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

have the recent events and the press response to those events had any kind of impact on your officers or made them more likely to employ strategies and tactics that might actually compromise their safety or the safety of the community? sheriff clarke: mr. chair, congressman, without a doubt it's part of the tipping point that i talked about. you know, we need balance obviously and obviously when we find balance maintaining is going to be more difficult. an officer delaying that thing that's telling him or her to do a certain thing that doesn't happen and may cost them their lives but let me say this about the use of body cameras. i am for this, the use of this technology. i think it's a force multiplier. it can only help. but what i've been advising, i

think we're rushing into this because we will end up with a law of unintended consequences. there are privacy issues involved. it potentially could lead to fewer people wanting to come forward and cooperate with the police, especially in our north communities where cooperating with police can lead you to a very bad conclusion. you don't want to be seen doing that. you don't want to be videotaped cooperating with the police. so we have to think what impact it will have on witnesses wanting to come forward or even calling to report crime. i just want to close by saying that, you know, the use of body cameras and the early evidence that it's leading to fewer complaints and fewer instances of force is not -- there's evidence to suggest this, not to show it, that it isn't just the result of the officer knowing that someone's watching. it's also letting the person who the officer's dealing with know if i make a false complaint against this officer it's going to be on video and that could lead to a decrease in complaints as well.

so i don't want to, you know, everybody to presume that it's because the officers are being watched, that they're changing their behavior and the same with suspects. they know they're being videotaped. maybe they're less likely to fight the police and engage in some of that behavior. so that's why i say i support that, the use of those body cameras. but there's some things associated with it that have not been flushed out yet. i just say, let's not rush into this because it's not a panacea. thank you. mr. franks: thank you, sir. ms. rahr, in your testimony you discuss the absence of a national coherence in policing. i wonder how you would you have proposed to implement national policing standards while still ensuring that local police departments may maintain the autonomy necessary to remain effective in their own jurisdictions? ms. rahr: i haven't suggested national standards. what the task force worked on is recommendation to provide guidance and to provide more support for police departments.

i don't think we'll ever come to a place where we have national standards for police policies and procedures. there's just too many different variables in each community. mr. franks: well, mr. chairman i would just suggest, sir, while i think everyone sees our police force in general as guardians, i'm thankful that there are there are enough warrior mentality among them. i yield back. mr. goodlatte: the chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cohen, for five minutes. mr. cohen: i want to thank you for holding this hearing, most important. and i want to stay on the front end. i started my legal career -- i was a lawyer as the attorney for the memphis police. spent 3 1/2 years working with the police and i understand policing and appreciate policing

and know it's essential for ordered liberty and a society that has on the front lines men and women willing to risk their lives. on the other hand -- and i have great respect for mr. comboudy and happy he's back here. he mentioned he looks for the day that we rue the death of the lady. i forget the name. the woman who was killed in a domestic -- the same as we rue the problems when a white policeman kills a black citizen. and i would have to say with great respect for mr. gowdy, there's a big difference. one is a private tragedy, the other is a public tragedy because it's under color of law. and while we'd like to see no crime whatsoever -- and that would be wonderful -- we can only mostly be concerned about color of law killings. and that's something we should be concerned about. it's a big difference. i would like to mention -- question for professor ramirez. you mentioned an investigation prosecutorial decisions rest in the hands of d.a.'s and mr. gowdy mentioned recusal. recusal is up to the d.a. and in the recommendations of the

president's task force, there were recommendations that we have an independent prosecutor. congressman clay and i have introduced a bill that requires states to adopt independent prosecutor laws or face a cut in burn jag funding. this would present a solution. is part of the reason that the problem exists is that perception, is that part of the reason why you think it's important to have an independent prosecutor? because the perception the public has there's not independent analysis of the cases and independent determination of who should be prosecuted? ms. ramirez: yes, sir, it's primarily a matter of perception because i believe that prosecutors across the country try to do the best that they can and exercise a the best judgment. but there -- because of this inherent conflict there may be the perception in the eye of the

public that this was not a fair and full hearing. mr. cohen: the d.a.'s main witnesses are always police. ms. ramirez: correct. mr. cohen: in my community, the d.a. hires, which makes sense, former sheriff's people or police people to be their investigators. ms. ramirez: yes, sir. mr. cohen: there's an inherent conflict. that's why we have our bill lacy clay, and i because we think not only would it eliminate the perception but there's certain cases where there's politics involved. a base for the d.a., who is elected, is law enforcement and that's a political problem. that's number one. ms. roar rar, you were a member of the president's task force and thank you for your work and your colleagues' force. the task force recommended the use of independent prosecutors as well where police uses force and it results in death or injury, was that recommendations where d.a.'s did not -- if the recommendation was based on instances where d.a.'s did not pursue cases against police as aggressively or was it a mere perception of the conflict of interest and the --

ms. rahr: in our debates and conversation the primary focus was on the perception. it's in recognition we have to maintain public trust. there are many prosecutors across this nation that are perfectly capable i i believe doing a prosecution of police shootings. unfortunately we have to maintain public trust and when you try to balance those two issues it was -- it was the consensus of the task force that public trust had to have more weight than just the pragmatism of having that particular prosecutor. mr. cohen: i'm down to my last minute. part of the bill with representative clay had some sensitivity training to recognize gender differences and maybe sexual orientation differences. do you think it would be helpful to have police training in the diverse societies we have today? ms. rahr: i wouldn't title it sensitivity training because the

police would shut it down immediately. mr. cohen: my last minute. sheriff clarke, let me ask you this. you mentioned in your testimony that much of the population and -- in state and federal prisons was for violent crime. probably that's true. for federal system it's mostly drug crime. there's not so much violent crime there. that's where the drug situation really fills up the federal prisons. you mentioned -- you said illegal drug use is the scourge of the black community and it is a problem and leads to a great deal of violent crime. would you agree that marijuana possession is not the scourge of the black community and does not lead to violent crime the same way that meth, crack and crearn do? sheriff clarke: i wouldn't agree with that at all. mr. cohen: i wish i had more time to talk with you. thank you for allowing me this

opportunity. the defense attorney is not supposed to ask the question but it was such an obvious answer i never thought i'd get that answer. mr. goodlatte: the time of the gentleman has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, for five minutes. senator king: resisting the similar -- mr. king: resisting the temptation to yield the balance of my time to mr. cohen. mr. cohen: thank you. mr. king: i have an article and dated by the way, the 6th of may, but tiled "obama praised baltimore police he's now investigating.” it points out the study that the gentleman from tennessee referenced, the president task force or 21st century policing which i have in my hand, and it also quotes from the police chief of baltimore who said he changed outdated procedures that put officers at odds with the community. this goes back to march of 2015, was dated the report -- dated this article is the first week or so in may. it's interesting to me, as listen to the testimony of ms.

rahr, and i give you credit for contributing to that report as well, you'd like to see a shift from the warrior mentality to that of a guardian. and i think of the night i came here and i watched live on television the encounters with baltimore police and rock throwing mobs and i saw the baltimore police retreat from rock-throwing mobs. so i'd ask you, is there a time they need to convert back to the warrior mentality and was that the time? ms. rahr: i want to clarify when i talk about a guardian mentality, that absolutely does not imply retreat. it does not imply weakness. it implies being able to do two things at once. mr. king: you can do that by just answering my question also. ms. rahr: sorry. mr. king: was baltimore a time there should have been more of a warrior mentality when they were facing rock-throwing mobs and retreating in the face of rock-throwing mobs? was that a time when there needed to be an engagement of the police? ms. rahr: they needed to have warrior tactics while having the mind set of a guardian.

mr. king: i'd turn to mr. ramirez and your testimony was very interesting to me. and i began thinking about our constitution and where it says in the first amendment, i'll paraphrase but also accurately. congress shall make no law respecting the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for redresses of grievances. do you agree with that statement? ms. ramirez: yes, sir. mr. king: and there's no prohibition in that statement that i read and that prohibits congress from making a law or enforcing a law that would prohibit the people from violently assembling to petition the government for redress of grievances? ms. ramirez: congress does have the right to restrain violence in any form. mr. king: and so we agree that freedom of speech isn't the right to yell fire in a crowded theater? ms. ramirez: correct.

mr. king: then we could also agree -- i'll ask you. is it then -- is it lawful or unlawful for one to pay protesters and encourage them to become violent? ms. ramirez: i think that's a crime. mr. king: yes. i'd agree with that also. i'd point out that my -- and encourage violence, i want to pull that part out as a separate clause in my statement here for this purpose here. i have in my hand a stack of tweets and stories and messages about protesters in ferguson missouri, who now are protesting that they didn't get paid for the work that they did. and i put that word work if quotes. have you reviewed any of that? are you knowledgeable about any of that information, ms. ramirez? ms. ramirez: no, but i would say this. at this juncture, the most helpful thing that we could do is to try to bring the community and the police together in dialogues at the local level. mr. king: i do understand that.

that was in your testimony and i think the panel understands it. if you were -- if you were presented with information that showed that indicated that there were -- there was a funder or funders who had hired protesters that may well have been to bust into places like ferguson, missouri, or sent to places like baltimore and we ended up watching buildings and businesses be burned and property damage being created and some cases assault, would that be worthy of an investigation, would you think by the local police force? ms. ramirez: yes. mr. king: and what about the u.s. attorney general? ms. ramirez: i think that they should -- if there is evidence that someone were being paid to engage in violent protests and engage in violence, then that's a serious problem. mr. king: but you wouldn't think that if they didn't say violence, if they said protest and it turned into violence,

that wouldn't be a crime? ms. ramirez: that's a different situation. mr. king: i'd like to turn that and ask sheriff clarke if he could respond with the reflections upon the exchange you heard? sheriff clarke: sir, i was a little disappointed there weren't more aggressive prosecutions to -- some of the rioters on videotape. one that stands out to me is a group of young individuals standing and dancing on top of a police cruiser that had been destroyed, so to speak, as if they had captured some sort of ground. it's government property. in wisconsin we have a statute of inciting a riot. i think it should be used on both sides. there's too much focus on what the police may have done, you know, prior to the riots breaking out.

as you indicated, there's a more socially acceptable way under our first amendment to display your frustrations, your anger and it's not rioting. it's not destroying property of other people. they abandoned -- we saw that night what baltimore would look like without the police, with police stepping back as they did. some say retreating. it was an ugly situation for a great american city. mr. king: thank you, sheriff. i thank the chairman and the witnesses and yield back the balance of my time. mr. goodlatte: the chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson, for five minutes. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank you and the ranking member for agreeing to hold this hearing. and i -- sheriff clarke, i heard about, read about your testimony -- astigmatic testimony, that's the word i'm trying to use. please note my strong respect and support for police and law enforcement and also note my

strong insistence that rule of law apply to all regardless of whether a person is a civilian or law enforcement. the failure to prosecute police officers, militarize police responses to peaceful protests and video footage of people dying by the hands of law enforcement have led us to where we are today. while discussing police accountability is an essential way to improve the relationship between the community and law enforcement, i hope that this committee will hold additional hearings that will allow us to specifically focus upon grand jury reform, use of body cameras and the d.o.j.'s data collection and transparency practices. before we witnessed the mill tarization of police -- mill tarization of police in missouri, i had worked on the stop militarization law enforcement act which prevents local police forces from

receiving mraps, tanks, other weapons left over from the war and i'm very grateful and humbled that president obama yesterday issued an executive order that virtually ends the 1033 program. i've also introduced the grand jury reform act which calls for the use of special prosecutors and independent law enforcement agencies when there has been a police killing. and also have introduced the police accountability act which would expand the d.o.j.'s authority to bring charges against law enforcement officers. sir, do you -- have you ever heard the name arriston waiters before? i'm sure that you haven't.

he was just a 19-year-old unarmed black male, just a typical unarmed black male down in union city, georgia, who was shot while laying on his stomach, shot twice in the back by a law enforcement officer police officer from union city. shot twice in the back at close range. the officer who killed mr. waiters allegedly exhibited signs of posttraumatic stress disorder. he was an afghanistan war veteran. according to the anxiety disorders association of america, there are 40 million adults in the united states over the age of 18 who suffer from anxiety disorders. 7.7 million of those americans suffer from posttraumatic stress disorder. i'm concerned about the role mental health issues play in officers using excessive force against civilians.

we've talked about police officers receiving training on how to apprehend people suffering from mental illnesses, but what is your department doing to make sure that officers themselves aren't suffering from mental illnesses? sheriff clarke: mr. chair, congressman, that is one of the most difficult situations that law enforcement officers today are dealing with. the mentally ill. mr. johnson: i'm saying in terms of -- would you agree that there must be some out there among the 7.7 million americans suffering from posttraumatic stress of -- would you agree that there must be some out there among the 7.7 million americans suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder who are law enforcement officers. you would not deny that, would you? sheriff clarke: i don't have any data to refute it. mr. johnson: well -- but would you think that there may be some cases where there are officers who are suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder and who are serving currently in

law enforcement? sheriff clarke: if i had to guess, yes. i had such a situation with one of my patrol sergeants who served in the first gulf war, i believe. and he slapped around a handcuffed prisoner. i not only had him charged with a felony, he went to prison for 18 months. mr. johnson: you're to be commended for that. sheriff clarke: it was a hard thing to do. mr. johnson: does your department have a system of monitoring police officers or your police officers periodically just to determine whether or not they have any mental health issues that could impede their ability to protect and serve the people? sheriff clarke: no, not a systemic one. we have our standard early warning system. mr. johnson: do you think it would be wise for the federal

government -- i noticed that in your statement you say that police use of force -- i'm quoting you -- police use of force should be scrutinized dash locally, that is. does that mean you don't think the federal government should concern itself with these issues at all? sheriff clarke: it's not that i don't think the federal government should concern itself. i think the federal government should observe what's going on across the nation with all these issues but to -- mr. johnson: you say it should be scrutinized locally, though. does that mean to the exclusion of the federal government? sheriff clarke: really, if i could finish a sentence -- mr. goodlatte: the time of the gentleman has expired but the witness is allowed to answer the question. mr. johnson: thank you. sheriff clarke: sure, it should be scrutinized, without a doubt. mr. johnson: thank you. mr. goodlatte: the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. marino, for five minutes. mr. marino: thank you, mr. chairman. it's a pleasure to have you here today.

sheriff, if you could zero in on an issue for me concerning resources. if you had the money would you hire more sheriffs, deputy sheriffs and where would you put them, what would you do with them? sheriff clarke: yes, i would hire them. i'm in a court battle now with the county. i've had to sue the county to be able to hire more law enforcement officers. i'd put them in the field based on what the data's showing where the crimes' occurring and not just the crime but to provide a consistent visible presence to deter the crime, not just making arrests and writing citations. mr. marino: if you need help with your superiors to fund your department, i'll be glad to join and help. >> i'll do that. ms. ramirez, i come from a long line of law enforcement people. we take it very seriously.

i was a assistant district tornado, district attorney, my colleague was one of the best assistant u.s. attorneys in the country and i prosecuted cases myself and i did not base my decision to prosecute cases involving african-americans or police on color or on the police. i based it on the rule of law. it had nothing to about with who committed the crime and who didn't and what police were involved. and you stated that you had a difficult time choosing over law enforcement and police. i never did. if you have a difficult time like that you shouldn't be a prosecutor. why would you prosecute if you made that statement that i have a difficult time prosecuting police if they broke the law? ms. ramirez: in my particular situation, as an assistant u.s. attorney, we had not prosecuted police officers in the past.

and the u.s. attorney at the time said to me, do you plan to practice law as a defense attorney here in boston afterwards? mr. marino: ok. you'll get into the u.s. attorney or that individual. you know you have a step to go to if you have a complaint about prosecuting the case in the u.s. attorney's office. you can go from one person to another and you can actually go to the justice department. now, you also raised the issue -- ms. ramirez: which we did, sir. mr. marino: i'm asking the questions here. ms. ramirez: ok. mr. marino: you raised the issue of recusal, that it's up to the district attorney. it's up to the u.s. attorney. in my -- in the state courts or federal courts, if there was a recusal, we looked at it very seriously. i recused myself from cases and my staff. you can take that step to the judge.

you can petition the court for recusal and petition as to why. you didn't mention that. and here's another thing i ran into as a prosecutor, as my colleagues said. it was very difficult to get young african-american males to testify against others particularly -- even in cases where a family member was killed. can you address that for a little bit, please? ms. ramirez: that is -- that is one of the most important problems that needs to be addressed, and i want to talk about how we addressed it in boston. mr. marino: would you please quickly. i only have a minute and a half. ms. ramirez: we went to the community organizations. we went to the faith-based community and we talked to the community and asked them why people were unwilling to come forward as witnesses. there were a myriad of causes. we set up a process and hearings. as a result, we had i don't know how many cold cases that were solved through a process in which the faith-based community went out, did outreach to the community, the community organization standards that and

we have improved. mr. marino: i agree with you that's a good way to handle it. you agree it's a problem. ms. ramirez: it's definitely a problem, sir. mr. marino: you had an extensive exemplary career but if you ever ridden in a car with a police officer? when they are faced with quick reaction situations? i know you couldn't do it as an assistant district attorney. as a d.a., have you been on the street when a police officer had to make a split-second decision that's taken to the united states supreme court two years to determine what is right in a 5-4 decision? ms. ramirez: yes. i've been in cars where -- police had to make a split second decision. i found it very frightening. >> the fact that someone has to determine over a period of time what is right and wrong. you -- you know, you didn't bring up the issue that the

number keeps coming up that 93% of the young black males, those ones that are murdered, 93% are killed by young black males. why is this happening and what can we do to change that? ms. ramirez: that is a serious problem, but i agree with others who said what happens under color of law is different from what happens privately between private individuals. they are both problems but they are different problems. and when someone kills under color of law, that merits a different process. >> i think any prosecutor understands that very, very much. i yield back the time. mr. goodlatte: the japan's time has expired. the gentlewoman from california. >> thank you.

it puts a premium on conversation and listening during a police encounter. could you watch us through a hypothetical situation where lead has gone through a situation and tell us how it works. >> the purpose is to simplify the procedures and give officers very specific tangible behavioral direction. in situations where there is conflict taking the time if there is not a threat present. i want to be very clear about that. if someone is pointing a gun at you, you don't listen and explain. you do what you have to do. but in most police interactions in the community there is time. and if officers are reminded of the benefit of listening, that will help set that interaction going town the correct track. most police officers like myself, we like to step in and control things and we have to be reminded to stop and listen. when people say police should

treat people with respect, the most effective way to convey respect is to listen. we really want to emphasize that for our officers. the other area where many officers forget is we know the system inside and out. we know what is going to happen next. people we're interacting with don't know that. it is that lack of knowledge that creates another level of conflict and again if the officer is reminded, tell the person what they can expect, they will be more likely to cooperate. when we talk about equity, make sure you are recognizing whatever biases you bring to the table, make sure you're making your decision in an equitable way and always lead with the person you're interacting with, with their dignity in the tact and dignity yourself. a lot of officers will laugh whenever we use an acronym and i

get that but that is also a way to teach specific behavior. >> studies have shown that people in a community care more about how they are treated by police rather than the actual outcome of a police encounter. police may pull people over for a driving offense. people care more whether they were treated fairly by the officer than whether they got the ticket. something as simple as officers having friendly non-enforcement related conversations with community members have shown to have huge benefits in building community trust. how do we change things so that the system values these characteristics in our police? >> i think we start in a training academy by modeling that type of behavior and being clear about that as an

expectation. empathy means you understand what the person is experiencing. i think it starts with training. i think it was mentioned by another witness that we have to come up with appropriate measures. people will rise to those things that are measured. when we find ways to measure officers behaving in ways that convey respect and dignity, that behavior will increase. >> mr. barge, thank you for acknowledging the role that implicit bias might play in making quick decisions that police encounter every day. social soints science research has shown that it may be affected by implicit biases or between people of color and crime. can you give us an example in the which an officer's perception might be influenced by the way they react to that

individual? >> i think that one of the prototypical examples is one that sheriff clarke mentioned earlier. maybe a broken taillight. that kind of thing. not necessarily and not necessarily the initiation of the stop. it may be informed much more about i think with any of us, sword of broad categories that we're placing a new person who we have never met with or interacted with before into generallyized buckets and if officers don't do as training in several jurisdictions is starting to offer them instruction on slow down situation where possible and sort of try to use very intentional decision-making strategies i think they risk especially because they often have to make she's split second decisions being, you know in some instances overly swayed by

the subconscious sort of factors that they may not be aware of and if they were aware of, they would want to make sure we're not going into their decision making. >> thank you. i yield back. mr. goodlatte: thank you. the chairman now recognizes the chairman from texas, mr. radcliffe. mr. radcliffe: thank you, mr. chairman. i was also a federal prosecutor and as such certainly believe in enforcing the law. unfortunately our national bylaw on this issue reveals a mistrust on all sides of the issue that we're here to talk about today but i very much appreciate all of you being here today to talk about how we as a society can address this in a sensitive, careful and effective manner and

i wish that i had the opportunity to make inquiry to each one of you, but there are time restrictions and i don't, so i'm going to focus at least initially on the witness in the field, if you will you, sheriff clarke. i would like to first ask you does your police department have clear policies on the use of force? sheriff clarke: mr. chair congressman, yes, sir. mr. radcliffe: do you have an opinion -- and i'm sure that you do as to whether or not there is a problem with the law as it stands related to the use of force in this country? sheriff clarke: no, i don't. mr. radcliffe: as a member of congress with my colleagues here, there isn't anything that we need to do at this point to make it clearer to officers so that officers are not second

guessed as much as they are currently? sheriff clarke: i think it is a proper role for congress. the advisory oversight a little bit. but with the mandates coming down as to how we should do our job at the local level i'm going to push back a little on that. mr. radcliffe: community policing is intended to take the edge off of interactions, if you will, between the police and the communities that they serve, but would you agree with me that police work by its very definition is one that must involve conflict? sheriff clarke: it has a great potential for conflict becausor human interaction. mr. radcliffe: regardless of how the officer goes about his or her job they have the responsibility to enforce the law whether they are doing it with a smile on their face or

not? sheriff clarke: huge responsibility. mr. radcliffe: the findings that focused squarely on this issue of community policing, i know it is a very hefty document. i was wondering if you had a chance to review it and if so what you're feelings were with respect to the findings. sheriff clarke: yes, i did read it. a lot of it from the beginning when the task force was put together there were no elected sheriffs. i know my colleague is a former sheriff. no elected sheriffs on the panel. i found t interesting. i also didn't see a lot of representation for a two-way exchange. they had some police administrators there. one organization that represents some frat ernl organization of police but that doesn't give the day-to-day example of what life is like on the street and why we have to do some of the things

that we do. i thought it fell a little short. recommendations were heavy on federal involvement, federal control. those are technical fixes. ok. we can do that. it is not going to change the behavior of many law enforcement agencies or the behavior of many of the individuals of color that we come in contact with on the street that end up in deadly confrontations. it doesn't reach far enough to do that. mr. radcliffe: so, sheriff, what -- this is your opportunity to talk to members of congress. what would you like our takeaway to be with respect to those findings or corrections that you think are not reflected in there that you would like to make to that? sheriff clarke: one of the things that is not addressed that we keep glossing over, and i said we. we keep glossing over conditions that have led to the rise turnover -- rise of the under

cross of the american ghetto. kids can't break out of that cycle of poverty. we have to look at the conditions at the federal level that continue to feed into this growth of the underclass that we're experiencing. it is not poor generally or black people generally. it is the underclass behaviors. kids growing up without fathers. school failures. failure to raise your kids. father-absent homes. it has nothing to do with the police. you can try and transform the police all you want but as long as those behaviors and lifestyle choices are going to continue to grow in these urban centers, you're still going to have these confrontations and when you try fight the police and disarm the police, things are not going to end up well for you. i don't care how much more -- to training.

it approaches as if it is linear. the world we live in is very simple met cal. -- symetrical. mr. radcliffe: i see my time is expired. i yield back. mr. goodlatte: >> thank you so much, chairman gowdy. i would like to talk just a little bit. i met with a group of young people from the phoenix military academy in the city of chicago. white youth. spanish youth. black youth. military academy. these are the best of the best. have a conversation, everybody. we should have some of those people. i think with all due respect to everybody here we're a little too old to be having this conversation among ourselves about the problems that the police are encount werg young people.

-- encountering with young people. i would suggest next time we invite some those young people. you know what they are going to tell you sheriff clarke? they are going to say i listened to a young black man tell me that he has learned how to deescalate when he is confronted and comes into an exchange with a police officer. that just brought tears to my eyes that this wonderful, brilliant young man dedicated to his country, graduated from his class has to talk about deescalating. he doesn't see the police as a sort of protection. he sees it as somebody that he has to learn -- the police have to be the adults. the children have to learn how to be adults many times. in how it is they exchange with police officers. we're having a conversation here where black people don't care about black people. nobody has made that claim here. some of my colleagues say they

are not outraged when a black person kills a black person. that is not the issue here. it is really not an issue here. that is certainly an issue we might want to talk about. but it is certainly an issue. nobody made that claim. rioters are out there getting paid. nobody said here it is a good thing that rioters should be paid. i can understand when you're making an argument against something that somebody is like sustaining. but it feels as though we're talking past each other as adults in this room instead of having young people. so i would just like for the record and for those because i know there won't be enough time, i would like for the record, mr. chairman, the phoenix military academy students. there is a young latina, jasmine. how can minorities still have a double standard in interventions with law. why does it feel like whites are treated with more respect than

minorities when questioned by police? i have talked to different groups of high school students and they alltel you the same thing in the intercity. in chicago last week, there was 45. there were 45 shootings in one weekend in the city of chicago. did i tell my daughter don't go out on the streets? no. in my neighborhood, none of those shootings happened. it is a tale of two cities. the shootings happen in geographical areas. in my city, still a city, where i grew up the majority of the population in the city of chicago was white so you would expect a majority of the police officers to be white yet today the majority of police officers in the city of chicago are white. is it that we're telling everybody that only white people want to be police officers?

we go to ferguson where there might be two black police officers in a population that is almost 70% african-american? that kind of disconnect is going to cause -- i would think we would want to talk about some fundamental changes about how is it that we recruit people? i don't know, sheriff. maybe you can help me. in chicago, when i go talk to the cops in my district and i go into some of the areas where there is more gang violence, i find it to be younger cops and i find that the older comes like my dad, if he worked somewhere by the time he had any seniority, he took the good shift. as a police officer getting the brunt of the work what do you think? if the police officers like when you joined the police force, the older veteran police officers who might have the training and the experience, are they the ones in the neighborhood where

there is a lot of trouble where you might need more veteran police officers or can they give you a better shift? sheriff clarke: some of that is a collective bargaining agreement. you get shift assignment. i agree, the older wiser more experienced are earning better assignments because of collective bargaining rules. that is an issue. >> i just want to say i hope we can have another hearing. i had a conversation with mayor ram map well. -- rahm emanuel. we have to be there to make sure those parents have the resources and if we stop living, in the city of chicago, a tale of two cities where people feel safe in part and another part where they are not. let's bring the young people. with all due respect.

in some places i'm a senior citizen already. let's bring some young people. there are not enough young people around here or out there. they are 100% as you all know of our future and you're not going to settle this issue, i believe in great measure until get young people and listen to their voices. >> the gentleman from illinois is certainly very young at heart and yields back. the chair will now recognize the gentle lady from california, ms. bass. >> thank you mr. chair. i want to make reference because its that come up several times about why there is an outrage when african-americans are killing african-americans. i just have to tell you that it is always very frustrating to

hear this raised because it is not though people are not working on a daly basis day in and day out to address these issues in neighborhoods. i started an organization 25 years ago. i -- 14 years everyday working in south central los angeles in the height to have crack cocaine and blood and crips and all of that was going on, to address the crime, to address homicide. there are people working in communities all over this country. but the frustration we have always felt is that it is never covered in the news. what is covered in the news is when there is an incident between the police and frankly it is new that that is even covered in news. the only thing that is new here are cell phone cameras frankly. what is going on in a lot of communities has been going on for years tosm to say that communities are not concerned, to say there is not the outrage over the homicide rate is just not accurate. i spent one summer in one area where homicide were concentrated. we did a whole effort and we

were able to go three solid months without homicide. we have to look at the root causes as to why the problems exist. it is not just a matter of behavior. i frankly don't believe that it is the policeman's job and i agree with you sheriff clarke, it is not up to the police completely to address these problems, but what has to change in communitys is the police working with the community. unfortunately people are fearful of the police in some of the communities. it was also asked what do people in tough neighborhoods want to see happen? people in tough neighborhoods want the same thing that anybody wants. they want to be safe their homes and they want to be safe in their neighborhoods. frankly these issues are not just happening in ghettos. i think it is shameful frankly for the communities to be referred to that way. have i a brother who lives in beverley hills, ok? he gets pulled over by the police and stretched out on the ground and asked why he is there. i think it is well known

throughout the country that frarnse, folks of color can be outside of their gothse and still have to deal with issues related to the police. a question was raised as to why folks don't cooperate with the police. i'll give you a couple of examples that i experienced on a daly basis working in south central l.a. i people told me i called the police and called about this crack house and they said ms. jones down the street called and said you were selling crack here. people don't feel the police will keep them safe. you want people to go and testify and put their lives at risk? if there was more resources then people would be much more cooperative. we had a lot of problems in l.a. we were actually able to turn the situation around with the new chief, with community-based policing. we're having some of the same problems emerge again.

we had a past police chief who said when there was a state of people who were dying because of choke holds, he said at a press conference the reason that african-americans were dying of choke holds was because our veins were different they collapsed quicker. we fortunately were able to get rid of that police chief. these situations can be turned around. i listened to the testimony and there are other ways to go about policing and we have seen some changes in our communities. if you can give examples of a couple of communities that had turned the situation around when the police works in collaboration with community organizations, where the police department has changed their perspective from the warrior

mentality over to a partnership and where crime has been reduced and trust has been increased with the police department. >> the one i know best is boston. we had decreased homicide rates, decreased the number of paper -- people he had incarcerated and crimes had gone down. the boston police department has been working with community groups on both issues. on issues of homicide, if we have all these cold cases how i we going to get witnesses to come forward? one example is some witnesses say i would be happy to tell my account to someone who is not a police officer. some of that could be used for corroboration to get a search warrant. there are many other examples of excellent community policing models were homicides have gone down. there are no 14 states that have decided to the car straight. in each of those states, where they had taken the money that

they were using to incarcerate people in massachusetts at $51,000 a year per in many -- primate, taken the money and says, the system we have is too expensive, ineffective, and racially disparate. we are going to use that money to invest in education and treatment. those communities have saved money and crime has gone down. >> thank you. i yield back. >> gentleman from california yields back. the gentleman from louisiana. he has been talking about it since the very first day. >> thank you for yielding. first i would like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a washington post article. a claim that 93% of black murder victims are killed by other blacks because of the relevance of the statistic. >> without objection. >> let me just start with

answering the question that my colleague posed. the real question is black on black crime and what do we do to solve that. the first thing we don't do is cut held grants -- pell grants. they help you get to college. we all know that education is the best path out of poverty. and the circumstances in these neighborhoods. we could start there. which we have done every year since i have been in congress, with the budgets we have passed. i think that is a very good start. another start is to just have the conversation. i talk about all the time. if anybody is concerned, i'm here and willing to address it. as a young african-american male who grew up in the inner-city, i can have a lot to offer. mr. chairman, i prefer not to

focus where we have differences. i think we have many. but i think we have some very similar goals. which is to keep police officer safe and keep constituency. and to provide honest services. whether it is police our elected officials, people deserve honest service. let me just ask a question. do you believe that the makeup of the police department is important in terms of looking similar to the community that it polices? sheriff clarke: i believe that. >> i was asking you that because i wanted to share some of my real life experiences as a young african-american male, and why i think it is so important. the first time i was pulled over i got home from college and i was in st. charles avenue the fancy part of town. in my mother's car. i did not have my license off --

on me. a black officer stopped me. he went through the process to get my information, came back and said, i see a morehouse sticker on the back of your car. he said, martin luther king said it the man can write your back if your back is not down. he said, you need to go home. and he let me go and i went home. i never forgot that. while i was in the legislature i saw a white officer stopped a car full of white kids on the state capitol grounds, who were all smoking marijuana. he gave them a lecture and then called their parents to come get them. in all of my experience, if that white officer had stopped a carpal of black kids with marijuana, i don't think his answer would have been to lecture and call the parents. but we have to -- we have to

look at the entire system when we talk about diversion programs, whether they are being applied evenly. because we know once a kid gets a conviction, especially in african-american male, his life goes in a completely different direction, whether it is marijuana our something more serious. he has a harder time getting financial aid to cut a college -- go to college, hard time getting a job. without a job or being engaged in society, it's hard to be a good parent. we have to make sure our law enforcement scheme, law enforcement practice, is not adding to hurdles that people are going to face anyway. the question becomes how do we ensure that those officers who have a lot of discretion when they make us top, -- make stop, how young african-american and minority men and women feel that

officer would give them the same lecture, the same break as an african-american officer or officer who is looking invested interest? i hope you can answer that. sheriff clarke: the use of discretion is always going to be scrutinized. i reject the notion that every time a white officer stopped a car full of black kids that they don't necessarily go to jail -- that they necessarily go to jail. >> but it's going to be the majority of the time. sheriff clarke: ok well let's move beyond that. when i talk to young people about, young people of color milwaukee is a significant black population. when i'm in these schools, i talk about lifestyle choices. when you engage in behavior and make flawed list out choices, there has to be some accountability. it does not mean your life should be ruined. maybe there should be a learning experience.

i don't think a small amount of marijuana early in your life will be a life ruining it. that's right life ruining experience. it's not. the biggest virtue that my parents instilled in me, the ability to overcome obstacles. you make mistakes. my dad said, you're going to make mistakes, you're going to fall down and fail and make questionable decisions. learn from it and move on. i think that is a better message for even individuals who have gotten into these situations. i had a young man stopped me on the street and said, sheriff i'm a convicted felon and nobody will hire me. i said, do you have kids? i said that he said yes. he had three. i said, there is your job. to make sure your kids don't get the predicament that you are in. he thanked me but i don't know if he actually did it. sometimes that message is a little more helpful to an

individual and for me to commiserate his misery, saying yes it's unfair and yet, the man and the racist police, that is not going to help him. i don't control all law enforcement officers, but i'm not going to let people indict them with a broad brush. we have the tendency to do that. >> enclosing, i would just say that two things. i think we should remove the barriers that keep people from moving on and getting past that mistake. which may have been a marijuana conviction or something else. i would also say i think it is great advice that found to be a father, at the same time he still has to get a job and put food on the plates, because you cannot learn at school if you are hungry. inc. you. i yelled back. >> mr. chair i want to thank all the witnesses for being here.

in particular, our former kent county sheriff. i had a question. i know that you have made many changes since you have been at the criminal justice training commission and you spoke a lot about transitioning away from a boot camp or military style approach to training officers towards a process that emphasizes the role as police as part of the community, as guardians and protectors rather than military warriors. after a long career of that -- as an officer yourself, when you got to there, you are placed the trophy case with the u.s. constitution and put in place training procedures that included recruits being sprayed with pepper spray so they know what it feels like. instituting psychology classes so people can understand the people they will be working with and protecting and interacting with. i know your methods have not been without skeptics. i wondered if you could share

with us why you think a new york approach to training our young men and women to service police officers is needed. especially today and how these translate to different outcomes are interactions in practice. >> thank you for the question. i want to clarify that i don't condemn the training processes -- practices in the past. we learned through research about how to prepare officers to be more effective. that has been one of the biggest areas of resistance. ibo being offended that -- people being offended that by improving training that we are criticizing. that is not the case. in terms of pepper spraying, many people have misinterpreted that as an attempt to get them to feel empathy. actually the reason we do that if we want to put them in a fight for their life stress situation. so they can learn for themselves that they can overcome extreme

pain, extreme fear, and still carry on. when i talk about a guardian mindset, i have to continually reemphasize, this is not a more kind and gentle way of doing the job. it's the opposite. we have increased firearms training and defensive tactics training, because we want to create strong, effective police officers who have the confidence that they don't have to behave in an intimidating manner. when someone has confidence, that helps deescalate as well. i think that when we were too focused on the boot camp method of training, it detracted away from our ability to train officers to be critical thinkers. when they were so worried about getting the right answer and memorizing a checklist, it took going from those critical thinking skills. what we have tried to shift towards is officer training

where you focus on critical thinking and confidence. >> and do you think -- yesterday president obama signed an order restricting military equipment going to police. do you think that is also part of the transition? how do you feel about that? >> i want to be clear that many of those pieces of equipment that police departments obtain through that program are very much needed in the field. when i was sheriff, i can tell you how many times i needed that armor personnel carrier to either rescue an officer pinned down behind gunfire or a citizen pinned down behind gunfire. armored personnel carrier allows police officers in hostage negotiators to get closer to the scene to find ways to resolve the conflict without gunfire. unfortunately, when the program started, there was not a lot of accountability and training that

went with it. i believe that is what the changes in the law focus on. police departments will still be able to get armored personnel carriers because they are absolutely necessary. the weapons and rifles, those are also necessary and less expensive when we get them through the military. i hope there is an opportunity down the road for people to understand more clearly the benefits of that program, but also the necessity of the accountability that comes with it. >> thank you. i yield back. >> the chair now recognized mr. jeffries from new york. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you for your work on criminal justice performance as we try to work toward a productive resolution of the challenges we face here in america. i think most would agree that in a democracy, we just need a balance between effective law enforcement on the one hand and a healthy respect with the constitution for civil rights and civil liberties on the other. what people want in inner-city

communities, or as sheriff clark would refer to as the ghetto but the what people want is equal protection under the law applies to everyone. there is concern that insight -- certain instances that is not the case. the overwhelmingly majority of police officers are hard-working individuals who are there to protect the community. that is my position. i believe it is the position of everyone genuinely interested in reform. we cannot ignore the fact that we have a problem with excessive use of police force, and the fact that often it is the case when a police officer crosses the line, they are not held accountable by the criminal justice system. that creates consequences in terms of a distressed in many communities -- distressed in many communities, perhaps leading to the absence of cooperation.

let me start with sheriff mark -- clarke, you mentioned that black on black crime is this -- the elephant in the room. >> yes. >> are you satisfied? >> not at all. >> ok, 80% of whites kill whites , correct? >> i won't dispute that. >> actually is 83%. is white on white crime something we will not have a discussion about? >> violence in america in general is problematic. what if you look at the rate, that is where it starts coming into balance in terms of -- in the data i have seen, the white on white crime does have been at 80% figure you put out there but when you look at the rates of it, they are not even close. >> the rates are roughly

equivalent in terms of the context of people who live next to each other, and because of housing, segregation patterns or just where people tend to live in america, ethnic violence tends to occur within the same group. so elevating it beyond that fact i think it's irresponsible. we all want to deal with black on black violence problem. i mentioned there is a collaboration issue in the black on black violence context. i don't think i have heard the phrase mentioned, lew wallace silence. -- blue wall of silence. if we have a conversation about cooperation, when someone crosses the relying, we also had to deal with another elephant in the roomm, the blue wall of silence. the overwhelmingly majority of officers are good. but what occurs is when an officer crosses the line, the

attic is not to cooperate or participate, or speak on what a bad apple officer has done. professor ramirez, would you agree that is something we should also be focused on? >> i think it is a serious problem at the federal and state level. as i said earlier, in my own experience, in trying to prosecute police officers, i had problems -- here is just one problem. the fbi and da's that will -- we will not even served a subpoena if a police officer is a defendant. also tried to test if i indicated a rub the police officers being a had made their own independent evaluation of the case. this is the case, by the way that was adjudicated guilty against all officers and they were incarcerated after the trial. as you know in boston, we had a problem with be a ei, that there were fbi agents in engaged in a

series of misconduct with whitey bulger. that was not prosecuted. >> thank you. you also mentioned the use of force should be examined and factual data and not an emotional foundation of false narratives, is that correct? >> mr. chair congressman, yes. >> was the reaction to the eric garner case, who was choked to death using a procedure that had been banned by the nypd for more than 20 years, wasn't resisting arrest, said i can't breathe 11 times, there was no response by other police officers, was that a false narrative? >> mr. chair, first of all he was not choked to death. not from the report i had seen. out of the grand jury testimony and even from the medical

examiner's report. >> the medical examiner ruled the death homicide by a sexy asian. that is called -- speak the issue. in the ghetto, that is called choked to death. >> we can have a discussion leader on about the fact because we could be here for a while. my understanding is he died of a heart attack. but a newly, you said he was not resisting arrest. he was resisting arrest. he was told he was under arrest and put his hands behind his back. he would not do so. that is why i put in my remarks here, the reference from thomas sold about when law enforcement officers tell someone they are under arrest and they cannot use force to execute direct, we don't have the rule of law when it is merely a suggestion for them that they are going to jail and to put their hands behind their back. those are behaviors like in the

instance of mike brown in ferguson, missouri. some different choices by the individual could have helped the situation. in other words he was told to get out of the street. >> sir, my time has expired. but for you to come here and testify essentially that eric turner is responsible for his own death when he was targeted by police officers for allegedly selling loose cigarette was an administrative situation for which he got the death penalty is outrageous. for us to come to a conversation, we have to at least agree on reasonable fact that all americans interpret particularly in this instance because they caught the whole thing on tape. i yield back. >> the gentleman from texas. >> thank you mr. chairman. i think all the witnesses for being here. obviously you have spent a lot of time on these issues, rather

than just the time here today. it is a difficult issue. i saw a report this morning from the task force. it quotes the task force as saying, the u.s. department of homeland security should terminate the use of the state and local criminal justice system, including through detention notification, transfer requests, to enforce several immigration laws against several -- nonserious criminal offenders. i'm wondering, to fix the problem that we saw exposed in ferguson and in baltimore is there anybody, any one of our witnesses that thinks preventing state and local law enforcement officers from notifying the feds

about people illegally in the country, that that would do anything to solve the problems in ferguson or baltimore? anybody? i mean, i'm also perplexed having been a prosecutor, rode along with law enforcement those days, a district judge handling felonies, we had a real problem with the federal government not picking up criminals that would tell our local law enforcement this person is illegally in the country so we had jurisdiction. the task force makes a comment about nonserious offenders. i think it was nine dwi's someone had in my court. he finally came to felony court as he nearly killed someone.

i sentenced him to prison because he was not being deported, six-month leaders -- six months later he is back in my courtroom because he said, the federal people took me to the border and told me to walk across the bridge. when they left, i came back. he got back, got drunk again, in another accident. i'm really having trouble with the task force inking this is going to solve any problems with regard to racial difficulties in our cities. perhaps you can help me out. i know you had a very great career and eu have served your community, your country now, do you see just having state and

local law enforcement to avoid any discussion about immigration, is that really going to help problems in our cities? >> as i recall, the recommendation does not say there should be no cooperation. the discussion we had in the task force involves the balance of public safety. there are many communities where there are large groups of undocumented people living in neighborhoods that commit crimes and are victimized by crime. because there is such a fear of being deported, a lot of victims don't call the police because they are afraid of deportation. this is particularly a problem in domestic violence situations. >> i know, i saw that same concern by the big group of people illegally here in the gallery that were trying to disrupt. i have seen people illegally

here in this gallery disrupting. i did not know a lot of concern about law enforcement deporting them, because you have to be pretty ignorant about what is going on in this country to think you are at risk for deportation. anyway, i'm more concerned about the victims who are victims of crime, needlessly if we would enforce at least the immigration laws on those who commit crimes. we are not doing it. what i see is a disregard for law enforcement because they are not even going to help because this person is illegally in the country, so nothing is going to happen to them, and i ended up being the one victimized. i hear that as much as anything. but i appreciate your sensitivity to these issues. i know the first couple of cases i worked on as a prosecutor, we had an african-american in both

cases that were both in bars. we had people in the community including the african-american community saying, they should not have in there. it is not that big a deal. i found it offensive than that anybody would care about the race when somebody kill somebody else, it's not big deal. i'm still concerned after all these years. we prosecuted does. we had concerned, we did not care what the race was of the victim or the defendant. killing is a killing, and i'm glad you care about law enforcement in america. >> chair will now recognized from rhode island. gentleman from rhode island. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you to our witnesses. i think everyone brings their own life experiences. before i came to congress i was a criminal defense civil rights lawyer. most involved claims of lease

brutality. i went from that to being mayor of providence, where i was acting safety commissioner for eight years overseeing the providence police department and proud to report that we brought the crime rate to its lowest in 40 years. i bring my own set of experiences and have deep respect for law enforcement and the hard work of good police officers. and nothing will be in my mind point directly than april 17 2005. a police town officer was murdered in headquarters. i understand the hard work of police and the importance of what they do. i think we do have to focus on systems which build good review and detection of police misconduct, good oversight and civilian reviews, all of that. but the fact is, those are important to do and we have got to do than to rebuild trust.

but in many ways, it is too late when problems have already occurred. i want to focus on, what do we do to help ensure those kinds of situations don't occur. how do we build this mutually respectful relationship between police and community? i had a police chief you all he sees say, you should have a family doctor, family doctor and a family police officer. we built a model in which there were lieutenants in charge of a neighborhood. they knew the residence. everyone had their cell phone numbers. they were on housing boards, they became part of the community. that is what helped result of the lowest crime rate in four years. that is good knowledge for the community but for the police officers. good police officers who deserve to have the respect and trust of their community. but at the core of that, the most powerful and then i have, the most powerful piece of equipment, is the trust in the community. -- of the community. that is the single best will i

have to reduce crime. we saw the results of that attitude. what i would like to hear from the witnesses, i think there are two ways to help achieve that kind of paradigm. accreditation is one and community policing implementation is the other. not a unit within your department, but the entire department and breaking this attitude of service and guardianship. what are the impediments? we had a problem which was under investigation when i took office for patterns and -- patent investigations. that is a hard process. is it resources? how can we help more departments go through this process so we know they have standards and practices in place that respect the important balance mentioned between keeping to safe and respecting the civil rights of individuals? what can congress do to assist

more police departments to go for that process? >> thank you. it is a complicated picture, because as you know, the cost of being involved in this programming. i think it is critically important there is a more broad awareness that there are other resources in thought a lot enforcement safety community -- lundquist and safety community help agencies go through that. there is a police accreditation coalition that brings tremendous resources. some organizations do not have the capacity to support accreditation itself. those help to help shepherd organizations. >> should we require departments to develop a plan to reach accreditation? it is a pretty good -- the sort of gold standard of policing, that they aspire to. but should we rather than just encourage it, should we consider

some system where we require departments at least to articulate a plan to get this way? >> i think a requirement is important, but also the way it is structured to review agencies, does not have investigatory authority, nor are we seeking that. in some ways, if you require it -- becomes regulatory, which i think prevents the integrity of the process from moving forward. i want to be cautious. i think incentives to support organization is important. >> a few things. i wonder if any witnesses have any suggestions on how we might encourage or incentivize departments to really transformed themselves into this community policing model. i know ms. ramirez, you talked about the institute. but no one has mentioned, we have to figure out ways to encourage or require police departments to ensure they reflect the diversity of the communities they serve. we have too many departments

that don't look like the people they serve and the value of people coming from the neighborhoods to understand the cultural traditions and social mores, different parts of the neighborhood are parts of the community and returned back to the neighborhood after working his valuable. i don't know if we've heard enough about how do we ensure police department century the diversity of the community they serve. >> in my experience, the most important thing to go into a career of law enforcement is to have a personal connection to someone is already a cop. the way you get that is by building community trust. i know it is a very popular thing to say officers should live in the communities they place -- they police. in my county most officers cannot afford to live there. it's not realistic. but when you assign a deputy or officer to the same neighborhood for a long time, those connections grow. when the officer is rewarded for participating in the community not just enforcing the law but

also participating that connection grows. is the anonymity that really is the enemy here. >> ms. ramirez? >> this is on police department i just wanted to add a fact. have a full-service system in massachusetts where every police department chief has tried to diversify the police department. the top scorer in massachusetts the person who got the highest grade on the exam to be a police officer, was 328th on the list. the reason is a whole series of preferences. mostly veterans preferences. i think a lot of the police chiefs are trying to figure out how they can reform the civil service system so they can efforts by the police department -- so they can diversify the police department. they are stuck. they need an inspector general

a state community justice institute, or some fact-finding process that can look at to what extent there are challenges for police chiefs who are trying to diversify the police department. >> thank you to the german from rhode island. now the gentleman from texas. >> thank you, i'm over here on this end. i think all of you -- thank all of you for being here. i'm a former judge. i spent 30 years in the courthouse. i have tried people who assaulted and killed police officers both as a prosecutor and judge and also police officers who have killed individuals in violation of the law. i have seen both sides of this perspective for a long time. sheriff, i will start with you.

do you have any idea how many arrests, felony arrests are made a year by police agencies in the country? >> no, i don't. >> would you care to yes -- to guess? >> no i don't have any idea either. does anyone know. >>? >> it available to the bureau of justice statistics and the fbi would probably have data as well. >> you will find that out then. would you say or not the vast majority of those encounters with the police and a citizen are done according to the rule of law from the part of the peace officer? >> without a doubt. >> how many would you say are not? some violation of the law, some

violation of the rights of the accused in those felony cases? sheriff clarke: averages is what i'm basing that on. i wouldn't care to assign a number because i don't know. >> a majority or minority? sheriff clarke: it's very low. >> it seems to me that any police agency needs to have a plan for all circumstances. would you agree with that? some type of response to community policing? a protocol, whether a 101 arrest -- i will give an example. i'm sure you're familiar with the event that took place in waco. the town of the chairman's, modern baylor, where you have five motorcycle gangs three of

which all assembled together in a place. trouble ensued, shots are fired and a dozen police officers are there. nine people are killed. others are wounded but the shooting stopped, the police made a rest -- arrested 170 individuals. do you think that having a plan to respond to that type of situation is important for a local police agency to have? apparently they did, they had some plan. sheriff clarke: without a doubt but i also think that in the moments leading up to that, what kind of intelligence they had or

information that this was going to go down is the question i have. in terms of the rival groups coming together. >> after they had lots of intelligence. that's part -- i'm sure they had lots of intelligence. that's part of a plan, to respond based on the intel. sheriff clarke: right, and part of that response needs to be the preplanning, pre-staging pre-marshaling of resources when you have that many individuals come together you cannot just have a handful of officers. you don't have to wait -- you can't have time to wait to calling resources. planning is huge. >> no matter what the situation is, whether a big event or small event, police planning and response so that the rule of law is followed, no matter the circumstances, is a good idea for policing, is it not? sheriff clarke: it is critical yes. >> how many officers were killed

in the line of duty last year? sheriff clarke: last year, they added 238 names to the wall here at the national. some of those were previous years, though. i do know that it's up nearly 90% so far in the first quarter of this year. 54 officers killed in the line of duty. the exact total i don't have. sheriff clarke: i have more questions and i will submit them in writing. thank you. >> the gentlelady from texas has a unanimous consent motion. >> may i just say one or two points, mr. taman -- mr. chairman. first of all, let me ask to have unanimous consent to enter into the record the following

documents and statement from the aclu, statement of the national urban league, executive order 136 88 which provides federal standards for acquisition of military equipment a letter from mr. scott and colin requesting a hearing -- for myself, i'm sorry. for mr. scott and mr. cohen. and an article entitled, law enforcement warrior problem to be added into the record. >> without objection. >> and if i might make one simple comment. that is i want to express to all of you, the significance of your testimony. that the judiciary committee through our chairman and ranking member, are very serious about

coming forward in this. of recognizing the pain of an officer's death and the pain of a civilian's confusion in apprehension about police and maybe even their death. i frankly believe we can find a common ground. i hope you will allow us to inquire, i hope you will make yourself resources as we go forward to address a mother's pain, and as well find that even place. in my remarks -- i and my remarks by quoting a philosopher. treat people as if they were what they should be, and you help them become what they are capable of eating. if you are to keep democracy there must be one command. sheriff clarke:, i think this is

what you are speaking of. thou shall not ration justice. everyone deserves justice. we do not deny your officers justice and we have to let the civilian population, no matter who they are, know that they will get justice. that is what this committee's purpose is. i hope we will have more provocative hearings, maybe those who have lost loved ones, maybe in people who are raising the signs because of their passion of lack lives matter -- black life in matter, hands up, let's give all of those people dignity. this hearing is want to give all of us, including all the men and women you represent. i yield back. >> the gentlelady yields back. i want to thank our panel of witnesses for your expertise for your experience, life experience, your perspective and

collegiality with one another and the members of the committee. i could not help but think while judge poe was talking and mr. jeffrey, that we are all in part beneficiary but also part prisoner of our own background. prosecutors may not have the benefit of the judicial view like judge poe. or what cedric described growing up is something i would not have experienced. i think it is a good idea for us to the extent we can, to rely upon the experiences of other people, well-intentioned people. there are a lot of issues raised, all of which are important. the issue i hope we can have another committee hearing on, at some point i think you touched upon it. to cooperate on that and impacts the prosecution of police officers who have done wrong. i have seen a daily or to

cooperate in the faces of moms and dads who are trying to get justice with her murder young people. other witnesses would not cooperate. i think we all want a justice system that is respected in fact we have to have a justice system that is respected or we will not make it. i hope this is the first of many hearings. on behalf of all the other members, we want to thank you for your participation. this concludes the hearing. without objection, all members who have submitted additional questions or materials for the record, thank you very much. we are adjourned. >> president obama has signed a bill creating a blue alert

system to communicate threats to law enforcement officers nationwide. the bill was honored -- was named in honor of two new york police officers who were killed. here is a look at the bill signing ceremony. president obama: as some of you are aware, several weeks ago, we lost two of new york's finest, rafael ramos and wen-jian liu. they were serving their community with great honor and carriage. all of new york grieved and all of the nation grieved with the reminder of the work that our law enforcement officers are engaged in every day. i had a chance to meet the families of officers rommel's and liu. -- officers ramos and liu.

it is also important for us to make sure that we do everything we can to help ensure the safety of our police officers when they are in the line of duty. with this legislation, which has been sponsored on a bipartisan basis by people like the senators and representatives this represents a bipartisan support for law enforcement. what this legislation is going to do is initiate a blue alert system, so that when we know there is an act of aggression against law enforcement, that the alerts are going out in a comprehensive, expeditious way that prevents the possibility that other officers may be caught by surprise and insurers

that appropriate steps can be taken as quickly as possible. i want to again thank the members of congress who have come together to put this legislation in place. most of all, i want to thank the families who obviously are still grieving from a terrible tragedy but have worked hard to make sure that it is translated into something concrete. we are very proud of them particularly proud of the children here, these young men who are obviously grief stricken , but we know they are going to do a great job moving forward. with that, what i would like to do is sign the legislation.

thank you very much, everybody. thank you. >> coming up today on c-span 3 the senate foreign relations committee will have a hearing on the future of u.s.-cuba relations. senators will hear from the lead negotiator for reestablishing diplomatic relations between the u.s. and cuba. see the hearing live at 10:00 eastern. at 2:00, the u.s. capitol police chief appears before the house administration committee. he is expected to address recent incidents involving capitol police officers, including unattended when things -- unattended weapons around the capital and the landing of a

gyro copter on capitol grounds. >> for he today that sheds his blood shall be my brother, be ne'er so vile, this day shall gentle his condition. gentleman in england shall think themselves accursed that they were not here. >> one drop of blood drawn from thy country's bosom should be more than streams of foreign gore. >> director of the folger shakespeare library talks about shakespeare and how politicians use roads from the famous -- use quotes from the famous playwright. >> sometimes you have to go with the music of the words, the poetic images, the sound of the rhymes and pause and linger

over a long phrase, and then stop and keep going. i think he is using the rhythms of the language, which is something that shakespeare did so brilliantly, so that he can take english and put it into high gear at one moment, and slow it down. that is something that shakespeare lets you do. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's "q&a." >> good night, good night. parting is such sweet sorrow. >> federal highway funding expires at the end of this month. congress is working on a short-term extension to try to bridge the gap. we have a staff writer for the hill. let's start with a little bit of background. how is the current program funded and why is congress facing this deadline? >> the traditional source for transportation funding in washington is revenue collected

from the gas tax. the problem is that it hasn't been raised since 1993. cars are becoming more fuel-efficient. people are driving less. when the gas tax isn't bringing in as much revenue as it has there's about a $13 billion gap between how much the gas tax brings in and the amount the federal government spends on transportation. transportation advocates say what we are spending now is barely enough to maintain the system we have. they would like to see some increase. there has been a lot of disagreement on how that should be paid for. >> why the deadline now? >> the measure they are pulling out today is an extension of an extension. the funding bill was passed in 2012 when it was supposed to expire last summer. they passed an eight month extension in july of last year.

here we are, eight months later. host: you write that the house and senate are considering the summer fix. what happens if funding is not extended? guest: the reason they are focusing on the summer is because the transportation department has said they have enough money to cover spending through the summer without congress having to come up with additional money. there had been talks of giving an extension through the end of the year to help states get through the construction season but that would have required $10 billion. there was no consensus on how to pay for that. host: what is the status of a long-term funding bill in the house and senate? guest: congress hasn't passed a transportation bill longer than two years since 2005. there have been more than 30 extensions, or close to 30. transportation advocates are unhappy about that.

there is an amendment that was being discussed. the house version of this extension from democrats would have prevented any extensions past december 30 that were not six years in length. that is the length people are seeking. they say that would give states some certainty as they plan projects. host: what is the white house take on it? guest: the white house proposed a six-year bill that they say could be paid with through repatriation. they are focusing on taxing overseas revenues to replenish the highway trust fund. there is some movement in that direction. the parties disagree on the rate of the taxes, whether participation should be mandatory or voluntary, and also there is some discussion that doing it as a tax holiday would cost the federal government more than it would bring in and still only provide a one-time solution

for transportation funding, not a permanent solution. host: you also wrote about some comments from the former secretary of transportation about how crazy it was to not raise the gas tax. why is it not an option? where else would the money come from? guest: the political reality is that it is very hard to get a tax increase through this congress, or the most recent congresses. even he now says he is in favor of a ten cent bill. he didn't come out in that position until he was out of office area --out of office. host: i want to touch briefly on a tweet you sent out about earl blumenauer. his district is portland oregon. it is a big bike city. he says he doesn't want to see anymore short-term patches. what is happening here? guest: he is offering an

amendment to the bill today that would ban any extension after this one. this one expires in july. his deadline would be september 30, the end of the fiscal year. he would prevent any extensions that are not a six-year bill that would end the cycle of temporary extensions that we've been on. host: does he have supporters behind him? guest: he has supporters in the desire for a long-term bill, but i think there is a realism that the only thing that can get through now is a temporary extension. host: we will continue to follow you at thehill.com and watch your tweets. thank you for joining us. >> the house tuesday passed by vote of 387-35 a short-term highway spending bill to keep road, bridge, and mass transit projects funded for another two

months. prior to the vote, members debated the short-term extension and talked about rail improvements and safety. this is an hour. : mr. speaker, pursuant to house rule 271, i call up the bill h.r. 2353 to provide an extension of federal-aid highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out of the highway trust fund and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 2353 a bill to provide an extension of federal-aid highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety transit, and other programs funded out of the highway trust fund, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 271, the bill is considered as read. the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. shuster and the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the

gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. shuster. mr. shuster: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: first the gentleman will suspend. the house will be in order. members please remove their conversations from the floor. the house will be in order. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. shuster: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of h.r. 2353 the highway and transportation funding act of 2015. this bill will extend federal surface transportation programs for two months through july of 2015. h.r. 2353 is a clean extension of the surface transportation programs. funded at the authorized amounts for fiscal year 2014. no transfer of funding to the highway trust fund is necessary because the trust fund will remain solvent during the period. however, we will more than likely have to pass another short-term patch before the august recess and take steps to ensure the trust fund remains

solvent. i hope all of you will support h.r. 2353, but i have to say short-term extensions for the end of july was not our prefer path forward. our hope was to extend the surface program through the end of the calendar year that would have ensured reliable funding for states through the construction season. a longer extension would also have allowed us to focus on finding a long-term funding solution within the context of tax reform without the distraction of needing to address a shortfall in the highway trust fund later this summer. unfortunately, we were unable to reach an agreement on a seven-month extension and so we are left with a two-month patch. we have an immediate critical need to extend the current surface transportation law. if congress fails to act, over 4,000 department of transportation personnel will be furloughed and the states will not be able to be reimbursed. transportation projects and jobs across the country will be at risk. i appreciate chairman ryan's attention to this pressing issue, as well as his commitment

to addressing the long-term solvency of the highway trust fund. a long-term re-authorization bill will continue to be a top priority for this committee. i look forward to working with chairman ryan, ranking member defazio, and others to achieve a long-term bill. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. defazio: well, here we are again yet another short-term patch. it's the heck of a way to run a great nation. our system's falling apart. 140,000 bridges and national highway system need repair or replacement. 40% of the surface national highway system is in such bad shape we have to big up the roadbed and resurface. we have an $86 billion backlog in transit to bring up the existing transit. it's so bad we are killing people in the nation's capital unnecessarily because the state of disrepair of the metro system. it is embarrassing. the united states of america has gone from number one in the

world unparalleled in terms of its infrastructure in the eisenhower era and through a good deal of the latter part of the last century to 26 and falling fast. we are investing less of a percent of our g.d.p. in infrastructure repaired and maintenance let alone building out a new system than virtually every nation in the world. we are down around 1%. there are many developing nations who are investing much, much more because they know they have to move their people and their goods more efficiently in a world economy. we cannot continue to kick this can down the road. the road is at a dead end. today we will reluctantly go along with a two-month patch because if we do not act today on the -- at the end of this month, the first of june 4,000 people will be laid off at d.o.t. and all federal funding for surface transportation and transit would stop. .

states that had bills pending couldn't be paid and states that would want new commitments wouldn't do it, a tragedy at the height of the construction season. so 60 days should be enough time to negotiate a long-term bill. today we introduce the grow america act, written by the administration. it has many -- many good points to it, especially the spending levels. we need to enhance spending. we can't pretend, oh, we're going to do more with less. we're past that point. look at what has happened to the purchasing power of the gas tax which hasn't been changed since 1993. 2 1/2 times faster, road traffic volume is going up than we're dealing with the funding issues. so we are in a huge deficit situation, and there are many, many ways. many have been proposed on a bipartisan basis to deal with this. we should be able to work that

out. but more importantly this committee writes the policy. we introduced the bill that sets the levels $487 billion. it's an increase in transit to deal with the backlog, an increase in highways to deal with the insufficiencies there, a new dedicated program for freight and it puts more money into rail, commuter rail in particular to deal with positive train control and other issues. so we believe that this is the last wake-up call to give congress time. 60 days is more than enough time to write a long-term authorization, and for the ways and means committee to figure out a way to fund it. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. shuster: mr. speaker, i now yield two minutes to the chairman of the subcommittee on highways and transit mr. graves. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. graves: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. speaker, i also want to thank in addition to this patch, i want to thank chairman

shuster and chairman ryan for their hard work towards a long-term re-authorization of the federal highway bill. mr. speaker, my home state of missouri has nearly 35,000 highway miles and over 10,000 bridges that are practically begging for our attention. as chairman of the house subcommittee on highways and transit, every single day i hear about the need to improve and repair our roadways in this country. as you can imagine this is not a simple task this is a job that's going to take years to complete. it requires the hard work and cooperation of thousands of men and women. and most importantly, though, the task of this magnitude requires that those responsible for planning each project, the state and local governments are able to do so with confidence. it needs certainty, not only in this year's budget, but about the budgets in the next five or six years. this two-month extension does not come under ideal circumstances, but it's going to ensure that states are reimbursed for their expenses on federal projects and it's going to give us time to craft a bipartisan long-term re-authorization that we so desperately need.

long-term re-authorization is critical for everyone who plays a role in improving our nation's highways and bridges and too often they've been forced to work off short-term extension after short-term extension. this congress we have a huge opportunity to secure a long-term highway bill that's going to improve, where he build and modernize -- rebuild and modernize america's highway systems. i hope this extension gives us time to come one that agreement that we need and with that again, i want to thank both chairmen for their hard work and i look forward to finalizes the long-term re-authorization. i yield back the balance. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. defazio: i yield 2 1/2 minutes to the ranking member of the surface subcommittee, ms. eleanor holmes norton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. norton: i thank my good friend for yielding. by july when this new patch

expires, mr. speaker we shall have spent a full year since the last patch, not even trying to make progress toward a long-term authorization bill. we've acquired a dangerous habit, 33 cents the last long-term bill of patches that create no urgency to get a long-term bill done. the ways and means committee, the funding committee for this bill is holding its first hearing next month. the frustration in the states has accumulated as fast as the untenable backlog of projects. another construction season has already been sacrificed. the reason we are here today is a comment on congressional neglect of the nation's infrastructure. states have slowed down their request for reimbursements from the trust fund because of un-- because the unreplenished fund

together with the short-term patches make it impossible for states themselves to even begin projects of any size. mr. speaker, the states have already scaled back their plans for 2015 that would have created -- many federal employees in my district and thousands of others throughout the country. if congress fails to take action by may 31, many federal employees will be furloughed, federal reimbursements will stop and the highway and transit programs will shut down. the hidden cost are even worse. the many economic development projects in the country that can't be started until roads bridges and transit to accommodate them are done. today, the democrats on the

transportation and infrastructure committee have introduced the president's grow america act. we're putting a good bill on the table. change it or do your own substitute, but do not leave the nation's infrastructure twisting in the dust of another delay. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from oregon reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. shuster: thank you mr. speaker. i now recognize for two minutes the gentleman from arkansas, mr. crawford. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. crawford: thank you, mr. speaker. first, let me thank chairman shuster, ranking member defazio for their hard work and to the rest of the committee for the hours of work already done on a long-term transportation bill. i rise today in support of h.r. 2353 to prevent the shutdown of funding for infrastructure improvement. i believe there's shared commitment between the transportation and infrastructure committee and most of the members of the house to pass a fully funded multiyear highway bill. with the debt crisis we continue to battle, it's becoming more and more difficult to deal with our most

critical needs. that leaves few options at our disposable. members of both the transportation committee and the ways and means committee will have to take a closer look at potential funding alternatives and be creative in how to finance a reliable and modern infrastructure system. and at the same time we need to work towards getting our country back on the path of fiscal solvency. as we work on a long-term solution we need to prevent finding ourselves in the same position over and over. a consistent funding mechanism paired with a more transparent system that demonstrates effective use of taxpayer dollars will put us in a better position to fund critical infrastructure projects and instill more confidence on the part of our constituents. i hope my colleagues will join me in supporting h.r. 2353 so we can continue work on a multiyear transportation bill to ensure our nation's growth. failure to act threatens our general contractors and their employees, suppliers and puts at risk the jobs that are both directly and indirectly supported by these projects.

mr. speaker, if we want to keep our folks in business and continue any meaningful growth in our economy then we must find a reliable, long-term solution. with that i 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 two minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, i rise in support of this bill but with reservations. the last surface transportation bill map-21, expired last fall. at that time we passed an extension to the end of this month to give us time to work on a long-term bill. we have known for months that this day was coming and yet we have made no progress finding a solution to fund highway transit and other important surface transportation bill. map- 1 itself was only a two-year bill. breaking the tradition of congress passing five or six-year bills to complete long-term capital plans and projects that require a