justice and give officers tangible behavioral direction. in situations where there is conflict, taking the time if there is not a threat present. i want to be very clear about that. if somebody is pointing a gun at you, you don't listen and explain. you do what you have to do. but in most police interactions in the community, there is time. if officers are reminded of the benefit of listening, that will help set that interaction going down the correct track. most police officers like myself, we like to step in and control things. we have to be reminded to stop and listen. when people say police should treat people with respect, the most effective way to convey respect is to listen. so we really want to emphasize that for our officers. the other area where many officers forget is that we know the system inside and out. we know how the process is going to work. we know what's going to happen next. people we're interacted with don't know that. it's the lack of knowledge that

creates another level of conflict. if the officer is reminded, tell the person what they can expect they will be more likely to cooperate. when we talk about equity, that is simply to underscore make sure that you are recognizing whatever biases you bring to the table. make sure you're making your decision on the outcome in an equitable way. always leave with the person you're interacting with with their dignity in tact, and act with dignity yourself. a lot of officers will mock when we use an acronym. i get that. but it's also a very effective way to teach very speck beific behaveior behavior. >> studies have shown that people care how they're treated by police more than the outcome of a police encounter. police that may pull people over for a driving offense may find people care more about whether they were treated fairly by a police officers rather than if they got the ticket.

as you've acknowledged in the past empathy and patience do not necessarily come naturally for some police recruits. something as simple as officers having friendly, non-enforcement related conversations with community members have shown to have huge benefits in building community trust. how do we change things so that the system values these characteristics in our police? >> i think we start in the training academy by modeling that type of behavior. being very clear about that as an expectation. we also need to clarify that empathy is not the same as sympathy. empathy means you understand what the person in the other side of the interaction is experiencing. i think it starts with training. i think it was mentioned by another witness that we have to come up with appropriate measures. people will rise to those things that are measured. when we find ways to measure officers behaving in ways that convey respect and dignity, that

behavior will increase. >> mr. barge thank you for acknowledging the role that bias may play in the quick decisions police may deal with every day. even individuals who believe everyone who should be treated equally they be affected by biases. can you give us an example of a situation in which an officer's perception about an individual might influence the way they react to the individual and how could police departments work to preemptively dismantle this implicit bias? >> i think one of the prototypical examples is one that sheriff clarke mentioned earlier. the self-initiated stop. the broken taillight and that kind of thing. maybe not necessarily the initiation of the stop, but sort of how that interaction proceeds in that critical first, you know, first few seconds.

it may be informed much more about, i think, with any of us sort of broad categories that we're placing a new person who we have never met or interacted with before, into generalized buckets. if officers don't do as training in several jurisdictions is starting to offer them instruction on, slow down the situation where possible. sort of try to use intentional decision making strategies. i think they risk, especially because they often have to make the split second decisions, being in some instances, overly swayed by these sub conscious factors they would be aware of. if they were not aware of we want to make sure they were not going into their decision making. >> thank you. i yield back. >> i thank the gentle lady from california. now the gentleman from kentucky, mr. ratcliffe. >> thank you mr. chairman.

although far less successful and accomplished, the new mr. chairman or mr. marino, i was also a federal prosecutor. certainly believe in enforcing the law. unfortune unfortunately, our national dialogue on this issue reveals a mistrust on all sides of the issue that we're here to talk about today. but i very much appreciate all of you being here today to talk about how we as a society can address this in a sensitive, careful and effective manner. i wish that i had the opportunity to make inquiry to each one of you. but there are time restrictions and i don't. i'm going to focus at least initially on the witness in the field, if you will. you, sheriff clarke. i'd like to ask you does your police department have clear policies on the use of force? >> mr. chair, congressman, yes, sir.

>> do you have an opinion, and i'm sure that you do as to whether or not there's a problem with the law as it currently stands, as it relates to the use of force in this country. >> no, i don't. >> okay. so it's your opinion that as congress, as a member of congress and with my colleagues here, that there isn't anything that we need to do at this point to make it clearer to officers, so that officers aren't second guessed, if you will, as much as they are currently? >> i think that's a proper role for congress. advisory, oversight a little bit. but when the mandates start coming down as to how we should do our job at the local level i'm going to push back a little at that. >> community policing certainly is intended to take the edge off of interactions, if you will, between the police and the communities that they serve.

but would you agree with me that police work by its very definition is one that must involve conflict? >> has the great potential for conflict because of human interaction. >> certainly, with respect to at the end of the day, regardless of how the officer goes about his or her job, he or she has a responsibility to enforce the law, whether they are doing it with a smile on their face or not. >> huge responsibility. >> all right. yesterday, the president's task force on policing issued findings that focused squarely on this issue of community policing. i know it's a very hefty document. i was wondering if you'd had a chance to review it. if so what your thoughts were with respect to the findings. >> on the 21st century project? >> yes, sir. >> yes, i did read it.

i didn't like a lot of it from the beginning, when the task force was put together, there were no elected sheriffs. i know my colleague is a former sheriff, but no elected sheriffs on the panel.r interesting. i didn't see a lot of relationation representation for a two-way exchange of life on the street for an officer. they had administrators one. one organization that represents a fraternal organization of police, but it doesn't gif theve the day to day example of what life is like on the street and why we have to do some of the things we do. i thought it fell a little short. recommendations were strong on federal involvement and federal control. those are technical fixes. okay, we can do it. it's not going to change the behavior of many law enforcement agencies or the byehavior of many individuals of color that we come in contact with on the

street that end up in deadly confrontations. it doesn't reach far enough to do that. >> so, sheriff this is your opportunity to talk to members of congress. what would you like our take away to be with respect to that report of those findings or corrections you think aren't refliktre reflected in there? >> one of the things that's not addressed that we keep glossing over -- and i said we -- some of the conditions that have led to the rise of the underclass of the american ghetto. kids don't have to chance to reach their god-given potential to break out of the cycle of poverty and trench poverty. we have to look at the urban policies that have been enacted at the state and federal level that continue to feed into this growth of the underclass. what we're experiencing recently, it's not the poor or black people generally, it's the underclass behavior.

kids growing up without fathers. school failure. failure to stay in the work force consistently. fact yur failure to raise your kids father-absent homes. you can try to transform the police all you want. as long as those lifestyle choices are going to continue to grow in these urban centers, where the most assertive policing is needed you'll still have these confrontation. when you try to fight the police and disarm the police, it's not going to end up well for you. i don't care how much more we pour into training. it approaches -- as if it's linear, and the world we live in is acy metsymetracal. thank you, officer. and thank you for all the witnesses here today on this important subject. >> the chair with recognize mr. gutierrez. >> thank you so much, chairman

gowdy. i want to thank the witnesses for making their perezations s presentations this morning. i met with a group of young people from the phoenix military academy. white youth, hispanic youth, black youth. military academy the best of the best. have a conversation everybody. we should have some of those people. i think, with all due respect to everybody here we're a little too old to be having this conversation among ourselves about the problems the police are encountering with young people. i would suggest that next time we invite some of the young people. the bright dynamic young people. you know what they're doing to tell you, sheriff clarke? they're going to tell you, i listened to the young black colonel telling me he learned to de-escalate when he is confront 1k3d come

by the police officer. this wonderful brilliant young man, dedicated to the country, has to talk about de-escalating. he doesn't see the police as a source of protection. he sees it as somebody he has to learn -- the police have to be the adults. the children have to learn how to be adults many times in how they exchange with police officers. we're having a conversation here where people are talking, well, black people don't care about black people. nobody has made that claim. i don't know why members, my colleagues, talk about well, they're not outraged when a black person kills a black person. that's not the issue here. that's really not the issue here. that's certainly an issue we might want to talk about, but it's not the issue. nobody made the claim that that's a good thing. you know, rioters are out there getting paid. nobody said here it's a good thing that rioters should be paid. i can understand when you're making an enforceful argument against something that somebody

is sustaining. it seems as though we're talking past each other as adults in this room. instead of having young people. i would like for the record and for those -- because i know there won't be enough time. i'd like for the record, mr. chairman, that these are the questions that the phoenix military academy students -- if i could have this. >> without objection. >> thank you. young latina said, how come mie minorityies file less of an interception? whites are treated with more respect than minorities by the police. these are students. i talked to different groups of high school students. they all tell you the same thing in the inner city. in chicago, last week, there were 45. cher sheriff clarke, you're right, 45 shootings on one weekend in the city of chicago. did i tell my daughter, don't go

on the streets? no. in my neighborhood none of those shootings happen. in the neighborhood that luis gutierrez lives in. it's a tale of two cities. my city when i grew up the majority of the population in the city of chicago was white. you'd expect the majority of police officers to be white. today, when whites no longer constitute a majority, the majority of police officers in the city of chicago are white. is it we're selling everybody that only white folks want to be police officers and care about this? when we go to ferguson, where there might be two black police officers in a population that is almost 70% african-american that kind of disconnect is going to cause -- i would think we want to talk about some fundamental changes about how it is that we recruit people. i don't know sheriff, maybe you can answer this question. maybe you can help me. in chicago how i feel, when i talk to the cops in my district

i go into some of the areas where there's more gang violence, i find that to be younger cops. i find the older cops, like my dad, if you work and have seniority, he took the good shift, right? are the young police officers getting the brunt of the work? >> some of that is -- >> if you have a moment. if the police officers when you join the police force, the older veteran police officers who might have the training and experience, are they the ones in the neighborhood where there is a lot of trouble where you might need more veteran police officers, or does seniority give you a better shift? >> some toissue. you get shift assignment. i agree the older, wiser, more experienced are in the better assignments because of collective bargaining rules. that's an issue. >> we've gone over the time. i want to say, i hope we can

have another hearing. i had a conversation with manuel manuel. i don't know if you heard his speech yesterday, where he dedicated it to the youth. how it was the city of chicago, that no police force, no government is going to take the place of a good mom and dad. but we have to be there to make sure the parents have the resources and we stop living, even the city of chicago in a tale of two cities where people feel safe in part of the city and where the police and the community are in sync with one another. and another part where they're not. the last thing is let's bring the young people. with all due respect, i think -- i'm 61 so i'm a senior citizen already. i call myself into that. let's bring some young people. there's not enough young people around here or out there. they are 100% of our future. you're not going to settle this issue, i believe, a great measure, until we listen to young people's voices. >> the gentleman from illinois,

young at heart. he yields back. the chair would now recognize the gentle lady from california, ms. bass. >> thank you mr. chair. i recognize that our subject matter today is talking about policing, but i do want to make reference because it's come up several times about why there is an outrage when african-americans are killing african-americans. i just have to tell you that it's always very frustrating to hear this raised. because it is as though people are not working on a daily basis, day in and day out, to address these issues in neighborhoods. i started an organization 25 years ago. i spent 14 years every day working in south central los angeles, in the height of the crack cocaine and bloods and crips, all of that was going on, to address the crime. to address homicide. there are people working in communities all over this country. but the frustration we have always felt is that it's never

covered in the news. what's covered in the news is when there is an incident between the police. frankly, it's new that that's being covered in the news. the only thing that's new here are cell phone cameras. what's been going on in communities that's getting coverage now has been going on for years. so to say that communities are not concerned to say there isn't the outrage over the homicide rate is not accurate. i spent one summer in one area where homicides were concentrated. we did a whole effort. we were able to go three solid months without homicides. then the resources ended. so we have to look at the root causes as to why the problems exist. it's not just a matter of behavior. i frankly don't beliefve that it's the policeman's job. i agree, sheriff. it's not up to the police completely to address these problems. but what has to change in communities is the police working with the community.

unfortunately, people are fearful of the police in some of the communities. it was also asked, what do people in tough neighborhoods want to see happen? people in tough neighborhoods want the same thing that anybody wants. they want to be safe in their homes, and they want to be safe in their neighborhoods. these issues aren't just happening in quote unquote, ghettos. it's shameful for the communities to be referred to that way. i have a brother who lives in beverly hills. he gets pulled over by the police stretched out on the ground and asked why he's there. i think that it's well-known throughout the country that african-americans, folks of color, can be outside of their, quote, unquote, ghettos and still have to deal with issues related to the police. a question was raised as to why folks don't cooperate with the police. i'll give you a couple of examples that i experienced on a daily basis working in south sfral central l.a. people told me, i called the police and called about the

crack house, and the police went to the crack house and said, ms. jones down the street called and said you were selling crack here. people don't feel the police will keep them safe. there's not enough resources in the community to relocate people. so you want people to go and testify, and you want them to put their lives at risk? if there was more resources, then people would be much more cooperative. we had a lot of problems in l.a. we were actually able to turn the situation around with the new chief. with community-based policing. we're having some of the same problems emerge again, but we had a past police chief who said, when there was a spate of people who were dying because of choke holds, he said at a press conference the reason african-americans were dying of choke holds was because our veins were different and collapsed quickly. we fortunately were able to get rid of that police chief. but these situations can be turned around. i listened to the testimony of ms. ramirez and ms. rahr -- if

i'm pronouncing your name correctly. there are other ways to go about police policing. we have seen some changes in communities. some of our problems are re-emerging in los angeles again. but i just wanted to ask in the last couple of seconds, of ms. ramirez, if you can give examples of a couple of communities that have turned the situation around, where the police department works in cooperation with community organizations, where the police department has changed their perspective from the warrior mentality over to a mentality that works in partnership with communities. and where crime has been reduced and trust increased with the police department. >> the one i know best is boston. we have decreased homicide rates. we have described the number of people we have incarcerated and crime has gone down. the boston police department has been working with the faith-based community and with community groups on both issues. on issues of homicide.

if we have all these cold cases as i said earlier, how are we going to get witnesses to come forward? one example of that is some witnesses said, i'd be happy to tell my account to someone who is not a police officer. then some of that could be used for corroboration to get search warrants. there are many other examples in this country of excellent community policing models where homicides have gone down. there are 14 states now that have decided to de-carserate. they take the money they were using to incarcerate people in massachusetts, $51,000 a year per inmate taken that money and said, the system that we have is too expense i have. it's ineffective and racially desperate and we're going to use that money to invest in education, invest in treatment. those communities have saved money and crime has gone down. >> thank you. i yield back.

>> chair recognizes the gentleman from louisiana. i realize a lot of people have worked on criminal justice reform. mr. richmond has been talking about it since the first day he got to washington. >> thank you for yielding. first, i'd like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a "washington post" article that gives two bypinocchios to fact checking. 93% of murder victims are killblacks killed by other blacks. i want to start by the question my colleague posed, black on black crime and what do we do to solve it? the first thing we don't do is to cut head start and grants, giving a 9:2 return on investment. education is the best path out

of poverty in these circumstances in the neighborhoods. we've done that every year since i've been in congress. with the budgets we've passed. i think that's a very good start. another start is to just have the conversation. i talk about it all the time. if anybody is concerned, i'm sheer and willing to address it. as a young african-american male who grew up in the inner city, i can have a lot to offer. mr. chair i prefer not to focus where we have differences, and we have many. i think we many some similar goals. to keep our police officers safe and to keep our constituents safe. and to provide honest services. whether it's police or whether it's elected officials. people deserve honest service. let me ask you a question from your policing. do you believe that the makeup

of the police department is important in terms of looking similar to the community that it polices? >> i believe that. >> and i was asking you that because i wanted to share some of my life, real-life experiences as a young african-american male. why i think it's so important. first time i was pulled over, got home from college and i was in st. charles avenue, the fancy part of town. my mother's car. i didn't have my license on me. black officer stopped me. he went through the process to -- got my information, ran it, came back to the car and said i see a moore house sticker. do you do there? >> i said, yes. he said, martin luther king who went there said your man can't ride your back if the back isn't bent. he said, you need to go home. he let me go, and i went home and never forgot that. while i was in the legislature

i saw a white officer stop a car full of white kids on the state capital grounds all smoking marijuana. he gave them a lekcture and called their parents to get them. in all of my experience, if that white officer had stopped a car full of black kids with marijuana, i don't think that his answer would have been the lek lecture and let's call the parents. it may just be culture, but we have to look at the entire system. when you talk about diversion programs whether they'll being applied evenly. we know once a kid gets a conviction, especially in the african-american males, his life goes in a completely different direction, whether it's marijuana or something more serious. he has a harder time getting financial aid to go to college. he has a harder time getting a job. all of those things. without a job and without being

engaged in society, it's hard to be a good parent. we have to make sure that our law enforcement scheme, law enforcement practices is not adding to the hurdles that many people are going to face anyway. so the question becomes, how do we ensure that those officers who have a lot of discretion when they make a stop, how young african-american and minority males and women feel that that officer would give them the same lecture, same break as an african-american officer or officer who is looking at their vested interest. i hope you can answer that. >> the use of discretion is always going to be scrutinized. i reject the notion that every time a white officer stops a car full of black kids that they'll necessarily go to jail and have their -- >> i don't think it's every, but

it'll be the majority of the time. >> okay. let's move beyond that. what i talk to young people of color about, milwaukee is a significant black population. i'm in the schools in the neighborhoods. i talk about lifestyle choices. when you engage in behavior and make flawed lifestyle choices there has to be some accountability. doesn't mean your life should be ruined. maybe it can be a learning experience. i don't think an arrest for a small amount of marijuana early in your life is going to be a life-ruining experience. it's not. will you recover? the biggest -- greatest virtue my parents instilled in me the ability to overcome obstacles. my dad said you're going to fall down, fail you're going to make questionable decisions. learn from it and move on. i think that's a better message

for even the individuals who have gotten into these situations. i had a young man stop me on the street as the sheriff. said, sheriff, i'm a convicted fellenon and can't find work. i said, you have kids? he said, yes. i said, how many? three. there's your job right there. make sure that your kids don't end up in the predicament that you are. be a good dad. he thanked me for it. i don't know whether he actually did it. sometimes that message is a little more helpful to an individual. for me to commiserate in his misery, yeah it's unfair yeah, the man, this and that, disracist police, it's not going to help the guy. i don't control all law enforcement officers but i'm not going to let people indict them with a broad brush like we have the tendency to do sometimes. >> in closing, and i see my time is expired, i'd say that two

things. we should premoveremove the barriers to keep people from moving on, like a marijuana conviction or something. another thing, it's great advise to tell him to be a father, but he still has to get a job and put food on the kids' plate. you can't learn in school if you're hungry. thank you and i yield back. >> thank you. recognize gentle lady from washington. >> thank you. i want to thank the witnesses for being with us today. in particular our former sheriff from washington state, ms. rahr for being with us. i actually had a question for you. i know that you've made many changes since you've been at the criminal justice training system. talked about transitioning away from a boot camp or military style approach to training officers to a process to emphasize the role of police as part of the communities, as guardians and protecters, rather

than military warriors. i know after a long career as an officer yourself, when you got to the cjtc, you replaced the trophy face with the u.s. constitution. put in place training procedures that include recruits being sprayed with pepper spray so they know what it feels like. instituting phycology classes so trainees with understand what the people they work with -- can understand the people they'll be working with. and protecting and interacting with. and i know your methods have not been without skeptics. i wondered if you could share with us why you think a new approach to training our men and women as police officers is needed, especially today, and how the training methods translate to different outcomes or interactions in practice. >> i thank you for the question. i want to clarify that i don't condemn the training practices in the past. i think we've learned a lot through research and science about how to prepare officers to be more effective.

that's been one of the biggest areas of resistance. is people being offended that somehow by improving our training that we are criticizing what used to be. that's not the case. we've learned more. in terms of pepper spraying the recruits many people have misinterpreted that as an attempt to get them to feel empathy. actually, the reason we do that is we want to put them in a fight for their life stress situation. so they can learn for themselves that they can overcome extreme pain and fear and go on. when i talk about a guardian mind set, i have to continually reemphasize, this is not a kindler, gentler way of doing the job. it's the opposite. we've increased our firearms training. increased our defensive faktactics training. we want strong effective police officers who have the confidence that they don't have to behave

in an intimidating manner. when someone has confidence that tends to de-escalate as well. i think that when we were too focused on the boot camp method of training, it detracted away from our ability to train officers to be critical thinkers. when they were so worried about simply getting the right answer memorizing checklists it took away from those critical thinking skills. what we've tried to shift toward is more of an officer training. the military officers type training, where you focus on on critical thinking and confidence. >> and do you think that yesterday, president obama signed an order restricting certain military equipment from going to police. do you think that's also part of the transition? how do you feel about that? >> i want to be clear many of the pieces of equipment that

police departments obtain through the program are very much needed in the field. when i was sheriff, i can't tell you how many times i needed the armored personnel carrier to either rescue an officer pinned down behind gunfire or a citizen. it allows police officers in hostage negotiators to get closer to the scene. to actually find ways to resolve the conflict without gunfire. unfortunately, when that program started, there wasn't a lot of accountability and training that went with it. i believe that's what the changes in the law focus on. police departments will still be able to get armored personnel carriers because they're absolutely necessary to have in the field. the weapons, the rifles those type of equipment are also necessary. they're less expensive when we get them through the military. i hope there is an opportunity down the road for people to understand more clearly the benefits of that program, but also the necessity of the

accountability that comes with it. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chair. i yield back. >> the chair would recognize his friend from new york mr. jeffries. >> thank you, mr. chairman and your work on criminal justice reform, as we try to work toward a productive resolution of the challenges we face in america. i think most would agree that in a knock sidemocracy, we need a balance of effective law enforcement, healthy respect for the constitution and civil liberties on the other. what people want in inner city communities like those i represent, or as sheriff clarke would refer to as the ghetto, what people want is the principle of equal protection under the law applies to everyone. there's concern that in certain instances, that that's not the case. the overwhelming majority of police officers are hard working and are there to protect and serve the community.

that's my position. i believe that is the position of everyone who is genuinely interested in police reform. we can't ignore the fact we have a problem in some instances with the excessive use of police force and the fact that often it is the case when a police officer crosses the line they are not held accountable by the criminal justice system. that creates consequences in terms of a distrust in many communities. perhaps leading to the absence of cooperation. let me just start with sheriff clarke. you mentioned in your testimony that black on black crime is the elephant in the room that few want to talk about. is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> we've had a robust discussion about it today. have you been satisfied? it's come up several times. >> not at all. >> you're not satisfied. now, i agree it's a problem. 80% of whites kill whites correct? >> i won't dispute that figure. >> actually, it's 83%.

now, is white on white violence a problem in america, that we should also have a robust discussion about? >> violence in america -- i'm sorry, mr. chair and congressman -- violence in america in general is problematic. if you look at the rates, that's where it starts coming a little more into balance in terms of -- in the data i've seen, and i've looked at a lot of it, the white on white crime does happen at 80% figure you put out there. when you look at the rates of it, these two are not even close. >> right. the rates are roughly equivalent in terms of the context of people who live next to each other and because of housing segregation patterns, or just where people tend to live in america, ethnic violence tends to occur, racial violence, within the same group. ill elevating it beyond that fact, i think, is irresponsible. we all want to deal with the black on black violence problem.

it was mentioned that there is a cooperation issue in the black on black violence context flt. i haven't heard the phrase, blue wall of silence. if we're going to have a conversation about cooperation, when someone crosses the line, seems to me to make sure we'd also have to deal with what may be another elephant in the room, to use your term sheriff clarke, the blue wall of silence. the overwhelming majority of officers are good officers but what often occurs is that when an officer crosses the line, the ethic is not to cooperate or par participate or speak on what a bad apple officer has done. professor ramirez would you agree that's perhaps something we should focus on? >> i think it's a serious problem, both at the federal and state level. as i said earlier, in my own experience in trying to prosecute police officers, i had

problems -- the fbi and dea said we won't serve subpoenas on a case where there is a police officers as a defendant. the second problem, they tried to testify in the case in favor of the police officer, saying they had made their own independent evaluation of the case. this is a case by the way that was adjudicated guilty against all officers. they were incarcerated between 10 and 20 years after the trial. as you know in boston we had a problem with the fbi, that there were fbi agents who were engaged in a series of misconduct with bulger. >> thank you. you mention the use of force should be determined in factual data and not false narratives. did i get your testimony correct? >> mr. chair and congressman, yes. >> now, was the reaction to the eric garner case, who was choked

to death using a procedure that had been banned by the nypd for more than 20 years, wasn't resisting arrest said, i can't breathe 11 times, 11 different occasions. there was no response by all the police officers there. was that a false narrative that people in the city of new york and the country are reacting to sir? >> mr. chair congressman, first of all, he wasn't choked to death. not from the report that i had seen out of the grand jury testimony, even from the medical examiner's report. >> he ruled the death a homicide by asphyxiation. in the ghetto, that's being called choked to death. >> we can have this discussion later on then about the facts. we could be here for a while. my understanding is he died of a heart attack. anyway, you said that he wasn't resisting arrest. he was resisting arrest.

he was told he was under arrest and put his hands behind his back. he wouldn't do so. that's why i put in my remarks here, the reference from thomas sole, when law enforcement officers tell someone they're under arrest and can't use force to execute the arrest, we don't are have the rule of law when it's a suggestion for them, that they're going to jail or to put their hands behind their back. those are behaviors, like in the instance of mike brown, in ferguson missouri, where some different choices by the individual could have helped the situation. in other words, mike brown was simply told to get out of the street. >> sir my time has expired. but for you to come here and testify essentially that eric garner is responsible for his death, when he was targeted by police officers for selling

loose cigarettes an administrative violation which se got the death penalty for is outrageous. if we're going to have a responsible conversation, we have to agree on a common sense of reasonable facts that all americans can interpret. particularly in this instance because they caught the whole thing on video tape. i yield back. >> chair thanks his friend. now the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert. >> thank you, witnesses, for your thoughtfulness. you've spent time on these issues through your career rather than just the time here today. it is a difficult issue. i saw a report this morning from the task force. understand we have a member here. but it quotes the task force as saying, quote, the u.s. department of homeland security should terminate the use of the state and local criminal justice

system including through detention, notification transfer requests to enforce several immigration laws against several or non-serious criminal offenders offenders. i'm wondering, to fix the problem that we saw explode there in ferguson and in baltimore, is there anybody, any one of our witnesses, that thinks preventing state and local law enforcement officers from notifying the feds about people illegally in the country, that would do anything to solve the problems in ferguson or baltimore? anybody? i mean i'm also perplexed, having been a prosecutor, roadde along with officers district

judge handling felonies chief justice, we have a real problem with the federal government not picking up criminals. they would tell our local law enforce. this person is illegally in the country, so we have jurisdiction. the task force makes a comment about non-serious criminal offenders. i think it was 9 dwis a fella had in my court. he finally came to felony court after he nearly killed some folks. i sent him to prison because he was not being deported. six months later, he's back in my courtroom because he said through the interpreter, well, the federal people took me to the border and told me to walk across the bridge. when they left, i came back across. he got back, got drunk again and

had another accident. i'm having trouble with the task force thinking this is going to solve any problems with regard to racial difficulties in our cities. i just -- and perhaps you can help me out here. i noeknow we had a really great career ms. rahr. you've served your community and country. do you see getting immigration of getting state and local law enforcement to avoid having any discussion about immigration, is that going to help problems in our cities? >> as i recall the recommendation doesn't say there should be no cooperation. it's -- the discussion we had on the task force involved the balance of public safety. there are many communities where

there are large groups of undocumented people living in neighborhoods that commit crimes and are victimized by crimes. because there is such a fear of being deported, a lot of victims don't call the police because they're afraid of deportation. this is particularly a problem in domestic violence situations. this is -- >> i saw that same concern by the big group of people illegally here in the gallery, that were trying to disrupt. i've seen people illegally here in this gallery disrupting. i didn't note a lot of concern about law enforcement deporting them. because you have to be pretty ignorant about what's going on in this country to think that you're at risk for deportation. anyway, i'm more concerned about the victims who are victims ofneedlessly.

if we were to enforce the crimes, and we're not doing it. what i see is a disregard for law enforcement because they're not going to help because this person is illegally in the country so nothing is going to happen to them. i end up being the one victimized. i hear that as much as anything. i appreciate your sensitivity to these issues. i know the first couple of murder cases i worked on as a prosecutor, we had an african-american shot an african-american in both cases. they were both in bars. we had people in the community including the african-american community, saying, well, they shouldn't have been there. it's not that big of deal. i found it offensive then that anybody would care about the race when somebody kills somebody else, it's not a big deal. i'm still concerned after all these years. we prosecuted those. we had concern.

we didn't care what the race was of the victim or of the defendant. a killing is a killing. i'm glad that y'all care about law enforcement in america. thanks for your input. >> chair will recognize the gentleman from rhode island, and then the gentleman from texas after that. mr. cicilline. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to our witnesses. everybody on this committee brings their own life experiences and perspectives here. before i came to congress a long time ago, i was a criminal defense and civil rights lawyer. most of my cases involved police brutality. i went from that to being mayor of providence, where i was the acting public safety commissioner for eight years overseeing the providence police department. proud to report that in those eight years we brought the crime rate to its lowest rate in 40 years. so i bring my own set of experiences and have deep deep respect for law enforcement and for the hard work of dedicated, good police officers.

nothing will be seared in my mind more directly than april 17th of 2005 when a police officer in providence was murdered in the providence police headquarters. i understand the hard work of our police and i understand the importance of what they do. i think we do have to focus on systems which build good review and detection of police misconduct, good oversight and civilian reviews. prosecutions, all of that. what i want to focus on because i think the fact is those are important to do and we have got to do them to rebuild trust between the police and the community, but in many ways it's too late when the problems have already occurred. what i really want to focus on is what do we do to help ensure that those kinds of situations don't occur? how do we build this mutually respectful relationship between police and community? i had a police chief who used to say, you should have a family doctor family lawyer and a family police officer. we built the community policing

officer with lieutenants in charge of a neighborhood and they knew the residents. everyone in the neighborhood had their cell phone numbers. they were on housing boards and non-profits. they were part of the community. that helped the lowest crime rate in 40 years. so that's good not only for the community, it's good for the police officers. the good police officers who deserve to have the respect and trust of their community. at the core of this as my chief used to always say, the most powerful weapon i have most powerful piece of equipment, is the trust of the community. and that is the single best tool i have to reduce crime in the city. and we saw the results of that kind of attitude. so, what i'd like to hear from the witnesses, i think there are two ways to help achieve that kind of paradigm. accreditation is one and community policing implementation is the other. not a unit within your department but the entire department of embracing this attitude of service and guardianship guardianship. what are the impedmentes?

i know provident went from a department when i took office that was under investigation by the department of justice for patterns and practice violations an other investigations to an accredited police department, but that's a hard process, so is it resources, is it -- how can we help more departments go through this accreditation process so we know they have standards and practices in place that respect this important balance that was mentioned between keeping communities safe and respecting the civil rights of individuals? what are the -- what can congress do to assist many more police departments to go through that accreditation process? >> well, thank you, mr. congressman. i'll tell you, it's a complicated picture for us. we talked a little bit about funding to help support organizations that want to pursue that, but i also think it's critically important there's a broader awareness that there's other resources inside the law enforcement public safety community that exist to help agencies go through that. if you've been involved in it yourself, if you spoke to -- you

know there's a police accreditation coalitions out there that bring tremendous resources because some organizations simply don't have the capacity to develop policy to support the accreditation, itself so those organizations exist to help shepard organizations in that particular direction. >> should we consider requiring departments over a certain period of time to at least develop a plan to reach accreditation? i mean it's a pretty good, kind of the gold standard of policing that police departments, i think universally, aspire to but should we rather than just encourage it should we be considering some system where we're requiring departments at least to articulate a plan to get to that place? >> i think the requirement to consider how you might implement it is important but i also tell you the way we're structured to review agentcyies and assess their credibility, if you will, doesn't have investigatory authority nor are we seeking that. some ways if you require it, it becomes a regulatory body which in some ways i think prevent the integrity of the process from moving forward effectively, so i

want to be cautious about that but i think incentives to support organizations moving in that direction is critically important. >> so i just have a few seconds left. i wonder if any of the witnesses have any suggestions on how we might encourage or incentivize departments to really transform themselves into this community policing model? i know mr. ramirez you talk about community policing institute, but i think the other part of that which no one has mentioned today is we have to figure out ways to encourage or require police departments to ensure they reflect the diversity of the communities they serve. is have we have to many departments across the country that don't look like the value they serve, and people coming from the neighborhood that understand the trapgs s traditions, social mores, understand the community, return back to the neighborhood after work at night is valuable. i don't know if we've heard enough how do we ensure the police departments reflect the diversity of the communities they serve? >> in my experience, the most

important thing to lead somebody to twogo into a career of law enforcement is to have a personal connection with somebody who's already a cop. you get that by building community trust and those connections. it's popular to say officers should live in the communities where they police. in my county most of our officers can't afford to live there, so it's not realistic. but when you assign a deputy or an officer to the same neighborhood for a long period of time those connections grow and when that officer or deputy is rewarded for participating in the community, not just enforcing the law but also participating, that connection grows. it's the anonymity that really is the enemy here. >> i think you wanted to say something? there this is on diversifying police departments so i just wanted to add a fact. in massachusetts we have a civil service system in every police department chief who's been chief while i was there has tried to diversify the police

department. the top score in massachusetts, the person who got the highest grade on the exam they have to take to be a police officer was 328th on the list. and the reason for that is a whole series of preferences. mostly veterans preferences. and i think a lot of the police chiefs are trying to figure out how they can reform the civil service system such that they can diversify the police department and they're stuck. and they need some help. do they need an inspector general? do they need a state community justice institute? or do they need some fact-finding process that can look at to what extent there are legal and civil service challenges for police chiefs who are trying to diversify their police departments? >> thanks. the gentleman from rhode island. we now recognize the gentleman from texas judge powe. >> i thank the chairman. i'm way over here on this end. thank all of you all for being here.

i'm a former prosecutor in houston, former judge. spent 30 years at the courthouse. i tried people who assaulted and killed police officers both as a prosecutor and as a judge. and i have tried cases of police officers who killed individuals charged with violation of the law. so i've seen both sides of this perspective for a long time. having only tried criminal cases. the sheriff, i'll start with you. do you have any idea how many arrest, fellony arrests, are made a year by police agencies in the country? >> no, i don't. >> would you care to guess? or you just don't have -- >> no. >> i don't have any idea, either. that's why i'm asking. does anyone know how many arrests are made by police

officers? >> it's available through the -- sorry, mr. chair and congressman, it's available through the bureau of justice statistics and i believe the fbi would probably have some data on that as well. >> okay. we'll find that out then. would you say, or not, that a vast majority of those encounters with the police and a citizen are done according to the rule of law on the part of the peace officer? >> without a doubt. >> how many would you say are not? there are some -- there's some violation of the law, some violation of the rights of the accused in those felony cases. >> well, averages is what i'm basing that on. >> so what would it be? >> wouldn't care to assign a number to it because i don't know. >> is it a majority -- majority or the minority? >> it's very low. >> okay. it seems to me that when -- that

any police agency needs to have a plan for all circumstances. would you agree with that or not? some type of response to community policing. a protocol. whether it's a one-on-one arrest. i'll give you an example. i'm sure you're familiar with the event that took place in waco. the town of the chairman's alma mater. baylor. this weekend. where you have five gang motorcycle gangs, three of which, the cossacks the banditos, and the monguls, all assemble together in a place. trouble ensued. shots are fired and a dozen police officers are there. nine people are killed. others are wounded.

but the shooting stopped, the police made $-- 11, 12 police officers, maybe more arrested 170 individuals. do you think that having a plan to respond to types of -- that type of situation is important for a local police agency to have? apparently they did. they had some plan involved. >> without a doubt but i also think that in the moments leading up to there the question i ask is, what kind of intelligence they had or information that this thing was going to go down? just in terms of these rival groups coming together. >> i'm sure they had lots of intelligence. it appears that they had intelligence. to me, that's part of also a plan, is it not? to respond based upon the intel you get from what's taking place or may take place? >> right. and part of that response really needs to be the preplanning, the prestaging, premarshalling of

resources. when you have that many individuals coming together, you can't just have a handful of officers because you don't have time to wait to be calling in reinforcements. the planning is huge. >> well, no maerlttter what the situation is, whether it's going to be a big event or small event event, police planning and response so that the rule of law is followed no matter the circumstances is a good idea for policing. is it not? >> it's critical. >> okay. >> yes. >> how many peace officers were killed in the line of duty last year? >> last year i know they added 238 names to the wall here at the national -- some of those were previous years, though. i do know that it's up nearly 90% so far in the first quarter

of this year around 54 officers killed in the line of duty. so the exact total out of that 238 from last year i don't have. >> all right. i have some more questions. i'll submit them in writing, mr. chairman. thank you. >> thank you your honor. gentleman from texas yields back. i recognize the gentle lady from texas who has a unanimous consent motion. >> may i in the unanimous consent say one or two points, mr. chairman, on this committee. first of all let me ask to have unanimous consent to enter into the record the following documents, a statement and testimony from the american civil liberties union, state from the national urban league executive order 13688 which provides federal standards for acquisition of military equipment. a letter from mr. conyers, mr. scotts, mr. cohen requesting a hearing in 2014 -- excuse me i guess it's from myself, from myself, mr. scott mr. cohen, myself. mr. scott mr. cohen, and mr.

conyers. and then an article entitled "law enforcement warrior problem" to be added into the record. >> without objection. >> and then mr. chairman if i might just in thanking the witnesses just make one simple comment. and that is i want to express to all of you the significance of your testimony. and that the judiciary committee through our chairman and ranking member and those of us who work on these issues are very serious about coming forward in the spirit of recognizing the pain of an officer's death and the pain of a civilian's confusion and apprehension about police and maybe even their death. and i frankly believe we can find that common found. i hope that you will allow us to inquire of you. we did not get to question

everyone. i hope you will make yourself resources as we ride forward to address a mother's pain and as well find that even place. and i, in my remarks, by quoting a philosopher, treat people as if they were what they should be and you help them become what they're capeable of being. a justice said, if we are to keep our democracy, there must be one commandment. and sheriff clarke i think this is what you're speaking of, thou shall not ration justice. everyone deserves justice, and we do not deny your officers justice, and we've got to let the civilian population, no matter who theyñ0d they will get justice. that is what this committee's purpose is. and i hope that we will have some more provocative hearings. maybe those who've lost loved ones, maybe the young people who are raising the signs because of

their passion of black lives matter, all lives matter, hands up, don't shoot, and as well i can't breathe. let's give all of those persons dignity, and this hearing has been one to give all of us hearing including, sheriff, all of the men and women you respect and have represented. i yield back to the chairman. >> gentle lady yields back. on behalf of mr. conyers and the entire committee i want to thank our panel of witnesses for your expertise, for your experience, your life experience, your perspective, your collegiality not only with one another but also with the members of the committee. and i could not help but think while judge poe was talking and tommy marino, mr. richards, mr. jeffries, we're beneficiary but part prisoner to our background our own experience. prosecutors may not have the benefit of a judicial view like judge poe had or what cedric

described growing up is something i would not have experienced growing up so i think it is a good idea for us to the extent we can rely upon the experiences of other people well intentioned people and there are a lot of issues raised. all of which are important. the issue that i hope we can have another committee hearing on, at some point and i think hakeem mr. jeffries, you touched upon it that the failure to cooperate on that end impacts the prosecution of police officers who have done wrong. i saw the failure to cooperate in the faces of moms and dads who were trying to get justice for their murdered young people because other witnesses would not cooperate. so i think we all want a justice system that is respected, in fact, we have to have a justice system that is respected or we're not going to make it. so i hope this is the first of many hearings and, again, on behalf of mr. conyers and all the other members who participated, we want to thank you for your participation.

this concludes today's hearings. hearing. without objection, all members will have five legislative days to submit additional written questions for the witnesses or additional materials for the record. with that, thank you very much. we are adjourned. this weekend on c-span, commencement speeches from around the country, va secretary robert mcdonald. head of the national oceanic and atmospheric administration catherine sullivan, and. republican senator tim scott. in the evening a conversation with editorial cartoonist including gary trudeax held

months after the "charlie hebdo" attack in paris. here's a preview. >> you see the same thing throughout syria and lebanon right now where these activists are having their lives threatened by isis and instead of giving into despair, they have reacted with vicious mockery, vicious hilarious momry.mom ry mommockery. there's a syrian produced series, people dressed up as al baghdadi making fun of them. and a song where they want to put bras on cows. there's this incredible tradition of parody in the middle east that's really been turned to great effect toward isis right now. the thing is authoritarian people throughout the world of every stripe religious, secular authoritarian, authoritarians of every kind they hate humor, hate cartooning. it gets under their skin. there's just something

viscerally viscerally irrefvlant about them. when hitler was in power, one of the things he made a specific list of was cartoonists in england who had drawn mean pictures of him. he wanted to find the people and kill them because they hurt his feelings that much. >> i think it's a form of quality control. you know you're still being affected. if they run everything you do you must be doing something wrong. >> it shows that you're still dangerous. a little bit. yes. >> or that you have touched a sore point for that particular community. >> yeah. >> you know, there's not all my you know, smoking strips made it into north carolina papers. when i wrote about frank sinatra, i went dark in las vegas.

most recently i did something about jeb bush and the dallas paper threw it out because it was too political. too political? the man's running for president. >> you can watch the conversation with editorial cartoonists on their role as social satirists saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. this sunday night at 8:00 eastern on "first ladies: influence and image." we'll look into the personal lives of three first ladies. anna harrison, laticia tyler and julia tyler. anna harrison never stepped foot in the white house because her husband william harrison dies after a month in office. laticia taylor becomes first lady when her husband assumes the presidency, but she passes away just a year and a half later. president remarries julia tyler who is the first photographed first lady. anna harrison, laticia tyler and julia tyler.

this sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's original series, "first ladies: influence and image." examining the public and private lives of the women who filled the position of first lady and their influence on the presidency. from martha washington, to michelle obama. sundays at 8:00 p.m. eastern on "american history tv" on c-span3. and as a complement to the series, c-span's new book, "first ladies: presidential historians ons lives of 45 iconic american women." it's available as a hard cover or e-book through your favorite bookstore or online book seller. next, a hearing on the consumer product safety commission held by the house energy subcommittee on commerce, manufacturing, and trade. the chair of the commission was joined by three commission members to talk about their agency's mission and priorities. the second panel of the hearing focused on safety standards for recreational off-road vehicles. texas congressman michael burgess chaired the hearing. congresswoman jan schakowsky of

illinois is the ranking member. >> chair will turn on his microphone. guests will take their seats. subcommittee on commerce, manufacturing, and trade will come to order. the chair will recognize himself five minutes for the purpose of an opening statement. the commission was established in 1972 by congress to protect consumers against unreasonable risks of injuries associated with consumer products. the statutory mission is a serious responsibility for the commission and it's critically important that congress conduct oversight to ensure that public confidence in the commission's adherence to its responsibilities and stewardship of the taxpayers' dollar.

i would like to thank chairman kaye and commissions adler, berkeley, for their testimony today. we will also hear for a second panel of witnesses about representatives pompeio's participate legislation hr999, rov in-depth examination act and the open rov rule making that's garnered substantial bipartisan concern from members of both sides of the dais and both sides of the capitol. consumer safety is a top priority for this subcommittee and at a time where digitalfficult budget decision are made across the government, it's critical all agencies are held accountable for prioritization decisions. particular concern about the role of sound scientific principles at the commission. the interaction between the commission and its regulated industries. the rule making agenda and the execution of congressional mandates for third party test burden reduction. the commission's continued request for new authority to

impose user fees. there is a fundamental constitutional issue moving the power of the purse from congress to a regulatory agency with no experience in disperseingeing fees. a wide range of open agenda items at the commission require significant scientific evaluation and testing from phalates, nano technology window coverings and recreational off-highway vehicles. consumer confidence is rooted in the belief the commission has the capacity to base its decision on supportable scientific findings. it is dangerous and shortsighted for a safety agency to move away from science and scientific principles as may have happened with the chronic hazard advisory panel report regarding phthalates where office of the management guidelines for peer review were ignored. the commission's authorizing statute is based around the presumption that voluntary industry standards and cooperative relationships with the regulated industry are the

preferred method of regulation for product safety. safety is a strong incentive for both parties. there are a number of open rule makings that fundamentally change the relationship between the commission and the regulated industry. in an area where it's said that 90% of the threats to consumer safety are created by 10% of the participants. it seems counterintuitive to put additional barriers between the commission and the regulated industry when the common ground is consumer safety. this is especially so where resources are always going to dictate the commission will need help from industry in identifying problems. one open rule making fundamentally changes the fast track voluntary recall process, an award-winning program established 20 years ago to address long recall processes which has produced tremendous results. under this program last year, 100% of fast track recalls were initiated within 20 days. the positive impact for

consumers is real when potentially dangerous products can be taken off the shelves in days instead of weeks or months. finally, there has been bipartisan support to reduce third-party testing burdens for small businesses around the united states. in 2011 congress passed hr2715 with explicit instructions to the commission to evaluate in good faith but the commission has struggled to carry out this statutory requirement, even with additional funding. 3 1/2 years later, small businesses are reporting they still have not seen any real burden reductions and are facing seemingly endless comment rounds but no real solutions. we are here to make certain that we are doing what we can to prevent tragic and unfortunate injuries from consumer products. however, additional funds for the commission are difficult to justify when there are so many questions about the scientific methodology used by the

commission to support the regulatory agenda and how the administrative procedure act solicited comments are incorporated through the rule-making process and how the commission operates without bipartisan support for many initiatives. the consumer product safety commission's mission must remain a touchstone for its important work and not a launching pad for an activist state driven by headlines rather than science and economics. such an approach compromises the trust in an agency that has successfully removed thousands of unsafe consumer products from the economy, from product -- from consumer shelves as well as the voluntary safety standards that builds safety into the products on the front end. the chair will recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee miss schakowsky for the purpose of an opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for holding this important hearing about consumer product safety commission. the commission and its mission

protecting consumers from unsafe products is very near and dear to my heart. i began work as a consumer advocate many moons ago as a young mother working to get freshness dates on food. so when you look at the date on food, mua. and i know how important it is that consumers have access to health and safety information about the products that they purchase and use and that they are protected against harmful products. in 2008, the landmark consumer product safety improvement act was signed into law by president bush. the bill was the product of broad bipartisan negotiation and marked the most significant reform of the cpsc and its responsibilities in decades. i also want to thank some of the advocates are here in this room. i appreciate their work. the bill passed the committee 51-0 and a house vote of 424-1. it was slightly amended again on

a bipartisan basis in 2011 and legislation gave the cpsd additional authority so it could become the consumer watchdog that americans deserve and frankly expect. i'm proud to have authored several provisions to the bill including a provision requiring mandatory standards and testing for infant and toddler products such as cribs and highchairs. i added to the reform bill a requirement for postal paid recall registration cards to be attached to products so that customers can be quickly notified if products are dangerous. the cpsc has been incredibly successful in itsests efforts to improve consumer production over the last few years. was 34% reduction in product recalls in 2013 to 2014. the 75 children's product recalls in 2014 was the lowest number in more than a decade. thank you very much.

we have seen enhanced proactive outreach to provide consumers with information about the dangers and best practices associated with everything from window blinds to electric generators to lawn mowers and we've seen rule making to reduce the likelihood of preventible tragedies. i applaud the commission on its important work. while i'm disappointed that we move forward with this hearing on a day that commissioner robinson was unable to appear, i look forward to hearing the information from the other consumers about the cpsc's work and its next steps. the second panel today will provide analysis of hr999 the riot act. statutory authority rule making affecting recreational off-road vehicles, rovs, until a study is completed at the national academy of science, it's not clear to me why this study is needed. after all the cpse has gone through its regular rule-making process on this issue taking into account the input of technical experts, the private

sector an the public. i'm also not sure why the national academy of sciences would analyze the feasibility, among other things, providing consumers with safety information at the point of sale while the nas is a highly skilled staff, marketing consumer analysis is not its strong suit. it also makes no sense that nas would be required to consider the impact of a rule making on rovs used in the military. the cpsc is responsible for consumer products, not military vehicles. the proposed rule is irrelevant to military rovs. i believe this legislation is a delay tactic, pure and simple. it would delay the implementation of the cpsc's common sense consumer-focused rule and enhanced safety and increased consumer information. it's not as if this rule making is moving too fast. the risk of rov death is not a new one and the public comment period for the rov rule making

is currently open. there's nothing preventing the supporters of this legislation from making their concerns and their suggestions known. that's the way the process is supposed to work. what we cannot do is usher in a long delay for the sake of delay. the 335 rov-related deaths and 506 injuries from 2003 to 2013, i think it's time to act to enhance rov safeguards, not tie the hands of the cpsc. again, i look forward to hearing from our witnesses, thank them for coming today and i yield back. >> chair thanks the gentle lady. gentle lady yields back. chair recognizes the vice chair of the full committee, miss blackburn, five minutes for an opening statement, please. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i want to say thank you to our witnesses. we appreciate that you are here. you know, 2008 was really the year of the recall and since

that point in time, we have been very interested in the work that you're doing and have looked at your deliverables and your outcomes. now, one of the things that is of tremendous concern to us -- and i've got to tell you, i heard a lot about this during small business week, which was just a couple of weeks ago and i was out about in my district visiting with small businesses, visiting with some retailers and there are a lot of complaints that are coming about the way you all are going about your task. and some of the unnecessary burdens that are being put on retailers and on businesses and changes in reporting requirements. and i've got to tell you, i think there's a lot of unhappiness with the american public and how you were doing your job. i would say, too, there's probably some confusion as to what your mission statement is

and how you are meeting that. now, i think it's fair to say that as we look at the cost of business and the cost to consumers and a cost benefit analysis, what we want to do is drill down with you a little bit. we share the same goal being certain that the supply chain is safe, that products are safe when consumers get those products. there are different ways to go about this. and we want to make certain that there is an accountability issue, a transparency issue and a fairness issue or standards that are being met. so we will have questions and we'll move forward with those. i also want to take a moment and welcome our former colleague, commissioner buerkle. it is wonderful to see you back in these halls, and it is wonderful to see you back in a hearing room, and we appreciate the work that you are doing.

and with that, mr. chairman, i'm going to yield the balance of my time to mr. pompeo for a statement. >> thank you, madam vice chairman. look, we have a -- thank you all for being here today, chairman kaye and your colleagues today. we have an obligation, just as you do, to make sure that the cpsc statutes are implemented in a way that's legal and useful and gets the economics and the safety balance just right. i think with respect to the rov rules that you all have put forward, there's a lot of work that can be done. the industry is trying to get to a good outcome, that is a better place than the rule making that this proceeding will end up. i was out last week, too. i was actually on an rov vehicle out in kansas in the woods, wore my helmet, did all of the things right and i'm here today to tell about it, which is good. i hope we can get this right. the legislation that i've proposed isn't aimed at delaying, it's aimed at getting to a good outcome.

it may cause a little more time and thoughtfulness and work to be done but i hope we can get that right, that we can get the best science and the best engineering associated with getting these rules in the right place and get a voluntary standard put that industry can do the right thing and get these vehicles in a safe place to the right people. i hope and look forward to working with you to see if we can achieve that. with that, i'll yield back my time. >> i thank the gentleman and does any other member seek the balance of my time? none so doing, i yield back, mr. chairman. >> chair thanks the gentle lady. gentle lady yields back. chair recognizes the democratic side for an opening statement. >> all right. mr. chairman, if i could just submit for the record mr. pallone's opening statement. and also -- >> without objection, so ordered. that concludes member open statements. the chair would like to remind members pursuant to committee rules, opening statements will be made a part of the record.

we'll now hear from our witnesses. i want to welcome all of our witnesses and thank you for taking time to testify before the subcommittee. today's hearing will consist of two panels. each panel of witnesses will have the opportunity to give an opening statement followed by a round of questions from members. once we conclude questions with the first panel, we will take a brief -- underscore brief recess to set up for the second panel. our first panel today we have the following witnesses testifying on behalf of the consumer product safety commission. chairman elliott f. kaye. thank you for your attendance. commissioner robert adler and we welcome you, sir, to the subcommittee. commissioner ann marie buerkle. good to see you again. you give me confidence there's an afterlife.

commissioner joseph p. thank you for being here today. chairman kaye, you'll begin the first panel. you're recognized for five minutes for purposes of an opening statement, please. >> good morning, chairman burgess and schakowsky and members of the subcommittee. thank you for the invitation to come speak about the work of the united states consumer product safety commission and our proposed budget for fiscal year 2016. i am pleased to be joined by my friends and colleagues from the commission. commissioners adler, buerkle and moharovik. i bring regrets for commissioner robinson. the vital health and safety commission touches us all in some way every day. from the parents of the baby who gently moves his or her from crib to baby bouncer to stroller and back to the crib where the self-employed millennial who on a warm spring day relies on a room fan to stay cool and extension cord to power a computer. to the baby boomer who purchased

adult bed rails to help care for an aging parent. the product in cpsc's jurisdiction are inseparable from our lives. we believe we provide an excellent return on investment for the american people. we run a lean operation and we cover thousands of different kinds of consumer products that the budget in the millions, not the billions. we are very appreciative of the continued bipartisan support for the commission and our work. we saw the support in the overwhelming nearly unanimous vote to pass the consumer product safety improvement act of 2008 and the near unanimous passage of an update to cpsia in 2011. your support has allowed our dedicated staff to drive standards development, to make children's products safer to increase our enforcement effectiveness, and to better educate consumers about product-related hazards. our staff has also been hard at work trying to reduce costs associated with third-party testing while also assuring compliance with the law. congress' inclusion of the

$1 million is part of our funding for the current fiscal year has enhanced those efforts. i have emphasized prioritizing those actions most likely to provide the greatest amount of relief, especially to small businesses. we are set to consider at least three different regulatory changes to provide relief this fiscal year with more in the works. while the burden reduction is sure compliance succeeds, our continuingests to carry out and enforce cpsia is reflected in our proposed budget. unfortunately, not all of those priorities and requirements are achievable at our current levels. for that reason, we are pleased to see the president include in his budget two important consumer product safety initiatives. both initiatives if funded will advance consumer safety and provide real value to those in industry making or importing safe products. first, we are seeking a permanent funding mechanism to allow the agency to comply with the congressional charge in

section 222 of the cpsia. section 222 called on the commission to work with customs and border protection and develop a risk assessment methodology to identify the consumer products likely to violate any of the acts we enforce out of all of the consumer products imported into the united states. to meet our mandate in 2011 we created a small scale pilot that has been a success. however, the pilot alone does not fulfill the direction of congress and without full implementation, we will not be able to integrate cpsc into the much larger u.s. government-wide effort to create a single window for import and export filing of all products. if cpsc can be fully integrated into the single window, we can transform congress' vision of a national scope risk-based data screening at the ports into a reality. a reality that would mean faster

entry for importers of compliant products and safer products in the hands of american consumers. our proposed budget also seeks to address critical emerging and safety questions -- emerging health and safety questions associated with the rapidly growing use of nano materials in consumer products. in light of the questions raised in the scientific community about the effects, inhalation of certain nano particles might have onlyon human lungs similar to asbestos exposure, as it relates to human exposure especially to children from consumer products. finally, i would like to discuss an additional priority of mine, one that is not reflected in dollars but to me at least makes a lot of sense. how we at the cpsc do what we do is often just as important as what we do. since day one in this position, i have worked daily to try to establish a certain culture among the five of us at the commission level.

the commission and more importantly the american public are far better served by an agency where we operate at the commission level in a culture of civility, collaboration, and constructive dialogue. thank you again for the invitation to speak to you about the cpsc and life-saving work undertaken by our staff. i look forward to answering questions you may have. >> chair thanks the gentleman. gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentle lady, miss buerkle for her question -- her statement, please. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and good morning ranking member schakowsky and distinguished members of this committee. thank you for holding today's hearing with regards to the consumer product safety commission. i've had the honor of serving alongside many of the subcommittee members in the 112 congress and i'm delighted to be back here on capitol hill in my capacity as a commissioner at the cpsc. i do hope that today's hearing strengthens our partnership to

keep consumers safe from unreasonable risks of injury. i've been a commissioner at the agency since july of 2013. throughout this time, what has continued to impress me is the dedication of the cpsc staff. the mission of safety is taken very seriously. the regulated community has also impressed me. not only was their eagerness to comply with our regulations but also with the drive to innovate and advance safety. i'm thankful, too, for the tone set by our chairman and enjoyed by my colleagues. we often differ significantly on policy issues but those differences are discussed in a mutually respective manner. as a missioner i've stressed three general priorities. collaboration, education, and balance. number one, it is crucial that cpsc builds strong relationships with all stakeholders. we can tap the knowledge and expertise of many outside

experts. this is especially important in the regulated community. if we inspire cooperation rather than hostility, we will see quicker designs and removal of defective products for the benefit of the consumer. that is why i'm deeply troubled by the higher civil penalties, changes to important programs known as retailer reporting and the proposals known as voluntary recall in 6b. without question, i believe these undermine engagement and collaborative efforts. number two, education. it's crucial to our commission. we need to make the regulated committee aware of best practices and be honest regarding what we are attending to achieve. more importantly, we need to engage the consumer. helping them to avoid hidden hazards and take advantage of safer products that are already available to them. a prime candidate for a comprehensive educational campaign is the issue of window coverings. increased awareness and education will prevent many unfortunate injuries and death.

number three, while consumer safety is our top priority, i believe that that safety can be achieved in a balanced, reasonable way that does not unnecessarily burden the regulated community deprive consumers of products they prefer, or insert government into the market where it does not belong. our statutes provide a strong preference for standards rather than mandatory standards. where mandatory standards are unavoidable, we're asked to find the solution that adequately addresses the risk. mandatory standards have unintended consequences. they tend to stagnate. it makes sense, therefore, to revisit our rules periodically and make sure they are effective without stifling innovation. i am pleased that the commission voted unanimously last week for retrospective review of our rules and i do hope it will become a more regular activity of the commission. regulation is a necessary function of the government and the consumer product safety

improvement act strengthened our authority. it is clear, however, cpsia went too far in some respects forcing regulation without regard to risk let alone cost. this subcommittee led the way in moderating the untoward consequences of cpsia through its work on hr2715 which passed into public law 11228 while i was member of the house. some objectives of that law remain unfulfilled. last year the house included $1 million in our 2015 appropriations thanks to representative blackburn to kick start our efforts on test burden reduction. there is still much more we can do to remove unnecessary regulatory burdens in this arena and i do look forward to working with this committee on those unresolved cpsia issues. the common goal among all of us, congress, cpsc industry and consumers consumers, is safety. we are all people who have families for whom we want safe products. i have 6 children and 16 grandchildren.

i do not want dangerous products hurting them or anyone. however, the united states government cannot and should not try to create a zero risk society. the solutions we seek should be balanced and address actual problems. consumers should be protected from unreasonable risks while the regulated community is protected from an arbitrary government. thank you for this time today and i do look forward to taking any questions you might have. thank you, mr. chair. >> the chair thanks the gentle lady. the chair recognizes mr. adler five minutes, please for an opening statement, sir. >> thank you for the opportunity to appear along with my fellow cpsc commissioners today. i'm pleased to be able to testify about an agency that i've been associated with in some fashion since this establishment 40 years ago. at the outset, i point out that

we are far and away the safety agencies with the current funding level of 123 million in a staff of roughly 560 ftds. i want to put that in perspective. for fy 2016, we've asked for an appropriation of $129 million, which is an increase of roughly $6 million. by way of comparison, our sister agency fda has asked for roughly $4.9 billion in an fy 2016 which is an increase of roughly $148 million. or to put it more succinctly, fda has asked for an increase that's larger than cpsc's entire budget. notwithstanding our modest budget our jurisdictional scope is extremely wide compassing roughly 16 categories consumer products found in homes schools, and recreational settings. given this broad jurisdiction, the agency has adopted a database approach using the highly skilled technical staff to figure out which products present the greatest risk. and we address them using our regulatory and educational tools in a way designed to minimize

market disruption while always making consumer safety our top priority. we don't operate alone. we've always sought to include our various stakeholder partners in a quest to reduce or eliminate unreasonable risks. included in this group is our friends in the business and consumer communities as well as various standards development bodies that work closely with the agency. and i want to note, looking from the perspective of 40 years, just how much good work has been done. there's been an estimated 30% decline in the rate of deaths and injuries associated with consumer products over this 40 years. and let me just cite a few statics particularly pertaining to children. over this period of time, we've seen an 83% drop in childhood poisoning, a 73% drop in crib deaths, an 86% reduction in baby walker injuries and almost complete elimination of childhood suffocation in

refrigerators. i'd also like to mention the tremendous strides that the agency has taken to implement the consumer product safety improvement act, which has been noted, was approved by the house by a vote of 424-1, signed by president bush on august 14th, 2008. among the things we've done to implement the law, stringent limits on lead and phthalates in children's products. promulgated the strongest safety standards for cribs in the word. we've made mandatory a comprehensive voluntary toy standard. we've written and continued to write a series of standards for durable infant play products like play yards and strollers and developed new approaches to catching dangerous imported products which we helped to expand. since i last appeared before this committee, the commission has experienced a significant turnover in members. in fact, i'm the last one standing. although i miss my former colleagues, i'm pleased to welcome as new colleagues

chairman elliott kaye and commissioner buerkle. they are a joy to work with. they brought new perspectives and insights that freshened and sharpened my think on a host of issues. they've done so in a way that has brought a new era of civility to the agency. we certainly disagree, vigorously sometimes, on issues but we listen to and we trust one another in ways i've not seen at this agency in many, many years. a final point, mr. chairman, i'd like to reiterate my concerns about a demographic that has not received enough attention over the past number of years. that is senior citizen i'm a proud member. the second most vulnerable population after kids is adults over 65. and i note this is a rapidly growing group due to the aging of baby boomers and the greater longevity of our citizens. in the interesting statistic, there are more of us in the over 65 age group in this country

than there are people in canada. but what's particularly troubling to me is that seniors, while comprising only 13% of the population, account for 65% of our consumer product related deaths. and by 2020, they, we, will be 20% of the u.s. population. so given my concerns while acting chair, i work with staff to create a senior safety initiative which is ongoing in which i hope to have the congress included and hope to work with you. thank you for your time and look forward to your questions. >> gentleman yields back. chair thanks the gentleman. chair recognizes the chairman five minutes for your opening statement, please. >> thank you. thank you, chairman burgess ranking member schakowsky. members of the committee. i appreciate the opportunity to be here. i will keep my opening remarks very brief and focus only on one element of evolving cpsc policy and that is our import surveillance. this is one area that i think we can dramatically improve our efficiency and effectiveness.

while we're better targeting illegitimate inbound consumer products, i believe we can do more to facilitate legitimate trade through public/private partnerships. with those importers voluntarily willing to subject their compliance processes to greater scrutiny. not unlike similar programs with tsa and fda. i can envision a modernized cpsc import surveillance program where harmful and noncompliant consumer goods are intercepted and rejected while legitimate cargo is identified and carried down the stream of commerce without disruption. this concept, a trusted trader program and model, moves beyond incremental increases in targeting to more evolved account-based understanding of importers' demonstrated commitment to making safe products. but to earn cpsc's trust, traders would undergo thorough

reviews of the supply chain competencies. they'd have to empirically demonstrate a culture of compliance reflecting the highest standards. membership would have its privileges. to attract applicants, trader status would offer fewer inspections and faster more predictable time to market. should a trader violate the trust we have placed in them the government's response would be swift and sure. no discussion of cpsc import surveillance is complete without addressing the annual funding level we outlined in our most recent budget request and the user fees we hope will pay for it. i'm not entirely convinced of the legality of the user fee mechanism. moreover, while i'm generally supportive of what to spend that money on, i look forward to further discussions with our staff to develop a more nuanced understanding of that expenditure. however, my potential support for that spending, whether from user fees or from appropriations

is predicated on implementation of a properly resourced trusted trader program capable of attracting robust participation. if we're going to ask for more money, particularly if it comes from the very importers whose shipments we're rooting around in we need to spend some of that money making life easier for the good actors who voluntarily subject themselves to intense scrutiny. if we can develop the confidence necessary to take those good actsact actorsact actors' shipments out of our haystack, finding the needles will be that much easier. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thanks to gentleman. the chair would note it appears that the era of good feelings is now settled upon the consumer products safety commission. you all referenced how well you work together. the chair takes that as a good sign as we move forward. and, again, i want to thank you all for being in our hearing. we'll now move into the question portion of the hearing. each member will have five

minutes for questions and chairman kaye, let me begin. and again, thank you for your willingness to be here and i apologize about us having to reschedule during the snow day, kind of an unexpected snowfall in march that caught a lot of us by surprise. but thank you for your flexibility in rescheduling. the budget for fiscal year '16 requests the -- the commission requests new commission authority to impose undefined user fees on importers. i think i've already shared with you i have misgivings about that and would really welcome further discussion from the commission as to how these user fees not just how they're collected, but how they're dispersed. are these fees that are paid into the treasury and then subject to appropriations by the appropriations committee or are they fees that are retained

within the agency for use within the agency? so i would like some clarification about that and i've just reminded members, we are in appropriations season. the appropriations for the consumer products safety commission i believe comes through the financial services appropriation bill. so we all will want to be vigilant about that and make certain that we do pay attention to the agency during the appropriations. but there is the risk assessment methodology which is a pilot program to assess hazardous imports in the commission's performance budget request to congress. the targeted percentage of entries sampled is identified through the pilot system for fiscal year 2015 but is only labeled baseline and fiscal year '16 the target is to be decided. so are we on the brink of nationalizing a pilot program where we don't know the metrics

for inspection and evaluation? >> thank you, mr. chairman. no, we're not on the brink of nationalizing the program even though the government is on the brink of nationalizing the single window requiring electronic filing which is a big reason why the cpsc is trying to do its part. we want to make sure that it's as close as possible by december of 2016 when the system that customs and border protection runs to receive electronic filing is up and running and there is truly one single window that we are not creating an unnecessary disruption to the market by not being a part of that. as we envision in our appropriations request, a permanent funding mechanism one way or the other would allow the agency to collect and retain the funds solely for the purpose of funding this program. it wouldn't be used for any other reason. there's a long history of agencies with border authorities doing this. we took the time to study those other agencies and worked with the office of management and

budget to come up with the preferred method to not reinvent the wheel so cpsc could do its part with the single window. >> yeah it's actually some of the activities of those other agencies and departments that has been the genesis for my concern about this. again, we are coming into the appropriations time. i want us to be careful about how we approach things. but on this single window issue, commissioner mohorovic perhaps you can address this as well. i was on the committee in the 110th congress. that's the committee that did the reauthorization of the cpsc and the toy safety bill and i became very concerned. we did hearings, chairman rush was sitting in this chair at the time, but the -- that was the year that so many things were imported into the country and then found to be problematic. there didn't seem to be a way to stop things before they came in. then the concern became what happens to all this stuff in warehouses? it's offloaded by long shoremen

in long beach, california. where is it going to end up? nobody talks about shipping it back to the point of origin and say, you deal with it, other country first place because your attention was lax. so are we any better off today than we were in 2007 and 2008 as far as containing things that came into the country that may be hazardous? >> thank you, dr. burgess. in short, i do think we are in a much better position today than we were before. one of the points i remind folks of is i'm the only nonlawyer on this commission. so i think in terms of metrics, from my formal education being the only mba, so i think in terms of things being risk -- on return on investment. in applying that to public service, i think about safety return on investment and i'm committed to the fact that the investment and evolution of our

import targeting activities and sophistication of those strategies is the greatest safety return on investment that we can apply in terms of our resources and budget. it completely bypasses the difficulties that you mentioned, mr. chairman, with regard to recall effectiveness, et cetera, and will ensure that we don't have to learn from bad experience. of course, before us we have the potential to scale up into a nationalized program, a very significant program. do i believe that we have a proof of concept and do we have reason to move forward based on the success of our pilot project? the answer for me is absolutely. but again, i think we do have to look at more closely the significant i.t. spend so it will be able to yield the kind of targets and targeting effectiveness that we hope to achieve as well as the operationalization. prior to joining the agency i was in the conformity assessment

business as part of the testing community for eight years. i've had to scale up massive supply chain testing operations and with that you expect to see significant economies of scale. that's something that i have yet to see in terms of some of the operational scope that we have identified but i'm sure further communication will identify that. >> and i'm certain that it will. it may even in this hearing. i'll yield back my time. recognize the gentle lady from'll i will, miss schakowsky, five minutes for questions, please. >> thank you, mr. chairman. commissioner adler, like you i identify as a senior citizen and wondered what you anticipate will be or what already is part of this commission's senior safety initiative. >> well, thank you very much for the question. the first thing i would like to announce is we have participating in a 2015 healthy aging summit which is sponsored by hhs which will be held on july 27th and july 28th and the commission will be there in a listening mode.

so the agency is committed to the senior safety initiative. one of the things that i ask the staff to do was to look at mechanical hazards because that seems to be the area where seniors suffer the most and one of the issues that we addressed was what can you do with respect to senior citizens when other citizens who are not senior citizens use the same product. >> what do you mean by mechanical hazards? >> falls, sawings, cuts, lacerations, things along those lines. >> uh-huh. >> and so what the staff has done, i think, is a very smart thing. they've first looked to see products that present unique hazards and they are intended for senior citizens, such as bed rails and these panic buttons that seniors wear if they fall. the next thing they've looked at is products that present disproportionate risks to seniors but that also present unreasonable risks to the public at large and a product there, i

would say, would be table saws. and then even with respect to products where the commission might find that there's disproportionate injury to seniors, the staff is looking into areas where we can at least alert seniors that they are attic risk of harm and caregivers as well. so i think it's a fairly comprehensive program that we're doing and i'm delighted that the staff has taken to this with such enthusiasm. >> well, as the co-chair of the senior citizens task force, let's stay in touch on that. i'm really interested. i wanted to get to the issue of flammability standards. i know the consumer product safety commission has the authority under the flammable fabric act to issue standards. and i know there are some

promulgated children's products and it's possible to contribute to significant use of flame-retardant chemicals that pose health risks. the "chicago tribune" which was an early reporter about this, said the average american baby is born with the highest recorded lelz of flame retardants among infants in the world. and i know recent studies have linked flame-retardant chemicals to a wide variety of adverse health effects, endocrine disruption immunotoxicity developmental disruptions, neurological function, cancer, et cetera. so my question, really, is if we, one, have any studies or information demonstrating the flammability standards prompt promulgated by cpsc reduce instances of fire-related injuries and if you have any plans to revisit to find out if

the issue of the flame-retardants themselves is a danger. >> thank you, congresswoman. i don't know if i can do justice to this topic in a minute 23 but i'll do my best. certainly commissioner adler's point in the beginning thanks in large part to the fire community and the cpsc staff over time, and i believe this is attributable to some of the flammability standards, especially with clothing in children's pajamas, there has been a reduction of fire-related incidents. the issue you're getting at though, is flame retardants. and to what extent that's had any impact on it. i'm not aware that flame retardants have been proven to be effective. and i'm certainly aware of the studies you're talking about or some of the studies that go to the potential health concern. and i can say to you it bothers me even more than as a regulator, it bothers me as a parent of two young children that there has to be this uncertainty about products we interact with and the chemicals that might be in them. and a perfect example of that is a couch. most people don't view a couch

as a potential hazardous product. but if it's true that the flame retardants that the trib pointed out that are doused in the foam in an attempt to deal with cigarette fires have ended up getting in the dust and children as we know go under couches, they put their hands in their mouth, if it's true that that's had a very negative impact on the health of children that's a significant concern of ours. >> and on certain usefulness in reducing flammability. >> correct. one of the things that i've tried to do at my level is talk to our sister agencies who have overlapping jurisdictions and similar interests in this area to try to get the government working more cohesively to address this uncertainty. i think consumers deserve to know answers to these questions as quickly as possible. >> what are the other agencies? atfdr with cdc. and the national toxicology and national institute of environmental health sciences. >> thank you. i yield back.

>> the chair thanks the gentle lady. the gentle lady yields back. the chair recognizes the gentle lady from tennessee. five minutes for questions, please. >> thank you, mr. chairman. chairman kay, let me come to you first. commissioner buerkle mentioned in reference the million dollars that my amendment put into advancing the consumer products safety improvement act. and i just want to ask you what you all have done to reduce that third party testing requirement, where you are in that process, how you're putting that million dollars to work. >> so thank you for the $1 million, congresswoman. it certainly made a big difference. as soon as the $1 million was appropriated, we moved at the commission level via an amendment to our operating plan to allocate that $1 million to seven different projects that we had identified primarily based on stakeholder feedback but also with discussions at the commission level to try to get to this issue. and so where we are now is

there's three projects that staff is very close to sending up to the commission for us to vote on to try to provide some of that relief. and as i mentioned in my opening statement, my direction to staff has been to prioritize those actions that will have the widest potential benefit to small businesses. >> okay. let me ask you this. in your letter to senator thune, you identified three areas for the determinations of lead content, finding international toy standards and then guidance allowing for third-party testing exemptions. are those the three areas that you're referencing? >> no. those are actually three separate areas that my staff and i continue to work on and have discussions with commissioner mohorovic. in total you're talking about different projects. >> commissioner mohorovic, you want to respond? >> i'd love to. thank you. it's perfectly logical to wonder why with the full commitment of the entire commission behind reducing third-party test burden why we've achieved very little in terms of results. and that's because we're

replying to these proposals and unreasonable interpretation of our statute. this language consistent with assuring compliance. and the problem is very quickly it's inconsistent with established cpsc policy. if you looked at the component part testing rule, which was non-controversial -- >> so you're in a bureaucratic quagmire? >> absolutely. yeah. >> so you can't get to the outcome, the deliverable because you're still talking among yourselves. >> not until we change that standard -- >> what's the timeline for getting it finished? we want this finished. so when are you going to have it finished by? >> so we'll have three in the next few months to vote on and then there's more to come after that. >> give me a few months. a month? two months? three months? what do you mean? and i think within june we'll have the first up and then two more by september. >> okay. so that's going to be your deliverable. let me ask you something else. i mentioned a lot of dissatisfaction and the way you're going about the