has given to this important issue. he's taken a very keen interest on what we need on a national level, and many of us from the houston area appreciate him coming to our part of america to learn and see what our needs are in the state of texas. i'm confident that the chairman and those of us on the relevant committees in the house and senate will come together and deliver a long-term solution for our highway programs and strengthen them for every texan and every american. and while this bill before us isn't ideal the choice is very simple. i urge my colleagues to join me in voting yes on this bill to keep our state departments of transportation on the job through the summer building months and congress working on a long-term solution. i thank you mr. chairman and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. defazio: i yield the gentlelady from florida two

minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from florida is recognized for two minutes. ms. brown: thank you mr. speaker. here we go again passing another extension and failing in our duties to provide a world class transportation system. transportation program is much too critical to our economy to be delayed any longer. unfortunately, the republican leadership in washington continues its long running failure to fund surface transportation infrastructure programs. just last week house republicans passed a bill cutting taxes by $269 billion for the richest 1% of americans with no offset but failed to pass a real transportation authorization bill that put america to work. we know for every billion dollars we invest in transportation it generates

44,000 permanent jobs. in closing second anthony foxx said all of us have a role to play in shaping our -- secretary anthony foxx said all of us have a role to play in in shaping our nation's infrastructure. as we saw last week during the tragic train derailment in philadelphia congress urgently need to increase funding for our passenger rail systems to make things safer for all of the traveling public and prevent future tragedies on our nation's rails. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from oregon reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. shuster: i continue to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. defazio: i yield to the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is

recognized. mr. hoyer: thank you, mr. speaker. let me thank mr. defazio for yielding and for the work that he does on this committee. let me also say to the chairman of the committee mr. shuster, how pleased i am at the kind of work that he does on the committee. very frankly mr. shuster is committed to getting things done and working in a bipartisan fashion and that's good for this house and it's good for his state and it's good for the country. i thank him for his leadership. i rise in support of this 60-day extension because it's essential that we do this. the consequences of not doing it would be very, very negative. but i also rise to lament the fact that we have gone 10 months

knowing full well that this date was upon us and that theoretically we thought that funding as well as authorization would end on the 31st of this month. we have now found that funding will not end. this bill is necessary to authorize not to fund because funding is available for the next 60 days from the 31st. but i also rise to urge this house under the leadership of mr. shuster and mr. defazio to do the work we were sent here to do. to invest in america. to invest in the growth of our economy. to invest in the creation of jobs. to do, in fact, what the board of directors of the greatest country on the face of this

earth ought to have done many years and certainly months ago. i am absolutely convinced that this house has the capacity the intellect, and the ability to in 60 days from now, or within 60 days, come to this floor with a bill that will invest in our infrastructure and provide sufficient funds to make america competitive and to pay for it. not to pass the expense along to future generations. my children, my grandchildren, my great grandchildren. they are going to have to buy for themselves the infrastructure of their generation, and they ought not to have to pay the bills of our generation.

mr. defazz -- mr. defazio: additional minute. mr. hoyer: it is more than a responsibility that this generation pay for the investments it needs to make in the infrastructure that will be used today and tomorrow. mr. shuster, i know, wants to do that. mr. shuster and mr. defazio have the courage to do that. the issue is going to be whether this body on both sides of the aisle come forward with a responsible, paid for infrastructure bill, particularly for highways and roads and bridges, but other investment as well. i want to tell mr. shuster and mr. defazio that i will work closely with you. that i will urge the members on my side of the aisle to work closely, mr. shuster, with the

members on your side of the aisle, to effect this end. but let us not pretend that we can extend until december 31 on july 30, or to a year from then let us commit ourselves today to using the next 70 days, approximately, to come up with a paid for six-year re-authorization that will make america stronger grow our economy, and be a pride of the american people whom we serve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. hoyer: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from oregon reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. shuster: thank you, mr. speaker. i just want to thank the distinguished whip for his kind words. and with that i continue to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman reserves. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. defazio: may i again inquire to the amount of time remaining on my side? the speaker pro tempore: 14 minutes. the gentleman from oregon. mr. defazio: with that i yield two minutes to the gentleman, member of the committee, mr. nolan, from minnesota. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. nolan: mr. chairman, members of the house this failure to write a long-term, paid for surface transportation bill for this country has become a national embarrassment. quite frankly, it's an international embarrassment. the simple fact is passenger trains and oil trains are coming off the tracks taking lives causing untold amounts of damage . the simple truth is we can't fix those lives that are lost, but we can fix our transportation system. isn't it about time that we do

that? it's not only a national embarrassment, our failure here, but it's a failure of the congress. it's a failure of the legislative process. it's a failure of the committee process. that's what's happening here. we held hearings in the last session. we heard from the chamber of commerce. we heard from the unions. we heard from the retailers. we heard from the truckers. everybody said three things. number one, our transportation system is falling apart. they had that right. number two, it's hurting our ability to grow our economy and create jobs. they had that right. and number three,, number three they said we need to find some new revenue. none of it can be more obvious. and yet the transportation committee held hearings from all those people in the last session. we held hearings again on this session. but we never took up the markup

and the writing of a transportation bill. that is the simple truth. mr. speaker, i'm calling on the leadership here to either instruct the transportation committee or allow the transportation committee to write a transportation bill. i have absolute confidence that we can come together if we do. it's through the committee process that we find common ground. that's where we reach our bipartisanship. that's how we fix things here in the congress. that's how we get things done. . we will write a transportation plan for this country that gets this country moving again, saves lives and builds an economy. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the president of the united states. the secretary: mr. speaker i'm directed by the president of the united states to deliver to the house of representatives a

message in writing. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. shuster: i continue to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from oregon. mr. defazio: i'd yield two minutes to a member of the committee, ms. titus from nevada. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from nevada is recognized for two minutes. ms. titus: thank you. why are we debating an extension of the surface transportation authorization instead of doing a right thing by passing something that invests in our future? we should not bet on the come, as they say in nevada. for the two million residents that live in the las vegas valley and the more than 42 million visitors who come to our city from around the world, we must commit to the passage of a long-term surface transportation bill this summer. we can't do yet another extension that creates uncertainty, stiffles development and puts us further behind. we must pass a bill that includes investment that is real sustainable and goes

beyond just maintaining our current infrastructure but instead sets our nation on a road that is built to last. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. shuster: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from oregon. mr. defazio:. all right. with that i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from florida, a member of the committee, ms. frangle. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from florida is recognized for two minutes. ms. frankl: thank you, mr. speaker. i just want to start thanking mr. shuster and mr. defazio for their bipartisan leadership. i'm going to vote for this two-month extension to the highway trust fund in order to avoid a shutdown of america's transit building and repair. with that said mr. speaker, this legislation is like fixing our roads and bridges with silly putty. it's just not strong enough to hold our nation's crumbling infrastructure. so i join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to say it's time to make those long-term

investments necessary for people and goods to get to their destination safely and timely. mr. speaker, transportation moves our economy. it's time for congress to get going. thank you and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from oregon. mr. defazio: at this point i would yield -- i would yield the gentleman from new jersey, a strong advocate for all things transportation, a member of the powerful ways and means committee, mr. pascrell three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for three minutes. mr. pascrell: thank you, mr. speaker, and thank you, mr. ranking member, thank you, mr. chairman. i'm not going to vote for this piece of legislation not even close. everyone talks about how we must maintain the roads. if you listened over the last 45 minutes, all of these

infrastructure issues are in bad shape, terrible shape. we know the problem. so long speeches about this and the problem don't make much sense. here's my question to every member of this body. what are you prepared to do? make believe you're doing something, hide under the desk in your office? how much have we used, mr. speaker from the general fund to bail out transportation? and the percentage of general funds increases each budget that we are using. so without a clear source of long-term funding, our states cannot plan the future. in fact, many states are not putting money into their trust

fund. my own state the state of new jersey, i guess the money's going to fall out of the sky. so two months, four months, seven months it's all a joke. ensuring the solvency of the trust fund is not only a key component of many of our transportation challenges, it's our job. the ways and means committee has not even had one hearing, mr. ranking member, mr. chairman. how many states have put themselves in the same position as the federal government? i understand that some members are already planning another short-term extension in july because they say, now we're ready to have a long-term solution but you are already planning for another short term in july. in fact, we're moving towards the omnibus bill where we'll put everything together. it will be like a stew, trade transportation lollipops, put

them all in there. put it all in there and then we'll vote on it and have some of our members vote against motherhood so that they will be on the block a year from this november. look, let me suggest something novel for this group. let's spend the next eight weeks resuscitating a system where users of the system pay to maintain and grow the system. international tax can be a part of the solution. it's not nearly enough money, mr. president, mr. congress. a group of us presented a bipartisan plan, republicans and democrats, to fund the federal highway trust fund through democratic presidents, republican presidents, through democratic houses and republican houses. we've always been able to come to a resolution on this until the last three or four years. why? why is this? can i have one more minute?

half a minute? mr. defazio: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. pascrell: thank you, mr. speaker. look neither party has the wherewithal to deal with the problem. i believe our model must receive serious consideration as the clock counts down on the trust fund's expiration. our legislation has the support of both business and labor. i'm done with extensions, and i plan to vote no today and i ask my colleagues to show support for a long-term bill and co-sponsor the renacci-pascrell plan because if we don't change something we will be right back here in july talking to each other. thank you very much mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from. mr. shuster: continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from oregon. mr. defazio: and my time remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 6 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from pennsylvania has 20 1/2 minutes remaining.

mr. defazio: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. defazio: well, first off, i want to join in what many others have said. transportation, infrastructure has not been historically nor should it become a partisan issue. i appreciate the chairman's willingness to work together on many aspects. we will at time disagree over elements of bills, but in general we agree that what makes this country great, what makes us competitive in the world is a world-class system of transportation, infrastructure and other critical infrastructure and that today we are deficient. i talked during my introductory remarks about some of the needs. let me just talk about the revenues. back in 1993 when the gas tax was raised by a bipartisan coalition in the house --

actually on the republican side led by the chairman's father, bud shuster -- we paid about 14%. every time you went to the pump with the increase in the gas tax in 1993, 14% of your bill went to invest in the nation's infrastructure. yet today, some 22 years later, 7% goes to the infrastructure. road miles population has grown, road miles has increased and the eisenhower infrastructure has aged. you know, infrastructure doesn't just age you know, a little bit each year. it reaches a point where it accelerates dramatically so a bridge that you could fix for $15 million or $20 million today, two years from now, you might have to totally replace for $100 million. so delaying these needed investments, unless you want to see people deall the rivers

around the world -- people detouring the rivers around the world just to save on efficiency. now, states have stepped in to fill the void. 14 states have voted to raise their own gas tax since 2013, as the gentleman from oregon pointed out, six deep red republican states have voted to raise their gas tax this year. just to assure my colleagues, for those who raised it before the last election, nobody lost their election because they raised the gas tax in those states. people recognize it as a user fee. they're tired of blowing out tires and car repairs because of potholes. they're tired of detores. the trucking industry is tired of detours and they don't want a proliferation of tolls across america. the solution is a federal partnership. the chairman held a hearing recently where we had the

department of transportation director from wyoming, deep red state, talking about the fact they had increased their gas tax but they still need the federal partnership. it's critical. we have the governor of north carolina as one of the highest gas taxes in the country, deep red state these days, saying the federal partnership was more critical than ever. the mayor of salt lake city, the federal partnership is critical. no state can do it on their own. now, if i propose that we index the gas tax, the construction cost inflation, fleet fuel, the economy, that means the gas tax will go up 1.7 cents and i'd like to see the member of congress who thinks they're going to lose their election over a 1.7 cent investment in america's infrastructure to avoid those potholes, the congestion, the detours, the delays or additional tolling to maintain what we have. it won't happen. it hasn't happened recently in red states that have raised it

much more than 1.7 cents. but if we index to inflation, fleet fuel economy inflation cost, inflation, we can borrow upfront for the trust fund, let's say $150 billion. a nice increase over the current levels of spending and we could pay it back in about 15 years. with that increment. just the indexed increment that would grow a tiny bit each year. and again, you drive by the gas station on your way to work and when you drive home at night, exxonmobil has raise it had a nickel because there was rumors of war in the middle east or a refinery had an outage or something or this. where did that nickel go? it went in the pockets of exxonmobil and speculators on wall street. it didn't go into the infrastructure. the american people would sure as heck pay 1.7 cents to rebuild our system and make america more competitive and hundreds of thousands of to work than in the pockets of exxonmobil and wall street speculators. it's time to suck it up around

here, act like men and women who were sent here to make tough decisions, to regain our legacy, to begin to bring america back toward a world-class infrastructure. it would take many years and many tens or hundreds of billions of dollars to reclaim the legacy of the eisenhower era, but it's only a lack of will. will that prevents us from doing that. there is no major impediment. nobody is going to lose their election over 1.7 cents a gallon. in fact, people will thank you at home. the trucking industry is begging, begging for an increase in the diesel tax. the american -- the united states chamber of commerce when's the last time they asked for an increase in the tax? and look all across, retailers, the spectrum, the business community all across this country, people are saying help us. get us out of congestion. fix the system. bring it up to state of good repair. there's americans saying we need jobs. there's no more certain wan

than to create -- way than to create jobs, there are engineering jobs in the case of mass transit they're high tech jobs, they are small business jobs, they are disadvantage business enterprise jobs. it goes through the entire economy. no american would be left behind. we can make america number one. all we lack is the will here in the house. let's say this is the last 60-day delay. let's work together and get a real six-year bill by the end of july. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. shuster: i continue to reserve. i'm prepared to close if the gentleman is prepared. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon. mr. defazio: well, just -- ok. staff is consulting. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 15 seconds seconds. mr. defazio: grow america act comprehensive bill which we could begin policy

constructions, h.r. 2410, with 19 co-sponsors. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. shuster: thank you, mr. speaker. i always appreciate the ranking member mr. defazio's passion on these issues and i have to say that much of what was said on this floor by both sides, i agree with the need to invest in our infrastructure is real, it's critical. our infrastructure is crumbling all around us. i also agree that we need to find a long-term solution to the trust fund to make sure it's fiscally responsible and most importantly i agree that we need to act. this two-month extension was not my preference. what my preference is to buckle down, work hard, find the dollars and have a long-term surface transportation bill that's sustainable. so again, i stand here today in urging all my colleagues to vote for this essential two-month extension, to get us through to july. i'm committed to continuing to work to find the solutions so we can have a long-term bill,

but a vote against this bill is a vote in favor of shutting down these vital programs, stopping work of thousands of highway projects around the country and laying off thousands of construction workers and federal employees. so i urge a yes vote on this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 271, previous question is ordered on the bill. third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the clerk: a bill to provide extension of federal aid highway safety, motor carrier safety transit and other programs funded out of the highway trust fund. >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentlewoman opposed? the clerk: ms. et ceteray moves to recommit the bill and report back to the house forth with

with the following amendment, at the end of the title 1, add the following, passenger rail positive train control funding. passenger rail positive train, control funding. section 201 of title 29 united states code is amended by inserting and $750 million for the period beginning october 1 2014 and ending on july 31, 2015 after 2013. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise. mr. shuster: i reserve a point of order. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule gentlewoman connecticut is recognized for five minutes in support of her motion. et cetera et cetera mr. speaker this is the final amendment of the bill which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. ms. esty: my amendment provides funding to passenger railroads

to help them implement positive train control. tragically last week amtrak 188 derailed killing eight people and injuring more than 200. my thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their loved ones. unfortunately last week's tragic accident is just the latest in a series of incidents that are unacceptable and largely preventable. according to the national transportation safety board member who is the lead investigator of last week's amtrak derailment in philadelphia quote, had positive train controls been installed on the section of the track, this accident would not have occurred. what is positive train control? positive train control commonly referred to as p.t.c. is a communications and signalling system that uses sensors to communicate train location, speed, restrictions and moving

authority. and most importantly p.t.c. can save lives. for instance positive train control technology can detect if a train is going too fast and use onboard equipment to automatically slow or stop the train. mr. speaker last week's derailment is not the first time that ntsb has recommended positive train control. this recommendation has been made since 1969 following an investigation of a head-on collision of two penn central trains collision in my home state. that collision killed four people and 43 injured. 46 years after that deadly collision in connecticut, the ntsb is demanding and waiting for action. during this time, the ntsb has investigated 144 accidents that would have been preventable if

railroads had installed p.t.c. not surprisingly it has been on the most wanted list of safety improvements since 1990. 144 accidents over 43 years. try and think about that, try to comprehend 6,532 preventable injuries. 288 preventable deaths. and this just isn't an issue only on the northeast corridor. in 2008, a tragic accident in california killed 25 people and injured 102. after that accident, this house enacted legislation requiring p.t.c. on commuter and inner sfi passenger rails by december 31 of this year. protecting lives requires leadership from this congress. the american public transportation association asked congress to provide federal

funding for 80% of the installation costs on passenger rails. we in congress can help. we can and must make this investment before another terrible accident, before another life is tragically and needlessly lost. we can't afford to wait. less than two years ago a metro north railroad engineer fell asleep at the train he was operating sped up to 82 miles an hour to a tight curve. the restriction for that section was only 30 miles an hour. as a result of the derailment, four people died and 61 were injured. with tragic predictability the ntsb investigation determined that positive train control could have prevented that tragedy as well. how many more times does the ntsb need to repeat its recommendation before p.t.c. is implemented? there is no reason why this congress should continue to

ignore its responsibility to help passenger railroads implement the life saving technology as soon as possible. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment to provide the necessary funding to help railroads implement p.t.c. across the united states. let me be clear, the funding would prevent every single accident. the fact that p.t.c. will not prevent every accident should not, cannot be an excuse for this congress' failure to act. failure to act today on implementing positive train control is wrong. it's unworthy of a great country. a great country does not respond to crises with duct tape, a great country leads with action. join me to vote for this amendment and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. shuster: i rise in

opposition and wish to withdraw my point of order. the speaker pro tempore: point of order is withdrawn. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. shuster: i oppose this motion. we certainly know the tragedy that happened in philadelphia, my home state, this really is not the place to address this. we need to pass a clean extension. we have to pass it and get it to the senate so we make sure that these vital programs keep people working and projects moving forward that they don't shut down. again, this is a clean extension. we want it to be a clean extension because we know time is of the essence to get it to the senate and pass it. 4,000 people in the federal government furloughed, thousands of workers across america that projects will stop and they won't be working. again, we have immediate need to extend the highway and safety transportation programs and committed to working with chairman ryan, but this is not the time to slow this down but

get it done and get it to the senate as quickly as possible. i'm opposed to this motion. i urge a no vote on the motion. and continue to ask my colleagues to support the underlying bill that gets the job and gets us past this critical time. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. without objection the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. >> i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: those favoring a vote by the >> the house returns tomorrow to work on a bill to permanently extend the research and development tax credit that expired at the end of next year. watch the house live here on c-span, when members gavel back in at 10:00 a.m. eastern.

on the next "washington journal," tim murphy of pennsylvania joins us to talk about the state of the u.s. mental health system and his legislation to improve access and care. then, new york congressman charlie wrangle will discuss the ongoing trade debate in congress and relations with cuba. later, spotlight on magazines continue with susan burke you. she will look at the tourist baby-boom. those conversations, plus your calls, tweets, and e-mails. our show is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. the new congressional directory is a handy guide to the 114th congress, with color photos of every senator and house member plus violate contact information and twitter handles. also, district maps, a foldout

map of capitol hill, a new look at congressional committees, the cabinet, federal agencies, and state governments. order your copy today, it is $13.95 through the c-span online store at c-span.org. >> coming up on c-span, a house committee examines ways to improve community policing. then, the house debates a short-term extension of funding for highway and public transportation project. after that, our road to the white house coverage continues with hillary clinton's remarks in iowa. later, "washington journal," live with your calls in today's news. >> the house judiciary committee looks into developing better policing strategies to strengthen relations between law enforcement and communities. members discussed abusive police body cameras and the appointment

of independent prosecutors for cases involving the allegations of police misconduct. witnesses include the sheriff of milwaukee county and the executive director of washington state's criminal justice training commission. this is free hours. -- this is three hours. >> good morning. we welcome everyone to this morning's hearing on policing strategy for the 21st century. i will begin by recognizing myself for an opening statement. policing is an inherently dangerous job. our law enforcement officers

deserve our gratitude for the work they do on a daily basis to make sure our states, our cities and the most helpless in our communities are protected and those who commit crimes are brought to justice. i am concerned that force is used to frequently. there is increasing unrest in our communities about policing. protests in ferguson, new york and baltimore with the outgrowth of the use of force stopping a suspect. although no charges were filed in two of those cases it is clear that there is disagreement about the actions of police. what started as peaceful protests have turned into rides and police reaction was brought into question. at the same time i am

concerned about our law enforcement personnel. last week we learned to police officers were killed responding to a routine traffic stop in hattiesburg, mississippi, gunned down by a group of five men. this comes on the heels of a more widely known murders in new york. it was reported that they were specifically targeted by a man looking to kelly police officer. while i refuse to consider the actions of police officers in ferguson and new york as justifying the responses that the fellow cities, it is clear we must find a that are way for police and citizens to interact both in everyday situations and when more difficult circumstances arise. we have a distinguished panel before us today with deep knowledge of police training tactics, and policies. we have long-standing leaders in the police community

instructors responsible for police training, and those tasked with monitoring the police department that have not met the standards we require of them. i am hopeful that this will be a constructive and positive hearing that focuses on current rules and regulations in place the training our officers receive, and how we can train them better in order to apprehend criminals while minimizing harm to innocent citizens. i am especially interested to hear what we can do to raise the level of trust among our police officers and citizens while still protecting both. policing will never be an easy or safe job but i believe we must do everything we can to ensure that our officers have the tools and training they need to protect themselves and our nation's and. i would also like to thank the gentleman from michigan for working with us so closely and i was also inspired by the

gentlewoman from texas, this jackson lee, who has been speaking with me for some time about this issue. i want to wish her all of you that the purpose of this hearing and the ongoing efforts of this community is to make sure that we are doing everything possible to address the problems that have arisen in recent months to make sure our communities are safe, our citizens are protected, and that we will not rest until we make progress in those regards. it is my pleasure to recognize the ranking member, mr. conyers. rep. conyers: thank you, mr. chairman. members of the committee, to our distinguished witnesses and to those who have come to this hearing, law enforcement

accountability is an issue that is very topical, given current events. but also one that has long been a concern of mine and many other members. as a member of congress, i stood on the streets of detroit with able mourn, an appeal for calm while my city burned around me in 1967. thinking back, there was a race riot in detroit in 1943. on too many occasions i have met with the grieving relatives of those who have lost their lives at the hands of police, but i have also met with the families of police officers who lost their lives in the line of duty.

some of these officers were killed by violent criminals, while other officers were inadvertently killed by their colleagues, or some of their colleagues who could only see the color of their skin. i have cochaired a town hall meetings with fellow members of congress and others across this nation in response to policing incidents in chicago miami, new york, and los angeles. at these meetings, we try to help the residents of these cities make sense of how to respond to their collective sense of loss and to understand the role of the federal government in protecting their civil rights. i proposed numerous bills to both help protect the safety of police officers and to provide a

system of accountability for law enforcement, for example i worked with attorney general john ashcroft at the invitation of president george bush to craft federal legislation intended to useend use of racial profiling and police practices which is currently pending in this committee as house resolution 1933. next month, i plan to introduce comprehensive legislation dealing with accreditation, data collection, and policing practices. fortunately, our committee has generally approached the issue of policing with a strong,

bipartisan spirit. we have enjoyed success in passing reform legislation -- notably, the passage of the pattern and practice enforcement statute which was codified in title 42 of the united states code in 1994. we twice passed the traffic stops statistics study act under the chairmanship of chairman henry hyde. by scheduling today's hearing chairman goodlatte continues this legacy and his commended for his willingness to face a difficult issue that has divided communities around the united states.

any discussion of law enforcement accountability must be premised on the recognition of the dangerous and difficult job that all police officers perform. the vast majority of police officers perform their jobs professionally and without bias, book like any profession -- but like any profession, there are those who make it difficult for the rest to serve their communities. at the outset, i must agree with professor alonzo patterson when he says that the complex and confounding questions raised by ferguson baltimore, and other cities go well beyond the issues of racism in violent police behavior. what occurred in those cities clearly resulted from a vicious

tangle of concentrated poverty and culturally disenfranchised youth, as well as accountabi lity cultures of law enforcement disconnected from their communities that is lacking appropriate standards and oversight. yesterday, president obama was in camden, new jersey to highlight his administration cost initiative to address the challenges of policing in our inner cities. while i support the president's efforts and look forward to working with him to implement his programs, there is no substitute for concrete performance standards for state and local law enforcement agencies who received billions

of dollars each year in federal funding. for reform focused police executives many of the current administrative programs are merely icing on the cake, and probably will not reach many chronically underperforming or troubled departments. the entire purpose of section 14141 was to add a piece to federal enforcement that was absent in the grantmaking process. although pattern and practice enforcement has been affected in cases of individual departments it is far too resource heavy to reach across the more than 17,000 police departments in our country. there must be another way, and i

hope that today we can talk about the combination of federal , state, and local measures that are essential to support necessary changes in policing culture. the national outcry that arose after michael brown's death is nothing new to those who are students of policing practices. from the sean bell, avner louima and army duty aloe incidents, to the eddie maclin shooting in miami, to the timothy thomas in cincinnati, and the donovan jackson beating in englewood, the response is nearly always the same. national outcry followed by well-intentioned programs that never quite get to the heart of

the matter. how to risk -- out of respect for all who have lost their lives over the last nine months, both law enforcement and civilians, i hope that we can dedicate ourselves to engaging the difficult issues to make lasting change in our community. i think the chairman. rep. goodlatte: thank you, and without objection, all opening statements will be made a part of the record. we welcome our distinguished panel of witnesses, and if you would all please rise, i will begin by swearing human. -- swearing you in. do each of you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god? put the record reflect that the witnesses responded in the affirmative.

sheriff david a clarke has served in wisconsin since march two thousand two, when he was appointed by scott mccallum, elected in november 2002, . he was a bachelor's degree in criminal justice management from concordia university, a masters in security studies from the postgraduate school, and has completed various executive education programs with the fbi and at harvard university's john f. kennedy school of government. matthew barge is the vice president and deputy director of the police assessment resource center. among his areas of expertise are use of force policies, officer training, and counseling law enforcement agencies to achieve efficient, constitutional policing. he graduated summa cum laude from georgetown university and

holds a j.d. from new york university. susahn rahr is executive director of the criminal justice training division, a position she has held since 2012. he served as the first female sheriff in king county washington. she received a bachelor's degree from washington state university and currently serves as a member of president obama's task force on 21st century policing. mr. hartley is the executive director on the accreditation of law-enforcement agencies. he began his career with the greensboro, north carolina police department in 1989 and served in a number of positions within the agency before becoming assistant chief of police. prior to joining, he worked for the virginia department of

criminal justice services, where he led the department's public policy planning and research division. he holds a bachelor's in criminal justice from appalachian state university and a masters in public affairs from unc at greensboro. professor deborah ramirez teaches criminal justice at the northeastern university school of law in boston. much of her work focuses on strengthening partnerships between law enforcement and communities, which is integral to building trust and fair, effective policing. professor ramirez received a bachelor's degree at northwestern university and a j.d. from harvard law school. all of your written testimonies will be entered into the testimony in their entirety and i ask that each of you summarize their test -- summarize your testimony in five minutes or less. there is a timing light on your table. when the light switches from green to yellow, you have one minute to conclude your

testimony. it works like a traffic light. when it is ready, it signals that your time has expired. sheriff clark, you may begin. mr. clarke: good morning, mr. chair, and honorable members of the community of the judiciary. thank you for the opportunity to state my view, which is backed by 37 years of experience from ground level concerning police accountability, public safety, and the right thing for us to work on. since the events that led to riots in ferguson, misery, police use of force has become scrutinized nationally. use of force should be scrutinized, locally that is. it should be examined in terms of factual data and circumstances that led to the police action and not from the emotional foundation of catchy

slogans like "hands up, don't shoot." let's leave that conduct for the public to engage in and not the mainstream media or elected officials who can't resist the opportunity to exploit the emotions of an uninformed or misinformed public, simply for political gain. we will no doubt hear a lot of statistics thrown about today some distorted for a predetermined agenda. others are legitimate. in 2013, the u.s. department of justice under eric holder did a study in conjunction on the national institute of justice on traffic stop data. when you used controlled factors , any racial disparities are a to differences in offending. the studies show that black drivers violated speeding and traffic loss at a much greater rate than whites. that conclusion of the study led

doj may be ugly to some but it is what the research found. the same studies show that three out of every four black drivers said that the police had a legitimate reason for stopping. the same is true for african-american males. participation rates in violent crime explain the disparity of why so many black males are locked up in prison. black males are disproportionately involved in violent crime and it is predominantly perpetrated against other black people. it is not the result of a discriminatory criminal justice system. blacks make up 37 point 5% the prison population at the state and federal level. if we release those convicted on drug charges alone, the percentage of black males in prison would drop to 37%, a mere one half of 1%. so much for the myth of black lives filling our prisons.

not to mention that illegal drug use is discouraged in the black community and leads to a great deal of the violence that occurs. the police use of force data tells a different story than the false narrative propagated by cop -- or is in the liberal mainstream media. a recent study showed this breakdown. 61%, or 915 people who die from this use of force were white males, well 32% 481, were black males. it is a myth that police kill black males andin greater numbers. black on black crime is the elephant in the room. we could talk about police use of force but it doesn't start with transforming the police profession. it starts by asking why we need so much assertive policing in the american ghetto. our police officers perfect? not by any stretch of the imagination stopped our police

agencies perfect? not even close. but we are the best our communities have to offer. we should be transforming black underclass subculture behavior, addressing the behavior of people who have no respect for authority who tried to disarm the police, who flee the police, and to engage another flawed lifestyle choices.bashing the police is the low hanging fruit . it is easier to talk about the rear killing of a black male because it can be exploited for political advantage. the police are easier to throw overboard because they can't fight back politically. this is counterproductive and will lead to police pulling back in high crime areas where law-abiding black people live. black people will be the losers and all of this as violent crime rates skyrocket. this means more black victims.

a man i admire said this about policing -- "if people are told they are under arrest and refused to come with the police and cannot be forcibly taken into custody, we do not have the rule of law when the law is downgraded to suggest that no one has the power to enforce." for people who have never tried to take into custody someone resisting arrest, to sit back in the safety and comfort of their own home and second-guess people who face the dangers inherent in that process for both the officer and the person under arrest, is yet another example of the irresponsible self-indulgence of our time. thank you. rep. goodlatte: thank you sheriff clark.

mr. hartley: members of the committee, on behalf of the commission on accreditation for law enforcement agencies, thank you for this invitation today for ideas on policing strategies. as a part of this discussion, i think it is important to recognize that every year, over one million police officers across 18,000 agencies make 40 million public contacts, where they encounter incredibly insensitive and emotional situation. these interactions result in millions of arrests annually and police use force or the threat of force 1.4% of the time, using mostly low-level application. statistically, this is a stalling indication to the adherence of the democratic principles, however, this can only occur where there are trusting relationships between the community and the police. recently, the country has observed situations where this

confidence has eroded. although there is no single solution we provide a strategy that institutionalizes test practices to the application of policing standards. the model promotes community competence across all levels of participating agencies, about 5% of law enforcement agencies or dissipate, -- agencies participate. given this level of penetration the standard service is a powerful tool to influence police policy and practice. these standards remain relevant to a dynamic process in public safety industry, including practitioners, judicial officials, and other subject matter experts. additionally the process is considering information from special interest groups on

topics such as victims right and residual justice. we recently responded to the president's task force, and recent doj investigations. all this with a focus on creating serviceable -- that balance the need for safety and security with constitutionally protected rights and freedoms. the process of accreditation also focuses on intended outcome. this is accomplished through a sophisticated system of leaking agency policy standards and ensuring practices complement organizational directives. it is reinforced through data collection on-site observation agency reported, and public condition hearings. as examples of the standards, participating organizations must develop effective compliance procedures. this must include investigations of all complaints, including

those of an anonymous nature. the procedures must establish timelines for notifications and result in postings of summary data for public consumption. from an operational perspective, integrity in criminal investigation teachers is included in the accreditation process. this involves accountability, collection, maintenance, and presentation of evidence. policies related to interviews lineups must be developed. we require agencies to develop community involvement practices to establish liaisons with community organizations, the involvement of community members, and publicizing agency objectives. although these are only a few outcomes, it demonstrates how standards address core issues impacting community competence while supporting police as an institution. as an association, we support

reasonable association to improve public safety. we support the concept of voluntary participation and accreditation to propose productive relationships. we support incentives and agencies pursuing accreditation and we advocate for stronger interaction with other governmental and nongovernmental entities or standard development. we value approaches that gradually and systematically transition public safety agencies to programming with reasonable implementation timelines and technical assistance. the more than 1000 public agencies and rolled -- agencies and rolled have demonstrated professional excellence. i would encourage lawmakers to support accreditation as an important tool for a the professional delivery of police services as part of 21st century policing strategies. thank you, mr. chairman. rep. goodlatte: thank you, mr.

hartley. ms. rahr? ms. rarh: it is my honor to testify today. i would like you to know a little bit about my testimony. i started policing in 1979 and for the next 33 years i had the privilege of serving my community and assignment such as patrol, undercover narcotics and gave units. i spent a great deal of time working with police conduct cases and trading. when i retired as the elected sheriff in 2012, i have the good fortune of coming to our state's police academy, where we trade all law enforcement officers in the state of washington. i learned a great deal from those recruits. as we embark on this dialogue today, it is critically important that we consider a wide range of factors that affect the environment in which police operate and that we

consider strategies most likely to increase public trust and improve public safety. i would like to highlight to these major factors. to add to the context, we have a tendency to talk about the bad apples. i would like to talk about the barrel and the people who make the barrel. the first factor is the absence of a national coherent policing. we have 18,000 individual police departments, each with a unique culture and reflecting the policies and practices that are a product of those 18,000 local governments. there is a diverse range of values and expectations. agency size ranges from one officers to more than 34,000. about half of those 18,000 agencies have 10 officers were less. all these departments operate in one of our 50 states, each with a unique system of justice that dictates how criminal cases are initiated, processed, and adjudicated.

there are mandates for hiring and training but most states exert limited control over their local law enforcement. outside of distribution and withholding federal funds the influence of the federal government on local policing is also limited. the bottom line is there is no single description of the police culture and practice. the challenges faced by police departments vary widely and the control and oversight of our police is exclusively local. the second major factor to consider is that police departments do not operate independently. in most cities, police chiefs are hired or fired by the mayor or another elected municipal executive. most sheriffs are elected by the voters that they are sworn to protect and serve. when police exert control over citizens, they do so at the behest of an official elected by the people. crime control strategies don't emerge in isolation nor do decisions about police accountability. those decisions are made by

independently elected offices and prosecutors. the scrutiny begins and ends with the police department with little examination of those factors outside the agency that influence priorities and practices. the importance of a broader focus of inquiry was illustrated in the recent examination of the government practices in the city of ferguson. the findings serve as a powerful example of the influence of governing forces outside of the police department itself. ideas for improving policing in the 21st century need to consider both of these major factors. most changes in policies and procedures must be adopted by local government in order to be implemented. for example, the requirement to use body worn cameras must consider local and state laws related to the gathering management, and disclosure of data, as well as local and state laws protecting individual privacy. these changes will take time require a great deal of

cooperation, and in some cases the barriers may be insurmountable. there are, however, meaningful steps that can be taken at various levels of government without changing laws. these steps will improve the culture of policing and expand police training in ways that contribute to increased public trust and improve safety. the recommendations of the president's task force contain a full range of action that is can be implemented immediately and some that are more long-term strategies. one of the areas of focus contained in the recommendations relate to the police training. i sent to you a copy of an academic report that i co-authored. it was published by the kennedy school at harvard and published by the national institute of justice. this paper expounds on the importance of addressing the leadership culture in police departments and suggests a path toward improving culture through effective training. i hope these ideas will be beneficial as this committee explores ways to improve policing in the 21st century. thank you very much.

mr. goodlatte: thank you, ms. rahr. mr. barge: distinguished members of the committee. my name is matthew barge, vice president and deputy director of the police assessment resource center. for 14 years park has provided independent counsel to upward of 30 police agencies and communities, helping them solve problems and incorporate best practices on effective safe and constitutional policing. i want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. some have wondered whether local police agencies are capable of transforming or repairing trust of the communities they serve. i'm here to tell you that police departments can change and are changing. real reform is difficult and messy work, but agencies can put in place the systems, the policy, and culture necessary to self-manage the risk of unconstitutional policing and enhance community confidence. some agencies affirmatively seek

reform. the voluntary implementation of recommendations in portland, oregon, for example, led to significant decreases in use of force and complaints about police. without increases in crime or officer injury. however, local law enforcement is not always good as self-identifying problems. i work daily with police officers who represent public service at its most selfless and laudable. but the departments where they work often resemble what might happen if a stereotypical department of motor vehicles ran the u.s. military. inefficient, inept bureaucracy. this produces a culture often resistant to new approaches, transparency, and real accountability. where issues fester, the u.s. department of justice may exercise the authority granted by this body to conduct an investigation into alleged patterns of misconduct where allegations are substantiated, a federal court overseeing a consent degree may result. the process is akin to emergency open heart surgery for police

departments. it addresses serious systemic issues and is used collectively and -- selectively and critical moments. currently d.o.j.s enforce 10 consent degrees. addressing the seattle police department where i serve as the deputy. regardless of how reform is initiated, the bedrock of policing in the 21st century must be a strong, responsive relationship between the nation's police departments and the communities they serve. to this end, a common playbook specific real world reforms is emerging for promoting public and officer safety, efficiency constitutional rights, and public trust. first, officers need more specific guidelines on using force in the real world. the bearer often beg rarmentse of courts in this area may work for judges in the comforts of their courtrooms, but officers in communities need clear and more pragmatic rules. second, departments need internal mechanisms for critical

self-analysis. for instance, a standard d.o.j. consent degree reform is the creation of a dedicated board for critically evaluating all uses of force so a department can continually update policy and procedure and training in light of real world lessons learned. likewise, permanent civilian oversight mechanisms can give communities a real time check and important say in how policing is conducted. third, too many agencies have no idea what their officers are doing. if data exists on use of force or stop activity, it's often inaccurate, inaccessible, or ignored. policing in the 21st century needs to take full advantage of the information systems that we take for granted, and many other areas of public and private life. fourth, in the cities where we work, we continually hear from individuals that the weights and burdens of law enforcement are not equally shared and there is some empirical evidence to support that proposition. the challenge for police departments is to find ways of addressing an issue that at

minimum is deeply affecting the police community relationship. forward thinking departments are providing officers with training on minimizing the effects of implicit bias and person-based decision making. modern american policing faces an era of unparalleled challenges with too many communities viewing the police as them rather than us. the challenge of law enforcement agencies must embrace is to implement the kinds of commonsense steps that might enhance accountability and enhance public trust. with that i thank you again for the opportunity to be here. mr. goodlatte: thank you, mr. barge. ms. ramirez, welcome. ms. ramirez: thank you, chairman goodlatte, ranking member conyers, and the house committee on the judiciary. the police killing of michael brown and eric garner in july and august of 2014, have triggered protests not only in

the cities in which those killings occurred, but also throughout this country. since those shootings there have been others. freddie gray in baltimore and walter scott in south carolina. it's plain to me and i expect to all of you today here, that these protests are not just about the unwillingness to prosecute all but one of those officers nor these shootings -- for these shootings, but about a long, simmering resentment in the african-american and latino communities that the criminal law applies differently to them than it does to white americans. that the police too often stop and frisk latino and african-american youths with impunity and without reasonable articulable suspicions. that automobiles driven by african-americans, especially in white neighborhoods, are too

often stopped by police for driving while black. that the death of a black man at the hands of police is seen as more forgivable than the death of a white man. the prosecutors are less willing to see hispanic and african-american defendants as candidates for rehabilitation who deserve and need a break and therefore they are more willing to press for mandatory sentences against them. and that more black men, age 18 to 21, are in prison or in jail than in college. we can and should debate how accurate the statistical studies are and how accurate these perceptions are. and whether they are more accurate in some states and municipalities than in others. but i think we can agree that

these perceptions are accurate more often and in too many places than we would want them to be. and that the perception itself is a reason for great concern because beyond the statistical studies we cannot be one nation if a significant percentage of our community members believe they are receiving an inferior quality of justice or no justice at all. the protests have provided an impetus for change, but they can't produce change by themselves. we need to ensure that these protests are different from previous protests. and that they don't merely cry out for justice, but actually lead to more justice. to accomplish that we need a road map for change. and we need to press our leaders

in congress and elsewhere to follow that road map and travel to a place where justice is more and fairer. to move past these tragedies, we need to do some concrete things. first, we need to strengthen police community relations by creating community policing models, focused on the development of partnerships between police organizations and the communities they serve. how? new infrastructure and architecture. infrastructure and architecture that might provide the coherence we need and the coherence we need to bring to this enterprise. we need to create in every state federally funded community policing institutes dedicated to creating the tools, templates, training, and best practices for

bringing the police and the community members to the table for discussion on how best to keep their communities safe and strong. and we need to increase police transparency by letting the public know what the police are doing. and that can only occur when state and local police departments are required to keep data regarding police stops, searches, and shootings, and to record the rate of persons stopped, searched, or shot. why? because you can't possibly manage what you don't measure. transparency also means requiring police to install cruiser cameras, to wear body cameras, and to monitor police discretions to turn those cameras off. my last point is about

accountability. which means that allegations of police misconduct or situations in which a police officer shoots a civilian should be handled by an independent inspector general. the investigation and prosecutorial decision should not rest in the hands of a district attorney dependent on that police department for its criminal investigations, past and future. so we need police community partnerships, a state institute to support them, cameras, data collection, and an independent inspector general to investigate police misconduct. the roadmap doesn't end here today at this table. the next part is the most difficult. how do we implement it? the system is broken. we need democrats and republicans to come together to

craft a roadmap to justice and figure out how to fund and implement it. only then can we create a stronger community. >> i will begin the questioning and start with you, sheriff clark. do they want more or less of a police presence? they complain more about the actions of the police or inactions of the police? sheriff clark: they ask for more. they complain about both and i think that is human nature. a want safer neighborhoods. they know they will have to have policing in these high crime areas to get that done. it is situational. they complain about slow calls

for service responses. things like that which can have an effect on a person's trust in their law-enforcement agency. in other words, we call but they don't come. it is fluid. it is situational. we deal with that i situational basis. >> do your officers generally feel welcome comfortable in these communities? sheriff clarke: without a doubt. it is a hallmark of mind to create that relationship. i believe in the milwaukee area anyway, has a great relationship -- we don't have a great relationship with the criminal element. there is no doubt about that. but i think sometimes, this -- i believe it exists, this lack of

trust within segments of the community but not as a whole with in the minority community. >> i am glad to your that. he wrote in her testimony only 5% of the nations agencies participate in accreditation. that really surprised me. what is the biggest obstacle you raise in terms of getting other agencies accredited? >> i think it is a combination of all those things. i think it starts with leadership prerogative about what those organizational leaders think is important to them and they do leader of -- delivery. we hear concerns at the cost is too much. we heard that the cost is difficult because our process requires them to do things that

otherwise would not do. i can tell you the process is structured around fundamental sound principles of police service delivery. the process of accreditation doesn't increase the accountability, it measures accountability. it serves as a framework to keep organizations focused on fundamental areas. it relates to the cost and in-kind services and management of the process. >> is there a problem with legal precedents as it relates to use of force? does it result in second-guessing of an officer's decision? is there a problem with current legal precedent as they relate to use of a force and doesn't

result in second-guessing of officers decisions? ms. ramirez: i think it is a problem with the community not fully understanding all of the pressures, procedures, protocols the police are engaged in, and the police not discussing and educating the community about the things the police have to take into account as they go through a stop and search process. i don't believe this is a legal problem. i think it is a training problem, a problem that would be solved with better community policing. mr. goodlatte: you mention after your organization was called into portland, there was a sharp drop in officer involved

shootings, use of force, and citizen complaints without increase in officer injuries. what do you think causes that? mr. barge: i think that, as i said in my testimony, judges and court rooms use a very different set of rules to guide decision-making. officers on the street -- you don't have the luxury of examining all of the facts as they turned out to be and have to make split-second judgment calls. one thing police agencies can do right now is to ask themselves how do i want our police officers to react in these emerging use of force situations and craft more specific, clear guidance where appropriate and hold their officers accountable to the policies. the policies can do what the courts can not as a condition of

an officer being employed in that department. as to portland, i think what we did there was to institute a number of reforms that are very tested. they have been of limited in places where the doj has gone in the consent decree process. we can double meant those forms in a voluntary capacity that the city wanted us there. it was about instilling mechanisms where, by the police asked them solstice focal -- difficult questions. i think that kind of culture, by the numbers the city auditor found there, really changed the department for the better. mr. goodlatte: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for his question. >> i appreciate that the

different contributions from each of the five panelists and i think we are off to a good discussion. i would like you to know that thanks to the chairman and mr. scott, we have been having hearings on over criminalization . they start out for six months and the chairman added six more months to it. this moves us further along. the fact of the matter is, how do we change this culture? this goes back a long ways.

this isn't something -- a recent phenomenon at all. i am thinking about how we get into this infrastructure and architecture that we are trying to move through and i would like to look at that for a moment. but before we do, i will but to raise the question of police prosecutions. we all know the conundrum, the prosecutor and the police work together much of the time and then all of a sudden the prosecutor's got to decide whether to prosecute one that he's been working with a long time. professor ramirez and any of the rest of you, please, let's look at that for a moment.

ms. ramirez: as a former federal prosecutor, i've worked with law enforcement and i know firsthand the difficult and dangerous work that they do but i also believe that when there has been a civilian who's been shot or police misconduct, it is very hard for a prosecutor who works day in and day out with these law enforcement officers and knows they worked with them in the past and the future to make an independent decision which is why i think we need a process, different from the process that we have now. so i talk about having an independent inspector general make the decision. mr. conyers: yes. ms. ramirez: but also we need more transparency in the decisionmaking process. so right now we have a secret grand jury process. maybe we need something more like an inquest process or some kind of new process in which in these instances we can -- we can

develop a way to be more transparent about that pretrial investigation that takes place now by a prosecutor in the grand jury context. and i wanted to say one more thing about reducing use of force. the studies have shown that in departments where they've used cameras, body cameras and cameras in the car, that there has been a significant decrease in use of force. and it gives us the opportunity to learn from the recorded instances about best practices for de-escalation so when we have cameras and there is an incident we can learn more about it. mr. conyers: what's been your experience, sir, in terms of this problem of more or less where do we go from here?

mr. hartley, what do you think? [inaudible] mr. conyers: we can go wider than that. mr. hartley: and i think that discussion in a little more broad sense, i think the most important thing for any organization to do is to prepare for that bad event. we know that regardless of the best planning, you're still going to have people that are engaged in fundamental decisions around the enforcement of law that have impacts on communities. but the reality of it is that if the preparation takes place in the proper way with the proper folks around the table it relieves those expectations of negativity, if you will, and it promotes organizational confidence in how the process will be managed. i don't feel comfort saying that

one size fits all for each agency because i think each jurisdiction brings on different attributes that has to be -- mr. conyers: of course. mr. hartley: but for the public's consideration and for the officers' consideration confidence in the process is important and it has to do with planning for the event from start to finish and include community contacts, media engagement and other processors related to the legal system. mr. conyers: thank you very much. ms. rahr, just in closing, do you see some hope in president obama's recent statements on the subject when he was in camden yesterday? ms. rahr: i do. i think that there are a number of recommendations that will be helpful to every police department in the nation for some departments, they will be able to follow many of those recommendations. i hope that as time goes on the distribution of federal funding and resources will take into account the cooperation of agencies that are doing their best to follow those recommendations.

mr. conyers: thank you. mr. goodlatte: chair thanks the gentleman. the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina, mr. gowdy, for five minutes. mr. gowdy: thank you. professor ramirez, you mentioned a couple of cases in your opening statement and i know time is short when you only have five minutes and you were not able to address other cases. i wanted to ask you whether or not you were familiar with a few other cases. sandy rogers and scottie richardson from akin, south carolina, you familiar with that case? ms. ramirez: no, sir. mr. gowdy: how about roger day o' rice from ryan, south carolina, are you familiar with that case? ms. rahr: -- ms. ramirez: no, sir. mr. gowdy: russ sorrow from greenville, south carolina? ms. ramirez: no, sir. mr. gowdy: or kevin carper from spartanburg, south carolina? ms. ramirez: no, sir. mr. gowdy: professor, those are just a handful of the more than 340 police officers who were killed in the line of duty in south carolina.

and kevin carper's case is most instructive because his partner did c.p.r. on the suspect that killed kevin trying to save his life. let me ask you another way. are you familiar with the case of ricky samuel? ms. ramirez: no, sir. mr. gowdy: how about tamika, houston? ms. ramirez: no, sir. mr. gowdy: nell lindsey, santiago rios? ms. ramirez: no, sir. mr. gowdy: those are all folks that were the victim of intraracial homicides in south carolina. and i hasten to add, they were not protest either with those police officer killings or any of the intraracial killings, and i suspect you agree with me, professor, that all lives matter whether you're killed by a police officer or your next door neighbor, you're every bit as dead, aren't you? ms. ramirez: yes, sir.

i actually as a former prosecutor and someone who's worked with police officers have the deepest respect for them. mr. gowdy: so do i. and despite that deep respect, professor, i still maintain the objectivity of prosecuting police officers if there is misconduct. recusal which is what some of us did in every single one of our officer-involved shootings, we recused it to another prosecutor so he or she could make that decision so there is a process in place. you called for a process, there is one. it's called recusal. do you know as a former prosecutor or can you dane what may have been the biggest impediment to our being able to successfully prosecute homicide cases, particularly homicide cases involving victims of color?

in my criminal justice jurisdiction, do you know what the biggest impediment was? ms. ramirez: in massachusetts one of the biggest impediments is trying to get witnesses to come forward. mr. gowdy: you're exactly right. you're exactly right. you have a victim of color and we had trouble getting witnesses to cooperate with law enforcement and prosecutors which then, as you know, diminishes the quality of that case and your ability to prosecute it which may result in a lesser plea bargain because you don't have the facts which may then result in what you said in your opening statement which is people have a tendency to treat black lives differently than white when the reality is the case wasn't quite as good. isn't that a possibility too? ms. ramirez: for every prosecutor who's out there, this is a serious problem and you are correct in pointing that out sir. mr. gowdy: right. and it wasn't just me pointing it out, professor. i happen to have a fantastic chief of police when i was the d.a. fantastic man by the name of tony fisher who happened to be an african-american chief of

police, and he lamented the exact same thing you and i are talking about is the loss of life in his community and the refusal of people to cooperate even in a drive-by shooting of an 8-year-old at a birthday party, a drive-by shooting outdoors where the whole world saw the car drive by and nobody would cooperate with the prosecution in the murder of an 8-year-old. so i hope that part of this 21st century police strategy conversation that we're having includes getting people to cooperate with law enforcement so you can hold people to the exact same standard regardless of the race of the victim. and i want to say this, too. i want to thank my friend, ced richmond and hakeem jefferies and others who are working on this issue because they want a justice system that is

colorblind. after all, it's respected by a woman wearing a blindfold so let's go ahead and make it colorblind and both of those guys have worked really, really hard and will continue to do so because let me tell what you my goal is my goal is for witnesses to feel comfortable cooperating, but here's my other goal, and i'm out of time but i'm going to share it with you. i want to get to the point where we lament the death, the murder of a black female like nell lindsey just as much if it's at the hand of an abusive husband which it was, as we would if it would have been if it was at the hand of a white cop. i want to get to the point where we're equally outraged at the loss of life and i hope we can get there. with that i would yield back. mr. goodlatte: the chair thanks the gentleman. recognize the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, for five minutes. ms. jackson lee: mr. chairman, thank you so very much and let me thank both you and the

ranking member, my ranking member for listening and engaging and leading and i was delighted to participate in the process and i'd like to say to my colleagues that this effort of criminal justice reform is going to be a committee effort. every member's input and assessment and analysis and legislative initiatives will stand equal, i believe, in the eyes of the ranking member and the chairman and certainly those of us who serve as the chairperson and ranking member of the crime subcommittee, as i do. america will not be responded to unless this committee works together and that our efforts are in unison and collective responding, of course, to the many witnesses that will come before us. so this is the first year, and i think america should recognize the very large step that we are making. sheriff clarke, let me thank you

for your service. we may agree to disagree but there is no disagreement with your service and the sacrifice that you represent. as you indicated, we met a couple of weeks ago. just may 15, i was on the west side of the campus of this great congress dealing with the many families who had lost loved ones in law enforcement. so my tone today will be that we do ill when we take each other's pain lightly, the pain of black lives matter, the pain of hands up, don't shoot, i can't breathe, that is pain. and it is equally the pain of mr. greer who was on the steps of his house august, 2013, and was shot in virginia. he happened to be an angelo or caucasian male. what we have to do to make a legislative step of monumental change that gives our officers the confidence of their work further enhance their training is to be able to work together.

my line of questioning will be how do we fix these problems and how do we get the 5% number, that is a lot of officers, to be 25%, 50% accreditation, that's what the american people, i think, are looking at. i don't want anyone's pain to be diminished and i sit here today recognizing that pain. sloat me just quickly say this regarding statistics. james coney, the director of f.b.i., said the following about the uniform crime report. the now three-year-old source that was cited in the sheriff's testimony said the following demographic data regarding officer involved shootings is not consistently reported to us

through our uniform crime reporting program. because reporting is volume run tear, our data is incomplete and therefore unreliable. mr. hartley, i have thought that data is important. introduced a bill called the cadet bill to gather statistics of shootings by police and by individuals against police because i believe in fairness. and so if this was required, would that be an asset to -- as you do your scientific work of providing insight for training? mr. hartley: ms. jackson lee -- ms. jackson lee, let me first start by saying that i think data helps drive decisionmaking and it helped drive it in an important way because you don't know what you don't know sometimes and what we find is organizations that engage with calea discovered data in the process that really helps them make fundamental decisions that drive the organization in a responsible way towards community service. ms. jackson lee: do you have enough money to credit all of the police departments across america? withdrew need some

incentivizing, some funding to help you do that? mr. hartley: well, we don't need the incentivizing or funding to help that occur but those organizations sometimes do. organizations that participate with us range in size from 10,000 to 10. ms. jackson lee: so funding to them would be a helpful component of police -- of accountability? mr. hartley: i think that would support agencies in this mission. ms. jackson lee: on the calea standards of body cameras, transport, an independent review of lethal force by law enforcement, are there standards? that's the question. on body cameras, police arrest and transport? one of the issues i'm concerned about because when the issue came out in baltimore, it wasn't sort of put aside, police departments were saying all over, you know what, some of the things we do. but do you have standards on that in use of lethal force? mr. hartley: we have standards on all of those subjects. the one related to transport didn't face the issue faced in baltimore. however there is a standard that encourages the safe transport of

individuals, regardless the type -- ms. jackson lee: we need to help enhance that and make that a noticeable part of policing across america. mr. hartley: well, i think that standards themselves are a dynamic living tool. i think as we encounter new issues -- and we certainly will, we have to be prepared to make adjustments in those standards. ms. jackson lee: ms. rahr, you talked about training programs particularly opposition of those against the status quo. can you add to your conversation. i don't want any police officer to not go home to their family. that's a mantra that we all stand by and i, you know everyone says, we have great relationships -- i'm a big believer in community oriented policing. the father of community oriented policing lives in houston, lee brown. can you talk about de-escalation in training and how that impacts on police interaction? mr. goodlatte: the time of the gentlewoman has expired but the witness may answer the question. ms. jackson lee: it's a very exciting hearing. it generates a lot of questions.

thank you. ms. rahr: thank you, sir. i have described the philosophical shift that i have been promoting for a couple of years. as moving our culture closer to a guardian mentality rather than a warrior mentality. i believe the warrior mentality was a result of a political movement that started in the 1960's when we declared war on crime, war on drugs, war on all sorts of things. the police agencies across this nation responded as they do to their political leadership in their communities. what i'm trying to do is help our new police officers find the right balance because officers absolutely must have keen warrior skills and they must be able to use them without hesitation or policy. but i want them to consider their role within our democracy and that role needs to be the role of a protector with the goal of protecting people rather than conquering them. when you try to initiate this type of a mind set shift there's naturally going to be resistance. the greatest resistance i've

encountered is just the misunderstanding of what i'm talking about. when i have the opportunity to explain it in more depth, most officers will say to me, that's how good cops have always done it. i want our recruits on their first day on the street to have the wisdom of a good cop with 20 years experience. mr. goodlatte: the time of the gentlewoman has expired. ms. jackson lee: i yield back. mr. goodlatte: the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. bishop, for five minutes. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to thank the panel for your testimony today. grateful for the time you've taken to be with us today. sheriff, i had an opportunity to speak with the law enforcement community in my community, and i did a roundtable discussion. i had an open dialogue about the events of the day and some of

the concerns that have been raised in this very discussion. they were concerned, as well about some of the bad actors in their own rank and file that we've been seeing around this country and very concerned about it but also we're -- were adamant about the fact that the majority of the officers they work with, the emergency response personnel are hardworking, good professional people who are there for a common purpose and that is to serve the public. and they're concerned that that doesn't resonate, that we see more now of the bad acting than some of the negative that's gone on out there and it's important we identify and we deal with that and we not tolerate it in any way, shape or form. but it's also important that we do whatever we can to really rally behind those who have given so much in the law enforcement community. i think -- i'd really like to know from you, what's going on with the morale of the law enforcement community? are you having problems with recruitment and retention of officers as a result of all that's gone on around the

country? shoip mr. chair, congressman -- sheriff clarke: mr. chair, congressman, we're at a tipping point that i expressed not too long what happened in ferguson missouri, about the psyche of the police officer who watches these things go on, just like anybody else does, and the constant bashing and maligning of the profession is starting to take its toll. i just spent this week in the d.c. area for the national law enforcement officers memorial, police week, if you will, and i talked to law enforcement officers across this country and the one common theme i heard from them, first of all, their mind set is they're beleaguered right now. but the common theme that i heard is, you know, sheriff, i don't know if i want to continue to take that extra step any more because i don't want to be the next darren wilson. i don't want to be the next, you

know, the officers in baltimore or new york or anywhere because they in a good faith effort -- we're talking about the goode faith action of law enforcement officers, we operate in an environment of chaos and uncertainty when we get sent to these calls. sometimes in this imperfect world things can go horribly wrong, which they did in ferguson, missouri. i'm not going to get into whose fault it was but something went horribly wrong. but some of the best law enforcement work that goes on all across the country is called self-initiated. it's not the call for service. when an officer gets sent to a call for service something already happened. it's reactive. the crime already occurred. but the self-initiated policing is when that officer, that man

or woman uses their experience their sixth sense, if you will their street sense that criminal activity may be afoot and they establish the reasonable suspicion so they can make that stop consistent with our constitution, they go and investigate. they pull that car over or they go and what we call, you know, stick up a group of individuals hanging on a corner or casing an area, so to speak, and we start to investigate. in self-initiated policing you're going to find the guns that are being used to transport to and from drive-by shootings you're going to find prohibited persons with firearms, you're going to find drugs, you're going to find people wanted on serious felony warrants through self-initiated policing. when that starts to fall off -- there will be a lag time. this won't happen overnight. the cops in this country aren't going to quit. but over time when they start to worry they look and they see that suspicious vehicle or they see that suspicious individual and say, maybe not today, i don't want this thing to go hay wire on me and next thing i know

i'm one of those officers that -- who becomes a household name in america. that is going to a lag time, ok. i don't like to create hysteria but over time i think it will have an affect on crime rates in those communities that need assertive policing the most and that's our north communities. mr. bishop: thank you, sheriff. i guess my time is up, mr. chairman. so i would yield back the balance. mr. goodlatte: the chair thanks the gentleman and recognize the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, for five minutes. mr. nadler: thank you. before i ask the question, let me just make an observation. sheriff clarke talked about the sixth sense, about taking that extra step. sometimes taking that extra step is very necessary but sometimes we maybe want the officer not to take the extra step. maybe that's sometimes the problem and that leads into the question of changing police culture which ms. rahr talked about. ms. rahr, what is the greatest challenge in changing police

culture? ms. rahr: i think the greatest challenge is recognizing that we have a real variety of cultures already existing across the country. when officers come to begin their career of service, most of them come to the table with the goal of doing something good doing something to benefit the community and then they're confronted with the realities of trying to do those good things. as a result, sometimes they take on a tougher persona and they may lose sight of their original reasons for coming in the door. i think we need to work harder within -- within the agencies, the leadership within the agencies to support our police officers, make sure that they are healthy both mentally and physically and they feel supported by the agency. if an officer doesn't feel support inside their agency, they're not going to be willing to take a risk and try something different. they're not going to be willing to take as much of a risk to go out on a limb to protect

someone. i think the internal culture of policing is absolutely critical. and when that is strong and healthy and confident, officers will be willing to try something different. mr. nadler: and what, if anything, can we in congress do to help this change? ms. rahr: i'd a lot of to see congress provide funding for improved training. i'll just cut right to the chase. there are a number of excellent programs already in existence that could be -- that could literally transform the profession of policing in this country. i've been involved for the last couple of years with the program called blue courage, and that program seeks to support police officers build their pride build their sense of high morale and especially assist them in seeing their appropriate role within -- as the guardian in democracy. that program cost money and agencies that want to acquire that training have to pay for an officer on overtime to fill the

districts. mr. nadler: appropriating money for training. anything else? ms. rahr: besides training? mr. nadler: besides money? ms. rahr: oh, besides money, i'm sorry. i just think the recognition that individual police agencies need to be supported. there is not going to be a one-size-fits-all federal solution to this. mr. nadler: thank you very much. professor ramirez, we've had a number -- all over the country we've had a number of problems, obviously, with violence against citizens who turned out not to have weapons or be guilty of anything. sometimes the police officer gets prosecuted. sometimes people don't. sometimes people are happy with it. sometimes they're not. we've seen these controversies, and, of course, it's been suggested that the d.a.'s are too close, they have to work day-to-day with the police -- police officers. they're too close to make that decision without being thought

partisan, whether they are or not. should we consider a special -- should we have a law or regulation that mandates a special prosecutor or special master for investigations of police officers on the grounds that the d.a.'s are in fact too close to do this fairly? would that be a good idea? ms. ramirez: i think it would be a good idea. mr. nadler: would that enhance community confidence and impartiality and what are the negatives on it? ms. ramirez: yes. while we do have a recusal system that recusal system is now in the hands of the district attorney, so the district attorney in ferguson did not recuse himself. and i think having laws and a process would create more legitimacy and more transparency to the public. mr. nadler: thank you. what is the -- also, professor what is the greatest impediment to prosecuting police officers who violate constitutional rights of individuals in their official capacity? obviously we don't do -- what is it 18 -- deprivation of civil rights by color by the federal

government. what is the greatest impediment to prosecuting police officers who ought to be prosecuted, and there are some, obviously? ms. ramirez: i am one that did prosecute police officers. the first impediment in a prosecutorial office when you work with police, when you work with law enforcement, it is very hard to decide to prosecute -- mr. nadler: what we talked about in our previous question? ms. ramirez: right. mr. nadler: because my time is running out, obviously there have been a lot of controversial encounters and some of which police officers prosecuted and others which they weren't, sometimes the d.a. excoriated for prosecuting, sometimes for not prosecuting. would it be better for the sense of justice on the part of relatives of victims or would it be better for the police

officers who could be exonerated by this if police officers used body cameras all the time whenever they have such an encounter? ms. ramirez: i think cameras are critical of this -- at this juncture and we know four things happen when you put cameras in place because we did research both in grain and this country when cameras -- great britain and this country when cameras were used. police officers know they're being recorded during an incident. second, complaints against police officers diminished significantly which reduces the cost and process of adjudicating these incidents after the fact in trying to find facts. surprisingly, the third thing is that there's been an increase in successful prosecution of domestic violence. because the police can record on the scene at the time what happened. the fourth thing that would be very helpful in moving the police culture from a warrior culture to a guardianship culture is that you could begin to have guardianship metrics. the current metrics are warrior

metrics. how many people did you arrest search, seize, how many guns did you seize, how many drugs did you seize? if you had cameras you could begin to do two things. you could begin to evaluate officers on guardianship values. you could look at every 100th tape and see was this police officer courteous, did they follow procedures, did they try to de-escalate? second, it serves as an early warning system to the police because if if you're watching on a regular basis randomly some of these cameras, you will discern who are the bad apples who have anger management issues and other issues. mr. nadler: thank you. i yield back. mr. goodlatte: the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona, mr. franks, for five minutes. mr. franks: well, thank you, mr. chairman. you know, mr. chairman, to

paraphrase the poet, we sleep safe in our beds at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do us harm. and certainly i believe that that in the people that wear the uniform, the many women that wear the uniform fit in that paradigm very well because unless there are those that are willing to stand between the innocent and the malevolent then the malevolent will prevail. i think they are the most noble figures in our society. and sheriff mack -- sorry -- sheriff clarke, i heard you on one of the television interviews and was so struck by your clarity and your eagle-eyed approach and i thought this gentleman personifies that nobility that we talk about and i really think that my children and the children of this country have a safer, more hopeful future because of people like you. so i would suggest to you that others have come to the same conclusion, that might be why you're here in this hearing this morning. my question is first for you