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


                 A FINE SCHEME: HOW COURT-IMPOSED FEES
            AND FINES UNJUSTLY BURDEN VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                   SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,
                          AND HOMELAND SECURITY

                                 OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEETH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                         TUESDAY, JULY 27, 2021

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-36

                               __________

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


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

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
46-434                       WASHINGTON : 2022                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                 
               
               
               
                       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. GREG 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 and Chief Counsel
              CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Minority Staff Director 
                                 
                                 ------                                

        SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

                    SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas, 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

                              ----------                              

                         Tuesday, July 27, 2021

                                                                   Page

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, Chair of the Subcommittee on 
  Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security from the State of Texas     1
The Honorable Andy Biggs, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on 
  Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security from the State of 
  Arizona........................................................     4
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of New York...........................     7

                               WITNESSES

The Honorable Lisa Foster (Ret.), Co-Director, Fines & Fees 
  Justice Center
  Oral Testimony.................................................     9
  Prepared Statement.............................................    11
Julissa Soto, Denver, Colorado
  Oral Testimony.................................................    15
  Prepared Statement.............................................    17
Timothy Head, Executive Director, Faith and Freedom Coalition
  Oral Testimony.................................................    20
  Prepared Statement.............................................    22
Alexes Harris, Professor of Sociology, University of Washington
  Oral Testimony.................................................    26
  Prepared Statement.............................................    28
Amanda Woog, Executive Director, Texas Fair Defense Project
  Oral Testimony.................................................    36
  Prepared Statement.............................................    39

           STATEMENTS, LETTERS, MATERIALS, ARTICLES SUBMITTED

Items submitted by the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the 
  Committee on the Judiciary from the State of New York for the 
  record
  Letter from the National Legal Aid & Defender Association 
    (NLADA)......................................................    54
  A report entitled ``The Steep Costs of Criminal Justice Fees 
    and Fines,'' Brennan Center for Justice at the New York 
    University School of Law.....................................    58
Items 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
  Materials from the Texas Fair Defense Project regarding support 
    of HB 3413 (Murr)............................................   140
  Materials from the Texas Fair Defense Project regarding support 
    of HB 2441 and HB 1177.......................................   142
  Materials from the Texas Fair Defense Project regarding support 
    of HB 162....................................................   143
  Materials regarding ``Tip of the Iceberg: How Much Criminal 
    Justice Debt Does the U.S. Really Have?'' Fines & Fees 
    Justice Center...............................................   144
  An article entitled ``The Price of Justice: Fines, Fees and the 
    Criminalization of the Poverty in the United States,'' 
    University of Miami Race & Social Justice Law Review.........   178
Written Testimony of Vikrant P. Reddy, Senior Fellow, Charles 
  Koch Institute, submitted by the Honorable Andy Biggs, Ranking 
  Member of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland 
  Security from the State of Arizona for the record..............   214

                                APPENDIX

Statement submitted by Lauren-Brooke Eisen, Director, Justice 
  Program, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law for 
  the record.....................................................   224

 
                 A FINE SCHEME: HOW COURT-IMPOSED FEES
            AND FINES UNJUSTLY BURDEN VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES

                              ----------                              


                         Tuesday, July 27, 2021

                        House of Representatives

        Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security

                       Committee on the Judiciary

                             Washington, DC

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:11 a.m., in 
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sheila Jackson 
Lee [chair of the subcommittee] presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Nadler, Jackson Lee, 
Demings, Bass, McBath, Dean, Scanlon, Bush, Cicilline, Jordan, 
Biggs, Gohmert, Steube, Massie, Spartz, Fitzgerald, and Owens.
    Staff present: David Greengrass, Senior Counsel; Moh 
Sharma, Director of Member Services and Outreach & Policy 
Advisor; Cierra Fontenot, Chief Clerk; John Williams, 
Parliamentarian and Senior Counsel; Merrick Nelson, Digital 
Director; Keenan Keller, Senior Counsel; Ben Hernandez-Stern, 
Counsel for Crime; Joe Graupen-sperger, Chief Counsel for 
Crime; Veronica Eligan, Legislative Aide/Professional Staff 
Member for Crime; Jason Cervenak, Minority Chief Counsel for 
Crime; Ken David, Minority Counsel; Kiley Bidelman, Minority 
Clerk; and Carter Robertson, Minority USSS Detailee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. The Subcommittee will come to order. 
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses 
of the Subcommittee at any time.
    We welcome everyone to this morning's hearing, ``A Fine 
Scheme: How Court-Imposed Fees and Fines Unjustly Burden 
Vulnerable Communities.''
    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.
    We would also like to ask all Members to mute your 
microphones when you are not speaking. This will help prevent 
feedback and other technical issues. You may unmute yourself 
any time you seek recognition.
    We want to continue in the Crime Subcommittee to have as 
many important hearings as possible with the idea towards 
legislation in our major theme of criminal justice reform. So, 
I am certainly grateful to all of the Members that are here and 
have been faithful in their attendance on both sides of the 
aisle, and of course, to our Chair who has been extremely 
engaged in our work and the commitment of our Ranking Member as 
well. It is very important. So, thank you for your presence 
here today, along with the witnesses who will give their 
testimony and they will contribute to being problem solving and 
criminal justice reform.
    Today, the Subcommittee hears testimony on the impact that 
fees and fines have on families and communities. To be clear at 
the onset, the topic today does not cover restitution or other 
equitable relief for victims, but focuses costs imposed by the 
criminal justice entitles upon those who come into contact with 
the criminal justice system.
    Just as an aside, let me indicate that I am very pleased 
that the Nadler-Jackson Lee bill, Victims of Crime Act Fix, was 
signed into law last week that indicates our commitment to 
protecting victims all over the Nation who have been impacted 
from crime to human trafficking. We are glad to see that 
movement.
    Here, we talk about a different aspect of fines and fees 
and I believe it is important to find a solution to the 
oppression that comes about on individuals who are 
impoverished. These charges to show up at every level of the 
criminal justice system, there are fees for traffic detention, 
phone calls from jail and prison, prison commissary and fee for 
pre-trial release, such as electronic monitoring, supervision, 
and parole fees. Some of these fees can be hundreds of dollars 
a month which in some places can be imposed before guilt is 
adjudicated.
    The United States Department of Justice investigation of 
Ferguson, Missouri that followed the tragic and violent 
shooting of Michael Brown, brought the imposition of fines and 
fees in the justice system to the forefront of our nation's 
public discourse. In its comprehensive report, the DOJ 
concluded that the Ferguson Police Department, the municipal 
court, and the city all depended on fines and fees to operate. 
Fines are monetary penalties ordered by a court to be paid by 
the defendant after arrest that are not restitution or other 
equitable relief.
    Many experts argue, and I believe factually, that the fees 
charged by Ferguson by those levied elsewhere in the United 
States helped entrench poverty, exacerbate racial disparities, 
undermining public safety, diminishing trust in the judicial 
system, and as well, trapping people in cycles of poverty and 
punishment. After arrest, most judicial systems require to have 
people pay fines and fees. These fees are for minor traffic and 
municipal code violations, misdemeanors, and some low-lying 
felonies as well, and are considered resources, unfortunately, 
for funding the government. That is of great concern to all of 
us and I would make the argument that as we proceed, we will 
find out the basis of all of this.
    To be clear at the onset, the topic today does not cover 
restitution, as I have already said. What the imposition of 
fines and fees have done is create a two-tier system of 
justice, those who can afford to immediately pay their court 
debt and exit the justice debt system after the underlying 
matter is resolved. Americans without the means, by contrast, 
may be quickly trapped in what can be for many a spiral of 
mounting debts, long after their case has been settled.
    The total scope of the court-imposed fees is astounding.
    By some estimates, criminal justice debt in this country 
will exceed $27 billion. Without reliable data, the exact 
amount is unknown and likely unknowable, but it still appears 
to be a staggering level. On a personal level, the harm caused 
by court-ordered debt can be grave.
    I remember going to the region that our Member represents 
after the shooting of Michael Brown. Our Vice Chair comes from 
that area and has spoken often about it, Vice-Chair 
Congresswoman Bush. I remember going to that area and meeting 
women, head of households, who unfortunately were caught up in 
the fines and fees, lost their jobs, and were not able to take 
care of their family. Some finding found, disturbingly, that 83 
percent of those surveyed gave up necessities like rent, food, 
medical bills, car payments, and child support to pay their 
court debt.
    Communities are harmed as well. The same study found that 
38 percent of respondents admitted to having committed at least 
one crime to pay off their court debt. About 20 percent of 
those whose only previous offenses were traffic violations 
admitted to committing more serious offenses, included 
felonies, to pay off their traffic tickets. This means that 
levying fines and fees take food out of the mouths of those who 
can't afford to pay them and decreases public safety by 
perversely incentivizing further criminal behavior.
    The harm doesn't stop there. The deleterious impact of the 
imposition of fees and fines is most acutely felt by juveniles. 
Youth who have interactions with the juvenile justice system 
are often required to pay fines and fees. Juvenile fees, like 
adult fines and fees, include juvenile detention fees, fees for 
drug testing, and charges for physical and mental health 
treatment, the practice of passing fees imposed on juveniles to 
their parents or guardian is too common and has the effect of 
weighing down an entire family and particularly an impoverished 
family.
    The woman that I met in the Ferguson community had been in 
jail because she was not able to pay the fines and fees. When 
juveniles fail to pay fines and fees, the debt may also follow 
them into adulthood putting them a step behind their peers, 
even before they have had a chance to begin their adult lives. 
Weighing down youth with debt at the start of their adult lives 
undermines the very goal of our juvenile justice system 
rehabilitation.
    I applaud the efforts in the states to eliminate the 
imposition of fees and fines, but more must be done to remove 
these barriers to youth rehabilitation. That is why we are 
holding this hearing. More must be done.
    One of the most troubling trends in the collection of fees 
and fines is the outsourcing of rehabilitative services, the 
entities that then charge fees for their services. This a 
circle that one does not want to be in. These fees which 
ultimately become collectible by court order or contract, are 
sometimes levied without the supervision of a judge. This type 
of arrangement can elevate private supervision companies to the 
position of determining not only where the supervisee violated 
the terms of their supervision, whether fines should be 
imposed, and basically creating more debt. I am gravely 
concerned that this type of arrangement is both corrosive to 
public trust in the criminal justice system and that it 
incentivizes private companies to violate supervisees simply to 
impose or improve their bottom line. That is absolutely 
ridiculous and of course, tragic.
    What is particularly troubling is the report's finding that 
private companies charge many fees for profit. Evidence shows 
how levying court-imposed fees and fines is not only harmful 
for those can't afford them, but it is a bad deal for 
taxpayers.
    A 2019 report by the Brennan Center for Justice revealed 
that the counties studied, including those in my home State of 
Texas, spent more than 41 cents of every dollar collected from 
fees and fines and related in-court hearings and jail costs 
mean that for every dollar imposed, only 59 percent made it 
into State coffers. The harm these fees and fines cause does 
not outweigh the fraction of the charges that are ultimately 
collected. Our criminal justice resources should be used on 
other high-priority issues like preventing and responding to 
violent crime and reducing recidivism.
    As we discuss this pressing issue, I hope to work across 
party lines to serve our constituents and communities better. 
Already State and local governments have recognized the 
terrible cycle of harm that justice-related fees and fines can 
impose and have begun enacting essential reforms. Groups across 
the political spectrum have expressed support for reducing and 
eliminating the use of fines and fees. That is why I believe 
this common ground is good for a discussion for this Committee 
where we will be working in a bipartisan manner to solve this 
problem and to help Americans overcome the detours in their 
life, but to do it under the light of justice.
    I look forward to working with my colleagues to address 
this issue.
    It is now my pleasure to recognize the Ranking Member of 
the Subcommittee, the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Biggs, for 
his opening statement.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I apologize for my 
tardiness, coming from our own conference meeting. So, I 
apologize.
    Once again, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 
Homeland Security of the United States House of Representatives 
is holding a hearing on a topic that quite frankly is mainly a 
State and local issue. I was pleased at last week's markup 
where the chair expressed a willingness to work with us on a 
bipartisan basis on issues such as the flow of fentanyl across 
our Southern border and the crisis that it is creating 
throughout the country.
    In February, news organizations announced with shock that 
more than 100,000 aliens had been encountered at the Southern 
border. The White House and Secretary Mayorkas worked overtime 
to deny that there was a crisis at the Southern border. This 
Committee did its part by refusing to hold a hearing on the 
Biden border crisis as we had requested a hearing.
    In March, the Republican Members of the Subcommittee sent 
you a letter requesting that the Chair schedule a hearing so 
that Subcommittee Members have the opportunity to hear from and 
question Biden Administration officials about how the Biden 
Administration's failure to secure the U.S. Southern border has 
allowed transnational criminal organizations, smugglers, and 
drug traffickers to engage in criminal activity and harm public 
safety. We have yet to receive a response to that letter.
    Unfortunately, the number of encounters at the Southern 
border has grown each month since President Biden took office. 
Last month, more than 188,000 aliens were encountered by CBP at 
our Southern border. I have taken multiple groups of Members to 
the border over the past several months, visiting from San 
Diego, Calexico, Yuma, and Tucson, all the way to McAllen 
multiple times in most of those spots.
    In each of these areas, we heard and saw the same thing. 
The Biden Administration's policies have created a crisis and 
we renew our request to hold a hearing to hear directly from 
Biden Administration officials so that they can be held 
accountable for the crisis they created.
    The surge of aliens at the borders allowing drugs and other 
illegal contraband flow across the border because border patrol 
is occupied caring for aliens instead of securing the border.
    I hope that our next hearing will be on this topic. After 
all, this is the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland 
Security. This Committee cannot continue to ignore the crisis 
at our Southern border and the impact the crisis is having 
throughout the nation.
    I also hope the Chair will hold a hearing soon to examine 
the dangerous efforts to defund the police and the increase in 
violent crime in American cities. In June, all the Republican 
Members of the Subcommittee wrote a letter to the Chair 
requesting a hearing on these issues and we have yet to receive 
a response to that letter as well.
    Don't get me wrong. The issue of fines and fees is a very 
important issue. It is one that should be looked at the State 
level. The Eighth amendment to the Constitution prohibits the 
Federal Government from imposing excessive fines, a prohibition 
that the Supreme Court incorporated against the states in a 
February 2019 decision.
    Studies have found that criminal justice debt is sharply 
rising across the country, that associated fees lead to a cycle 
of debt, and that this debt could impede re-entry and 
rehabilitation, but this is largely a State issue. The Federal 
Government should not be in the business of bribing states to 
implement specific policies. Doing so--closes what Justice 
Brandeis called the laboratories of democracy. Why would we 
wish to do that? Let the states work these matters out on their 
own. In fact, many states are already taking a leading role to 
reform fines and fees in the criminal justice system.
    When I worked in the Arizona criminal justice system, both 
as a prosecutor and then later as a criminal defense attorney, 
I will tell you that nothing was more dismaying to me to see 
someone be fined, for instance, $100 and yet the surcharge 
which is what we all the add-ons would be about 100 percent, so 
they would end up paying a $200 fine and fee for what should 
have been a $100 fine per statute. My experience was routinely, 
judges were allowed to waive those surcharges in Arizona. They 
didn't always do so, but we could advocate for that.
    This year, the State of Arizona enacted one of the changes 
that will be advocated for at this hearing today. In April, the 
change was enacted in Arizona so that Arizonans will not have 
their driver's license suspended if they do not pay traffic 
fines or fees. This change is estimated to impact 30,000 people 
in the state. It is a pleasant change. I cannot tell you how 
many people used to come in to see me, both as a prosecutor, 
and then later in representational capacity, whose license had 
been suspended, so they couldn't get to work in a very broad 
and large metropolitan area that had very little public 
transportation services. They would lose their license, thus 
losing their job, thus being in a cycle of problems. The State 
has now exercised its legislative prerogatives to change that. 
I hope it is a positive change in the State of Arizona.
    The important and salient point here is that the State 
legislature made that change, the corrective, without being 
coerced or enticed by the United States Congress. Between 
February and April 2021, several other states including 
Florida, Indiana, my own Arizona, New Mexico, and Oregon 
considered legislation that would eliminate fines, fees, and 
court costs for juveniles in the criminal justice system.
    Just last month, Nevada enacted a law in the practice of 
suspending an individual driver's license or prohibiting an 
individual from applying for a driver's license because of an 
unpaid fine or fee. Again, last month, Colorado enacted a law 
to eliminate certain monetary amounts a juvenile or juvenile's 
parent or legal guardian in the criminal justice system is 
required to pay like fees for applying for court-appointed 
counsel. These discussions and decisions are taking place 
exactly where they should be taking place, in State houses 
across this great country.
    As I noted earlier, states are the laboratories of 
democracy and are better equipped to make decisions regarding 
fines and fees implemented in the State statutes and municipal 
codes. In Federalist 45, James Madison wrote, ``The powers 
delegated by the proposed Constitution of the Federal 
Government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in 
the State governments are numerous and indefinite.''
    Yet, here we find ourselves in this Committee in hearing 
after hearing or markup after markup discussing matters that 
are more rightly State issues. My colleagues are looking to 
impose their wills on the states through grant programs and I 
urge that practice to be discontinued. In 1905, there were four 
grant programs. Today, there are more than 1,300 grant 
programs. This is the problem I think we should be looking at.
    With that, Madam Chair, I thank you for your time. Again, I 
apologize for being late. I look forward to this hearing today 
and I yield back.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the gentleman, and I thank the 
gentleman from Ohio Ranking Member Jim Jordan, he had an 
earlier meeting.
    It is now my pleasure to recognize the Chair of the 
Judiciary Committee, Mr. Nadler, for his opening statement.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the Chair for 
convening this hearing on a topic that has not received the 
attention it deserves, given the impact it has had on 
communities across the country. I would remind the Ranking 
Member that the Constitution, that was the Fourteenth amendment 
which it didn't have when the Federalist Papers was written 
which changes things a
little.
    Over the course of the last three decades, the increase 
imposition of fees and fines in the criminal justice system 
have had increasingly deleterious impact on individuals, 
families, and their communities. In recent years, states and 
localities across the country have imposed a variety of fees 
and fines on everything from minor traffic violations and 
municipal code violations to misdemeanors and felonies to pay 
for programs traditionally funded by tax revenues.
    When you actually examine the numbers, it is not clear that 
these fees and fines are even generating any revenue. One study 
found that some counties spend more than 41 cents for every 
dollar collected in fees and fines. One New Mexico county 
spends as much as $1.17 for every dollar it raises in fines and 
fees incurring a net overall loss.
    This financial shell game does not measure the real cost to 
communities. Rather than improving public safety, frequently 
such fees and fines have only served to place an undue burden 
on low-income communities and communities of color. In fact, by 
many measures, fees and fines have had an adverse impact on 
public safety.
    The comprehensive report of the City of Ferguson, Missouri, 
the Department of Justice found that the Ferguson Police 
Department, the municipal court, and the city, all depended on 
burdensome fees and fines to operate, trapping its citizens in 
a cruel cycle of poverty and punishment. Ultimately, what the 
DOJ found in Ferguson is occurring in jurisdictions across the 
country. This dynamic is often exacerbated by the fact that 
courts rarely consider a defendant's ability to pay the fines 
that they impose. In many cases, those that cannot afford to 
pay fees and fines receive warrants telling them to comply. If 
they cannot pay the debt to satisfy their outstanding warrants, 
which may increase over time, making them even more 
unaffordable, these individuals may even be jailed. This is, in 
effect, a modern debtors' prison. A person's liberty is 
deprived because they cannot afford their court-imposed fine or 
fee.
    Practices like those in Ferguson and elsewhere diminish 
public trust in our criminal justice system and perpetuate the 
notion that equal justice under the law is only accessible to 
those who can afford it. Often these fees are imposed on the 
family of the person who couldn't afford to pay it and they 
can't afford to pay it.
    At the other end of the criminal justice process, fees are 
often imposed on individuals after a conviction, creating yet 
another barrier to their reintroduction into safety. Everything 
we have been talking about until now is before anybody is 
convicted of anything. We have worked to ease the reintegration 
of those who are recently released from jail or prison. 
Burdening individuals who make the journey back to being full 
Members of their communities with fees and fines stands in 
stark contrast to these efforts.
    Thankfully, change in this area is afoot. The costs imposed 
to individuals and families without discernible public safety 
benefit has led many jurisdictions to pause imposing and 
collecting fees and fines. Some other jurisdictions have 
eliminated fees and fines altogether. In a time of deep 
partisan divide, I hope that this is an issue that reaches 
across the political spectrum to build a bipartisan consent to 
some reform.
    I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses. I thank 
the Chair for convening this hearing. I yield back the balance 
of my time.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the Chair very much. We will 
recognize the Ranking Member of the Full Committee if the 
gentleman from Ohio arrives, and we will now move forward to 
the swearing in of our witnesses. We welcome all of our 
distinguished witnesses, and we thank them for their 
participation.
    I will begin by swearing in our witnesses. I ask our 
witnesses to turn on their audio and make sure I can see your 
face and your raised hand while I administer the oath. I ask 
the witness that is present to rise so that he can be sworn in, 
who is physically in the room.
    I will begin. 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? I need to hear the witnesses louder please 
that are virtual. Let the record show the witnesses answered in 
the affirmative. Thank you. The gentleman in the room may be 
seated. We will now proceed with witness introduction.
    Judge Lisa Foster is the Co-Director of the Fines and Fees 
Justice Center. She is also the former Director of the Office 
for Access to Justice at Department of Justice and retired 
California State Judge. She previously worked as staff attorney 
at the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, the Executive 
Director of California Common Cause, was of counsel to the Law 
Firm of Phillips and Cohen.
    Ms. Soto is a resident of Colorado where she has worked in 
nonprofits for over two decades. She immigrated to the United 
States nearly 21 years ago from the State of Michoacan in 
Central Mexico and is the mother of a young man who had court-
imposed fees imposed during a juvenile proceeding.
    Timothy Head is the Executive Director for the Faith and 
Freedom Coalition. Prior to joining Faith and Freedom, Tim 
worked in public policy as the District Director for a Member 
of the Texas Congressional Delegation. He also has served as 
Chief of Staff and as Policy Advisor to Members of the Texas 
Legislature. Before working in public policy, Tim served as a 
missionary in Asia, the Middle East, and Europe and worked on 
staff at Antioch Community Church in Waco, Texas.
    Professor Alexes Harris, Professor Harris is a Sociologist 
and Presidential Term Professor at the University of 
Washington. She has written extensively on the impact of 
juvenile fees and fines have on over-incarceration. Her book 
entitled ``A Pound of Flesh, Monetary Sanctions is a Punishment 
for Poor People,'' is widely considered to be the foundational 
text on fees and fines.
    Ms. Woog is Executive Director of Texas Fair Defense 
Project. Prior to her current position, she was the co-founder 
of the Texas Justice Initiative and served as the policy 
director on the Texas House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence 
in the Texas Legislature.
    Please note that each of your written testimonies will be 
entered into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, I ask you 
to summarize your testimony in five minutes. There is a timer 
in the Zoom view that should be visible on your screen.
    Judge Foster, you may begin. You are now recognized for 
five minutes. Welcome again.

                    STATEMENT OF LISA FOSTER

    Ms. Foster. Thank you and good morning. Thank you all for 
holding this important hearing. Right now, as we speak, fines 
and fees are devastating the lives of millions of Americans.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Judge, can you speak a little louder or we 
will try to that we--yes, could you speak into the mic? Thank 
you.
    Ms. Foster. Can you hear me, now?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Better.
    Ms. Foster. Good. Across the country, people, including 
children, who are convicted of minor traffic and municipal code 
violations, misdemeanors, and felonies are assessed fines and 
fees.
    I am hearing a lot of static. Can you all hear me?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Yes, we can hear you. Yes, Judge, we can 
hear you. If you could continue, please.
    Ms. Foster. Thank you. When people are assessed fines and 
fees and they cannot afford to pay the full amount imposed, 
they are punished with aggressive and often unconstitutional 
collection practices. The result today is a deeply flawed 
system of monetary sanctions that exacerbates poverty, widens 
racial disparities, and diminishes trust in our justice system.
    Those fines and fees are often charged together, they are 
not the same and they do not serve the same purpose. A fine is 
a punishment for violating the law. A fee has nothing to do 
with punishment or accountability. Its sole purpose is to 
generate revenue to fund government. In other words, a fee is a 
clever rebrand for a tax and taxes have no place in our justice 
system. The justice system is a core government responsibility. 
It is supposed to serve everyone, and it should be paid for by 
everyone.
    Let me give you an example of how this works. Today, in 
California, the fine for a simple traffic violation is often 
$100, but the legislature has added an additional $390 on top 
of that $100 fine and those $390 in fees fund everything from 
the Fish and Game Service to the Office of Emergency 
Management.
    The impact of a nearly $500 ticket on the average American 
is catastrophic. According to the Federal Reserve in 2019, 40 
percent of Americans could not access $400 for an emergency. If 
they don't have $400, how are they going to pay a $500 ticket?
    If a person cannot afford to immediately pay the full 
amount they owe, jurisdictions use a host of abusive practices 
to coerce payment including incarcerating people who cannot 
afford to pay, suspending driver's licenses, vocational 
licenses, and vehicle registrations, making it impossible for 
people to legally access the very jobs they need to pay off the 
debt. They add late fees, and interest, and allow private 
collection companies to add an additional 40 percent to the 
amount owed. They refuse to restore voting rights until all 
fines and fees are paid in full. They often keep individuals 
under supervision until their fines and fees are fully paid, 
and then they charge them an additional fee for remaining under 
supervision.
    Fines and fees do not burden all Americans equally. 
Policing practices in our communities of color, coupled with 
the demographics of poverty in the United States means that 
State and local governments are attempting to wring fines and 
fees principally out of our most vulnerable communities, the 
communities hardest hit by the economic and health impacts of 
the COVID pandemic.
    Without question, fines and fees are a State and local 
issue, but they are a national problem, and there are Federal 
solutions. Traditionally, when we think of the ways Congress 
can influence State policies, we think of carrots and sticks 
and those can be used to great effects in this arena. The 
Driving for Opportunity Act introduced in the House by 
Representatives Scanlon, Fitzpatrick, Moore, and Reschenthaler 
is a great example. This bipartisan bill incentivizes states to 
end debt-based driver's license suspension.
    Similarly, in 2016, the Justice Department provided grants 
to five states willing to pilot fines and fees reform. Congress 
could do the same and cause states to innovate and engage in 
reform. Congress could also mandate that the National Institute 
for Justice study State reforms to determine best practices.
    A particular problem in this arena is the dearth of data. 
In consultation with the Bureau of Justice Statistics, Congress 
could mandate that states that receive Federal funding provide 
data so that we can fully understand the scope of the problem 
and again, so the Bureau of Justice Statistics could analyze 
that data and tell us how to solve these problems.
    Finally, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which 
governs private debt collection, does not apply to debt owed to 
a state. We should not allow State and local governments to 
engage in conduct that we have barred in the private sector.
    I urge you to take action today. We in the advocacy 
community stand ready to help. Thank you for the opportunity to 
testify and I would be delighted to answer any questions that 
you have.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Foster follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Yes, thank you very much for your 
testimony. I now recognize Ms. Soto for five minutes. Welcome.

                   STATEMENT OF JULISSA SOTO

    Ms. Soto. Good morning, Chair Jackson Lee, Ranking Member 
Biggs, Chair Nadler, Ranking Member Jordan, and Members of the 
Subcommittee.
    [Speaking foreign language.]
    Ms. Soto. My name is Julissa Molina Soto. As an immigrant, 
English is not my first language, so please bear with me. I'm a 
naturalized citizen from Colorado, where I raised my two kids 
as a single parent.
    We were a close-knit immigrant family. We managed okay 
until my nino, or my son, Juan, got caught up in the juvenile 
system. Juan was 14 when police arrested him for stealing 
toothpaste from a supermarket. He thought we didn't have enough 
money to buy the toothpaste, but it was wrong, and I felt 
ashamed. I also had no idea what his mistake would cost us.
    The court charge Juan hundreds of dollars in fines and 
fees, including $60 each week for a class about the 
consequences of stealing. Since we couldn't afford the 
application fee for a public defender, I had to help him 
myself. Since I didn't understand English very well at that 
time, my 14-year-old tried to explain, translate everything to 
me in court.
    As a child, Juan did not have any money, so I had to pay 
everything. I was making $19,000 a year working at McDonalds to 
pay the court. I was late on rent, sacrificed things like 
groceries, and took a second job. I left the house every day at 
5:00 a.m., and sometimes I didn't get home until after the kids 
were in bed.
    At 15, they arrested Juan for a small amount of marijuana. 
I was surprised, but maybe I shouldn't have been surprised 
because I rarely saw him and his sister. I had no time for my 
kids.
    This time, the court fees were even more expensive. We had 
to take a weekly class on communication, which cost us $75 each 
time we will attend this class. If we miss a class because we 
couldn't afford the fee, they charge us another fee. Sometimes 
when I made payments, the total increased because of late fees.
    I begged the court for a waiver. I offered to clean the 
courthouse or do other community service. After years of 
working two jobs, I finally paid off almost $8,000. The cost to 
my family was more than just money. I couldn't be a mother that 
I wanted to be, and my son still resents me for not being 
around when he needed me.
    I don't blame the system for Juan's mistake. The fees made 
everything much worse for my family. Last month, my State ended 
all juvenile fees, but most states still charge fees to youth 
in the legal system and their families.
    My son Juan joined the U.S. Army after high school and 
served two tours, including Afghanistan. He is now in the Army 
Reserves and has a daughter of his own. However, he still 
struggled because of the financial hardship imposed on our 
family. We still struggle with communication.
    My son went to fight for our country and he's a good guy. 
It's our turn to fight for kids and families by ending these 
harmful fees and fines.
    Thank you for listening to me today, and I'm happy to 
answer all your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Soto follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Ms. Soto, thank you for that very powerful 
testimony. I now recognize Mr. Head for five minutes.

                   STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY HEAD

    Mr. Head. Good morning, thank you, Chair.
    The discussion of fines and fees in our State criminal 
justice system is an exceedingly important topic, surprising 
agreement on both the political left and right. My remarks 
today will focus on the mounting consensus from a conservative 
and libertarian perspective, which is not as often discussed in 
our national dialog.
    The power to punish is the greatest domestic power a 
government wields. Scholars and judges have debated the purpose 
of this power for centuries, settling on four fundamental 
justifications: Incapacitation, retribution, rehabilitation, 
and deterrence. A function that's notably absent from this list 
is revenue raising.
    However, the raising of revenue has never been considered 
one of the core functions for a variety of reasons. We've 
reached a point in many cases that this is exactly what's 
happening. It's not illegitimated in some circumstances to 
expect a convicted offender to bear the cost of at least a 
portion of their own punishment in the criminal justice system.
    When an enormous portion of local governments' budget comes 
from criminal justice fees and fines, we can reasonably wonder 
whether the quest for revenue has displaced one or all four 
legitimate purposes that I just mentioned.
    It's not uncommon for 10-20 percent of many cities' 
municipal budgets to come from criminal justice fees and fines. 
Chicago, as an example, in 2014 derived 15 percent of its city 
budget from criminal justice fees and fines.
    Conservatives and libertarians often wonder that a conflict 
of interest is developing in our criminal justice institutions. 
Too often, police officers, courts, and community supervision 
officers are put in positions to raise revenue for their 
respective jurisdictions through their day-to-day functions. 
This is something we should all be concerned about.
    A conservative point of view tends to be skeptical of 
oversized budget--oversized government budget. In the worst 
cases, this issue we're discussing today is a telltale practice 
of oversized, over-reaching budgets.
    When law enforcement officers must serve warrants for a 
failure to pay fees and fines, they're less available to 
respond to 911 emergency calls. When courts schedule 
appearances for failure to pay fees and fines, court 
proceedings for more serious offenses can be postponed or 
rushed to judgment.
    When criminal justice fees and fines begin to ebb away at 
relationships between law enforcement officers and community 
Members, we run the risk of converting our police force 
essentially into tax agents.
    We should not be putting our law enforcement officers and 
community supervision officers into such positions, which 
divert from their primary mission as public safety officers. It 
also erodes community trust, which I think is a critical 
element that we tend to kind of underestimate.
    Now, with all of this said, I think that we have to point 
out that reforms have been happening in States for the last 
several years. We at Faith and Freedom Coalition advocate in a 
multitude of States. In the last three years, we've touched 
about 20 different States on subjects related to fines and 
fees, and we're seeing progress being made with on the State 
legislative level, and also on the local jurisdictions.
    While I'm encouraged by this, I'm also concerned that 
Federal efforts to incent or potentially to coerce such 
practices may actually have an adverse effect. So, one of the 
reasons why we've seen the embellishment of fines and fees 
across the country is because we've actually had too many 
expenses absorbed by our local--our criminal justice system.
    So, and when jail populations explode, when court dockets 
explode, that has to be offset, and in some way, shape, or 
form. Rather than raising taxes in a lot of jurisdictions, they 
turn to fines and fees. As the judge just mentioned, these are 
essentially user fees.
    Unfortunately, when the Federal Government comes in with 
grants to this effect, it actually can create a reliance by 
local jurisdictions on these grants that only last for a finite 
period of time, three to five years. When that grant is removed 
or terminates, we see a very dangerous need or reliance on that 
money.
    So, we actually effectively end up either raising taxes or 
raising fines and fees at the end of these practices. So, we 
believe that it's important for the Federal Government, for DOJ 
and other entities to be extremely judicious in the use of 
Federal grants to be able to entice these local practices. 
Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Head follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Head, for your testimony. 
Now, I recognize Professor Harris for five minutes.

                   STATEMENT OF ALEXES HARRIS

    Ms. Harris. Thank you for the invitation to engage in this 
conversation with you today.
    Few aspects of the criminal legal system vividly illustrate 
the two-tiered nature and extent of punitive excess of the 
United States as does the practice of monetary sanctions. I 
will spend my time summarizing a few emergent research 
findings.
    It is important to note that in some states, judges have 
actually been granted discretion to assess criminal defendants 
for the cost of their public defender. In other words, an 
individual who cannot afford to pay a lawyer is expected to pay 
for the lawyer that the State is constitutionally required to 
provide.
    Many jurisdictions charge per-night fees for jail or prison 
space, as well as costs associated with probation and other 
court-mandated requirements, such as electronic home 
monitoring. In most states, all monetary sanctions must be paid 
in full before a person is released from court supervision.
    In many states, people are unable to vote until all costs 
are paid. They must remain in constant communication with court 
officials about their living and financial arrangements.
    As noted earlier, people lose their drive related to 
nonpayment. Then, if apprehended while driving with a suspended 
license, even to a job that might enable them to pay their 
debt, they face renewed incarceration and further financial 
sanctions.
    It is also important to note that monetary sanctions are 
frequently impose in addition to incarcerative time. So, on 
their sentencing day, people may get several days to months to 
years of jail or prison time, and in addition receive thousands 
of dollars in fines, fees, court costs, and restitution.
    So, even when people have served their incarceration and 
their probation time, they still remain under the control of 
the criminal legal system. Many of these people are unemployed, 
unhoused, suffer from mental health problems and chemical 
addiction disorders. As a result, they become tethered to the 
criminal legal system for the rest of their lives because of 
this debt.
    As mentioned, in the juvenile legal system, we know that 
nearly every State imposes costs on children, many of whom 
cannot legally work, enter into contracts, and are mandated to 
attend school. Recent reports have found that these costs 
include billing parents or guardians for child support fees 
related to detention in youth and jail and youth authority 
facilities.
    Families are also charged administrative costs, as we've 
heard, for court processing and appearances. In addition, youth 
are charged fees and fines and restitution.
    Recent research using data from a large cohort of 
adolescent court-involved youth found that significantly 
greater percentages of non-White youth still owed monetary 
sanctions upon case closing relative to White youth 
counterparts. The study also found that penal debt 
significantly increased the odds of youth recidivating.
    In a recent study, we found statistically that poor 
communities and communities that are non-White carry more penal 
debt than non-impoverished or White communities. Furthermore, 
this debt is statistically associated with increases in future 
poverty, especially for Black neighborhoods. It appears that 
penal debt makes poor communities even poorer.
    A final area I will highlight relates to revenue 
generation, policing, and traffic stops. Because local 
governments have come to rely so heavily on revenue generated 
from fines and fees, traffic citations have become a tool for 
profit-making.
    This pocketbook policing encourages police to their 
authority and discretion to make pretextual traffic stops. 
These are judgment calls that often involve such things are 
faulty taillights, expired license tags, or an air freshener 
improperly suspended from the rearview mirror.
    The racially disparate impact of monetary sanctions 
intensifies the aggressive policing of Black and Latinx 
neighborhoods because these racial groups typically find it 
more difficult to pay.
    The policy implications from existing research are clear. 
The Federal Government should use its power to attach 
conditions to grants related to State law enforcement and 
justice practices. We need Federal leadership.
    Such conditions should mandate states to require current 
ability-to-pay hearings prior to assessment of fines and fees, 
desist from imposing fees on minors and their families for 
court processing and relieve all outstanding juvenile debt, 
discontinuing suspending driver's licenses related to 
nonpayment of court-imposed fines and fees and reinstate all 
prior licenses that have been suspended related to nonpayment, 
prohibit courts from issuing warrants related to nonpayment of 
court fines and fees, impose caps on the amount of revenue 
local and State jurisdictions can generate via fines and fees.
    States must annually report, by jurisdiction, the amount of 
fines and fees, sentence owed, and related surcharges, interest 
and payment fees owed and collected.
    In closing, the system of monetary sanctions reinforces the 
United States' two-tiered system of justice, one for people 
with financial means, and one for people without. Within a 
society riven by so much inequality, a system of punishment 
based on economic resources can never be fair or just. We have 
alternative punishment and rehabilitative options; we just need 
the will to make these changes.
    Thank you for your considerations of my remarks.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Harris follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Professor Harris, for 
your testimony. We're now delighted to yield five minutes to 
Ms. Woog. Welcome.

                    STATEMENT OF AMANDA WOOG

    Ms. Woog. Thank you, Chair and Committee Members, for this 
opportunity this morning. Good morning. My name is Amanda Woog. 
I am the Executive Director of the Texas Fair Defense Project. 
We are a legal organization that fights to end the 
criminalization of poverty.
    In each year, our attorneys represented hundreds of people 
who are saddled with criminal debt that they cannot afford. We 
help people get out of this debt and on with their lives. We 
then work with our clients to take what we've learned from 
these experiences and push for greater systemic changes.
    Criminal fines and fees uniquely burden people who are low 
income, and even a few hundred dollars of court debt will turn 
into a high-stakes, years-long struggle to keep those expenses 
from landing them in jail. Because our policing and criminal 
legal systems disproportionately target Black people and other 
communities of color, fines and fees also operate as a form of 
racialized wealth extraction.
    Criminal court debt keeps people from getting back on their 
feet financially, living in neighborhoods with better schools, 
getter better jobs, and obtaining basic necessities for 
themselves and their families. When I get a traffic ticket, and 
unfortunately, I've gotten a few in my lifetime, I get 
frustrated with myself, my husband teases me, and I pay the 
ticket. Life goes on.
    The same cannot be said for people who are living at the 
economic margins. With 40 percent of people in the United 
States unable to afford $400 in an emergency, a simple traffic 
ticket can quickly snowball into more debt, warrants, a 
driver's license suspension, and even arrest and jail.
    Several of our clients have gone on to serve as advocacy 
fellows with TFDP telling their stories to lawmakers to help 
them understand how these policies can trap people into a 
perpetual cycle of debt, fear, and the constant threat of jail.
    Emily is a current client at TFDP who had more than $5,000 
in criminal legal debt from her court case. She recently shared 
with testimony with the Texas legislature. She said,

          ``The debt makes me feel like I'm drowning. I cannot 
        afford things for my children. My son wants to go to 
        summer band camp, but I have to tell him it's not 
        possible. If he wants a new deodorant at the grocery 
        store, I have to tell him no, you have to finish every 
        last drop of your old deodorant first.
          I'm the sole caretaker for two children, and all my 
        money goes towards them. I never spend anything on 
        myself. I embarrassingly wear shirts with holes in 
        them. Anything I receive goes to my children.
          To pay my fines and fees, and I've tried everything. 
        I even donated plasma to pay them. But every time I see 
        my probation officer, it's never enough, and all she 
        asks about is the money.
          This debt makes me feel like I can't be a good mother 
        to my children because I can't provide for them like I 
        want to. They should not have to pay the consequences 
        for my actions. And the system should be focusing on 
        rehabilitating people, not on debt that just makes it 
        harder for me and my family.''

    Perversely, criminal legal debt becomes more expensive when 
a person cannot pay because additional fees for nonpayment or 
even fees for entering a payment plan end up adding up, and the 
cycle feels impossible to break for the people who are in it.
    We help people resolve their criminal legal debt through 
legal representation, but there's a huge gap in services that 
we simply cannot fill. Many people with criminal legal debt 
never had an attorney to help them if the underlying cause was 
a traffic ticket or a low-level misdemeanor offense.
    For people who did have did have assistance of counsel in 
their underlying criminal cases, the assistance ended when the 
criminal case was adjudicated, and the impacts of the debt 
continue.
    On average, it takes our attorney ten hours from start to 
finish to get a person's debt handled. Without a lawyer, most 
people with criminal legal debt have no realistic chance of 
getting unaffordable court fines, fees, and costs waived or 
reduced. That's why we need structural changes that do not 
create these unmanageable debt burdens to begin with.
    Fines and fees are also an unreliable revenue source for 
local and State jurisdictions. A recent study by the Brennan 
Center for Justice found that, in addition to thwarting 
rehabilitation and failing to improve public safety, criminal 
court fees and fines also fail at efficiently raising revenue.
    Because punitive approaches to debt collection hamper 
people's ability to obtain employment and support their 
families, they likely have an even broader negative financial 
impact than these studies suggest. Here in Texas, we've been 
chipping away at user pay systems that significantly harm low-
income communities, and I want to conclude by highlighting a 
recent bipartisan success.
    For years, Texas assessed a surcharge on some driving 
offenses in addition to the fine penalty. When a person did not 
pay the surcharge, which they often did not even know about, 
their driver's license would be suspended. These surcharges 
kept millions of low-income Texans in debt without licenses.
    In 2019, the surcharge was repealed with support from a 
diverse coalition, including ourselves, the Sheriffs 
Association, ACLU, Hospital Association, Goodwill Industries, 
and Texas Public Policy Foundation. More than $2 billion in 
surcharges were relieved, and 1.5 million people were 
immediately able to get their driver's license back.
    This was a bipartisan victory. The bill passed unanimously 
in both houses of the Texas legislature, and it was signed into 
law by Governor Abbott.
    More recently, Texas has abolished a number of juvenile 
fines and fees just in the past legislative session, again, 
with bipartisan support.
    Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak today, and 
I'm happy to answer any questions from the Committee.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Woog follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much for your testimony. 
Now, we will begin the questioning under the five-minute rule. 
I will begin by recognizing myself for five minutes.
    I am very appreciative of the testimony of the witnesses 
and would ask them, because I have so many questions, for their 
succinct response so that we can get as much from you as we 
need to. As I indicated, this is an important hearing so that 
we can legislate, and we need to hear you, of course.
    Judge Foster, let me start with you. In your testimony you 
specifically make the point about fines and fees are not placed 
upon Americans equally. In over-policing communities, the most 
vulnerable people of color are really targeted, as one of our 
witnesses has indicated.
    So, I am interested in what you believe Congress can do to 
stop that tide as relates to State actions to a certain extent.
    Then what would be the level of fines and fines levied on 
the Federal level, and how that can be steered in the right 
direction so most vulnerable are not the victims twice in terms 
of trying to get justice in the justice system. I say that 
meaning that everyone accused and not accused are supposed to 
have justice in our system.
    So, if you would respond to that, I'd appreciate it.
    Ms. Foster. Certainly. Let me start with the question of 
racial disparities. There's no question, as I think you and 
many of the witnesses have recognized, that there are racial 
disparities in the justice system, and those are pronounced 
when it comes to monetary sanctions.
    One of the most important things that Congress could 
require immediately is data. We don't have very good data from 
local and State courts about exactly what's going, and that's 
quintessentially something that the Congress can do, and the 
Federal Government has an important role.
    As I mentioned, the Bureau of Justice Statistics exists for 
the purpose of gathering justice system data from the states, 
as well as the Federal Government. We don't have good data 
about the racial disparities in the system.
    The best data that we have, a meta-analysis that was done 
at Stanford, demonstrates unequivocally that Black drivers are 
stopped 20 percent more frequently than White drivers.
    Once stopped, Black drivers are given a ticket 20 percent 
more often than White drivers. Hispanic drivers are given a 
ticket 30 percent more often than White drivers. We know that 
about some places, we don't know that about every place. So, 
data is a key factor.
    The second is once we have that data, to make sure that 
we're enforcing the laws that prevent police from disparately 
policing. Some of that may also include some experimentation. 
We're learning around the country about alternatives to an 
armed police officer enforcing traffic laws, for example.
    One of the things that the Justice Department could do is 
study places around the country that are moving to 
alternatives, unarmed traffic enforcement, and determine 
whether that works. Whether that's something that other states 
could adopt.
    Those are things that the Federal Government does best. It 
looks at what's happening in the states and can study those, 
gather data, and then promulgate best practices to the rest of 
the country. So that would be my answer with respect to some of 
the things Congress could do on racial disparities.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Judge, thank you so 
very much. Let me--I appreciate it, and I will--we'll continue 
our dialog. Let me ask these questions to Professor Harris.
    In just the past few years, there have been a number of 
high-profile police stops that involve warrants based on a fee 
or fine. Can you describe how nonpayment of a fee or fine can 
lead to an arrest, and therefore a loss of income? I'm going to 
give three questions back-to-back, so that is for you, 
Professor Harris.
    Ms. Soto, let me acknowledge that your son is serving his 
Nation in the United States military. We thank you for that, 
which should be an indication of what happens to vulnerable 
people, and yet these people are worthy Americans, Americans 
committed to serving their nation, or committed to being 
citizens that contribute, but, yet they're burdened by these 
fees.
    So, you did so much to support your son. Can you describe 
in greater detail what the long-term consequences of the 
imposition of fees and fines had on your family?
    Then Ms. Woog, thank you for exposing Texas and what 
continues to go on right now today as we sit here in this room. 
It sounds as if they have been moving in the right direction. 
Can you describe in greater detail how Texas and other states 
have reformed how fees and fines are imposed, even in the 
backdrop of so many who have suffered?
    So, the first answer should come from Professor Harris, 
then Ms. Soto, and then Ms. Woog.
    Professor Harris, can you be concise in your response, 
please? Thank you.
    Ms. Harris. Thank you for that question. To be concise, 
when people, in some--the one key issue is that there's 
disparities in the ways in which fines and fees are implemented 
and monitored across counties, municipalities, and states. So, 
there's no consistent set of practices.
    In general, in many jurisdictions, if people do not pay 
their fines and fees, they will have a warrant issued. Many 
times, people will receive a summons to appear in court if they 
have not made payments.
    If they fail to receive the summons, a recent study 
published in the UCLA Law Journal found that many people do not 
even receive the summons because they're of wrong addresses, 
homelessness, or people receive the summons and they're scared 
to get incarcerated because they don't have the money.
    So, if they don't appear at the summons, a warrant will be 
issued. These warrants do not indicate to the police if it's a 
violent issue or if it was just a nonpayment, and then people 
can be pulled over.
    We've seen when we have that contact in our communities, a 
recent study found that Black men have a one-in-one-thousand 
lifetime risk of being killed by police, one-in-one-thousand 
lifetime risk. So, this warrants related to nonpayment increase 
the likelihood of interactions with police, increase fear, 
anxiety, trauma, and even the possibility of death in our 
communities.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you so very much. Ms. Soto, the 
impact on your family, the long-term impact on your family.
    Ms. Soto. The long-term impact on my family, like I said in 
my testimony, is that my son still resent me, and my kids 
resent me because I was never there for them. He got arrested 
twice after that for having small amount of marijuana. So, I 
couldn't be the mother that I could be.
    No communication whatsoever. I was working 5:00 a.m.-10:00 
p.m. trying to pay these fees, and in the meantime, we got 
evicted, also, once because I had to choose between paying 
those fees or paying my rent. We are still paying those 
consequences because still my kids resent me, still till now. 
They say Mom, you were always working, you were never there for 
us.
    So, I feel that by punishing not only the youth, you're 
punishing the whole family, the family as a whole. His sister 
struggled from that, I struggled from that. What happened with 
these fees is they do separate families. You separate families 
because somebody has to pay these fees.
    These kids are young, so it imposes all those fees on the 
parent. Sometimes when you're a single parent, you're going to 
struggle to make it on your own.
    Like I said, I'm not blaming the system for Juan mistakes, 
I'm not blaming the system for me being a single mom. I am 
asking the system to take into account on all those things. 
You're trying to fix one thing by imposing those fees. 
Supposedly, maybe the youth are going to learn the lesson, 
but--
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
    Ms. Soto. You're separating families and evicting families.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you so very much. We have to 
respond. Ms. Woog, very quickly, thank you.
    Ms. Woog. Thank you. To your question about the reforms 
that we're seeing on the State level in Texas, I mentioned the 
repeal of the driver responsibility program, the abolition of 
some juvenile fees.
    We've also seen advances made to provide procedural 
protections for people, such as requiring ability-to-pay 
hearings. The problem with reforms like that is a lot of times 
they require the assistance of counsel. As I mentioned, there's 
a huge gap in legal services.
    So, some of the exciting experimentation that we're seeing 
in Texas actually occurs in a lot of local jurisdictions, where 
we're seeing local courts and counties trying to think of more 
effective and efficient ways to collect debt initially. What is 
really important to tie to that, is to allow people who are 
unable to afford to pay to their debt to get into court quickly 
and resolve it by other means.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
    Ms. Woog. That kind of experimentation is one of the more 
exciting pieces.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you so very much.
    Ms. Spartz for five minutes.
    Ms. Spartz. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I agree with Judge Foster that the justice system is a core 
government function. I also don't disagree that California has 
very high taxes and fees. I also agree that fees are really a 
form of regressive taxation.
    The issue I have generally, is it the responsibility of the 
Federal Government to bail out states with bad policies? 
Because ultimately if you do that, you punish the states with 
good policies and make them pay to the states with bad 
policies.
    It seems like it should be responsibility of constituency 
of that State to elect good government, to not vote for them 
and replace this with better people if they don't like 
policies, or they can move to other states. We see a lot of 
this happening.
    I also, as the gentleman from New York mentioned that the 
Fourteenth amendment didn't exist during the time of the 
Federalist Papers. The Sixteenth amendment didn't exist too. 
The Supreme Court recently also confirmed that excessive fines 
clause applies to states. It seems like this issue should go 
through the judicial system; it would be a better approach.
    If the Federal Government must do something, it seems like 
we talk about carrots. I think Judge Foster, you mentioned the 
carrots and sticks. What kind of sticks?
    Maybe we should look, states maybe shouldn't get some money 
for something. Instead of giving them the money, what is 
examples of few sticks you can give us to make sure that the 
states having bad policies are not doing that instead of keep 
bailing them out?
    Ms. Foster. Certainly. Let me just say that I gave 
California as an example, but every single State in the country 
and many municipalities within those states charge excessive 
fines and fees. This is a problem everywhere; it is not just a 
problem in some states. It's a problem in every state.
    Ms. Spartz. Is it just the scale of problems is large in 
some states? I don't disagree with you. Just quickly if you can 
briefly mention few things.
    Ms. Foster. Sure. With respect to sticks, let me give an 
example. When Congress determined that, for example, the speed 
limit across the country should be reduced to both conserve gas 
and protect lives, Congress did that by conditioning the 
receipt of Federal dollars on states lowering the speed limit. 
That's a stick.
    We could do the same thing with respect to the money that 
Congress has appropriated through Justice Department grants, 
money that goes to the states. We could say to the states, for 
example, if you want those Federal dollars, then you have to 
collect data.
    If you want those Federal dollars, you have to stop 
suspending driver's licenses for unpaid fines and fees. If you 
want those Federal dollars, you need to do an ability-to-pay 
assessment before you impose a fine. If you want those Federal 
dollars, you have to provide counsel, which the Constitution 
requires, without charging people a fee for that counsel.
    Those are the kinds of sticks that the Federal Government 
could use.
    Ms. Spartz. It just seems the government, all we do is just 
collect data and data and data and report, and it seems like 
I've been in State government too and we just collect data. 
It's all about collection data. I would like to get really real 
policies we have discussion.
    Maybe, Mr. Head, you have some other thoughts that you 
have, you know, from libertarian perspectives. Because I do 
understand that excessive fines really can have adverse effects 
on people who do not have money. The system can be stacked 
against someone who doesn't have the money and it's very 
bureaucratic and expensive.
    So, what other thoughts you have what is there is a 
function Federal Government should have, or should be really 
just purely go through the judicial system?
    Mr. Head. Well, I wouldn't say that I have specific 
examples of sticks. What I actually am even more concerned 
about is the inadvertent, in essence, sticks that end up coming 
by dangling carrots and finding overreach.
    So, when you, as I mentioned earlier, we have burgeoned our 
either Federal or State justice systems over the last 
particularly 40 years, 35-40 years, and have introduced 
different Federal grants to either study or to implement 
programs or to provide services. The grants are never offered 
in perpetuity. It's a three, five, sometimes maybe like a 
seven-year grant.
    When that is removed, the expectation for that service or 
facility doesn't go away. Also, the expectation in the 
community doesn't go away.
    Ms. Spartz. It's a big challenge. I mean, the dependency, 
and it's a huge challenge. I've seen it as a State legislator, 
I've seen it. Is there any solution that really should go 
through the judicial system and government should be sued in a 
court of law for its excessive fines, which apply to the 
states, too?
    So, do you believe that is the best approach and how it 
should be dealt with?
    Mr. Head. Well, it's a longer, a longitudinal approach. The 
reason why I spend much more time in State capitals than I do 
here is because that's actually where we see the most effective 
and most innovative practices.
    Ms. Spartz. People just have to elect better legislators, I 
guess. Better governments in the States.
    Mr. Head. Call for better policies on that at either local 
or State level.
    Ms. Spartz. Thank you, I yield back.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the gentlelady. I'm now pleased to 
recognize the Chair of the Full Committee, Mr. Nadler, for his 
questions for five minutes.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Soto, you should blame the system because it has 
greatly failed you and your family.
    Judge Foster, the use of fines and fees has increased 
steadily over the last three decades. Despite a constitutional 
requirement do so, many courts never consider a person's 
ability to pay. In what ways does the failure to conduct 
ability-to-pay determinations affect the assessment of monetary 
sanctions?
    Ms. Foster. So, it's very direct. When fines and fees are 
imposed, for example, on a family like Ms. Soto, rather than 
looking at what her economic circumstances are, the court just 
imposed a flat amount.
    Let me talk specifically about fines. The purpose of a fine 
is--began as an alternative to incarceration. The purpose is 
really both to punish and deter, right. If you think about a 
speeding ticket, we want you to think about it before you speed 
again. So, we want the monetary sanction to be enough so that 
you'll twice before speeding, but not enough to bankrupt you 
and your household.
    That argues for the amounts to vary based on one's economic 
circumstance. So, instead of doing that and saying to someone 
who's in Ms. Soto's economic circumstance, a minimum wage 
worker who, at $7.25 an hour, the Federal minimum wage, is $400 
for a ticket is literally a week and a half of work.
    Instead of saying we're going to charge you a flat amount, 
you say what's it going to take to deter that person from doing 
that consequence again, and it's less. Their economic--
    Chair Nadler. Do you think that fines maybe should be 
assessed at a percentage of a person's income?
    Ms. Foster. I think that would make a lot of sense. That's 
exactly what happens in most of Western Europe and South 
America. We can do it in lots of different ways. We can say 
this is the standard amount, and if you earn less than that 
we're going to adjust the fine to compensate for the fact that 
you earn less than that. That would make a lot more sense.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you. Professor Harris, compared to the 
amount they actually receive, courts spend massive sums of 
money attempting to recoup unpaid debt and create severe 
hardship while doing so, even garnishing poverty-level income, 
like SSI benefits, to obtain payment.
    These fees then compound. Additional sanctions are imposed 
as a result of failure to pay, prolonging both spending on 
recoupment and hardship for debtors. What are the financial and 
human costs of pursuing unpaid debt? I think we've heard some 
of that--
    Ms. Harris. My research team and I interviewed over 500 
people across eight states and in the U.S. The system is 
pervasive across the U.S., I do want to establish that. What we 
found is that people receive a bill, their monthly bill owed to 
the court, and every month for many people that bill increases 
because of payment costs, collection fees, and interest.
    So, when that bill keeps coming and people feel like 
they're drowning, it creates a great deal of stress, emotional 
stress and strain on families and children, where some people 
say they can't go outside, they're afraid to go outside because 
they'll be arrested.
    It creates this tethering to the criminal legal system 
where people have to constantly report. They have to miss work 
to report to court to sit in the courtroom all day, right. Many 
courtrooms require you to report at eight, but your case might 
not be heard till three.
    It'll put strain on garnishment of your wages. Even tax, 
income tax can be taken for payment in many jurisdictions. So, 
it's a great deal of economic, emotional hell, and criminal 
legal stress for individuals and their families.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you. Ms. Woog, monetary sanctions raise 
serious constitutional questions, including around the Eighth 
amendment prohibition on excessive fines, Fifth and Fourteenth 
amendment due process rights, and Sixth amendment right to 
counsel.
    How do court fees affect due process and the Administration 
of justice for people who are accused of crimes, and how do you 
think we might fashion the kind of legislation that we were 
talking about a moment ago to base fines on peoples' incomes in 
a way that wouldn't violate constitutional rights?
    Ms. Woog. Thank you for that question. You're right that in 
theory there are multiple constitutional amendments that should 
protect people from criminal debt burdens having the kind of 
impacts that we've discussed today.
    Unfortunately, in our work what we see is that most people 
don't have access to assistance of counsel to actually assert 
those constitutional claims and challenge their criminal legal 
debt from a constitutional perspective.
    So, I agree with Judge Foster that it's really on the front 
end that we need to be addressing these issues. We're right to 
keep focused on the constitutional issues, but in these 
millions of individual cases where people do not have counsel 
typically, it's very, very difficult to assert those rights.
    So, I agree that on the front end we need to be thinking 
about how to issue fines that are commensurate with what a 
person is able to pay and doesn't create the kind of burden 
that carries with them for years and really has this 
devastating impact on themselves and their families.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you. Madam Chair, I ask for unanimous 
consent for a letter from the National Legal Aid and Defender 
Association describing the harm fees and fines may impose and a 
report from the Brennan Center for Justice entitled, ``The 
Steep Costs of Criminal Justice Fees and Fines,'' that 
undertakes an empirical analysis of the fiscal effects of fines 
and fees be entered into the record.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chair, without objection, so ordered.
    [The information follows:]

                      CHAIR NADLER FOR THE RECORD

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

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chair Nadler. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my 
time.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. The gentleman from Texas.
    Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Five minutes.
    Mr. Gohmert. I appreciated the suggestion that fees and 
fines should be adjusted based on income. Judge Foster, do you 
know if the Federal courts adjust fees and fines based on 
income?
    Ms. Foster. So, the Federal Government doesn't impose many 
fees. At certainly not at--
    Mr. Gohmert. Okay, Judge, I know you'll appreciate that I 
just need you to answer the question if you can.
    Ms. Foster. I am trying. The Federal Government--
    Mr. Gohmert. Does the Federal Government, it's pretty 
simple, do they do that?
    Ms. Foster. Well, they don't need to if they don't impose 
them.
    Mr. Gohmert. All right, thank you. Does anybody know 
besides Judge Foster whether the Federal courts adjust fees and 
fines based on income? We'll have to pursue that and find out 
for sure. I think it's a good suggestion.
    One of the things I noted having worked as a felony judge 
in the State system was how many departments would get Federal 
grants, and they would start offering what the Federal grants 
would require. The grants would go away and they're looking for 
income streams to replace what the Federal Government lured 
them into doing.
    People would say hey, we'd like to do that so you got to 
come up with a source of revenue. The locals and the State 
couldn't afford to provide more, so they looked at fines and 
fees. So, I think all of it needs to be looked at. I'm 
particularly concerned, since this is the Federal Government, 
about the forfeitures.
    I know Judge Foster didn't think fines and fees were a 
problem in the Federal system, but they have been, and I've 
seen them be. So, we have a little different perspective on 
that.
    Especially when the Federal Government engages in 
forfeitures where they have decided we can't convict somebody, 
so we'll just go in and take his property. They end up taking 
property of the family that was not involved in any wrongdoing. 
It destroys their way to make a living.
    I wonder, Mr. Head, have you observed anything of that 
nature from the Federal Government in problems with 
forfeitures?
    Mr. Head. Yes, sir, and asset forfeiture is a bit of a 
unique animal because it has Federal implications that when 
applied, also brings local or State jurisdictions in. So, it's 
sort of this hybrid practice that even when states may either 
reduce, or even a number of states now abolished civil asset 
forfeiture, the Federal Government can essentially cooperate on 
a given project.
    The assets that are brought in through that project are 
then split between the feds and that jurisdiction, State or 
local jurisdiction. So, it becomes a problematic situation. 
Then the assets themselves frequently are used for programs 
that, as another witness alluded to, it's kind of by 
definition.
    It's an erratic, unpredictable income stream, so to speak, 
revenue stream for a government. So, it's, not only is it 
problematic on a property rights standpoint and a familial 
standpoint, but it also is not a reliable way to run any 
government program.
    Mr. Gohmert. Well, there's an element of unfairness that 
you can often find, correct?
    Mr. Head. That's exactly right.
    Mr. Gohmert. That's my concern from a Federal standpoint is 
the element of unfairness.
    With regard to a reimbursement as a fine or fee to a 
defendant in Federal court, since Federal court is where we 
clearly have jurisdiction, I have seen presentence reports come 
back with egregiously outrageous amounts of alleged 
reimbursement that overwhelms the defendant. They can never pay 
it back. The prosecution felt good about having such a high 
number.
    Have you seen things of that nature in Federal court?
    Mr. Head. Yeah, yes, sir. That practice itself tends to be 
a bit erratic in different jurisdictions across the country. 
Some regions, some districts are more maybe cavalier in that 
practice than others. You're exactly right, even when--it's not 
uncommon, actually, for defendants to actually be acquitted of 
all or many of the charges but still have to levy the--bear the 
burden.
    Again, I think of these things almost as user fees. You 
used, you rented, in essence, our defense counsel, courtroom, 
stenographer, etc. So, even if you got off, we're still going 
to--
    Mr. Head. You're stuck on one--I see my time's expired. I 
would, Madam Chair, I would like to see this also pursued. 
Because it's not uncommon from what I've seen to have a 
presentence report include an amount of restitution that seems 
very high, maybe it's in limited. I would hope maybe we could 
look at that some point.
    I appreciate having the hearing. Thank you.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Gohmert, while this hearing is not on 
that, you are absolutely right. It is an issue that this 
Committee should take up, and I was here long enough to have 
been with Mr. Hyde when we were also discussing the forfeiture 
challenges that we faced on the Federal level.
    So, and we probably are long overdue, and so, let us look 
forward in a bipartisan way to look at those issues, and I 
thank you for raising them, a former judge.
    Now, I will recognize Ms. Bass for five minutes.
    Ms. Bass. Thank you, Madam Chair, and let me just thank you 
so much for holding this hearing today.
    As the gentleman mentioned restitution and fines and all of 
this, I just don't understand the point when we do this and 
have the fee or the restitution be so high.
    We know the person is not going to be able to pay it back 
and it just sets them up, and it's kind of like the continuum 
that we were talking about last week with people who are 
released from prison and have nowhere to go.
    This is an example of the roadblocks that we set up, and we 
concentrate these people in certain neighborhoods, and you lock 
them out of the economy and then you wonder why they reoffend.
    So, this is part of that continuum and why I appreciate us 
having the meeting today.
    I wanted to talk about the impact on children, because on 
the report from the Committee it says that in 2016 Philadelphia 
netted over half a million dollars from parents of children 
that had interacted with the JJ system, the juvenile justice 
system, and that the inability to pay for the legal guardian, 
to pay a nightly rate for the child's detention, can lead to a 
violation of probation or even facing extended periods of time.
    So, children--and this is what I'm asking the panel, 
Professor Harris, Ms. Foster, children wind up spending time in 
jail because their parents can't pay a fine. I want to know the 
data.
    How many children wind up being incarcerated, and then when 
they do get out what does their future hold? Has anybody 
studied this?
    We had this policy in Los Angeles County where the parents 
had to pay a nightly fee, basically, for room and board, and we 
abolished it. We stopped doing that in L.A. County.
    So, I want to know, can you talk about data and long-term 
consequences? When you put kids in the system, how on earth do 
they get out?
    Ms. Harris. Well, the data is there, honestly, on studying 
many of these issues and processes because we don't have data 
on numbers, as Judge Foster indicated. We don't have a Federal 
set of numbers across all our states. We also don't have the 
data within the states to be able to do these analyses.
    What we do know, I referenced a study that was done by Alex 
Piquero and his colleague that when youth have this debt that 
it significantly increases the likelihood of recidivism.
    So, we know that the debt leads to youth reoffending in 
their communities. We know from qualitative studies the stress 
and what Ms. Soto described here, the strain put on families, 
and it's the strain for generations.
    It's not just that moment. We know that when young people 
are incarcerated, they are surrounded by folks who don't 
support rehabilitative entry, right. The education is poor 
quality in these systems, and so when they come up, they're set 
for failure.
    We're doing an analysis of some of the interview data and 
many of the adults that we interviewed talked about the 
juvenile debt that followed them into adulthood, and criminal 
legal consequences for not paying that juvenile debt once they 
are adults.
    So, we're moving towards this direction to finally study 
the juvenile round. We just don't have the data and we need a 
bit more time to really dig in and understand the consequences.
    It's clear and it's problematic. It's not helpful in any 
way.
    Ms. Bass. Well, I don't see how it's not child abuse. I 
don't know if Ms. Foster Wong, if you would--
    Ms. Foster. Let me just add one thing, and that's to 
emphasize what Professor Harris said. In many jurisdictions, if 
the debt cannot be paid by that child's family, the debt 
follows the child into adulthood. So, when the child becomes 
18, they're saddled with debt.
    In Florida, for example, they prospectively suspend a 
child's driver's license. So, if a child gets in trouble even 
for something as minor as Ms. Soto's child stealing a tube of 
toothpaste, the child cannot get a driver's license, which 
means the child can't find a job to pay back the debt, even if 
we thought it was a good idea for kids to work.
    Ms. Bass. Let me ask you, I did a study about this 25 years 
ago, or so, and in L.A. it started with tickets for truancy. 
So, if you were late to school and the police were surrounding 
it, they could give you a ticket for truancy. It could go into 
a warrant.
    Do you find much of that? Now, we ended that in L.A. as 
well. Do you find much of that around the country, ticketing 
for truancy?
    Ms. Harris. There are tickets for all kinds of things, and 
there was actually just a study done by the Juvenile Law Center 
about children in Municipal Courts for municipal code 
violations. These are adult courts. They're not juvenile 
courts.
    They're children who may violate some kind of a municipal 
ordinance, a noise ordinance or being in a curfew ordinance or 
a truancy ordinance, and then they end up in adult court 
without counsel and fines and fees are imposed upon them that, 
as we said, saddle or stay with them for the rest of their 
lives. That's just antithetical to the whole way that we are 
supposed to be thinking about juvenile justice.
    Ms. Bass. Thank you very much, and thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. The gentleman from Wisconsin is 
recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Mr. Head, I was going to kind of direct some comments and a 
couple questions your way. Being a former State legislator and 
doing a lot of ride-along at the circuit court level, I was 
often intrigued and interested to see the banter that goes on 
between some of these judges and the defendants that are before 
them.
    A lot of times it's about the wherewithal and whether or 
not the defendant actually could pay for some of these enhanced 
fees, and probably the best example of that is State 
legislatures, who have a lot of control over this process at 
the State level, oftentimes will continue to impose fees that, 
quite honestly, the defendant is going to be unable to pay in 
the long run, and you're not going to send a police officer to 
somebody's door to try and collect these fees later on. So, you 
end up trying to jump through all these hoops to devise all 
these systems to pull those dollars back.
    So, my first point is, with a rapid expansion of the 
Federal grants and what we're seeing the strings attached as 
those dollars move to the states, it seems to me it's just a 
better place to manage this kind of at the State and local 
level, whether it's a municipal court or a circuit court.
    What's your thoughts on that?
    Mr. Head. Well, I categorically agree.
    One of the pieces that I think I'm encouraged with, so 
obviously, Faith & Freedom Coalition we do work on the Federal 
level but in a lot of states as well, about 20 states this year 
that will engage legislatively.
    I'm seeing a significant uptick in community review boards, 
which, essentially, are local law enforcement, county or city 
law enforcement, that then sort of invite community leaders to 
have an ongoing--it's a charter organization and that receives 
input from that local community.
    I think that I'm actually very encouraged by the progress, 
and I know six or seven cities that have implemented that just 
in the last two or three months here.
    Every system not only is different but also every community 
has very pronounced different needs and dynamics, and so I 
think it's really, really important for us to recognize and 
devolve the decision making process to as local as possible 
and, conversely, avoid Federal or national prescriptive 
approaches that either are going to be inapplicable in a lot of 
places or truly will diverge or divert a lot of this local 
decision-making process.
    Mr. Fitzpatrick. Yeah, I mean, it goes against what we want 
the system to actually accomplish, which is to hold these 
individuals responsible for either negligence or, obviously, in 
some instances at the Federal level breaking their criminal 
defendants that are breaking the law.
    The idea is that State and local authorities, certainly, 
would be better served if we would allow them to make these 
decisions.
    I'll just kind of go in a little bit different direction. 
Oftentimes, we would have individuals that just aren't paying 
child support. They're way behind.
    They're in arrears, and they come before the circuit courts 
in Wisconsin, in my home state, and a lot of times the circuit 
court judges would simply say, let me get this straight. You 
can't pay your child support, but you've got a $9 pack of 
cigarettes in your pocket right now.
    There's oftentimes kind of that type of management, that 
level of management, and relationships that are built with 
defendants that I think would serve us much better.
    At the Federal level, even further removed, I just don't 
see how this makes a lot of sense. So, I thank you for being 
here today. I think the detachment we see from the Federal 
Government to being able to manage this type of system just 
doesn't exist.
    Mr. Head. I agree with that, and I also think that the use 
of the alternative of community supervision, excuse me, of 
community service is underutilized, in a lot of contexts where 
people's inability to pay.
    The specific place for people to be able to serve, 
obviously, needs to be driven by local either judges or, 
potentially, prosecutors to make recommendations as well.
    So, I think there are ways to marry--we would like to see 
more practices of things like that for alternative to pay. Even 
then we need to see partnership with local jurisdictions.
    So, it's very, very important for us to be almost over 
aware of local input into these kinds of processes and 
procedures.
    Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank you. The gentlewoman from Florida 
is recognized for five minutes.
    Then we'll move to the gentlewoman from Georgia, Ms. 
McBath, for five minutes.
    Ms. McBath. Thank you so much, Chair. Thank you, each and 
every one of you, for being with us today.
    Ms. Soto, I just can't thank you enough for sharing your 
story and I'm so sorry that you have been saddled with all of 
these fees and this has become so problematic for you. I really 
appreciate you sharing your story with us today.
    Professor Harris, as Ms. Soto experienced just shows us 
today often the person who is paying the fees or the fine is 
often not the person who actually has done anything wrong.
    So, Professor Harris, I just want to ask you, you co-
authored a study that looked at the fine practices in 8 states 
and including Georgia, which is the State that I represent, and 
you found that not only was there variation across the United 
States to how these fees were applied, these fines were 
applied, but you also found that there was variation within 
each state.
    So, in your view, were these variations consistent with 
that principle that our justice system should treat similar 
cases in the same way?
    Ms. Harris. I think we all have this broader notion that 
justice should be fair. What does fair look like? It should be 
consistent and there should be policies and practices that 
guide how decisions are made.
    We found across our eight states that there is so much 
variability within a courthouse, within a city, within a 
county, within a State across the United States.
    One example that we haven't talked yet about is that many 
jurisdictions impose mandatory fines and fees. So, even if 
there's an ability to pay assessment at the front end, if 
people are impoverished then judges have the discretion not to 
impose discretionary fines and fees.
    In Washington State, people are sentenced a mandatory $500 
regardless of ability to pay. So, $500 per felony conviction. 
So, there's a lot of variability and even ability to pay 
assessments won't apply to some practices.
    So, it's important that we have this broader conversation 
about what is accountability, what is the point of punishment 
that the last person raised?
    If accountability means being able to meet some bar and 
standard, fulfill that punishment, and then move forward with 
your life, then we need to really assess fines and fees, 
because the vast majority of individuals who face the criminal 
legal system do not have the ability to be held accountable, 
even though that they want to.
    One consistent factor across all our states in interviews 
is people who have been convicted they wanted to serve their 
time to the--
    Mr. McBath. Thank you.
    Ms. Harris. Yeah. Sorry.
    Ms. McBath. Thank you very much. I wanted to move on.
    Ms. Soto, did you feel that you or your son were really 
given clear information about how much he was going to be fined 
for and how to avoid the late fees or the harmful consequences 
that you've experienced?
    Then after she gives that answer, I would love for you, 
Professor Harris, to kind of elaborate on that.
    Ms. Soto. Yes. I felt that my son and I were clear that we 
were poor, that we couldn't pay these fines. I was also 
offering to clean the courthouse or doing some community 
service hours with him because we did not have the money.
    It seems that the system is set not to listen to 
communities of color. I feel that we get punished more because 
of our color, because of the language barrier. It was no 
language justice in here.
    I feel that my son and I were isolated through the system, 
and we were not given a chance to even speak about how much--
they knew how much money I was making. So, I think it's a great 
idea if they can impose those fees based on your income and not 
put a lot more pressure on us.
    Thank you.
    Ms. McBath. Thank you for that. So, Professor Harris, can 
you elaborate on that for me, please, very quickly?
    Ms. Harris. Sure. Again, that was one consistent finding 
across all our eight states is uncertainty, lack of knowledge, 
lack of what am I being billed for? Why does it increase each 
month? Where do I go to pay? How do I pay if I have multiple 
cases in different municipalities?
    There was a clear lack of understanding of this process of 
why am I paying, because I already was in prison for several 
years. Why am I paying, because I'm on probation?
    So, a lot of questions that were unanswered by local 
courthouse clerks and lack of access to judges to ask those 
questions or attorneys, for that matter.
    Ms. McBath. Okay, thank you.
    Ms. Woog, some states have stopped the suspension of 
driver's licenses for those who have not actually paid their 
fee. Based on your work with clients, what effects does this 
have both for the client, their family, and their community?
    Ms. Woog. The effects are absolutely devastating. In Texas, 
a driver's license is a practical necessity for people to 
obtain childcare and to go to work, to provide for basic 
necessities for their families.
    What we see for people who have their driver's licenses 
suspended is either they pull back entirely--it's very 
isolating for themselves and for their families and can 
exacerbate existing mental and physical health issues--or they 
risk driving illegally, which then exposes them to warrants, 
jail time, family separation, and so that stress and that fear 
is internalized, regardless of how someone deals with that 
situation, and is absolutely toxic for individuals, their 
families, and their communities.
    Ms. McBath. Thank you so much. I yield back my time.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the gentlelady. The Ranking Member 
continues to reserve, and now I'd like to recognize Ms. Demings 
for five minutes, the gentlelady from Florida.
    Ms. Demings. Thank you so much, Madam Chair, and thank you 
to all our witnesses who have joined us here today.
    Ms. Soto, I'm going to direct my question to you. Professor 
Harris talked about that it's important for the justice system 
to be fair, and that's a mouthful.
    I strongly believe that, as someone who has served in the 
criminal justice system for almost three decades, and while we 
continue to make sure that the system is fair and even 
balanced, I think just as we are still working to form that 
more perfect union, it is still a major work in progress.
    Ms. Soto, I think it's so important to hear the personal 
stories, because as we do this very critical work, I think 
those personal stories are so powerful in terms of getting us 
to the place where we need to be. We just need to have the 
political will and really believe that we are working for a 
more fair and just system.
    I, certainly, am doing that. You spoke a bit about that the 
fees imposed should be based on income. I want to give you yet 
another opportunity. Our time has been well spent, but I want 
to give you another opportunity to make this appeal.
    Based on your own experience, how can we, as Members of 
Congress, which is a pretty influential body, how can we 
support the efforts to make this a more fair and just system as 
it pertains to fines and fees?
    Ms. Soto. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak 
for I know those who don't have a voice, to be the voice of the 
voiceless. I do believe that we must look at a story such as 
mine and see the impact that we cause not only to the State but 
to the country.
    These are our youth. These are our new generation. My son 
went and fought for our country twice. So, a lot of the times 
we're deteriorating children of color and I feel that all these 
fees and fines is just a way to oppress our children of color 
and I just don't understand why it's a system that don't--and 
here it is not about Republicans, Democrats, or liberals. In 
here, it's about something that is real that is happening to 
families.
    So, I, certainly, believe that if we look at the person 
income and base that out of their income, the fines, I have no 
problem with that. I feel that will be the solution. Not the 
same fees for all.
    I just don't think that everything applies to all, and I do 
feel that children of color get harsh punishment than children 
who are Anglo or other race and ethnicity.
    Thank you very much.
    Ms. Demings. Thank you so much, Ms. Soto, for your powerful 
testimony.
    Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. All right. The Ranking Member of the 
Subcommittee, and now I yield five minutes to the gentlelady 
from Pennsylvania, Ms. Dean.
    Ms. Dean. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for hosting 
this important hearing.
    Thank you to all our testifiers for your expertise that 
you're offering us today.
    Judge Foster if I might begin with you. In 1983, the United 
States Supreme Court ruled that in Bearden v. Georgia that 
someone could be sentenced only if he or she had the money and 
willfully refused to pay.
    We heard today over and over about these debtors prisons 
and how they can force people to forego the basic necessities 
of life to avoid arrest.
    Judge Foster, what kinds of constitutional rights are 
implicated in the current imposition of fees and fines? I'm 
thinking of my own court system in suburban Philadelphia and 
those who are struggling under fees and fines that are 
unbearable.
    Ms. Foster. Thank you for the question, and there are many. 
So, as you mentioned, the Supreme Court long ago and 
consistently since Bearden v. Georgia has said that in the 
justice system, money cannot matter.
    It cannot be the case that we treat people differently in 
our justice system based on how much money they have in their 
pocket or their bank account.
    Yet, that's precisely, as you indicated, what happens. All 
over the country, people who cannot afford to pay fines and 
fees are incarcerated--they're going to jail because they 
cannot afford to pay as well as the host of other consequences. 
So, that is certainly one, and that's equal protection and due 
process.
    The second is the right to counsel, and what we see often 
is because so many State and local governments charge people a 
fee for counsel, people don't obtain counsel. Ms. Soto just 
gave you the best example.
    Here is a child who has the right to counsel. It's in the 
Constitution. The Supreme Court said many years ago in Gault 
children have the right to a lawyer in juvenile justice 
proceedings.
    If a fee to apply to obtain counsel is imposed and if a 
parent is told, oh, at the end of the case you might owe 
hundreds and in some states thousands of dollars for your free 
lawyer, then parents are going to say to their child, no, we 
can't afford a lawyer, and so that child goes unrepresented.
    The Eighth Amendment--and several Members have talked about 
the excessive fines clause--the Supreme Court has indicated, 
just recently held unequivocally and unanimously that the 
excessive fines clause applies to the states.
    Yet, we see states imposing excessive fines without, as the 
excessive fines clause requires, doing any kind of inability to 
pay assessment.
    That is in the excessive fines clause. The State of Indiana 
Supreme Court--when the case from the U.S. Supreme Court was 
sent back to the Indiana Supreme Court they developed a 
standard for determining when a fine is excessive, and part of 
that standard is whether the person has the ability to pay the 
fine imposed.
    Last, but not least is due process, and that is someone's 
ability to understand the proceedings before them, to have the 
right to a fair hearing, and to have their voice heard, and 
that is being violated every day across this country.
    Ms. Dean. Thank you, Judge, for that very thorough listing 
and powerful listing, and I want to reconnect to Ms. Soto. 
Thank you for your testimony today.
    I thank you for your son's contribution and service to our 
country and, therefore, your whole family's service to our 
country. What an extraordinary story. Theft of a tube of 
toothpaste because he thought his mom couldn't afford it.
    What I wanted to ask you is, if you don't mind, what are 
the long-term effects of your story of the imposition of all 
the court mandates, fines, fees, and fear--what are the long-
term effects for you and for your family?
    Ms. Soto. The long-term effects for me and my family is 
that we don't trust the system. We feel that the system has 
failed us. I had to have a second job to pay all these fees and 
I couldn't be the mother that I wanted to be.
    Therefore, I have to still pay. That type of a punishment 
that your kids have force you because you not being there as a 
mother for your kids, the three of us have to still go through 
therapy and still we're spending more money because of what 
happened with one in the past.
    So, we keep giving money to the system, a system that 
failed us, when all of us have fought really hard for this 
country. The second job really ruin our job. The system failed 
us. I'm very afraid of the system.
    I don't believe in systems somehow even though I have two 
decades working in the nonprofit world giving back to my 
country because this is my country. My son fought two wars and 
my daughter dedicated her life to the homeless.
    We still have some type of resentment to the system. We 
just don't trust systems. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Dean. Thank you for your powerful voice. I yield back. 
I see my time has expired. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much.
    I'll now yield to Mr. Steube for five minutes.
    Mr. Steube. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    My questions are for Mr. Head. While fines and fees can 
create problems if not administered correctly, it can also save 
law-abiding taxpayers from footing the bills run up by 
criminals.
    How could broad Federal rules about fines and fees hurt the 
ability of states and localities to collect revenue from 
convicted criminals who drive up law enforcement and court 
costs?
    Mr. Head. Excuse me, I think that, as I alluded to in my 
opening comments, that I do think that there is a danger of 
overuse, but there also is a legitimate use for fines and fees. 
Especially, in circumstances where very dire crimes have been 
committed and where long investigations or trials have been 
embarked upon. So, I think that there also is an inadvertent 
danger for Congress stepping into this, from a Federal level, 
those are typically outlying cases, but it can also be very 
profound cases.
    We're certainly talking about trans-national cases and 
interstate cases. So, I think that we need to be mindful that a 
kind of one-size-fits-all prescriptive approach on the Federal 
side can not only contemplate the hyper-local scenarios--
individualized scenarios and communities, but it also can lack 
the elasticity for the extremely high-end cases that are 
outliers. Also, those are the most expensive and most elaborate 
drains on our system, and on the resources that are entailed 
there.
    Mr. Steube. Yes, and I'd like to further address the 
problems of using Federal grants to change State policy. I 
believe it's the role of State governments, not the Federal 
Government, to dictate--especially in this area of law--I come 
and represent Florida. I come from the great State of Florida. 
We've done a lot--when I was in the State legislature, after 
the last eight years that I was there doing criminal justice 
reform and looking at these issues, like civil forfeiture and 
those types of issues. So, I have great concerns when the 
Federal Government is going to address something that the 
States should have within their purview.
    As discussed earlier today, not every State faces the same 
issues when it comes to criminal law, in general, or fines and 
fees specifically. From your experience working in public 
policy on the State and Federal level, can you give us some 
examples of a one-size-fits-all Federal grant requirement that 
hurt State law enforcement efforts in unintended ways?
    Mr. Head. Well, we just had a bit of a conversation on 
asset forfeiture that the asset forfeiture process as is 
allowed on the Federal side, but also has been either reduced 
or greatly restricted on State sides. Actually, about 14 states 
in the last four years have either restricted or abolished 
asset forfeiture. Ironically, but not having much treatment of 
the issue on the Federal side, what generally happens on the 
State side is the Federal investigators tend to partner with 
local or State law enforcement agencies and so the Federal--
there's essentially a Federal work-around. This is kind of the 
opposite of, in some ways of what your question is. Federal 
inactivity has actually circumvented States' desires to reduce 
or curtail the practice of asset forfeiture.
    So, while Federal action can certainly have an undesirable 
effect, Federal inaction has actually been problematic. In 
essence, the Fed is not having their household in order, so to 
speak, has actually limited States' rights.
    Mr. Steube. Can you speak about the use of fines as an 
alternative to incarceration and how that could be negatively 
impacted by Federal rules limiting fines?
    Mr. Head. Well, I think that, yet again, if we can 
contemplate or allow for local ability to treat local issues, 
we not only find--for instance, in North Carolina, just last 
week I was having meetings about the State of North Carolina 
considering--right now there is a prohibition against 
community--volunteering, basically, to supplant or replace 
payment of fines. So, North Carolina is actually strongly 
considering reversing their State policy.
    New York also has a similar prohibition in place. What we 
would like to see for us is to be able to go to the sort of 
outlying States, to be able to address these kinds of unique 
approaches because I think that there's a--what tends to happen 
whenever we have a prescribed Federal approach or nationalized 
approach is that we contemplate the norm. Inadvertently we 
marginalize the exceptions. Then the exceptions can actually 
become exacerbated.
    So, once again, it's important for us to be able to have 
the ability to customize approaches, not just prescribe.
    Mr. Steube. Thank you for being here today. My time has 
expired.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the gentleman for his questioning. 
The gentleman yields back, and I am pleased to yield five 
minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, Ms. Scanlon.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to our 
witnesses for being here today. Professor Harris, before coming 
to Congress I participated in the defense of children in what's 
become known in Pennsylvania as the Kids for Cash Scandal. For 
those who aren't familiar, between 2003 and 2008 hundreds of 
Pennsylvania teens were sentenced to a for-profit detention 
center in which two juvenile court judges had a financial 
interest. The sentences usually occurred after the young people 
were pressured to waive the right to counsel or confessed to 
crimes that they didn't commit.
    In one of those cases, after the court's conduct was 
declared unconstitutional and our client was released, her 
parents got a hefty bill from the county for the cost of her 
unconstitutional detention. Professor Harris, in your testimony 
you spoke about fees like this being imposed on children and 
families even when the children are later cleared of 
misconduct. Can you very briefly highlight what you might do--
what we might do at the Federal level?
    Ms. Harris. Thank you for raising that important point--
that we haven't talked a bit about. That there's profit making 
off these charges and fines and fees--from minors and for 
adults. It creates this perverse incentive, as we have seen, 
for some judges, but for other officials of the criminal legal 
system to try and find ways, right, to keep making profits. We 
also have a lot of contracts with private entities and--so it's 
not just about private facilities or private jails or prisons, 
it's about private entities that are infused within local 
courthouses, jails, probation officers, and prisons that are 
allowed to make profits off a literal captive audience.
    I am not clear on what the Federal Government could do, and 
I do think that contracts should be made publically available, 
so we understand the degree of profit-making and kickbacks that 
local governments are getting from private entities in these 
relationships.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. I think in that case, actually, 
what the Federal Government was able to do involved prosecution 
for wire fraud and those judges ended up in jail. Judge Foster, 
thank you for mentioning my bill, the Bipartisan Bicameral 
Driving for Opportunity Act, which we successfully passed out 
of this Committee earlier this year. We know that court-imposed 
fines and fees can land people in an endless cycle of debt. If 
they can't afford to pay the costs immediately, they can face 
harmful consequences like the suspension of government-issued 
I.D.s--government-issued I.D.s like driver's licenses. About 11 
million people nationwide have suspended driver's licenses for 
unpaid fines and fees.
    I understand that some States and localities have begun 
implementing laws to end the suspension or revocation of 
licenses for unpaid fines and fees. Why are they reconsidering 
that? What role can the Federal Government play to incentivize 
States to enact these reforms and end this practice once and 
for all?
    Ms. Foster. Thank you for your question. Thank you for your 
sponsorship of the Driving for Opportunity Act. It is 
important. So, the States that have stopped suspending driver's 
licenses for unpaid fines and fees--and there are several. We 
are proud of the fact that as little as four years ago, there 
were only three states that did not suspend driver's licensing 
for unpaid fines and fees, and today 22 states have engaged in 
some form of reform. That's important.
    The reason that they've enacted reforms and stopped the 
practice is because it's counterproductive. It doesn't take 
most people much time to understand that if you want someone to 
pay you money, taking away their driver's license--their means 
of getting to work is not a terribly effective way of 
collecting that money. States have understood that.
    They've also understood the much larger economic 
consequences to the States. In the United States today 30 
percent of jobs require driving as part of the job. I don't 
mean just Uber and Lift drivers, but if you think about it, a 
plumber, an electrician, a construction worker, a Verizon 
repair person--not to mention long-haul truckers. All those 
jobs require a person to drive. That requires a valid driver's 
license. If we take that license away, we make our States less 
productive.
    In addition, are the costs of enforcing driving with a 
suspended license. In many places around the country, driving 
with a suspended license is the number-one criminal charge. 
That means that the system is spending a lot of money 
prosecuting people whose only crime is to be poor. So, what can 
the Federal Government do? Exactly what you've proposed.
    [Simultaneous speaking.]
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you for that. I see my time has expired. 
The Gentlewoman from Missouri is recognized for five minutes.
    Ms. Bush. St. Louis and I thank you to our Chair for 
convening this important hearing. There is a daily trauma that 
we experience in my town, in my home, St. Louis. In my 
community we have many municipal governments, and many have 
their own local government--their own local police force, their 
own local revenue stream. Each of these municipalities rely 
heavily on systems that incentivize raising revenue, off 
targeting people living in poverty, specifically Black people, 
through traffic stops that lead to fines and fees.
    It does not have to be this way. I personally know many 
exemplary public servants who serve in our St. Louis municipal 
governments who do not want it to be this way. Our Federal, 
State, and local governments prioritizing funding for 
militarized policing and incarceration over fully funding 
social safety nets, that's what has led to a crisis in our 
local communities where harming us is not just accepted, but 
it's encouraged.
    In 2015, the Department of Justice found that St. Louis 
officials evaluated their performance on the amount of revenue 
the produced. So much so that in 2012, 13 percent of Ferguson's 
municipal budget was funded by fines and fees, and the city 
budgeted almost a quarter of its revenue from fines and fees in 
2015. Let me just say--because we didn't know--so many of us in 
this community, we didn't know that this was a problem--that 
this is something that shouldn't be happening. We were just 
used to it being the norm. That's a big part of the problem. 
Unsurprisingly, the DOJ also found that 93 percent of those 
arrested were black, whereas only 67 percent of Ferguson's 
population is black.
    Black drivers were also twice as likely as White drivers to 
be searched on a traffic vehicle stops. The reality is that too 
many people live in endless cycles of punishment that are 
deeply linked to violent and traumatic encounters with police. 
The threat of going to jail or having to spend money you don't 
have to pay exorbitant fees. Judge Foster, how does the 
imposition of fines and fees affect people's livelihoods, our 
country's economic growth, and public safety in our 
communities?
    Ms. Foster. Thank you for the question. Let me start with 
your--with public safety. Because there has been some research 
done, and it's very important to emphasize we're all concerned 
about public safety. We're all concerned about crime.
    What we know is that fines and fees can drive crime, and 
they have a dramatic impact on law enforcement's ability to 
fight crime. Let me just give you a couple of numbers. In a 
study that was done of cities that rely on fines and fees for 
some of their revenue, what the study authors found is that for 
every one-percent increase in revenue that a city derived from 
fines and fees--a one-percent increase in fine and fee 
revenue--meant a 6.1-percent decrease in violent crime 
clearance rates. Right?
    So, we're not spending police resources on violent crime. 
We're spending police resources on raising revenue. Similarly, 
for every one-percent increase in revenue that the city relies 
on from fines and fees, there was an 8.3-percent decrease in 
property crime clearance rates. So, police are not solving 
property crimes. They're raising revenue from fines and fees. 
That's not good for anybody. It's certainly not good for public 
safety. So, that's an important point, and I think it's really 
critical that we understand that.
    As Professor Harris mentioned, we also know that people 
commit crimes to pay their fines and fees. I was a judge. It's 
rare that people admit to committing crimes. In a study that 
was done of over 1,000 people who owed fines and fees, 38-
percent admitted to committing a crime to pay their fines and 
fees. Now, that's just not helping our communities.
    Ms. Bush. No, it's not at all. Thank you Judge Foster for 
all that information. I don't think a lot of people know that 
information that you just gave--those numbers. Fines and fees--
what we do know, though, is that fines and fees tend to show up 
at every level of the system. That's what a lot of people do 
know. That when you look at fees for traffic and detention, 
phone calls from jail and for pre-trial relief, and that's what 
we know. So, thank you for that information. Now, we need to do 
the work to make sure that we change this. Ms. Woog, from your 
testimony I gather that there has been some substantial amount 
of reform on the State level. Can you just briefly tell us what 
policies and reforms the Federal Government should promote?
    Ms. Woog. Yes, absolutely. I mentioned some local reforms 
that we're seeing that I think are exciting. I think that 
there's experimentation happening on the local level that the 
Federal Government could play a role in supporting. So, for 
example, text message reminders, redesign of court forms. Most 
people don't know that they have options besides paying a full 
amount--which they do under the law in Texas. They have options 
for waiver reduction, our community service law allows people 
to do self-improvement work as part of community service. So, 
taking college classes and that kind of thing.
    So, we really think that encouraging people on the front 
end to help resolve their debt could help take care of a lot of 
the problems that we're seeing on the back end. I think that 
the Federal Government has a role to play in supporting that 
kind of experimentation. It's actually pretty low cost and once 
it gets started, can kind of keep up without needing these 
additional grant funding over and over, as people have 
mentioned.
    Ms. Bush. Thank you. I yield back.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. We thank you for your questioning to Madam 
Vice Chair, and to your contributions to the Committee. Now, 
it's my privilege to yield five minutes to the Ranking Member 
of this Committee, Mr. Biggs.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate that. Mr. 
Head, Congress has gotten in the bad habit of using grants to 
force its preferred policies on states when the Federal 
Government does not have the constitutional authority to 
mandate that States act. This would be one of those areas. Do 
you support States addressing issues related to fines and fees?
    Mr. Head. I do support States' efforts, yes.
    Mr. Biggs. Are you aware of any Federal law that prohibits 
States from making these changes?
    Mr. Head. No, sir, there's no Federal prohibition against 
this.
    Mr. Biggs. Are you aware of States acting to make changes 
whether it's in regard to fines, or fees, or victim 
restitution, without Federal coercion?
    Mr. Head. Well, yes sir. We've enumerated several examples 
over the last--particularly five years that this is--the 
performers on the State level are actually accelerating.
    Mr. Biggs. So, for instance, we had one witness just 
testify that 22 states have made changes with regard to 
suspension of driver's license for failure to pay fine--excuse 
me, fees and surcharges?
    Mr. Head. Correct, on the driver's license issues, yes, 
sir.
    Mr. Biggs. Driver's license issues. So, Arizona and Oregon 
did that?
    Mr. Head. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Biggs. Arkansas--limited situations in which court can 
suspend the person's license. California has acted in some 
ways. Colorado, Delaware, Idaho, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, 
Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oklahoma, 
and within Seattle, Washington's municipal courts--have all 
engaged and acted as well as Texas, Maryland, New York, Utah, 
and Virginia on these types of issues?
    Mr. Head. Yes, sir. That's right. It's literally coast to 
coast at this point.
    Mr. Biggs. Yes, and were any of them mandated to do so by 
the Federal Government?
    Mr. Head. Not to my knowledge, no, sir.
    Mr. Biggs. In fact, we talked--I wasn't going to bring this 
up, but we talked about civil RICO statutes earlier today. My 
home state, Arizona, now requires a conviction before 
proceeding on civil asset forfeiture, which is a huge, huge 
departure from the civil asset forfeiture realm today. So, 
that's very interesting.
    One thing that I have found somewhat troubling today, as a 
guy who practiced in this field for many years, tried hundreds 
of cases and dealt with this issue is the conflation of fines 
with fees and surcharges and victim restitution. So, I want to 
briefly make sure we all understand what's being said and the 
delineation that goes on here.
    So, Professor Foster, for instance, mentioned that in 
California there might--if you have $100 traffic ticket, it 
might get ratcheted up by--that's the fine, it might get 
ratcheted by an additional $390, is that what you said 
Professor Foster? In my home State it's about--I want to say 
you could get whacked on an additional 120 bucks or more. 
Somewhere in that neighborhood. So, you get a fine of $100, you 
get $120 surcharge that's the vernacular we use, but it's the 
same thing as the fee is the surcharge is it's going to a whole 
host of things.
    We haven't talked about the victims of crimes because there 
are some of the things we're talking about, there really is no 
apparent victim. You're dealing with actually a punitive fine, 
and you're dealing with some kind of--not restitution, but some 
kind of a fee or surcharge that's good--being disseminated, 
whether it's ostensibly to help police functions, police 
equipment, or court deferral of costs. In Arizona there's even 
a very small portion that goes to the State General Fund, for 
Pete sakes.
    So, you have massive--this structure of fees and local 
jurisdictions are setting up, the states are setting up. We 
haven't talked about victims' restitution and the impact that 
has. I raise that because to my way of thinking, part of what 
the justice system should be focused on is to make sure that an 
innocent victim of crime is made as whole as possible. That 
could be a problem as well. So, is there anything that you know 
of, Mr. Head, that deals with Federal mandates with regard to 
how States administer victims' restitution programs?
    Mr. Head. To my knowledge there aren't Federal mandates on 
the restitution. I mean, there are certainly Federal grants 
that are oriented--it's certainly VOCA and VAWA are 
overwhelmingly devoted in that direction.
    Mr. Biggs. Right.
    Mr. Head. Those have grown significantly over the last 
decades. It's been frankly a little bit--mixed results as to 
whether those funds are disseminated truly to victims or if 
they're disseminated to sort of peripheral services that may 
not truly be delivered to victims.
    Mr. Biggs. Yes, I do think that that needs to be cleaned up 
and looked at as well. So, I mentioned in my opening statement, 
Madam Chair, that I do think this is an issue that needs to be 
addressed. One of the things that we're seeing is that many of 
the States are actually undertaking to address these issues 
without the interference of the Federal Government. I would 
like to see us let that go a while longer. I prefer to see 
State action. I am a big believer in Federalism. I believe that 
we have very limited jurisdiction and that's why we end up 
saying, well, let's do a grant program or find some way to 
incentivize. Whereas I think the states, with the help of some 
of the folks up there who are advocating within the states. 
States are responding and that's where I'd like to see this go. 
With that, Madam Chair, thank you for holding the hearing today 
and letting me take some time. I yield back.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. The Ranking Member--thank you for your 
important contribution to this hearing. Thank you for your 
inquiry and ask of consideration. Let me also thank the Members 
of our Committee, Mr. Nadler as the Chair, Ms. Bass, Ms. 
Demings, McBath, Dean, Scanlon, Cicilline, Lieu, Correa, 
Escobar, and Cohen have been very helpful in many of the 
aspects of our work. To thank those who are present--Ms. 
Spartz, Ms. Gohmert, the Gentleman from Wisconsin, and Mr. 
Biggs and Mr. Steube--thank you for your very constructive 
participation as well. Let me ask unanimous consent to place in 
the record a letter from the National Legal Aide and Defender 
Associations testimony against HB 3413, the Murr. Emily Culp, 
Advocacy Fellow, Texas Fair Defense Project, testimony in 
support of HB 2441 and HB 117; Emily Culp, Advocacy Fellow, 
Texas Fair Defense Project, testimony in support of HB 162, 
Fernando Martinez. Tip of the iceberg how much criminal fees 
the United States really have in fines and fees justice? The 
price of justice fines, fees, and the criminalization of 
poverty in the United States, University of Miami Race and 
Social Justice Law Review. Judge Foster, the Steep Cost of 
Criminal Justice Fees and Fines, the Brenna Center of Justice. 
Let me thank the--I ask unanimous consent and here so ordered 
to be in the record.
    [The information follows:]

                     MS. JACKSON LEE FOR THE RECORD

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

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Mr. Biggs. Madam Chair, I have one request for unanimous 
consent.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Then you are yielded to.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Madam Chair. We have a letter from 
someone named Vikrant Reddy. I've asked that it be admitted 
without objection.
    [The information follows:]
     

                        MR. BIGGS FOR THE RECORD

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

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Ms. Jackson Lee. Without objection? So, ordered. Let me 
indicate that this hearing, A Fine Scheme, How Court-Imposed 
Fees and Fines Unjustly Burden Vulnerable Communities, is a 
very important hearing. I do want to acknowledge with a great 
deal of appreciation the signing, Mr. Ranking Member, of the 
Victims of Crime Act 6, which really should speak to all of us 
who as we are facing a surge of crime across America--we are 
all trying to determine and discern its cause and that we are 
taking care of our victims, including in that are victims of 
crime in the Federal Victims of Crime Act and it also helps to 
bolster victim crime funds in the States. Gives a certain 
amount of requirements in a county. It also includes human 
trafficking. What it does is it opens the Victim Crime Fund of 
the Federal Government to receive dollars from settlements, 
restitution, and other equitable fines.
    In the Federal system there is a limited number of 
juveniles, as we have said--even though the Federal Government 
carries a big stick, they are basically not engaged in those 
kinds of fines and equitable relief and settlement. Those are 
mostly corporate crimes. I think it is important for us, in 
this hearing, to announce that victims are our concern and the 
conversations that we're having are separate and apart from 
what is being done with these fees and fines as it relates to 
victims. We do not choose here to undermine any efforts to be 
able to make victims whole. That is evident by the Federal law 
that we just had the privilege of having signed into law as a 
bill that Mr. Nadler, m,e and others carried--and was supported 
with great support in the United States Senate.
    So, that is what we want to leave behind. Victims are not 
to be deprived or suffer. We must recognize the cases like Ms. 
Soto and the sacrifice she's made for her children. I do want 
to acknowledge that, as I thank all of the witnesses--Judge 
Foster, thank you so much for a very important contribution, 
Ms. Soto, as a mom and certainly as someone who has touched our 
heart. We wish your children the best understanding of your 
sacrifice, and we certainly thank your son for his sacrifice. 
If we could, we would say, love, love, love in your family 
because you are certainly our hero for coming here and telling 
your story. We thank you so very, very much.
    Thank you, Mr. Head, for an important perspective and thank 
you, Professor Harris, for your contributions as well, and Ms. 
Woog for highlighting Texas and what states do. We will now 
proceed--excuse me. This concludes today's hearing. Thank you 
to all our distinguished witnesses for attending and all our 
Members. This hearing is now adjourned.
    [Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record 
at 12:27 p.m.]

                                APPENDIX

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

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 [all]