administration has now taken with 
unaccompanied minors. Thank you.
    We will now proceed under the five-minute Rule with 
questions. I will begin by recognizing myself for five minutes.
    Mr. Stevenson, even Supreme Court Justice Kennedy, Senator 
Rand Paul, and others spoke against solitary confinement. I'm 
reminded of meeting Kalief and his family, as I indicated, a 
15-year-old who questionably took a backpack, who was 
incarcerated for three years, served two years in Rikers 
Island.
    That generates for me the pathway that we should we 
proceed, and that is the emphasis, if you will, on barring 
juvenile from having life without parole, eliminating of 
juveniles in adult facilities, changing the age at which 
juveniles are prosecuted as adults.
    Going back to this point of Justice Kennedy and Rand Paul, 
when discussing the adverse and inhumane elements of solitary 
confinement generally, as you well know, we have introduced 
Kalief's Law and intend to expand with the elements of banning 
the life without parole, eliminating of juvenile in adult 
facilities, and changing the age.
    I want you to collectively assess the cost analysis to 
these forms of treatment of juveniles. As I do so, let me, if I 
may subject it to the record, Mr. Stevenson, science. Remember 
we kept saying during the pandemic science, science.
    So, I want to introduce into the record the brain, and 
emphasize the prefrontal cortex as of unanimous consent, and I 
submit it without objection. Which indicates in young brains 
you have delay and reflect, inability to delay and reflect, 
inability to take all options into account, inability to 
contemplate risk and consequences, and inability to have social 
intelligence. Science.
    [The information follows:]



      

                     MS. JACKSON LEE FOR THE RECORD

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

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]        
    

    Ms. Jackson Lee. All these that I've asked you about, Mr. 
Stevenson, would you please respond. Thank you so very much for 
being here, and your leadership.
    Mr. Stevenson. Yes. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.
    Yeah, I think this is one of the issues where there is 
pretty wide consensus. Most wardens, most jailers, most 
institutional providers recognize the challenges that are 
created when we put children in adult jails and prisons. I 
don't know any that favor that policy.
    Yet, we have thousands of kids in these facilities. The 
dilemma for these facility providers is that when you put young 
children in population, these children are at risk of assault, 
they're at greater risk of sexual violence, they're at greater 
risk of abuse. So, banning the placement of children in adult 
jails and prisons seems to me to be the obvious and urgent next 
step.
    I just want to reinforce what I said earlier. It's already 
been the expression of this congress to prevent--the Prison 
Rape Elimination Act makes very clear that children should 
never be placed in adult jails and prisons without sight and 
sound separation. Yet, because there is no enforcement 
mechanism, other than what the Justice Department can do, that 
continues to be a problem.
    That's why we believe that if this is adopted in law that 
provided a private right of enforcement, we could eliminate 
this problem very quickly. A year from now, we could come 
together and see that there are no children in adult jails and 
prisons. That would reduce the risk and the challenges that are 
created by putting kids in solitary confinement.
    Kalief Browder. my client, Ian Manuel, spent 18 years in 
solitary confinement, where he was tear-gassed, where he was 
abused, and where he cut himself. When he was traumatized. 
That's happening more and more. Our prisons are very violent 
right now, as Ms. Levick indicated. We are really having hard 
times helping these kids because of these legal restrictions.
    That's why I absolutely agree that a ban on placing 
children in adult jails and prisons that's enforceable would be 
an immediate response. I also agree that ending life without 
parole for children would be a very, very logical and important 
next step. And twenty-five states have already done this. In 31 
states there are no children serving life without parole.
    We would commit to doing things that the court was 
indicating when they issued the decisions in Graham and Roper 
and Miller and Montgomery. Those interventions, Madam Chair, I 
just have to believe could be advanced. As I said, the PREA was 
passed unanimously just 18-years ago.
    We just haven't failed to implement--we have failed to 
implement it. We need to do something about that now for the 
Kalief Browders and Ian Manuels. More than that, for the 
thousands of children that are at risk right now in adult jails 
and prisons across this country.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. Quickly to Mr. Peterson and to 
Mr. Toleafoa, your quick response to the impact of children put 
in solitary confinement and being incarcerated without the 
ability for parole. Mr. Peterson.
    Mr. Peterson. Yes. So thank you. When we look in our 
system--working with our partners at Department of Corrections, 
when they have a young person--and it's incredibly rare in Utah 
when that occurs. We've taken steps from a policy perspective 
to make sure that youth are housed in developmentally 
appropriate settings in the juvenile justice system.
    However, there are circumstances where they are still 
transferred to the Department of Corrections. When that occurs, 
they do have to be essentially in 24, 23 in one type lockdown 
situations, because they can't be in general population for 
their own risks.
    So developmentally, it's really a step in the wrong 
direction to have them introduced in that environment.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. All right, time has expired.
    Mr. Toleafoa, the harm to young people in solitary 
confinement that you might perceive.
    Mr. Toleafoa. Yeah, from my experience, just entering a 
prison and seeing what I used to see on TV, knowing that I'm 
going to be here really was just like a shocking, because 
really it's like, man, this is what I'm going to be--this is 
where I'm going to be staying.
    So, for me mentally, it just wasn't healthy for me to, at 
that time when I was 17-years old, to experience that. So, I'm 
with Mr. Peterson and disagree with just youth entering adult 
prison, period.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much. I yield now to Mr. 
Owens. I yield for five minutes to Mr. Owens.
    Mr. Owens. Thank you, Chair Jackson Lee and Chair Nadler 
and Ranking Member Biggs for holding this hearing today.
    I'm pleased to welcome all the witnesses this morning, but 
especially wanted to thank my friend, Brett Peterson, Director 
of the Utah Division of Juvenile Justice Services, for joining 
us today.
    I had the opportunity several years ago to move to Utah, 
where I fulfilled a three-decades-old dream to work with at-
risk youth. I started a nonprofit helping young boys and girls 
successfully transition from juvenile detention.
    It was Brett's JJS team that gave us the opportunity and 
framework to combine collaborative support from the state, 
educational institutions including curriculum support from Utah 
Valley University, small businesses, Utah Homebuilders 
Association, other respected corporations, and our greatest 
resource, community volunteerism.
    Second Chance for Youth now services as three facilities. 
We've had men transition, young men transition to higher 
education, including University of Utah and Salt Lake City 
Community College, begin careers, and most importantly gain 
access to lifelong leadership.
    I received a call last week from a young man who was part 
of our very first class. He now has a career, he's raising his 
family. He called me to follow up on my promise to introduce 
him to a specialist in the financial field to help him 
understand how to plan, save, and invest.
    I want to take this opportunity to publically thank Brett, 
his JJS team, and my fellow Utahans for the remarkable hearts 
that they have for our youth.
    Before I begin my questioning for Mr. Peterson about the 
success of Utah's juvenile system, let me State that we need to 
be seeking state-centric solutions. Let best-practice models 
coming from states like Utah and others drive this process, and 
our youth will win big time.
    By the way, from personal experience, all these curriculum 
and intervention activities were all based on--were all 
evidence-based. I also want to take a few minutes just to thank 
Aaron. Your voice, young man, is invaluable. You're going to 
give hope to so many youth that need to hear that if I can do 
it, you can do it. So, thank you very much.
    Mr. Peterson, when we talk about early intervention, what 
does that specifically look like in Utah, and can you give me 
some examples of effective early intervention?
    Mr. Peterson. Thank you, Congressman Owens. I think in any 
justice reform effort, there's often this question of now what. 
In other words, we used to have in Utah, for example, we had a 
very broad filter--or funnel.
    Everything from very low risk offenses to high risk 
offenses were coming through the same doorways. They were 
coming through detention centers and courtrooms. Recognizing 
that we intentionally had to shrink that doorway, which we did.
    Now, we have to say how are we now going to flow resources 
towards the community. How are we going to serve people in 
their homes, schools, and communities to help them thrive?
    So for us, what we stood up is our JJS Youth Services 
Model. Truly, what this is, is a no-wrong-door approach to 
early intervention. So, it doesn't matter who refers to us, 
whether it's child welfare, a school, a parent, a youth walking 
in themselves, or whether it's law enforcement.
    Regardless of how a youth comes to our door on this very 
front end, they can be sure that they're going to have a 
dedicated case manager, a plan manager. They're going to be 
allowed and afforded evidence-based screening tools and 
evidence-based assessments.
    Then the real game-changer, because of reform, we're able 
to provide services on the very front end for youth and 
families. That was a tragedy of the juvenile justice system and 
the child welfare system.
    Before you could actually get to sometimes the more formal 
approaches of treatment, you had to be in the system. We're 
trying to flip that, and we're having and making success.
    So today, I want to highlight just a couple things. Our 
court referrals are down. Our non-judicial diversions are up. 
Our detention admissions are down significantly.
    I have less than 50 youth, about 50 youth in locked 
detention today, statewide. Our graduation rate is up. 
Certainly that's not all attributed to JJS. It's a system 
effort, Department of Human Services and collaborative with our 
partners in the courts and the schools.
    What this corresponded with on a federal level of the 
Family First Prevention Services Act, which unlocked and gave 
us the ability to now access federal dollars for prevention 
work. That was a game-changer, and it continues to be a game-
changer. So, thank you for that question.
    Mr. Owens. The last few seconds we have, you mentioned 26% 
reduction in risk level for incarcerated youth. What was 
responsible for that reduction in Utah?
    Mr. Peterson. Thank you, Representative Owens. First, it 
really does start with reform. We have to make sure we weren't 
locking up low-risk youth. So, in Utah before reform about half 
of the youth in my populations, incarcerated populations, were 
there, they were relatively low risk.
    They were there for contempt, maybe even some types of 
misdemeanors, or property crimes. So, we had to stop that, we 
had to stop that pathway into the system. We had to really be 
looking at what's going to actually improve public safety.
    So, we've done that. Today, when I look at my long-term 
incarcerated population, actually, not today, but Friday May 7, 
I had 72 youth total statewide in those sets, those settings. 
So, that's step one.
    After we did that, we had to re-gear and reinvent our 
entire operations, focused on we knew from the literature and 
the research the amount of treatment we had to deliver for 
youth. We knew what would impact various criminogenic risks. We 
had to reinvent our entire operation subject to that linchpin, 
that point.
    So, making sure every youth has is getting the right amount 
of treatment, every youth is getting the right amount of dosage 
in the right way. We set out with this ambitious goal of 25% 
reduction in the risk to re-offend by 2021.
    I am excited to be able to report that that's actually 26%. 
So, we beat our goal, just barely. So, thank you for that 
question.
    Mr. Owens. I will yield up my time. Let me just say thank 
you for your work, and this is the way we should look at best 
practices. All our states can benefit from this. So, thank you 
again, Mr. Peterson, I appreciate it.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. The gentleman's time has expired. I now 
recognize the Chair of the Full Committee, Mr. Nadler.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you. Mr. Stevenson, the Supreme Court 
has ruled several times in the past 15 years or so that 
children are constitutionally different from adults and must be 
treated differently for the purposes of sentencing.
    Can you tell us what these decisions mean for us as 
policymakers and how they should inform our work in reforming 
the way the criminal justice system treats children?
    Mr. Stevenson. Yes. I think it's been really important that 
we have the courts intervene in this way. As was indicated 
earlier, in 2005 the Court recognized that we could no longer 
execute children. They rooted that decision based on an 
analysis of what we've learned about child development.
    We know that children are biologically different. Children 
change, it's the hallmark of being a child. What was 
interesting, Chair, is that we get this. That's the reason why 
we don't let children drink, we don't let children smoke, and 
we don't let children vote. We have all these restrictions, 
every State in the country recognizes that children are 
different than adults.
    The area where we have failed to make that recognition is 
in the criminal justice system. When we began prosecuting 
children 13-years old, putting them in the adult prisons, 9-
years old, when we started doing that, that's when we created 
the crisis that we are talking about today. There's a long line 
of cases.
    In Graham, the Court recognized that imposing life without 
parole sentences on children makes no sense because children 
would change. The argument essentially was that it's cruel to 
say to any child of 13-years old that you are beyond hope, 
beyond redemption. That you are fit only to die in prison. 
That's what states are still doing. That's what the federal law 
still does.
    That's why believe it is so urgent that the legislatures 
catch up with this understanding that has been articulated. 
Mental health professionals have been preaching this for a very 
long time. We now have a critical need on the legislative side, 
given where the Court seems to have drifted in the last year.
    Chair Nadler. Well, thank you. We must give all children a 
second chance to live up to their full potential as adults. An 
investment in the future of our children is an investment in 
the future of America.
    April was Second-Chance Month, and the Administration spoke 
and called for automatic juvenile expungement and sealing of 
juvenile records to allow a successful path forward in their 
education and gainful employment.
    Ms. Levick, as the Biden Administration has aptly stated 
and states across the country, protections for individual--for 
juvenile records are inadequate. What should a concerted effort 
between the Federal Government and the states look like to 
allow kids a viable second chance?
    Ms. Levick. I think that there are three critical issues 
that are raised in thinking about Second-Chances Month, and 
thank you for that question. There are three issues. One 
certainly is providing for automatic expungement of juvenile 
records and sealing of records. The Federal Government can 
certainly incentivize those practices.
    We know that even juvenile records can significantly 
adversely impact education opportunities, employment 
opportunities, and housing opportunities for our youth. So, 
thinking about automatic expungement is a critical way to avoid 
those kinds of challenges that our youth don't need to face.
    It's also true that extreme sentencing--abolishing life 
without parole as we've already heard about in this hearing is 
critical to thinking about second chances. The whole premise of 
the Supreme Court decisions in recognizing that youth not only 
should have hope, but that they also are entitled to second 
chances because of their capacity for change. Eliminating life 
without parole for children is critical to thinking about 
second chances.
    The final suggestion that I would make is with reference to 
fines and fees. Fines and fees can have extraordinarily 
devastating impacts on both children and on their families. Why 
should families and kids have to make choices between paying 
those fines and buying groceries?
    Those fines and fees can also follow children after their 
juvenile delinquency experience. It can manifest itself in 
civil judgments that follow them, and again can inhibit those 
opportunities that these youth should have for employment and 
housing and schooling.
    I think these are three critical areas where the 
traditional role of the Federal Government incentivizing states 
to adopt best practices can be undertaken here.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you very much. Mr. Toleafoa, what are 
some of the measures your organization are reviewing that would 
address this problem to provide a second chance to juveniles?
    Mr. Toleafoa. So, the organization I work with, CJJ, 
obviously we work just around the JJDPA. Also, really getting 
youth involved, I think that's really one of the main things is 
when we're giving--when we're thinking about giving them the 
second change, not really just thinking okay, yeah, here's a 
good idea. I think, this would work for them.
    Actually, getting them involved, and asking youth, hey, 
what would work for you, instead of coming up with an idea of 
our own and thinking that it's going to work for them. So 
that's, I think would be one of the most important things is 
really just getting youth involved.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you very much. My time is expired, I 
yield back.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. The Chair yields back. I now recognize Mr. 
Chabot for five minutes.
    Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Juvenile justice is predominantly a State and local issue, 
not federal. Over 800,000 juveniles a year are referred to the 
State or local courts. Of those, there's usually around 60,000 
that are incarcerated.
    As of this morning, there are 20, 20 out of 60,000 that are 
on federal issues. Those are not housed in federal facilities; 
they're housed in State or local facilities.
    Now, where there is a federal issue is immigration. The 
Biden border crisis, their failure to resolve this. This 
Administration's refusal to enforce our immigration laws.
    Its policies that incentivize the drug cartels, who exploit 
children and juveniles and put the public at risk. That's what 
we ought to be talking about, that's what we ought to be doing 
something about, and that's what I intend to devote my time 
here this morning to.
    Ms. Vaughan, it's your testimony, is it not, that the 
current Administration, the Biden Administration, reversed 
policies implemented by the previous Administration, and that's 
resulted in a huge influx in illegal entries into this country, 
many of those unaccompanied minors. Is that correct?
    Ms. Vaughan. Yes, it is correct. There are a number of 
policies that have been reversed. First, the construction of 
the border wall was suspended. The title 42 public health-based 
expulsions of everyone arriving illegally have been eased now 
so that unaccompanied minors and most families arriving with 
kids are allowed to come in and then released into the country. 
It's basically the reestablishment of catch and release.
    The cooperative agreements with some of the countries in 
the region to share the responsibility of offering safe haven 
to asylum seekers, those are all in limbo now.
    Also, importantly, basically what amounts to a freeze on 
interior immigration enforcement also--and it has helped send 
the message that if you can get to this country illegally, you 
will be allowed to enter, and you will not face a threat of 
immigration enforcement for the foreseeable future.
    So, all of this--and this sends a very powerful message 
that they actually call, as I mentioned, la invitacion, that's 
it's an invitation for people to pay criminal smuggling 
organizations to come here because they know they will be 
successful.
    Mr. Chabot. Thank you. Those criminal drug organizations, 
the cartels and the gangs, they're profiting immensely from 
this, aren't they?
    Ms. Vaughan. Yes. I've seen estimates that it's a 
multibillion dollar industry every year. The more that they can 
make off of smuggling families and kids and others here, the 
stronger they become and the more difficult it is for law 
enforcement to deal with them. The more money they have for 
bribes, the more resilient they are and the less likely they 
are to give up this illegal trade.
    Mr. Chabot. According to your statement, you indicated that 
the border patrol agents estimate that for every one illegal 
crosser that they actually apprehend, there's another one, two, 
or three who's able to evade their capture and gain entry into 
the U.S.
    So, it's the numbers that we hear on TV, etc., the numbers 
are actually far more than we hear about, isn't that true?
    Ms. Vaughan. That's right, because of the number who are 
getting through successfully because the Border Patrol is 
distracted by dealing with the arriving families and kids, and 
because there are not enough barriers along the border, there 
are not enough Border Patrol agents, they don't have enough 
support from the National Guard. Only Texas has invested some 
of its resources into assisting the Border Patrol in 
controlling this.
    We're concerned about those so-called gotaways especially 
because that's where most of the criminals and prior deportees 
and others that we really need to worry about--
    Mr. Chabot. Well, let me stop--
    Ms. Vaughan. They're in that group.
    Mr. Chabot. Thank you, let me stop you there because I've 
only got a short period of time. So, the gotaways that you 
talked about, so they're not in the system at all. So, we 
therefore have no information about who they are. We don't know 
the purpose of their entry. We don't know whether they have a 
criminal record. You mentioned MS-13.
    We don't know if these folks are connected with MS-13, 
although, we know an awful lot of them are. We don't know 
whether they have COVID, we don't know if they have 
tuberculosis or hepatitis. We also don't know in whose 
neighborhood these people are going to ultimately end up in, is 
that correct?
    Ms. Vaughan. That's exactly right. They're spreading out 
across the country. We don't even know where they came from, 
and we know that people are coming from all over the world.
    Mr. Chabot. Thank you. My time's expired, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. The gentleman's time has expired. Thank 
you very much. I just want to remind Members that we're here 
for the juvenile justice pipeline and the road back to 
integration.
    Also, that children arriving unaccompanied from Central 
America are fleeing gang violence, not bringing it, and the 
increased levels of domestic, gender, and gang-based violence 
in these countries leave young people with no choice but to 
flee or face gang recruitment.
    Mr. Chabot. Madam Chair, point of order.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Face atrocities--
    Mr. Chabot. Point of order, point of order.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. So, let me yield now to the gentleman from 
California.
    Mr. Chabot. Point of order, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I understand.
    Mr. Chabot. I would just note, I would ask that the--
    Ms. Jackson Lee. You'll be next. I'm going to recognize 
you, just a moment. Just a moment. You'll be next, thank you. 
The gentleman is recognized.
    Mr. Chabot. I would just ask if it's appropriate for the 
Chair to basically comment and get additional time over and 
above her 15, excuse me, her five minutes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Yes, it is.
    Mr. Chabot. To comment on virtually every person on this 
side and to disagree with the witnesses and us.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chair, Mr. Chabot. Mr. Chabot, it is 
the prerogative of the Chair to clarify the title of the 
hearing, and that's what we did. Thank you.
    Mr. Chabot. Well, I disagree, but you're in the majority.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chabot.
    Ms. Bass. So Madam Chair, Mr. Chair--
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Ms. Bass from California is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Ms. Bass. Why, thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
    Ms. Bass. Mr. Chair Nadler, and Ranking Member. Thank you 
so much for having this hearing, because my view of this 
hearing is that it's an opportunity to really look at a system 
that I believe is profoundly out of date and needs to be 
changed fundamentally to be consistent with the science that we 
know today.
    So, I want raise some of those fundamental questions. One 
of them, similar to my colleague Mr. Owens. Mr. Owens started 
an at-risk youth project that I'd like to know more about. I 
did the same in South Central Los Angeles.
    I found that working with some of the most challenging 
teens that if they have an opportunity at a future and a life, 
they will go for that and they will not go toward a life of 
crime. That's not a normal way to go.
    So, I wanted to raise a question, and I wanted to ask Mr. 
Stevenson, who I think should get a Nobel Prize, and Ms. 
Levick, why do we arrest kids for status offenses? Why do have 
status offenses?
    What I found in South Central is that that was the gateway 
to a long life of interacting with the criminal justice system, 
whose families could not afford to take them off the escalator 
into prison.
    I want to compliment my colleague, Steve Chabot, he, I see 
he left, but I invited him to come to my district and meet some 
of the youth and see some of the programs. He did that. I 
appreciated that, because we cannot just say you can throw the 
life of a kid away. Kids don't come in isolation, they come 
with families.
    So, can you please tell me why do we have status offenses? 
Why don't we just eliminate that?
    Ms. Levick. Well, we certainly should not be prosecuting 
and arresting children who are effectively charged with status 
offenses at all. Your points are all well-taken. We're 
essentially trying to punish children for acting like children.
    We are singling them out for conduct that is not remotely 
criminal, that does not require the attention of law 
enforcement or other stakeholders in the justice system. We 
harm them greatly.
    What we know from our experience, and certainly Mr. 
Peterson's experience in running the system in Utah, children 
don't benefit really from their engagement with the juvenile 
justice system. When we put them into that system, we always 
risk harm, every day there's a potential to risk harm to those 
children, and certainly sometimes to their families.
    Ms. Bass. Thank you. Let me, before I run out of time--
    Ms. Levick. Okay.
    Ms. Bass. Let me ask Mr. Stevenson to comment on that as 
well.
    Mr. Stevenson. Yes, Representative, I think it's a really 
important question. We didn't always do it. That's why I think 
it's so necessary that we recognize that we don't not have to 
stay on this path. It's in the 70s and the 80s that we began 
criminalizing people for things that really weren't crimes.
    We said that people who are drug-addicted and drug-
dependent are criminals. We could have said that people have a 
health problem and need a healthcare response. Making status 
offenses crimes and treating children like criminals was the 
consequence of what I call the politics of fear and anger.
    That's why these interventions that you're hearing about in 
Utah that you've talked about in Los Angeles are so important. 
I absolutely believe that when we framed best interest of the 
child as the dominant, controlling principle for how we dealt 
with children, we didn't put children in custody for status 
offenses.
    Ms. Bass. Well--
    Mr. Stevenson. We need to return to that frame.
    Ms. Bass. Well, I would argue that we still don't put 
certain children in prison. So status offenses, as I'm aware 
of, really are only problematic with children who are low 
income or kids of color.
    I don't know, because in my district part of my district is 
very affluent, does not look like me. I just never heard of a 
kid being ticketed or arrested for truancy or a status offense. 
So, I do want to ask a question about Utah, because I know Utah 
has wonderful examples. Does your agency deal with the for-
profit part, the Sequel Youth and Family Services, Lava Heights 
Academy, and Falcon Ridge? How do you interact with the profit? 
Because, I also think, that's one of the fundamental things 
that needs to be transformed.
    Mr. Peterson. Yeah, thank you for that question. So, we 
operate ourselves all of our detentions, shelters, and early 
intervention programs. We do contract with providers for a lot 
of our community placements. We don't currently contract with 
Sequel, for example.
    What we do is, so most of our youth, actually, they are 
ordered into state's custody are actually served in the 
community, so in a residential treatment.
    Ms. Bass. So, if you don't contract with Sequel, which 
MSNBC, there was a special done on them, I'm sure you're aware 
of that.
    Mr. Peterson. Mm hm.
    Ms. Bass. Do you have any ability to supervise them? Do you 
have any authority over them?
    Mr. Peterson. Well, I don't directly, but our, in our 
state, our Department of Human Services Office of Licensing 
does have regulatory authority over any license providers in 
the state.
    Ms. Bass. So, I don't think our kids should be subjected to 
a for-profit industry. I also don't think that only some kids--
well, I don't think status offenses should exist, period, 
because it is a pathway to prison.
    I yield, I'm done.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. The gentlelady yields back. I now yield 
time to Mr. Tiffany for five minutes.
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    First, Mr. Stevenson, I really appreciate the comment you 
made in regards to children are different. We don't have them 
drink and smoke and vote.
    I would just urge you to contact some of my colleagues who 
want children to vote and put bills forward suggesting that 
they should vote. I would suggest that you may want to contact 
some of them and share that with them.
    Also, I just want to comment, Ms. Levick, I really do agree 
what you were saying in regards to fines and fees can be a real 
anchor for, especially when somebody comes out of 
incarceration.
    I saw it when I was in the State legislature, some of the 
really heavy fines and fees, that it is a real burden once you 
get out of incarceration to be able to handle that. So, I 
really appreciate that you mentioned that.
    I just wanted to ask a question of Mr. Peterson. You cited, 
I believe it was the Pew model that you guys used. Did you do 
some things differently than what the Pew model was or what 
some other states that perhaps led in this direction before 
you? Did you do a few things differently than some other states 
kind of adapted to your situation?
    Mr. Peterson. I don't think significantly, no. I think that 
we primarily followed the Pew model and engaged with a pretty 
comprehensive working group to first establish--in looking at 
our own data.
    So, there's always going to be different data points in 
every system that might control the situation. No, I think in 
general that is what we implemented.
    Mr. Tiffany. Okay, and your working group, was it just 
within the state, or did you work across State lines?
    Mr. Peterson. No, just within the state.
    Mr. Tiffany. Yeah. Because I think it's really important, I 
mean, it's great to have a hearing like this at the federal 
level, but it really seems that if we want to see innovation 
and creativity being used here, it's once again, go to the 
states, the laboratory of the states, allow them to create the 
models.
    We use this cookie cutter approach, which really is a 
continual theme that is going on here, at least in the two 
committees I sit in, Judiciary and Natural Resources, where we 
just look to the Federal Government to try to solve problems, 
we're going to create more problems that we can't handle.
    So, Ms. Vaughan, you're saying there's a connection, there 
could be a connection between the border crisis and the number 
of youth offenders that are out there?
    Ms. Vaughan. Well, there's no doubt that there's a 
connection between the border crisis and the influx of 
unaccompanied minors and families with kids with the resurgence 
of certain transnational street gangs, especially MS-13. This 
is well known at state, local, and federal law--by state, 
local, and federal law enforcement agencies.
    This gang, MS-13, is based in El Salvador and specifically 
sent out a directive a few years ago to its cliques in the 
United States to take advantage of the lenient border policies 
on unaccompanied minors to grow their ranks to import new foot 
soldiers, essentially, for these cliques to increase the gang's 
revenue.
    They also set about recruiting among the newly arrived 
youth in the communities where they were located. For example, 
there was a DACA recipient who was a member of MS-13 who was 
working at middle school in Maryland who had contact with other 
kids and was able to use that to benefit the gang.
    There have been numerous other cases where the gang 
benefitted by being able to bring in new recruits. They're 
going to benefit now by this new influx and also the lack of 
interior immigration enforcement that will be directed against 
them.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, you're saying in all likelihood that we're 
going to see with UACs coming in as they have been over the 
years and unprecedented numbers now coming in, and by the way, 
unprecedented is the term that the Border Patrol uses, that 
some of them are going to end up in the juvenile justice 
system. Is that correct?
    Ms. Vaughan. It's inevitable. Obviously most of the kids 
who are coming here are not potential offenders or gang Members 
or going to end up in the justice system. The problem is that 
many of those who arrived as unaccompanied minors who are in 
the justice system are going to contribute to the problems. 
They have taken advantage of these lenient offenses.
    So, not all newly arrived kids are going to be criminals or 
gang Members. Of the new criminals and gang Members that we're 
encountering, and that law enforcement is encountering, many of 
those entered as unaccompanied minors.
    Mr. Tiffany. I'll conclude, Madam Chair, but first I want 
to thank everybody for their testimony. I think it was really 
some interesting testimony. To say that there is not a 
connection, as the Chair did, between illegal immigration and 
the juvenile justice system is simply inaccurate.
    We are seeing--when you have unprecedented numbers that are 
facilitated by gangs, gangs that are on the other side of the 
border as well as in the United States of America, there is 
going to be an impact on the juvenile justice system.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the gentleman and will clarify 
that in going forward. It's my pleasure now to yield five 
minutes to the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Demings.
    Ms. Demings. Well, thank you so much, Madam Chair, and 
thank you to our witnesses for joining us today. I also want to 
thank the Chair for this very important discussion.
    I've worked as a social worker working with foster care 
youth, and I'm sure everybody in this hearing can imagine their 
stories. I've also, I've spent time as a law enforcement 
officer and worked as a detective sergeant and a detective in 
the crimes against children unit. As a police chief, I started 
a youth program specifically designed to help at-risk youth.
    I clearly believe that every child deserves to have an 
opportunity. I think it's incumbent upon us as leaders, whether 
local, state, or federal, to design programs that give children 
every opportunity to succeed.
    I think we fail as a system when we fail to address those 
quality-of-life issues that plague children in the first place 
when we leave those quality-of-life issues to the juvenile 
justice system to solve.
    I do believe this is an appropriate forum, as Members of 
Congress, to look at states who may have programs that provide 
best practices that we certainly can adopt. As we have a 
discussion about many other issues and we are looking at what 
states are doing, some of those states were trying to prevent 
those things. Other states that are doing it correct regardless 
of what the issue is.
    I think we're smart when we try to adopt best practices, 
especially I see investments in children's lives as a major 
investment in our future.
    So, Mr. Peterson, if you could just talk again about the 
importance of intervention, and how if we're going to give 
children an alternative to incarceration, how important 
intervention is into doing that.
    Mr. Peterson. Yeah, thank you, Representative. It is 
absolutely critical. Like you said, we can't address all when 
you start talking about the social determinants of health 
economic instability and housing instability and healthcare 
instability, we're not that well-positioned to do that in 
juvenile justice.
    We're going to do our best, and we're going to do 
everything we can to focus on reducing criminogenic risk 
factors. Fundamentally what we have to do and the whole vision 
of reform is to be able to reinvest, to flow resources into 
communities so that youth can stay there, and they can thrive.
    So, this takes a lot of innovation. It takes an endless 
amount of partnership. Finding ways to listen, to hear.
    So, our schools, for example, what's the challenge you're 
seeing? We recognize and we have a shared philosophy that we 
don't want to send a kid in front of a judge for truancy. I 
shouldn't say it's completely shared, but it's a journey. Then 
like you said, how do we then help, how do we then help?
    So, we partner. I have staff in some school districts where 
they actually go, and they're staffing cases with the social 
workers in the school and recognizing, okay, maybe this family 
needs some more intensive treatment.
    We the ability to actually fund, it can by youth or family, 
therapy, counseling, skill-building, and family group. It kind 
of goes a whole range. We have that ability because of reform.
    Ms. Demings. Thank you so much, Mr. Peterson, for that. 
Specifically talking about schools, Ms. Levick, thank you as 
well for mentioning that we've come a long way. We still 
obviously have a long way to go. How we've seen the reductions 
in the number of arrests leading to the reductions in 
incarcerations.
    I want to talk to you too about how can schools play kind 
of a greater role in fostering those reductions that we see. If 
we know that the overwhelming majority of people in our prisons 
around the United States are Black and brown and that they did 
not graduate high school, how can we continue to see those 
reductions in arrests and incarcerations by the school playing 
a better role in the process?
    Ms. Levick. Yes, thank you, Congresswoman Demings, such an 
important question. I think it's important to start out by 
saying that roughly 39% of youth in the juvenile justice system 
don't graduate from high school. So, that's precisely the 
problem that you've identified.
    I think that schools play a critical role, first, by not 
sending children into the juvenile justice system. So, we need 
to really be rethinking about I think we lost our way in the 
last 20 years or so in pushing school resource officers into 
the schools, seeing schools really--
    Ms. Demings. Who were placed in the school, by the way, 
initially for drug, you know--
    Ms. Levick. Exactly.
    Ms. Demings. Addiction prevention.
    Ms. Levick. Now, they've become--
    Ms. Demings. For prevention purposes.
    Ms. Levick. Now, they've become feeders--
    Ms. Demings. That's right.
    Ms. Levick. Into our youth justice system. That's exactly 
what we saw in the Kids for Cash case. All of those kids were 
coming from the school system. These were kids who committed 
really trivial misconduct, not even offenses.
    So, I think that we need to start by focusing on schools as 
places of education. We need to recognize that we spend more 
money on incarceration than education. We need to change to 
that funding balance. We need to invest in schools, and we need 
to invest in communities.
    I think your opening comments--the juvenile justice system 
can't solve the ills that plague our communities and that 
plague our families and our kids. It's not going to fix those 
problems. So, by investing in smart services and really 
investing in education that's how we're going to find our way 
out of this.
    Ms. Demings. Again, thank you to all our witnesses, and 
thank you much for the important work that you are doing, all 
in this space. Madam Chair, thank you for being such a 
visionary and for this hearing. I yield back.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. The gentlelady's time has expired. Thank 
you very much. Let me now yield to Mr. Massie for five minutes.
    Mr. Massie. Thank you--
    Ms. Jackson Lee. You're welcome, thank you.
    Mr. Massie. Thank you, Madam Chair. Instead of asking one 
witness five questions, I'm going to ask all five witnesses the 
same question. Before I do that, I'd like to introduce into the 
record two articles, and this will give you an idea of the 
question I'm going to be asking you all.
    The first article appeared in The Atlantic, and it's by 
Elder G. Yusef Qualls, retired pastor and criminal justice 
advocate. The article is titled ``Kyle Rittenhouse Deserves the 
Kind of Mercy My Son Did Not Receive''. It appeared in The 
Atlantic.
    The second article is by Marcy Mistrett. She's the CEO of 
the national advocacy organization called the Campaign for 
Youth Justice. This appeared in LA Progressive, and the title 
of this article is ``Not Even Kyle Rittenhouse Should Be Tried 
as an Adult.''
    So, I ask unanimous consent to introduce these two articles 
into the record.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information follows:]



      

                       MR. MASSIE FOR THE RECORD

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

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Mr. Massie. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, that should give 
you an idea what my question is going to be. No surprises or 
gotchas here. I know you're not going to be jurists and you 
won't be judges and you can't know, possibly know all of the 
circumstances of this situation.
    What we do know is he was, Kyle Rittenhouse was 17, and 
he's been accused of felonies and he's being tried as an adult 
in Wisconsin.
    I'll start with you, Mr. Peterson. Please be brief, I want 
to give everybody a chance to answer the question. Should Kyle 
Rittenhouse be tried as an adult?
    Mr. Peterson. No, I don't believe so.
    Mr. Massie. Thank you very much. Ms. Levick.
    Ms. Levick. I support that. I think that the science has 
taught us what we need to know about children. Kids are 
different, and we should treat them differently.
    Mr. Massie. Thank you, Ms. Levick. Let's see, Mr. 
Stevenson.
    Mr. Stevenson. No, I agree with the panelists. I will note 
that there's a 14-years old named Omar Ninham in Wisconsin who 
has been tried as an adult and sentenced to life without 
parole. What I want to do for Kyle Rittenhouse I want to do for 
the hundreds of other children in Wisconsin.
    Mr. Massie. Understood. Then finally I want to ask Aaron 
Toleafoa what your opinion is.
    Mr. Toleafoa. No, I don't think he should be tried as an 
adult.
    Mr. Massie. Then Ms. Vaughan, should Kyle Rittenhouse be 
tried as an adult?
    Ms. Vaughan. I don't know. I don't have an opinion on that. 
I do know that the border crisis and other problems with our 
immigration system are making it much more difficult to resolve 
this pipeline problem into the juvenile justice system. I think 
that is an appropriate thing for Congress to be focusing on 
right now during this crisis.
    Mr. Massie. Well, I thank you all for answering the 
question to the best of your ability. I'll give you my opinion. 
I think it--but let me condition it. You were nice enough to 
give a short answer and I'll give the longer answer myself.
    I think it should be left up to the states. In Wisconsin, 
unfortunately, Mr. Tiffany isn't here and I'm talking about 
Wisconsin, but in Wisconsin, 17-years olds are regularly tried 
as adults. I do believe it should be left up to the states. I 
believe he acted in self-defense, that's just an opinion, I'm 
not a jurist or a judge.
    If he's going to be tried, I think he should be tried as a 
juvenile. He was 17, he should not be tried as an adult. I 
agree with the four witnesses here who gave me a straight 
answer, I thank you for doing that. He shouldn't be tried as an 
adult.
    Adding to the absurdity of this case, he's also being tried 
for a misdemeanor crime of being a minor in possession of a 
firearm. So, he's being tried for a crime that only applies to 
minors while simultaneously being tried as an adult.
    The only thing that would be more ridiculous, if they tried 
him for the crime of being a minor in possession of a firearm 
as an adult. That's almost how ridiculous this case is.
    I thank you for not having a double standard. I thank you 
for standing up for the rights of all juveniles. I hope that 
Kyle Rittenhouse sees justice. I yield back the remainder of my 
time.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. The gentleman yields back, and I now 
recognize Ms. McBath for five minutes. Thank you.
    Ms. McBath. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to thank 
each and every one of you that are here this morning, those 
that are physically present and those that are virtually here 
with us today. Thank you so much for really talking about this 
extremely critical and important subject today.
    I know that it is critical that we recognize the challenges 
facing our nation's children and that we give them an 
opportunity to grow and learn from their mistakes. We have long 
recognized that basic principle in our justice system, creating 
different pathways in the justice system for youth and for 
adults.
    That distinction exists for a reason. When we erode that 
distinction, suddenly our children can end up in a system that 
wasn't designed for their needs and their circumstances.
    This is especially troubling for those youth who have 
committed the so-called status offenses that we have just 
talked about, actions or circumstances that are a violation of 
a law only when they are committed by a minor, such as skipping 
school or simply running away from home.
    When kids skip school, we need solutions that put our 
students back in the classroom, not in the courtroom. I 
represent Georgia, and I'm thankful that Georgia took a good, 
deep look at how we were serving our youth in 2013. We decided 
that there was room for change.
    A council led by Republican Governor Nathan Deal found that 
we were spending over $90,000 per year to incarcerate our 
youth. That expenditure wasn't solving anything. More than half 
of our youth ended up back in the justice system within three 
years of their release.
    Thankfully, Georgia redirected our taxpayer dollars toward 
evidence-based programs and policies. We put an emphasis on 
data and to keep evaluating our successes as well as our 
failures. Because when we get this right, everyone benefits. 
Our kids get back on that path towards success, our taxpayer 
dollars are used far more efficiently, and our communities are 
much safer.
    We have to keep working on these very goals, keep these 
very goals in mind. So, I thank those of you that are doing 
this work every single day. We must work together on a 
bipartisan basis to make sure that we're achieving a more 
humane environment for our incarcerated children.
    Mr. Peterson, I just want to thank you so much for the work 
that you've been doing in Utah. Like Georgia, Utah implemented 
a number of reforms, including different responses to low-risk 
behavior and also reducing the involvement of teens in our 
courts and jails.
    Do you have a sense of which of these reforms was the most 
important?
    Mr. Peterson. Yeah. I think that when I look at Utah, that 
we've definitely been on a journey. We've had good bones in the 
system for a long time, if I can use that phrase. Having a 
dedicated juvenile court bench, having a dedicated probation, a 
dedicated agency. The right type of philosophy.
    I do think that the most impactful was creating policies, 
those hard-line guardrails on keeping low-risk youth out of the 
system. I do think that has been the most significant.
    When you start looking at our building out to reinvest and 
to actually serve youth in their home schools and communities 
and not in a jail cell and a courtroom, that's been the most 
significant step in our policy changes.
    Ms. McBath. Thank you for that. Mr. Stevenson, it's so good 
to see you again. I'm so glad to have you with us this morning, 
and thank you so much for your commitment to justice, and 
especially your work to tell the stories of Black Americans 
through our history.
    We have to make sure that people understand our country's 
history of racial injustice. That's the only way we're going to 
be able to achieve equality for all Americans. How can juvenile 
justice reform reduce socioeconomic and racial inequality?
    Mr. Stevenson. Well, I do think it's a really important 
issue, and thank you for that question. Because there are huge 
racial disparities. When we were looking at children sentenced 
to die in prison, all of the 13- and 14-year-old children 
sentenced to die in prison in this country for nonhomicide 
offenses were Black. There are huge disparities.
    Even in the schools, the suspension rate for Black children 
and Brown children is much higher than non-Black children. So, 
the disparities are key. I think the most critical thing is 
recognizing that we have to be remedial, we have to be 
affirmative.
    We have to understand that bias, conscious and unconscious, 
is implementing and manifesting itself in the way we treat 
children of color differently than children who are White. That 
has to shape our policymaking.
    Some states have done this effective work. They're being 
proactive, being intentional and eliminating racial disparities 
in education policy and sentencing policy. I think that has to 
be a goal.
    Ms. McBath. Thank you so much. I'm out of time, but Madam 
Chair, may I ask that I submit a question to Ms. Levick and 
have it answered in the future.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Absolutely, all Members are allowed to 
submit questions into the record and the witnesses will 
subsequently provide answers. Thank you so very much.
    Ms. McBath. Thank you.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Congresswoman, for your line of 
questioning. I'm now happy to yield five minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gohmert. Unmute, Mr. Gohmert.
    Mr. Gohmert. Yes, I did, thank you.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
    Mr. Gohmert. Thank you to the witnesses and thank you for 
this hearing. I'm very much interested in ensuring juvenile 
justice in our nation. I'm so glad that we all agree on that. 
Appreciate the witnesses very much.
    I find myself again perplexed that the majority would have 
this hearing and not address or even acknowledge the obvious 
elephant in the room, as Ms. Vaughan, you testified that 
February to March we had 49,000 unaccompanied minors that were 
gathered in on our border.
    There's a lot of disturbing scenes at the border, whether 
its little children being dropped over the fence, as we saw 
down in Del Rio, little bitty children, even a one-year-old. 
They didn't get to the border unaccompanied, they got there 
through the drug cartels.
    I wanted to ask you based on your study and what's going on 
that's controlled by the drug cartels, what will the drug 
cartels likely do to the children whose parents owe money for 
bringing the children into the United States?
    Ms. Vaughan. Well, the cartels and smuggling organizations 
will use any tactics or means that they have at their disposal, 
including extortion, violence, kidnapping, and other ways to 
try to extract payment from the parents or others who pay them 
to bring the kids into this country. So, it's horrifying, some 
of the things that have happened to kids.
    There are all kinds of abuses that occur because these are 
criminals who are doing a criminal business and they're making 
so much money on it that they want to continue.
    That's why we should not have policies that encourage 
people to contract and pay criminal smuggling organizations who 
are brutal and violent. It's our policies that are encouraging 
people to put themselves in these situations where they can be 
exploited, abused, hurt, or taken advantage of.
    Mr. Gohmert. Thank you. It is staggering, and it's scary 
what's happening to those children. It seems that the cages 
that were constructed during the Obama Administration are not 
the worst things that are happening to those children as 
they're transported into sex trafficking and human trafficking, 
drug trafficking to make the money to pay back the cartels for 
bringing unaccompanied to this country.
    Quickly want to point to another problem that has arisen, 
terrible injustice involving young people. One in particular, 
Bruno Joseph Cua. He was from Georgia, lived on a three-acre 
farm with his parents.
    He was arrested February 5 by a bunch of FBI agents in 
Atlanta. He was indicted as a high schooler in his senior year, 
including assaulting a police officer, possessing a dangerous 
or deadly weapon, which was a little baton that wasn't used.
    We hadn't even--there's not even evidence he assaulted 
anybody at this point. He was whisked away, held in jail. The 
Justice Department under--is before Judge Moss. They're arguing 
that this 18-year-old high schooler should be kept in jail.
    He shouldn't be released, and I'm quoting, ``I don't 
believe that home incarceration would work because he's an 18-
year-old who's being home-schooled.'' That's Assistant U.S. 
Attorney Ryan Buchanan.
    So, this case did not arise at him traveling or going 
different places. It actually is the case of many dozens of 
cases of people who committed a crime that many Democrats did 
of questioning the outcome of the federal election.
    They're being punished. He's being held in jail. He's a 
high schooler. There's no evidence that he's some terrible 
criminal.
    So, we need to address all of this injustice for young 
people. I appreciate, again, the opportunity. I yield back.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. The gentleman's time has expired. Now, my 
pleasure to yield five minutes to the gentlelady from 
Pennsylvania, Congresswoman Dean.
    Ms. Dean. I thank the chairwoman, and I thank you for 
assembling this important group of testifiers and experts. I 
thank you for your focus on our children and on the juvenile 
justice the pipeline.
    Mr. Stevenson, it is good to be with you again. Thank you 
for your extraordinary leadership in so many areas of justice.
    I wanted to pull a line from your testimony. You said, on 
page 1, this Congress should adopt new laws that increase the 
age at which children can be prosecuted as adults for any crime 
in the federal system. As you well know, the United States 
Supreme Court in Miller v. Alabama recognized that adolescents 
as a class lack the maturity, autonomy, and self-governing 
capacity of adults. Could you give us in a more granular way, 
based, obviously, on the research and what we understand about 
children's development into adulthood, what Congress should do? 
What policies and new laws should we adopt?
    Mr. Stevenson. Yes. Well, thank you for that question, 
Congresswoman Dean.
    First, consistent with those Supreme Court decisions in 
Graham and Miller, Congress should pass a law banning life 
without parole for anyone in the federal system who is a child. 
Twenty-five states have done that. I think that it would send 
an important signal, not just to the states, but even 
internationally, that practice has been prohibited for some 
time now.
    Second, I do believe we need to create an enforceable ban 
on placing children in adult prisons. This is an area where 
Congress was really controlling and trying to respond to prison 
violence at the State level. The Prison Rape Elimination Act 
was passed in 2003. It was about controlling a problem in the 
states. I think this Congress should fulfill that promise of 
eliminating that by having an enforceable ban. Create a private 
right of action, so that lawyers can challenge the placement of 
children in adult jails and prisons.
    The third thing I believe the Congress should do is to 
raise the minimum age. The gentleman was talking about 
Wisconsin. I don't believe any child should be prosecuted as an 
adult. I don't think we risk public safety when we do not 
prosecute children as adults. I think we could do more for 
children and the larger society by making that commitment.
    Ms. Dean. Thank you very much.
    I would like to follow up with you, also, on the other side 
of the juveniles' experience. Researchers found that juvenile 
experiences in correctional facilities can have a critical 
impact on whether adolescents successfully navigate the 
transition to adulthood, productive adulthood. What are some of 
the hallmarks of that experience that either determine they 
will be more successful or they will not be successful?
    Mr. Stevenson. Yeah, this is where the evidence about 
trauma is so important. When you tell children at 5 and 6, at 7 
and 8, that if they make a mistake, they will be suspended, 
they will be failed, you actually aggregate their fear, their 
sense of being targeted and menaced. That is why this kind of 
zero-tolerance policy that we have seen in the education space 
has been so disastrous. We now put children, 6- and 7-year-
olds, in handcuffs, and children never forget that. We put them 
in police cars. We send them to jails. We treat them like 
criminals. That is what I believe we need to prohibit. There 
are states--you heard about that in Utah--that don't permit 
those kinds of practices. I think we need to see that in more 
states.
    The ultimate thing, I do think we have to influence 
educational policy, Congresswoman. The Department of Education, 
when they evaluate schools, when they judge schools, when they 
grade schools, they don't look at suspension rates; they don't 
look at expulsion rates. Many schools have used suspension and 
expulsion as tactics to improve performance. That has been a 
recipe for increasing the criminalization and the traumatizing 
of young children that I just think no one should embrace. That 
is an area where education policy could intersect with juvenile 
policy. We could help a lot of children be healthy.
    Ms. Dean. Great. Thank you so much. Sorry, my time is so 
limited.
    Ms. Levick, if I could go to you, you were instrumental in 
seeking justice in the Kids for Cash case that took place in my 
home State of Pennsylvania, where some 3,000 children were 
placed in prison in exchange for financial kickbacks. That 
judge now is behind bars himself.
    What safeguards were established in Pennsylvania to ensure 
corruption, like the Kids for Cash case, does not happen again? 
What reforms should we be looking at here?
    Ms. Levick. Well, I think one of the critical reforms, of 
course, was ensuring the children had a right to counsel. We 
had too many children who passed through the courtrooms in the 
Kids for Cash scandal that really had no access to lawyers. We 
found that, without lawyers, they were likely to be placed and 
more likely to be adjudicated. So, that is one critical reform 
that has been made.
    We have also required that judges actually State the 
reasons for why they are placing children out of their homes, 
because we know that every placement outside the home places 
children at risk for greater harms and abuse within facilities.
    I am not sure if I should continue.
    Ms. Dean. I thank you for that. I see my time has expired.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. You can finish your sentence.
    Ms. Dean. Oh, go right ahead.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Finish your sentence.
    Ms. Levick. I can continue?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Finish your sentence.
    Ms. Levick. Oh, I am sorry.
    Yes, and I think that what we have seen is that, by really 
forcing I think exposure of what is happening behind the closed 
doors of the juvenile justice system, has made a significant 
change in really holding that system accountable.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. Your time has expired.
    I now want to recognize Mr. Fitzgerald for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    My state, the State of Wisconsin, is currently going 
through a reform of juvenile justice, more based on as much 
changes to the physical construct of the entire state. There 
were some issues in a juvenile facility located in central 
Wisconsin, but the legislature I think is trying to wrap their 
arms around what those reforms and changes would be. Antiquated 
facilities are one of the issues that certainly needed to be 
addressed.
    I wanted to go back some of the earlier discussion. I know 
Mr. Tiffany talked a little bit about it. It is kind of this 
transfer that has been happening throughout the nation. We 
talked about a pipeline of juvenile incarceration and issues 
related to that. There really is kind of this operation, this 
nationwide operation, where children are being exploited. I 
think many of us have certainly dealt with the issues or talked 
about the issues related to human smuggling and trafficking and 
the drug-related crimes there as well.
    I wanted to ask Ms. Vaughan, along those lines, as we 
continue to see kind of that exploitation, and then, the end 
result of those children that are incarcerated, it all goes 
back to these cartels. We have actually had federal charges 
that have been levied against some of these individuals coming 
out of the Milwaukee districts as of late.
    If we don't stop or hold back the tide of these crimes 
related to those issues, how do we address kind of the whole 
juvenile justice system? We cannot forecast or predict the 
amount of juveniles that are coming into the system right now, 
and I think that is just as important as anything we could do 
kind of on the back end, as these children are incarcerated.
    Ms. Vaughan. That is right. We had started to see some 
lower numbers in terms of juvenile offenders, but this influx 
of minors, many of whom do end up becoming involved in gangs or 
crimes, either to pay off their smuggling debts or the 
smuggling debts of their parents that they paid to bring them 
here, or because they are vulnerable and exposed to gangs in 
the schools or in the neighborhoods, all of that is going to 
complicate and undermine efforts to improve outcomes for youth.
    I have to add, one of the most important things to 
interrupt this so-called pipeline is to provide job 
opportunities for youth. Right now, we are seeing a very, very 
low employment participation among America's teenagers 
especially. Teenagers are one of the groups that are most 
affected by our country's failure to control illegal 
immigration. Illegal employment displaces Americans, especially 
young people, especially people who lack a high school 
education for whatever reason. It displaces them from job 
opportunities and depresses their wages. Access to employment 
is one of the things that could keep our youth and others who 
are vulnerable out of the justice system altogether because 
they are gainfully employed. That is another reason why we want 
to stem this flow of uncontrolled illegal immigration.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you very much.
    The one other comment I just wanted to make, because it 
came up a couple of times and I know there are different titles 
for them, but school safety officers. The comment was made that 
somehow that is an adverse or a negative force on schools. I 
have found that, whenever you talk to a high school principal 
or a counselor, the relationships that are built and the 
understanding that is gained by these individual officers being 
within the schools certainly outweighs any negativity, you 
might say, that would be on the back end of this. I always 
thought that it was probably the best way for law enforcement, 
also, to establish kind of a different profile than what youth 
may experience if they end up in a situation with direct 
contact with an officer on the street. So, I just wanted to 
make that comment.
    I yield back, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. The gentleman yields back.
    Now, I yield to Mary Gay Scanlon from Pennsylvania for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you, Chair Jackson Lee, for holding this 
important hearing.
    Thank you to our witnesses for testifying here today. I 
want to particularly recognize my fellow Philadelphia lawyer, 
Marsha Levick, whose decades of work with the Juvenile Law 
Center has been so instrumental in ensuring that the phrase 
access to justice also applies to children.
    Some of my colleagues have expressed concern about whether 
the Federal Government has an appropriate role to play with 
respect to juvenile justice. My view is less circumscribed, but 
I want to focus on a particular federal issue, and that is the 
Prison Litigation Reform Act, which governs the circumstances 
under which an incarcerated person can bring a civil rights 
suit in the federal courts. The PLRA applies not only to adult 
prisons, but also to the thousands of children confined in 
prisons, jails, and juvenile detention facilities.
    My district is home to the now shuttered Glen Mills School, 
the oldest school for delinquent boys in the country, founded 
in 1826. For years, its bucolic campus masked serious daily 
violence inflicted upon the children placed there. An explosive 
2019 report by the Philadelphia Inquirer revealed years of 
physical, sexual, and psychological abuse of the young 
residents, including broken bones, threats, and sustained 
physical assault at the hands of staff Members.
    Although the stories from Glen Mills were heartbreaking, 
they are not unique. Physical and sexual violence, harmful 
restraints, and solitary confinement have been documented in 
juvenile facilities in almost every state. Unfortunately, 
states have not adequately protected children. Despite the 
recent example of the Glen Mills School in my district, this 
past March, children were removed from another facility, the 
Delaware County Juvenile Detention Center in Lima after 
horrifying reports of abuse.
    The purpose of our juvenile justice system is supposed to 
be rehabilitative, not punitive. When juveniles in detention 
are subject to physical and psychological trauma, it causes 
disproportionate harm. From Roper to Graham, Miller, and 
beyond, the Supreme Court has long held that juveniles lack the 
maturity and mental acuity to be treated as adults in our 
justice system.
    So, Ms. Levick, the testimony we have before us today 
speaks to how youth are at particular risk of harm in juvenile 
and criminal justice facilities due to their youth and 
developmental immaturity. Can you talk about the Prison 
Litigation Reform Act, or PLRA, and how it creates obstacles to 
young people facing abuse to seek relief in the courts when the 
detention system fails to protect them?
    Ms. Levick. Yes, and thank you for that question.
    So, the same folly that I think the U.S. Supreme Court has 
recognized in treating children like adults for sentencing 
purposes is reflected in the inclusion of children in the 
Prison Litigation Reform Act as it was originally drafted. The 
assumption that children can jump through the administrative 
hoops that PLRA requires, can file grievances, can figure out 
how to file grievances--often youth who are in these facilities 
don't even have access to counsel. In many jurisdictions across 
the country, lawyers are simply not a part of that post-
adjudication experience.
    So, I think the leadership that you have shown in really 
asking Congress to change a provision that really makes no 
sense--it is not reflective of the difficulties that children 
face in these facilities. What it does, of course, is that it 
places children at great risk.
    I have been involved in litigation, of course, in the Glen 
Mills litigation. I was involved in the litigation in 
Wisconsin. So, we know that kids face extraordinary forms of 
abuse and trauma in these facilities. If we don't give them the 
ability to challenge and to address and to fix those kinds of 
abuses, then we are doing more harm to our children even than 
by bringing them into the system.
    So, I really think that the bill that you have introduced, 
it is designed to really spare children these extreme 
administrative hurdles to be able to file litigation. It is 
critically important to redress the harms that they suffer 
inside these facilities. I thank you for that.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you, and thank you for mentioning the 
Justice for Juveniles Act. We did pass it unanimously on the 
House Floor last term, and I would invite Members of the 
Committee to join me again in supporting the bill.
    I mean, just to sum up, would it be fair to say that 
juveniles are both more likely to be abused while in detention 
and less likely to be able to pursue relief?
    Ms. Levick. I would say that is an excellent summing up of 
their dilemma.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. With that, I would yield back.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. The gentlelady yields back. Thank you for 
that insightful proposal.
    I would now like to yield to the gentleman, Mr. Steube for 
5 minutes.
    Mr. Steube. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
    Mr. Steube. Thank you.
    We have heard testimony today about violent crimes 
committed by juveniles associated with MS-13 and other Central 
American gangs, including murder and rape. We have also seen 
violent juvenile crime right here in Washington, DC. This 
March, in Southwest DC, 13- and 15-years-old girls murdered a 
food delivery driver in an attempt to steal his car. He was 
just trying to do his job, and they killed him in broad 
daylight a little over a mile from where we sit right now.
    Violence like this occurs all over the country. For 
instance, in 2014, in Tacoma, Washington, a 15-years old shot a 
man at close range with a rifle during a carjacking. According 
to a letter by the victim's family to the sentencing court, the 
victim lost use of his arm for a period and was left not fully 
able to work or care for his daughter. The victim is lucky to 
be alive after he was shot. The teenager convicted of these 
crimes would go on to be charged with a felony count of rioting 
in prison just two years ago. The convict I am referring to is 
Mr. Toleafoa, and he is here today testifying by invitation of 
the chair about how he needs more opportunities in prison.
    Despite the horrific nature of these crimes, we continue to 
hear calls to not fully prosecute the criminals that are 
responsible for these crimes. It is all part of the defund the 
police agenda. For example, a prominent spokeswoman for the 
Black Lives Matter movement recently said that teenagers have 
been fighting, and I quote, ``with knives for eons, and we 
don't need police to address these situations by showing up to 
the scene and using a weapon.'' So, I guess police are just 
supposed to let people stab each other. This is a dangerous 
ideology, and combined with the flow of criminals at the 
southern border, it is made even more dangerous.
    Ms. Vaughan, I have a couple of questions. In your 
testimony, you describe MS-13 and the 18th Street Gang as, I 
quote, ``extremely vicious and unusually degenerate.'' Can you 
provide some further examples of the crimes they commit and how 
juveniles are involved in those crimes?
    Ms. Vaughan. Well, there are numerous examples of this. We 
have examined about 500 cases of MS-13 arrests nationwide in 
the last 15 years. There is sometimes unspeakable violence 
associated with these crimes, whether it is hacking off 
people's limbs or luring people to parks to dismember them and 
bury the bodies. Some of the victims have not been fellow gang 
Members, or sometimes they are youth who they thought might 
have been involved with a rival gang, or simply people who were 
killed because these kids are trying to prove their value to 
the gang and are expected to carry out random senseless 
violence to be accepted into the gang, and they are eager to do 
that. So, they will pick out random victims to do that. These 
gangs lure kids in a very predatory and frightening way that 
also makes it difficult for them to escape from the gangs.
    My research of both State databases and other federal 
crimes has found that these transnational gangs, and MS-13 in 
particular, are especially prone to violence, that many of 
these Members are violent by the time they get here, and are 
less afraid of the consequences from law enforcement, which 
makes them bolder, less wary of committing violence against a 
police officer, for example, or a teacher or a kid who is not 
involved in the gang.
    It is a problem that is exacerbated by our failure to 
control the entry of these individuals over our border. It is 
one that is making it hard for kids who are in the same schools 
to get meaningful education, to avoid entanglement with these 
gangs, and it is ruining the quality of life in some 
neighborhoods.
    Mr. Steube. Well, and you just hit on the challenges that 
we are seeing at the border and how this is causing an 
increased amount of crime, especially with juveniles. Under 
Biden's border policies, violent criminal gang Members under 
the age of 16 are not subject to removal. Can you explain the 
consequences of this and how MS-13 will exploit this?
    Ms. Vaughan. Well, the gangs are well aware of the 
policies. They know more about our border policies than most 
Americans do. They know that a kid who arrives and claims to be 
under the age of 18 will likely be lightly screened. If we 
happen to have their fingerprints, they might be interrupted, 
and the Border Patrol is catching more gang Members than ever 
before at the border. Usually, they are sent to a residential 
facility with other kids where they also have the opportunity 
to recruit and eventually released to sponsors who are very 
lightly vetted, often not fingerprinted or submitted to 
rigorous background checks. They are free in the community to 
work for the gang, to work on other jobs and live here 
indefinitely, and often even receive permanent residency here.
    Mr. Steube. Thank you for your testimony here today.
    My time is expired. I yield back to the chair.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Steube, for your testimony, 
the gentleman from Florida. We appreciate your testimony. You 
were not here, and I seek a clarification again. I just want to 
clarify that this hearing is entitled, Juvenile Justice 
Pipeline and the Road Back to Integration. The gentleman from 
Florida was not here when Mr. Massie made a very eloquent point 
about a juvenile that killed two individuals in Wisconsin. He 
raised the point of that individual being tried as a juvenile, 
and I imagine he made the same point about that juvenile 
possibly not being incarcerated with adults.
    Now, let me say that, when we invite witnesses here, we 
expect courtesies to be extended to the witnesses. We don't 
have any quarrel with witnesses, in essence, being questioned, 
but Mr. Toleafoa is a young man who has made a seismic 
contribution to this nation. I will not allow him to be 
disparaged. His advocacy has saved lives because he has led the 
passage of numerous legislative reforms in Washington State, 
and he has been the leader of disallowing minors who are 
convicted to be in an adult court, to stay in a juvenile 
correction system until they turn 25. In essence, those minors 
convicted in an adult court are able to stay in a juvenile 
correction system until they turn 25. He is a credible 
contributor to this process, and I wish that that would be 
noted by our Members in a respectful manner.
    Mr. Biggs. Madam Chair, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. The gentleman can State your parliamentary 
inquiry.
    Mr. Biggs. My inquiry is this: When a member of the 
Committee makes a comment or makes a statement that is not 
violative of our rules of decorum, is the Chair entitled to 
rebut the statement of that member of the Committee? How long 
will this go on?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the gentleman for his question. As 
Chair, I have discretion to run the Committee hearing as I 
believe is appropriate. In this instance, the challenges to a 
witness in terms of that witness' credibility, that was not in 
the form of a question to the witness. I wanted to make sure 
the record was clear.
    I will move now to the next speaker. I thank you, Mr. 
Biggs.
    Mr. Steube. Well, there is nothing that I did to 
challenge--
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me yield to--
    Mr. Steube. I presented the facts to this Committee and to 
the American people.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me yield to the gentlewoman from 
Missouri, Ms. Bush, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Bush. St. Louis and I thank you, Madam Chair, for 
convening this hearing.
    In my home State of Missouri, Black youth account for 15 
percent of our youth population; yet, receive 27 percent of 
referrals to juvenile court. In the St. Louis region, Black 
girls are 11 times and Black boys are 18 times more likely than 
their White peers to be suspended from school. These zero-
tolerance policies regularly do not take into account the 
social conditions in which children may live, unsafe and 
unstable housing; lead exposure, which is no fault of their 
own; cyclical violence and trauma in their community, no fault 
of their own. Instead, they force our children out of school 
for acting out and fueling the school-to-prison pipeline. It is 
this fear of Black and Brown youth, long labeled super-
predators, that has made jailing and sentencing them to life 
without parole too easy and too common.
    The stereotype that Black and Brown boys and girls are 
dangerous or threatening has normalized systems of trauma. The 
cradle-to-prison pipeline, foster care, youth detention, and 
being tried and sentenced as adults--we treat trauma with more 
trauma. We treat Black and Brown kids who can't vote yet, join 
the military, rent a car, or even buy a lottery ticket, like 
adults in our criminal legal system.
    We deprive them of their joy and their youth--children who 
deserve to live rich and abundant lives; children who should be 
allowed to make mistakes, to learn from their mistakes, because 
we did; to grow up and live productive and loving lives, 
children like all other children. These children are young. 
These are children. They are young people who need love and 
support, love and support that our communities should give and 
our government.
    Mr. Toleafoa, thank you for being here with us today and 
for sharing your story and your incredible work with all of us. 
Thank you for that, as we strive to build a more just America.
    Can you please tell us about the trauma and lasting harm 
that incarceration can have on young people?
    Mr. Toleafoa. Yeah. So, speaking of trauma and harm, a 
couple of weeks ago, I had a call from one of my friends who 
was sent to prison, and we were on a three-way call. I was 
asking him, how are you doing? I asked, what was it like when 
you first got there?
    He said, well, the first thing that he did was go and take 
a shower. Once he walked into that shower, he seen a dead body 
lying on the floor. Mind you, he is 18-years old, first going 
into prison.
    Thinking about that was his first experience when going 
into that shower; he just seen a dead body. Thinking about how 
young he was and how he experienced that, I personally don't 
think that he is ever going to forget something like that. He 
is going to carry that onto when he grows up to take on adult 
responsibilities. So, when we think about just trauma and harm 
that being in an institution can cause, I feel like that just 
experience right then and there kind of expresses the totality 
of it.
    Ms. Bush. Absolutely. Thank you for sharing that. Thank you 
for sharing that. That is the truth of what is happening to our 
youth. That is why trying to reform care also, that care and 
support needs to be prioritized in this space. Thank you.
    Mr. Peterson, what holistic alternatives to incarceration 
exist for young people?
    Mr. Peterson. I am sorry, can you repeat the question?
    Ms. Bush. Sure. What holistic alternatives to incarceration 
exist for young people?
    Mr. Peterson. Sorry, the list of questions, you broke up 
just a little bit.
    Ms. Bush. Holistic alternatives to incarceration.
    Mr. Peterson. Oh, holistic alternatives? Thank you.
    Someone said earlier how it is so important that we can't 
view youth out of context. So, we can't have a youth enter the 
system and, all of a sudden, not recognize the community or 
family that they are from.
    So, this could include things that are very informal. So, 
for example, during COVID, when we looked at our youth and our 
families, we recognized they couldn't have visits the way they 
used to have. So, we had to switch to like a virtual platform. 
Well, there is a big digital divide in a lot of communities. 
So, we had to think of ways--maybe the family needs something 
as simple as a smartphone, things like that, that are these 
kinds of holistic approaches. Or maybe they do need something 
more intentional and more focused, like some type of evidence-
based treatment with the youth and the family.
    For us, also, holistic, when we are talking about holistic, 
we have to look at educational opportunities.
    Ms. Bush. I only have a few more seconds. If you could--
yeah, I am sorry.
    Mr. Peterson. That is okay.
    Ms. Bush. I am sorry, I have one more question that I need 
to get in but, thank you.
    Mr. Stevenson, your work has always been rooted in a deep 
commitment to justice and a belief in redemption. Can you tell 
us why it is important to extend mercy and compassion to 
children and young people--mercy?
    Mr. Stevenson. Thank you, Congressman Bush.
    I think mercy is at the heart of a just system. We have 
been governed by this idea that we can put crimes in jails and 
prisons. If you look at some of these sentences and you look at 
some of these policies, it is as if we think we can punish the 
crime. The truth is we can't put a crime in prison; we put 
people in prison. We put children in prison. I don't believe 
that people are crimes. I don't believe that children are 
crimes. The difference between a crime and a child is what 
dictates that we think more compassionately, that we embrace 
mercy, when we think about these policies.
    Ms. Bush. Thank you.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Steube. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to--
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the gentlelady.
    The gentleman is not recognized. The gentleman has an 
inquiry or?
    Mr. Steube. I am asking for unanimous consent.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. All right. The gentleman is recognized for 
unanimous consent.
    Mr. Steube. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I ask for unanimous consent to enter into the record the 
unpublished opinion filed July 9, 2020, in the Office of the 
Clerk of the Court, Washington State Court of Appeals, Division 
III, State of Washington v. Aaron Ata Toleafoa, which states in 
facts, in 2014, Aaron Toleafoa engaged in a crime spree that 
ended with a near fatal shooting. He was 15-years old at the 
time. Mr. Toleafoa was charged with eight felonies and two 
misdemeanors. The Juvenile Court declined jurisdiction, and Mr. 
Toleafoa eventually pleaded guilty to a reduced set of charges, 
including attempted second degree murder.
    [Chair uses gavel.]
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Without objection. Again, I have never 
heard of Members trying to disparage witnesses in the way that 
this is. Without objection, your document is submitted into the 
record. It doesn't have any reflection on the gentleman who is 
here before us today. We thank him for his presence.
    [The information follows:]



      

                       MR. STEUBE FOR THE RECORD

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

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Ms. Jackson Lee. With that, allow me to yield to Ms. 
Spartz. Ms. Spartz, are you present?
    [No response.]
    All right. Then, we will be able to yield, I believe, to 
Mr. Biggs, the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee. Thank you 
very much.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate that.
    I know that we have been reminded repeatedly from the 
majority that this is about juvenile incarceration and how we 
treat juveniles.
    I was looking at Arizona's--and we have been focusing on 
the inhumanity of the treatment of juveniles in the Biden 
border crisis, but here is the thing--I was looking at the 
Arizona juvenile information, and there is a relationship to 
those who are illegally in the country in the Arizona juvenile 
system. We see the discharge of some to ICE, et cetera. It does 
impact virtually every community. It impacts Utah, Arizona. It 
impacts New Mexico, Texas, and California for certain. To deny 
that, and that it doesn't have some role in the pipeline that 
we have been discussing today, just, frankly, boggles my mind.
    You would probably be surprised how much of what I have 
heard that I agree with, because there is a substantial amount 
of that. The reality is, however, this is a state-centric 
issue. Not one of our witnesses has talked about the very few 
individuals who are in the federal juvenile system. I was 
surprised by that, and yet, not surprised.
    I have been reminded repeatedly about the humanitarian 
response by the Biden-Harris Administration. I have walked 
recently in detention facilities of unaccompanied minors and 
putative family units that there isn't anybody in this room 
that could say that was humane or humanitarian. I have talked 
to Border Patrol agents and I have talked with individuals who 
have come across our border illegally. The treatment they 
receive as juveniles is in no way humanitarian.
    In the district that I live in, akin to, next to, 
contiguous to the Tucson sector, which has the most getaways by 
far, more than twice the amount of any other sector on the 
border, those are mostly 14-25-year-old young males dressed in 
camouflage, wearing carpet boots, and carrying methamphetamine, 
fentanyl, and bringing it forward. The cartels are exploiting 
our system. That is why we have raised this over and over 
today. To ignore that has an impact on how we deal with citizen 
juveniles is to ignore reality.
    Ms. Vaughan, how does the TVPRA loophole incentivize non-
Mexican parents to send their parents to the United States?
    Ms. Vaughan. The TVPRA incentivizes sending unaccompanied 
minors here because it says that any arriving minor from a 
country other than Mexico and Canada is going to be taken 
from--instead of being removed swiftly, as citizens of 
contiguous countries are, they are taken from Border Patrol 
custody and put with the Office of Refugee Resettlement into a 
network of shelters, and that they should be released to a 
sponsor; that the mission of ORR is to find a placement for 
these minors, either with a family member or a friend or some 
other unrelated sponsor, often in the foster care system. So, 
what happens is that the U.S. government essentially completes 
the smuggling Act by moving these kids who get caught crossing 
illegally into a placement in the community, essentially, to 
stay.
    Mr. Biggs. So, Ms. Vaughan, does the Federal Government do 
anything to track or follow these children, as they are placed 
sometimes with relatives, sometimes not, sometimes with 
putative relatives, to make sure that those children are safe, 
okay? Anything else?
    Ms. Vaughan. After release, there is almost no monitoring 
that occurs by the government on these placements and what 
happens to these kids. The sponsors can refuse contact with the 
government to give an update on the child's welfare. 
Essentially, the government loses track of them. The kids can 
move to other households. Many of them don't show up for their 
immigration proceedings, and we definitely lose track of them.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you. My time is up. Thank you, Madam 
Chair.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. The gentleman's time is up. The 
gentleman's time has expired.
    I now recognize the gentleman from Rhode Island. The 
gentleman is Congressman Cicilline, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Cicilline. I want to thank you, Chair, for holding this 
hearing today.
    We cannot effectively approach desperately needed criminal 
justice reform in this country unless we address how the 
current system is affecting our youth. I feel particularly 
connected to today's hearing since my first job as an attorney 
was a public defender right here in the District of Columbia in 
the juvenile division. It was my job to defend young people 
caught up in the system who very often had been failed by the 
system. It was my experience that very often the effort was 
really made to just sort of shove these kids away, so they 
wouldn't have to deal with them, rather than really 
rehabilitate them. It was, actually, what caused me ultimately 
to enter politics, because I thought we have got to figure out 
a better way to take care of our kids.
    Sadly, as I listened to some of the discussion today, you 
wouldn't think it is our responsibility. I think we have no 
greater responsibility than the care and well-being of our 
children in this country.
    So, I want to, first, say to Brian Stevenson and Marsha 
Levick, thank you for your inspiring and heroic work on behalf 
of America's children. Words cannot describe how grateful I am 
for all that you have done.
    I know there has been a lot of discussion about costs and 
fees and extreme sentences and excessive punishments and 
conditions of confinement. All of that is convincing to me. I 
agree with every single thing that has been said.
    What I want to focus on instead is, how do we prevent young 
people and children from getting into the system in the first 
place? Because when we are dealing with costs and fees and 
extreme conditions of confinement, we have already failed them. 
They are already in the system. So, all that is fine and we 
have got to fix it, but what I would like to focus on is, what 
kinds of models are there that actually identify some of the 
trauma that you have described, Mr. Stevenson, or factors that 
would indicate the level of trauma that kids are experiencing 
today is just unbelievable? The fact that we don't have more 
children in the juvenile justice system is kind of remarkable.
    So, are there any states that have a model that we should 
look at that actually intervenes early before kids get into 
either the criminal justice system or the juvenile justice 
system that can provide support services at a moment to prevent 
their entry into a system which is going to gobble them up and 
very often not do much good for them? So, Mr. Stevenson first, 
and then Ms. Levick.
    Mr. Stevenson. Yeah, I think that is a really important 
question. I began my comments about the trauma crisis, because 
I agree with you that we do better work at interacting with 
young kids, with dealing with trauma, at the very early stages. 
I actually think we need trauma-informed care at Pre-K and 
first grade, and we can do it. There are great models.
    Bruce Perry at Northwestern has done some exciting work 
improving outcomes for children dealing with trauma. There are 
a host of programs. Purpose Built Communities that was 
organized in Atlanta, and spread around the country, what they 
do is they focus on care and treatment to try to help kids feel 
safe, and then they provide environments that help them deal 
with that. Even when they can't isolate these children from the 
trauma they face at home, they see remarkably better outcomes 
for those kids.
    So, we do have models that are out there that are very 
effective at disrupting the consequences of unaddressed trauma. 
If we embrace those, we will see the kinds of consequences that 
you are talking about.
    Mr. Cicilline. Thank you.
    Ms. Levick. Yes. Of course, I echo Mr. Stevenson's 
sentiments. I would also add, there are innovative programs in 
Georgia; there are innovative programs in Philadelphia that are 
really pulling kids back into their communities rather than 
pushing them into the justice system for school-related 
conduct.
    I think that, as we think about, unquestionably, the 
importance of investing in communities and investing in 
families and in young people, one of the other ways that I 
think we are addressing this issue through this hearing today, 
it is also about shrinking the youth justice system. So, when 
we talk about raising the age of criminal responsibility, 
raising the age of juvenile court jurisdiction, I think the 
role that the Federal Government can play in incentivizing the 
closing of youth prisons, all of that can shrink the system and 
I think get at some of the very harms that you have identified.
    Mr. Cicilline. Yeah, thank you so much.
    Mr. Toleafoa, I hope I pronounced that correctly. I want to 
thank you for being here and for the courage you have shown and 
the work that you have done, and to come before this committee. 
When I was listening to you, it was like listening to a 
professor. You had so much wisdom. So, thank you for being 
here.
    I just wonder if you might comment on whether or not the 
kinds of interventions that I am speaking about might have made 
a difference in your life and the conditions that you find 
yourself in. Finally, how important it is for the voices of 
young people to be heard throughout this process. We don't 
listen enough. We speak a lot to young people and I think don't 
listen enough to them.
    Mr. Toleafoa. Yeah, I think really any intervention is 
great for youth. Then, also, for youth here, I think really 
what I just echo every time, I get the opportunity to speak in 
front of people is just being able to do what a lot of people 
out here in Washington are doing, which is coming into the 
system and finding ways to interact with the youth, get to know 
them. Give them a space, a headspace, to really let them 
mentally escape the confinement that they are in. So, thinking 
about just ways to let them be themselves, and things like that 
I feel are really key when we speak about these.
    Mr. Cicilline. Thank you so much.
    My time has expired. I yield back, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. The gentleman yields back. Thank you for 
your inquiry.
    I am now delighted to yield to the gentlelady from Texas, 
Congresswoman Escobar, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Escobar. Madam Chair, thank you so much for this 
important hearing today.
    I want to thank the colleagues and witnesses who have 
chosen to engage on this issue in a serious and thoughtful 
manner.
    I also, Madam Chair, want to register my objection to the 
continued selection by the minority party of witnesses who 
belong to an anti-immigrant hate group whose sole purpose it is 
to spread misinformation and poisonous xenophobia. I represent 
a district that, unfortunately, knows only too well that 
poisonous xenophobia has deadly consequences. This kind of 
behavior in our Committee hearings is disrespectful of our 
serious panelists. It is disrespectful of other Members and 
disrespectful of the Americans watching our hearings remotely, 
because they are looking to us to lead on the topics that we 
have announced will be the focus of our hearings.
    I am going to focus on our hearing, which is the topic is 
children in our country and the juvenile justice system. I come 
from local government. I served in local government for almost 
a dozen years. In county government, we did some really 
remarkable things when it came to juvenile justice. I am very 
proud of the emphasis that we placed on rehabilitation and on 
ensuring that we offered what we called wrap-around services 
with the young people in our custody.
    Our panelists who have given us so much wisdom, I want to 
thank you all so much for what you have shared with us.
    Aaron, I want to turn to you because I would love for 
viewers and colleagues to listen to your thoughts on how we can 
best wrap our arms around young people from the time of birth 
on forward. Some of my colleagues have stated that the Federal 
Government doesn't have a role in juvenile justice. We have a 
role in creating a country that offers access to health care, 
mental health care, education, housing, quality child care, and 
so many other things. Aaron, can you share with us and with 
those folks watching this hearing, where in your life do you 
think we could have, as a community, as a society, done better 
to help you have more opportunity or a better chance, a 
different path, so to speak?
    Mr. Toleafoa. So, just reflecting on back when I was out, I 
think I started going, so to speak, downhill when I was in 
school and I wasn't doing so good. I think, right then and 
there, I could have been identified as at risk, and someone 
could have come and helped me and said, what's going on?
    Just the school system, how it was, I wasn't really able to 
just sit there. I am more energetic, and I like to be hands-on 
and do things. I think a lot of guys that I'm here with, they 
would say that their favorite class in school was PE. You're 
able to actually do what you're learning. So, just thinking 
about the different styles of learning.
    Also, one thing that is funny, when we talk about learning, 
some people don't know how to learn, or which way of learning 
is best for them. So, teaching someone how to learn, which 
sounds funny, but it's a thing to teach young people what they 
are best at, how to learn as effective as possible.
    So, this prevention period really in many ways I feel like 
I could have been helped. Thinking about being where I am from, 
how I was raised and brought up, and seeing the things that I 
have seen, and really thinking like this is what it is for me. 
So, I am going to repeat what my cousins and older siblings 
were doing. So, thinking about giving youth a different 
environment or a different person to look up to, and seeing 
different outlets of their situation.
    Ms. Escobar. Thank you, Aaron. I really appreciate you 
sharing that with all of us.
    Mr. Stevenson, I am running out of time, but I really do 
appreciate--I wanted to ask you about what you mentioned with 
regard to bias. What we continue to see in our country, 
unfortunately, is a poisoning of the public against certain 
groups and certain individuals. We are seeing that in this 
hearing with a desire to create an image that immigrants are 
criminals, associated with criminals, this desire to link 
certain groups in the most negative way, but we will get into 
that another time.
    I thank all of you so much for sharing your wisdom, your 
brilliance, and your compassion.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. The gentlelady yields back.
    I have some clarifying questions, but I am going to yield 
to the Ranking Member for his time, and I will be very brief on 
two or three witnesses for the record to clarify.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Biggs, you are recognized.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate that, and I 
appreciate the opportunity because what I just heard from a 
member of our Committee accusing the minority's witness as 
being racist and xenophobic, that is such a canard in today's 
world. If you oppose illegal immigration, somehow that makes 
you a racist or a xenophobe. That is outrageous.
    This country is very welcoming. There isn't anybody I know 
that doesn't support at least some form of legal migration. 
What we have seen last year even during COVID, 1.7 million 
people legally were brought into this country; the year before, 
2.2 million. That is the way this works.
    I appreciate the Chair because what she is trying to get at 
is to show deference and respect to the witnesses who appear 
here, who come, make efforts to come, and put themselves out. 
It cannot be easy to sit in front of so many Members of 
Congress, who we all have our egos; we have our political 
ambitions or political motivations that drive us. It can't be 
easy. It is not easy for anybody here who has come and 
testified today. I am very appreciative for everybody. I am 
trying to find what I agree with out of everyone, but, this 
kind of denigration right after our own Chair has, essentially, 
I won't say reprimanded, but made comment about one of my own 
Members, to have the very next member of this Committee make 
those outrageous and inflammatory statements about our witness, 
I think is ridiculous and absurd, and it is unfortunate.
    The reality is many of us on the minority side, we looked 
at this as what I have characterized before, is this notion 
that it is a State issue. Most of what this is having is a 
State issue. We have seen Utah has done great. I could go 
through reforms Arizona has made. I could go through the 
Arizona data. I have pulled it up and looked at it. I mean, we 
could talk about that, but that really belongs to the states.
    Trying to find the unique things that belong within our 
jurisdiction, that is what I would be more willing to do. At 
the same time, what is in our jurisdiction, clearly, this 
particular committee, subcommittee, as well as our overall 
committee, is what is happening on the border.
    I just got back from the border again last week. I cannot 
tell you how many times I have been on the border this year. I 
will be back on the border next week. I will be back down on 
the border the following week. It is a real issue, and it deals 
with juvenile criminality and the system that we have dealing 
with juvenile crime, whether it is good or bad. It, 
unfortunately, flows right into it. That is why I mentioned 
that, if you were to look at Arizona data, you are going to see 
at least a very small number of official discharges to ICE, but 
there will be, also, not broken out is demographic groups that 
come from people who are illegally in this country that have 
somehow found themselves in our system in Arizona.
    These things are important. To ignore them when--and I 
cannot stress this enough. In April, 178,000 encounters. That 
means apprehensions. Known getaways, about 40,000. Unknown 
getaways estimated to be an additional 100,000. If you have 
300,000 people coming into your country every month, like we 
have had for the last three months, and which are projected for 
the next six months, that is virtually going to impact every 
system that you have in your society, including your juvenile 
system.
    That is why we raised it today. I am unapologetic for 
raising it today. I appreciate the witnesses who have 
testified. You have given me seeds for thought and 
consideration, and I appreciate that.
    I thank you, Madam Chair, for letting me have this few 
minutes to clarify.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Ranking Member, I hope that we will 
come away from this hearing where all of us will say that we 
are committed to helping children. You indicated such.
    I want to take this moment and I am going to pose some very 
quick, clarifying questions within my timeframe. So, if the 
witnesses can listen, so that we will conclude the hearing, but 
I do think it is important, again, to State that gangs and 
immigrants are not synonymous. ICE's own data belies that prior 
Administration's attempt to criminalize immigrants. Historical 
data on ICE gang enforcement operations show that 60 to 80 
percent of alleged gang Members are U.S. citizens. So, claiming 
that unaccompanied minors or others contribute to the gang 
problem, I think that we can find ways to resolve this in a 
different manner.
    We understand the crisis, and some of us have the 
perspective that the Biden Administration is working on it in a 
humanitarian way. I want us to focus on where we are today.
    I thank the Ranking Member and his Members for being here.
    I want to pose this to Mr. Stevenson and Ms. Levick, very, 
very keenly focused on Miller and what we have done with this 
Jones decision in terms of juveniles' life without parole. What 
kind of inhumane impact does this have on a child when they 
have this kind of sentencing? If you might, in the juvenile 
system that we have today, not talking about states that have 
done well, if we don't correct it, how many of our children 
will we lose?
    Mr. Stevenson first.
    Ms. Levick. I have a quick question for you, Mr. Peterson, 
and a quick one for you, Aaron. I hope that I will be able to 
get it within my time.
    Mr. Stevenson first.
    Mr. Stevenson. Yes, I don't think there is any question 
that life without parole for a child is devastating. When we 
sentence someone to life without parole, we don't actually 
allow them to have programming. We don't allow them to get 
access to education. We don't allow them to participate in the 
rehabilitation programs that exist. That is one of the reasons 
that Justice Kennedy was so oppositional to this kind of 
sentence for a child.
    We do have lots of states that have continued to use this 
sentence. We have hundreds of people who have been released as 
a result of Miller, and 90 percent of them have done extremely 
well. That is the evidence that, I think, supports what the 
Court did in Miller and why what the Court indicated in Jones 
is something that should be pushed away, as we continue to 
eliminate and abolish life without parole for all children in 
this country.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Stevenson.
    Ms. Levick, very quickly.
    Ms. Levick. Yes. I think the good news is that the vast 
majority of men and women who have been resentenced since 
Miller and Montgomery have not been resentenced to life without 
parole. Hundreds of them have come home and are doing 
incredibly well, and many of them are contributing to their 
communities.
    I think that what Jones does is it certainly makes it 
easier to impose a life without parole sentence going forward. 
That is a sentence to die in prison, and I think that the 
solution to that is to abolish life without parole.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank you.
    Mr. Peterson, your State has been stupendous, but we are 
the only country that has not ratified the Convention on the 
Rights of Children. Can you talk about the idea of human rights 
for children and the idea that we have not, in essence, 
ratified it, from your context, the importance of human rights 
for children?
    Mr. Peterson. Yeah, I think it is critically important. At 
the end of the day, these are children. They are kids. when you 
spend time with them--and I heard Congressman Owens reference 
his time in our facilities, and he has seen Aaron here today--
that is what you recognize. You come to hear their voice. You 
recognize and identify that need for the acknowledgment of 
human rights for all children.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Aaron, you are going to be, besides my 
voice--excuse me--Mr. Toleafoa, our last voice because you are 
our important voice. Help us understand. If you want to share a 
little bit about what you did, but more importantly, how you 
are different today than you were at the time that generated 
the actions, the acts, that caused you to be in prison or in 
jail, in your facility today. How are you different today, Mr. 
Toleafoa? Tell us from your heart.
    Mr. Toleafoa. So, yeah, back when my crime was committed, I 
was reckless. I was doing stupid things. In the end, affecting 
my victims how I did, it was horrible. I think, for me, so I 
was sentenced to 21 years, but, for me, thinking about my 
victims, it wasn't that, okay, I was sentenced to 21 years and 
that is it. For me, it was more of, okay, I can easily go 
through my whole entire 21 years and just come out and be the 
same person that I was when I walked through those doors.
    For me, it was, how can I become better, so that I can 
effect change upon others? So, when they get out, victims like 
mine, people aren't going to be experiencing what they 
experienced. So, it was just a matter of really reflecting back 
on my actions and thinking I didn't want that to happen to 
anyone else.
    So, how I could repay my victims, how I could attempt to 
restore that, is by bettering myself, not becoming worse while 
you are inside the system, but becoming better. So, when I 
return to the community, I can help people who were once in my 
shoes not repeat those actions. So, it is just that a passion 
of mine.
    So, when I see youth come in here, I am just like, you know 
what? You have got two choices. You can either return back to 
the streets and be on your way right back in or you can better 
yourself. So, that was just the journey that I had to really go 
forward on and just really think about my past actions and what 
do I want for myself, and how can I better myself for my 
victims. That way, I am not just serving this time just to get 
out and return right back to the institutions.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Toleafoa, your last voice, your strong 
voice, indicates why we came here today on the Juvenile Justice 
Pipeline and the Road Back to Integration. It also emphasizes 
why we, as Americans, why this Nation has to be able to save 
our youth.
    I am grateful to the witnesses who have come and given us 
that pathway.
    Mr. Stevenson, continue your fight for equal justice, and 
we will work alongside of you.
    Ms. Levick, continue your journey, and we will stand 
alongside of you. I believe we can do it in a bipartisan 
manner.
    Mr. Peterson, you have a unique and effective approach in 
Utah. I believe we can follow that on the federal level.
    Mr. Toleafoa, again, most eloquent and powerful, I wanted 
you to have the last word.
    Ms. Vaughan, we welcome all opinions in this Committee.
    At this time, with no further business, the Committee now 
stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 1:06 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]



      

                                APPENDIX

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

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]