Transcripts For CSPAN3 Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20151119

To put forward, so, i commend the u. S. Senate proappropriatio committee providing some assistance in that regard. I want to just invite david to ask, to address whether the, whether we can wait another 30 or 40 or 50 years to take action and expect not to have consequences. Thank you for the question. Not acting increases the cost of action. The longer we delay in action will increase the cost of action. Because we will have infrastructure lock in and other dynamics that will make it increasingly difficult to in fact shift to low carbon xwhis. We have the opportunity and i think we in fact are on the trajectory as lisa and others have said, we are on the trajectory of moving very rapidly toward that low carbon economy. The price of solar panels for example has fallen 75 in the last five years. And we can create hundreds of thousands of jobs in doing so . And we are in fact creating, there are 100,000 jobs in texas alone. Thank you. I want to welcome sam adams, who works with the World Resources institute and did a tremendous amount to take the city forward in this regard. Thank you, senator sessions. Thank you. This is an invaluable hearing. Ipg its clear the president does not have the power to unilaterally bind the United States in these kind of agreements. There is a bipartisan agreement and weve made a lot of progress on things together like reducing pollution, which means improving coal use. Weve made progress on automobile mileage. Weve had strict requirements on that and so far, the Automobile Industry has done that. We havent made the progress we should have made on Nuclear Power in my opinion. That has the greatest potential over time, so, weve got electric cars and other ideas that could become reality. Solar panels could play a larger role in the time to come, but, American People are not sold on this and neither am i. The idea that we have to spend billions even trillions of dollars on co 2 as a result of the concern of Global Warming is whats not being sold effectively and is not being accepted by the American People. Maybe ill show a couple of charts just a second here. That hold that chart. So, this is a polling data and gallup poll earlier in the year. In march. Shows 18 issues in the last one on a minds of American People as an important issue was Climate Change. And i think the data, thats okay. The data shows that wee not seeing the kind of increases in temperatures that were projected. If you take the objective satellite data compared to the red line here, which is the average of the computer 32 computer models over 100 runs of those models, shows that the temperature would increase at a rather dramatic rate. I thought a number of years ago, we may actually be seeing that, but the blue dots an light green dots represent the climate temperatures actually occurring according to satellite and balloon data and so, thank you. So, in a sense, im just saying that the projections of disaster arent coming true and the doctor testified here from the university of colorado or Colorado State and when she said weve not seen more hurricanes, not seeing more tornados, drauts and floods, so thats part of the background where we are. All right, doctor, the dream Climate Fund Proposal and copenhagen commitment is a commit m of developing countries to provide 1 100 billion a year by 2020 to address needs of developing countries. Do you know what the United States share of that likely would be . Has that been discussed . I dont think its been discussed. The administration has proposed a 3 billion amount. That would go to the clean group, but thats pre 2020. We pay about 25 of the u. N. Right. If we were about 25 of the u. N. , actually, when you look at the countries responsible for providing funds to the Green Climate fund, its the countries that are in whats known as an ex2, a small subset of developed countries and the u. S. Accounts for about 45 of the emissions from those countries, so, in reality, we could be on the hook for about 45 billion of that. 45 . Yes. And that would be annually . That would be annually. Highway bill last time. Just the starting point. You know, group of developing countries has said that should rise up to 600 billion. The chinese said it should be 1 of the gdp of developed coup tris. About 170 billion. Yeah, we pushing 18 trillion gdp, so 1 of that is 170, 180 billion a year. Thats right. This large amount of money even by washington standards. I would agree. And an African Group is insisting on ramping up the funding to 600 billion a year . By 2030 . Thats right. Well, my time is about up, to i think we made the concerns pretty clear here. Yes, rhetts do this the things that make sense. Look for the efficiencies and antiplunt tants, which i dont consider co2 to be a pollutant. Plants need to grow. And i think if we work on that in a bipartisan way, well also get reductions in co 2 and get reduction in pollutants and well benefit, but the to impose these kinds of costs on the economy when i think theres no realistic expectation, other countries that sign it will meet their requirements is not wise. Senator marquis. Thank you very much. The world is going to gather in paris in two weeks and the central objective is to deal with the dangerous human interference with the climate system. And countries from around the world are coming. 160 countries that are responsible for 90 of Global Carbon pollution, have made climate pledges. In advance of the paris talks. And we are positioned to have a very successful outcome from this Huge International meeting. I believe that the United States can meet our goals. President obama has made them at dimpt times before this huge summit. Thats because fuel economy under 54. 5 miles per gallon. Thats the largest single reduction in Greenhouse Gases in history. Of any country. Thats still on the books. The president s clean power plant will dramatically reduce remissions from that sector as well. We have Energy Efficiency. Standards and we have massive deployment of wind and solar all across our country thats unleashing business opportunity. So, i guess i go to you first. Do you agree that the Paris Agreement includes meaningful emissions . Reduction pledges from all the countries including developing countries in your opinion . Thank you. As i mentioned, there are more than 160 countries, 119 of them developing countries that have put forward their plans. Were seeing significant actions in many of them. I would just note for example, in the case of india, that their domestic plans are to increase Renewable Energy to 175 gig watts total by 2022 and 1100 gig watts of that would be in solar energy and thats more than half the current global Solar Installed capacity. That would then ramp up. Thats 170,000 megawatts of renewable electricity. That is incredible. And china is making a comparable kind of commitment. Even larger in term of its deployment by the year 2030. Do you anticipate an agreement reached in paris will include procedures for monitoring and verifying those pledges . The underlying u. N. Framework convention in fact has provisions for countries to provide information about their emissions to report on their inventories. This agreement will build on that. We already had progress forward in the copenhagen and cancun agreements. About increasing the degree of transparency. This agreement i think will increase that to an even greater degree and have convergence between developed and developing countries in terms to have requirements they face. Thank you. Has americas leadership been the key to bringing all the other countries to the table as the fact that weve made this commitment to reduce by 26 to 28 by 2025 been the forcing mechanism that says to china and to india and other countries, you, too, must do something . I think our actions have been noted around the world. I think that when one goes to the negotiation, one has a sense that countries see what were doing and i think one of the underpinnings of this agreement is the work that the United States has done with china in particular to move forward. I think youre right. I honestly, you cant preach temperance from a bar stool, so, you know, we had to put up our commitments and thats what the problem was back in kyoto. So, here, weve got that. And weve had a response from countries all around the world. And in the Business Community, i think theyre looking forward to this. Are they not . So that there can be a signal thats sent to the Business Community that they can rely upon, that there is going to be an investment atmosphere thats going to unleash billions of dollars into this Renewable Energy sector. Very much and Energy Efficiency and other clean generation options. What the Business Community needs is a clear, sustained market signal to drive investment. Right now, were seeing it sit on the sidelines because theres not enough clarity. The United States has made tremendous progress in providing clarity over the last several years in terms of its domestic policy agenda in the energy sector. We need to see that in more countries and we believe that the paris discussions and the outputs from the conference are going to create a stronger investment signal in other countries outside of ours. What would it mean if we extended the wind and solar dta break sns. Weve seen looking at the itc and production tax credit, experienced this in the last five or six years. When we had a sustained investment policy, we saw investment and deployment increase dramatically and when we didnt have that clarity and other provisions, things dropped off, so its a very clear slight on what the power of policy certainty can provide to the vest m. Thank you. Were going to have 300,000 jobs in wind and solar by the end of next year. 65,000 coal miners, so you can see how this is a growth trajectory, that if we keep these on the books and the fuel economy standards, we would revolutionize our own country and be able to export around the rest of the world. I thank you for all of your help here today. Thank you. Its my understand iing that wee had a vote that has been called. Does anybody just, so what im going to do is step away from the chair while senator boseman questions. Make my vote quickly and then get back so we can keep continuing with the hearing. Thank you. It was revealed this month that chinas coal con sums is 17 higher than previously reported. This confirms what many of us have been saying, we cant trust china to keep track of Carbon Emissions and play by the rules. Ive said many times that one of my Major Concerns is when we impose expensive carbon mandates here and force the price of electricity to nearly skyrocket, it just forces our manufacturers to close and their competitors in china will grow and emit more in our atmosphere. Is china the only country that has problems keeping up with its own co2 and ghg emissions . No, its not. And when you take a look at the air that the chinese made, not a rounding error. This is a huge error, the emissions from germany. So, what is going on in china is going on in a a lot of other countries in the world that just dont have a handle on how much Greenhouse Gas emissions they are emitting. If china cant accurately account for its emissions, should we expect them to actually deliver on setting up a complex and sophisticated emissions trading system . I dont see how they can do that. Part of an emission trading system is the idea of trust that you when you purchase. A ton of co2 emissions or co2 allowance that is worth representing a ton of c02 emissions. Im not so sure in the next year or so when chinese expect to roll out, im not so sure that confidence can be instilled in such a short period of time. Thank you. Mr. Cass, you highlight in your testimony that the cop 21 negotiations will focus little on Greenhouse Gas emissions and almost entirely on climate finance. Specifically on motivating developed countries like the u. S. To offer more than 100 billion per year starting in 2020 through the Green Climate slush fund. But of course, thankfully, congress is not going to provide that money, but for the those countries that might put a few dollars into this fund, is there any indication of how the funds might be used . Thank you, senator. I think one of the open questions right now is exactly that, which is what does this funding look like. The Green Climate fund actually Just Announced its first set of grants and it was sort of hodgepodge of small dollar grants to build resilient infrastructure, potentially some investments in the direction of clean energy. There is no clear guidance on how the money would be spent and most importantly, we know from hur experience with Foreign Development aid that sending large amounts of money to developing countries even to say build a school, is enormously channelling and rarely produces the desired result. Sending that money to build a revolutionary electricity grid is doubtful to work very well. No, that was my next question. Were really talking about countries that really have trouble with governance. Lots of corruption. I guess your testimony is that it would be very, very difficult. As we develop infrastructure that we have all the existing infrastructure to build off of and that were adding a few points to an enormous base load of Reliable Energy and now, were trying to do that in a developing world that has no such bis line. This is why the developing world doesnt want to go in that direction because its not the right way to develop. What level of oversight would be a sign for the fund . Is there any oversight in place . Theres a elaborate u. N. Style structure of oversight over the Green Climate fund with boards and committees and guidelines. In practice, how the money comes and goes i think will likely look more like what we have seen from other u. N. Efforts than what we are used to dmesically. Senator booker. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. So, there clearly is a crisis and im glad i didnt hear anybody denying that we have a climate problem and the data and the facts speak for themselves. Concentrations have exceeded per million threshold and levels are now higher than at any point in the last 800,000 years. Global temperatures have now exceeded about 1 degree celsius above the preindustrial age with 2014 being the warmest year on record. These are facts. 2015 actually is on base to be even warmer than 2014. And this is something that is not just done by heralded by the scientists around the globe. But also important global organizations, earlier this month, the world bank announced that due to currently projected Sea Level Rise and uptick in extreme weather, Climate Change could force an additional 100 people on earth into poverty. It seems i hear in washington over and over again that america must lead. That our leadership is important. Indeed as we see with the war on terror, people calling again and again for american leadership. Clearly, this Global Crisis is another case where we must lead. America has led throughout the deck tad cade from the space race, which has yielded billions of dollars in economic benefit to the United States. To even important global issues like mapping the human jgee gnome. In the face of these facts about the Global Crisis, it is important to me that there are actually things that paris can do and will do if not the least of which is increase in communication, transparency and greater levels of accountability, for nations as well as corporations, but critical to me is understanding that leadership has its benefits and this crisis has its costs. The u. S. Historically providing leadership to help solve Global Crisis is something im proud of. By exercising leadership, the United States economy can benefit and benefit in astonishing ways with trillions of dollars of new investments, increased jobs and most importantly, as im seeing on the coast of new jersey, we can avoid the social costs. A recent nyu report finds that a global agreement to limit temperature increases to 2 degrees celsius will provide 10 trillion in direct benefits to the United States. I know the costs both through a local communities in new jersey from our fisheries to the storms and the weather changes. But the opportunity, the upside for this leadership is profound. And so, id like to ask questions first to david. Am i pronouncing that right . Mr. Waskow. In your opens statement, you mentioned the potential economic benefits. This is often not talked about. People keep talking about the cost, but the upside is extraordinary. And so, if you could elaborate for me about what the, what our country, what the United States of america could see when it comes to economic benefits, job benefits from reducing Carbon Emissions. Sure, the benefits are quite extraordinary. The epa has estimated that the benefits of the clean power plant themselves from Health Benefits and others are 32 to 54 billion by 2030. Thats substantial and noteworthy. In addition to that, key actions we can take such an in Energy Efficiency provide economic benefits, the evidence is for that every dollar investmented, you get at least two back and the appliance efficiency measures they have put in place since 2009 alone would bring consumers 450 billion in benefits by 2030. As somebody who had to run a city, i saw a triple bottom line when it came to Energy Efficiency. Not only reduce expenditures by doing environmental retro fit we created jobs for our community and began to deal with a crisis like asthma rates. Mrs. Jacan you describe some of the opportunities for the United States . Youve got 30 seconds. Theres a ferocious chairman here and i want to stay on his good side. Ill go back to my point on Energy Productivity and look at what the gains our economy has achieved as weve reduced our Greenhouse Gas emissions. You can create jobs and improve the competitiveness of the u. S. Economy at the same time, so, these things make economic sense. Thank you very much. I would like to note that i finished before my time expired. Senator wicker. You surely did. Three, two, one. Let me make a statement because we have a vote. I want to put in the record at this point mr. Chairman, a Peer Reviewed article by dr. Lumborg Consensus Center entitled climate proposals, id like to put into the record a press release issued by the copenhagen consensus with regard to that study. Again, without objection. Let me just say this. Mr. Lumborg and i have not always seen eye to eye on the causes of Climate Change. But he has i think released a very important peer review study. When you challenge the status quo, theres a chorus of people saying the datas wrong and faulty and should be disregarded. But heres what dr. Lumborg tells us. About the paris promises. Basically says this. If paris accomplishes everything they want to, and if you use their own projections, if we pressure the impact of every nation fulfilling every promise by the year 2030, the total temperature reduction will be 0. 048 degrees celsius. In other words, but the end of this century, if everything they say is correct, we will have accomplished a change in degrees celsius of less than. 500 of a degree celsius. The question is, we spend all this money and divert it from all of these other areas, what are we going to get for it . This study says youre going to get less than. 500 of a degree in a century. The United Kingdom is diverting p 8. 9 million from its overseas budget, going to turn it over to Climate Change. I think the people of the world who answer Public Opinion polls are correct. When asked where action related to Climate Change ranks out of 1 categories, they rank it dead last. I think the people that are most disadvantaged in this world would rather have us use money to improve education. To increase electricity availability. To fight malaria. Mall nourishment claims at least 1. 4 million childrens lives p per year. Yet, were taking money away from programs that do that. Are we taking money that could be used for mall nourishment and putting i on something thats going to give us five less than. 500 of a degree. 1. 2 billion people live in extreme poverty. Think of what the United Nations could do with the money were going to put as if its 100 billion or whatever, think of what we could do to help peop in poverty to help children that are dying, dying. From malnutrition. We could prevent 300,000 deaths a year if we took this money and put it on malaria. So, i just say i hope this congress, i hope this senate, will act with caution. I hope the representatives of the American People act with caution. When they go to paris. I hope whats whatever is agleed to come back to this congress and debate for consultation. Thank you, mad dam chair. Thank you. In your written testimony, you wrote that the u. S. Business community is considering the Climate Change impaktss and that companies are pledging to reduce greenhouse gags emissions. Can you discuss some examples of how companies are embracing the move to lower our Carbon Emissions and promote greater sustainability and have they used efforts to combat Climate Change as an opportunity to innovate and grow . Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this and several Business Council for Sustainable Energy members made recent pledges this fall related to groan house gas mitigation and other compatible, Sustainable Energy initiatives. These include cal pine energiry ducks, ingersoll rand, pg e, quaul come and schneider lekts rick. This shows them plus their peers in the recent announcements, there are over 80 companies that xam together represents 3 trillion investment and they provide hundreds of thousands of jobs this this country and offer their products and services in a competitive and effective way globally. They see this as a mainstream business issue and the range of tools vary. But there may be Energy Management practices, setting targets for their energy use, working through supply chains. Some put Carbon Pricing into their Investment Decisions because they get economic benefit from doing so. And the last decade, through tools like the Carbon Disclosure Project and other initiatives, track how businesses have really evolved in the way theyve responded to the call from their customers and from shareholders to consider sustainability initiatives and to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions and were now seeing Companies Take it to the next level and look at what science and policymakers are doing in terms of their own trajectories and matching them. So, we are, its a mainstream issue and companies are responding this dimpt ways, but the they belieessential piece i companies are responding. Can you please describe the importance of reaching an International Agreement in paris to the Business Community that you work with . And what effect do you think the global commitment to reduce Greenhouse Gases will have on the ability of u. S. Companies that have already embraces sustainability to compete internationally . I think the second question first. The u. S. Has a path forward. It has it at the state level, tat local policy level and we have it at the federal level through the investments were making in energy research, development and deployment. We have a road map. Other companies where we compete need to be on a similar road map. That sends a strong signal to investor of where to place their capital. These are longlived investments. Decades Long Investments and right now, with a lack of clarity in many parts of the world, capitals sit tong sidelines thand astronaut good for u. S. Firms and providing the job creation that u. S. Firms would like to provide here at home. Thank you. You state that the leadership of the United States has paid substantial dividends. Will you elaborate on how United States leadership has spurred action and what changes have we seen from the lead up frof the copenhagen meet ng 2010 . The leadership that the United States is showing has really sort of had ramify cases rippling outwards and the underpinnings of that leadership really has been the agreements that the United States has entered into or arranged with china and beginning a year ago, with the joint announcement by the two countries, where each put forward what its climate plans for the coming decade and in chinas case, the coming decade and a half will be, that really laid the ground for . Yc understanding that action was going to be international in scope. When the two major emitters, the two largest emitters came forward in that way and what we saw coming out of that was a Ripple Effect that turned into a wave of action. Internationally. And weve now seen all major emitters as part of that 160 plus set of countries with National Climate plans come forward and weve seen actions as i mentioned, the Indian Renewables target for example that have come forward. India has gone beyond those 22 numbers to commit that it would have 40 of its Energy Supply from nonsources by 2030. Weve seen a doubling of countries that have put forward plans that have Greenhouse Gas emissions targets in them as opposed to general actions. To look at Renewable Energy in particular. Just the eight largest emitters. Have put plans in place for more than 8,000 terror watt hours of Renewable Energy by 2030. About 20 more than what they would have done under business as usual, so were seeing something remarkable. Thank you. If we could hold here for just a minute or two, senator wya whitehouse is on his way back, so well just kind of at ease i guess would be a way to say. Rather sit here and not have a conversation, could i be recognized, please . Sure. Who mentioned yogi berra . Yeah tlrk you xwo. One of my favorite stories here in the dugout with the other yankees and before the game sarted, one of his teammates came in and said, did you hear the news . He said, the jew has been elected mayor of dublin. Yogi said, only in america. Only in america. Another yogi favorite, yogi once said when you come to the fork in the road, take it. Take it. I think were at the fork in the road and my hope is that we will take it. Ive learned a few things in preparing iffor h hearing. One is how many of these ill call them other executive agreements not approved by congress have there been and i didnt have no idea, but turns out theres been Something Like 18,000 of them since 1789. Compared to about 1,000 treaties that have been agreed to. I thought what are some of those executive agreements that have not been approved . That ended the war in vietnam in which i served. Another was adjustments to montreal protocall and substances that depleted the ozone from 1987. More recently, the convention on mercury from 2013. All of those were thot treaties. They were really essentially executive agreements. Thank you. Thank you. Senator whitehouse. Thank you, chairman. The vote from commerce, the interest of more than 3 million businesses of all sectors and sized and regions, threatening to quote score the vote yesterday to destroy the president s clean power plan. Without objection. Thank you. A letter signed by more than 360 Companies Including general mills, nestle, dannon, schneider electric, always glad to have them involved. That was sent to the nations governor expressing strong suppo support. Thank you. I also ask consent to enter the white house American Business act on climate pledge. 81 companies with operations in 50 states who employ over 9 million people, represent more than 3 trillion in revenue. They includae alcoa, bank of america, mcdonalds, pepsi, proctor and gamble, walmart and walt disney. Without objection. Thank you. Finally, unanimous consent to enter the record a Financial Sector statement on Climate Change from bank of america, citi, goldman sachs, jpmorgan chase, Morgan Stanley and wells fargo calling for a strong b global agroemt. Without objection. I dont have it with me, but i will get it before the record of hearing closes. Put into the Financial Times by ewan leaver, general mill, mars, nestle. By ben and jerries and by kelloggs be added to the record. Without objection. And id like with the chairs permissi permission, ask a question for the record of the chamber of commerce. Which is present here in the form of mr. Yulit. Question for the record is how does the chambers relentless opposition to Climate Action represent the views of the companies on these letters who are chamber members. I think that will take a little time, so id like to make that a question for the record. Let me also add into the record an article. Just let me clarify. It means you want a written response. Yes. And or the chamber if they want to respond through some other personage. Id also like to put into the record a recent press story calling the koch atm. Which reports that the u. S. Chamber of commerce received 2 million from freedom partners, which is a koch backed operation. And also, reflect for the rod here that the center for media democracy reports that from 2001 to 2012, the Manhattan Institute received over 2. 1 million from foundations associated with the koch brothers. And the union of concerned scientists report that is the Manhattan Institute received 800,000. Thank you. I think the point im trying to make here is that the socalled Business Community were seeing here are in fact the voices of the fossil fuel industry. The bulk of without the broader of the American Community is actively supported taking action on climate. Setting aside the parts of the American Economy involved in the clean energy economy. Neutral American Businesses. As opposed to Companies Like mid america power, which is providing so much wind power in iowa right now and other big ventures that are vesting heavily, developing technology and doing good things for the American Economy, so, i wanted to make sure that the record of this pleading reflected both the position of the broader American Community and the funding behind two of the gentleman who are here today. Thank you madam chair. I think weve reached the epd of our hearing. I want tho thank you all of you. With that madam chair, quick, you and i are both from west virginia. I was born long before you were, but when i think ant the issue, i think about the golden rule, how to apply the golden rule, so its fair to everybody. My state will face global Sea Level Rise, its going to do us in eventually if we dont do something about it. My native state some of our neighbor, my dad worked as a coal miner, but ive been long time supporter of Clean Coal Technology for over 20 something years. We spent about 20 billion on Clean Coal Technology in the last 20 years aen we have a plant now in southwest texas producing next year, up and running next year, producing about 250 megawatts of energy. We have some other plants that are work is being done on those. Taken a long time, a lot of money, but i am encouraged that were starting to make progress, so when i apply the golden rule to west virginia, kentucky, illinois, pennsylvania, wyoming and others, i think whats the fair thing to do d w them aingd part of the fair thing is to continue to invest in Clean Coal Technology and look for the innovation. All those coal plants theyve been building in china and other places, if they can use this technology, that could be a good job in development for us. I would agree and i will in the form of letting the panel know that senator is on his way so the same courtesies that weve extended to senator whitehouse, well extend to him. And i do believe innovation, but i do believe that when we talk about the human price and the human consequences of whats going on in terms of Climate Change, you have to look about whats going on in states like mine right now in the human consequences of the highest unemployment, 4 cut in our state budget. The first time weve had to cut education in many, many years by 1 . More people in poverty. A sense of gloom and doom and depression that ive not seen in our state and weve had a lot of highs and lows in our state, so, as you know, weve had experience with kind of being feeling that our economics cant move forward, but it is just, its indescribable where im living right now, so i see the human consequence of moving forward without the innovation, without longer timelines, without more common sense, so ill just make that a statement. Im going to ask a quick question because you brought up the sole executive adpreemts that would been made. Houchl over the past . 800 . About 18 18,000. 18,000. Executive agreements. My question is if this becomes a sole executive agreement by this president whos leaving office in a year, does this for the next president coming in, what kind of parameters, does that have any binding measures frrt next president and could the next president come in and undo what was been done . . Thanks, senator. I think this is, its a sole executive agreement is the weakest kind of commitment the United States can make. There are a lot of them, but theyre usually for very small things. Things within the president s powers. And so, the Supreme Court has said only for things that historically congress has ak wii esed in using agreements will the court uphold. If he makes the executive agreement, he can withdraw it under his Sole Authority. Now, the difficulty is that that would mean the succe succeeding president. Yes. He would have the authority to withdraw an agreement under the Sole Authority of the previous president. The only difference is is that if the other countries feel like the previous president made a binding promise, the fact that theres a new president doesnt make them feel much better. Theres a cost to it. If the next president withdraws, even though its legal in the other countries become upset an happy and thats why it is the Supreme Court i think and generally scholars think the use of sole executive agreements has to be used where its clear the president has the authority. Theres a long standing precedent for use of a sole executive agreement in that circumstance. Well, thank you. Before we turn to the senators remarks, may i associate myself with the thoughtful remarks . I have to leave now. Thank you. Thank you. You know, if there was one message that i would like to send to the International Community ahead to have international Climate Change conference, it is this. Without Senate Approval, there will be no money. Secretary kerry says that a Treaty Requiring Senate approval will not emerge from the interNational Climate talks. This is despite the fact that the state department is pushing for agreement to be legally binding on the United States. On november 13th, the state department stated our position has not changed. Is t u. S. Is pressing for an agreement, both legally and nonlegally binding. Any agreement reached in paris that contains legally binding requirements must come to the senate for a vote. This isnt only the right thing to do, it is what the constitution requires. As we know, the United Nations Green Climate fund was proposed during the 2009 conference of parties in copenhagen denmark. The fund facilitates a giant wealth transfer of taxpayer dollars from developed nations to developing nations to help them adapt to Climate Change. Congress has never authorized funding the Green Climate fund. The United States and other developing nations have pledged approximately 10 billion for the initial capitalization, the fund with a goal of raising 100 billion annually. Thats right. Most people think thats a misprint, but its true. 100 billion annually is what theyre talking about. On november 5th of l. A. Year, president obama pledged 3 million over the years during the g 20 meetings in australia, the administrations fiscal year 2016 budget with request asked for 500 million for the fund. We cannot support providing taxpayer dollars to this fund of an agreement. So im going to make it clear to the administration as well as foreign diplomats across the globe, who are looking for u. S. Dollars, without Senate Approval there will be no money, period. I and many of my colleagues will be sending the president a letter stating that very soon. Weve circulated a copy of that letter. It was recently reported in the New York Times page one above the fold, wednesday, november 4th, china is burning much more coal than it claimed. Article states even for a country of chinas size the scale of the correction is immense. The sharp upward revision in official figures means that china has released much more carbon d carbon dioxide. The increase alone is greater than the whole German Economy emits from fossil fuels. How does this impact the chia cs indc commission . Thank you, senator. I think the chinese restatement is an important fact because in that very article they actually quote chinas climate adviser smugly noting this makes it even easier for them to meet their target. China has never committed to a level that its emissions will peak after that. After having put out its commitment noting, were burning a lot more coal than we told you, they are in fact making it that much easier to meet a goal they were on track to meet anyway. Ours have to be done before 2025. China can continue to go to peak in the year 2030. Thats correct. And i think whats most concerning about that in some respects is that we have heard so much at this hearing about the importance of u. S. Leadership and about this process moving forward that requires what is essentially called naming and shaming, the premis premise of getting action. The talking points from the most vocal advocates of Climate Action are now that chinas doing a great job. If a sophisticated country like china cant keep up with its emissions, what confidence do we have in other countries willing to produce a reliable system for measuring, reporting, and verifying Emission Reduction activities . In chinas experience, my guess is nothing new. Its an excellent question. And im not quite sure at this point that measuring reporting verification can be set up so that we can with assurance that the emission promises are going to be delivered. A question for both of you, if you could. There was a recent opinion piece in the wall street journal. It noted in the runup to negotiations rich countries and Development Organizations are scrambling to join the fashionable ranks of climate aid of the donors. This effectively means telling the worlds worst off people suffering from malaria, malnutrition what they really isnt need is medicine, but a solar panel. Could the effect of the negotiations make it actually harder, harder, for countries to raise their own people out of abject poverty in the name of Climate Change . I think thats certainly a concern. I think senator wicker called attention to the fact that the u. K. Under pressure to provide climate finance has simply said, okay, we will shift our other Development Aid into climate finance. I think the good news for people in developing countries is their own leaders are refusing to prioritize emissions cuts over Economic Growth. The bad news is the developed world for the sake of getting a signed piece of paper may reorient their own aid towards solar panels instead of drinking water. Essentially what i was going to say. The simple fact is when you look at what developing countries are doing, they have set their priorities and the priorities are economic development, poverty eradication, and energy access. Its not about addressing Greenhouse Gas emissions. I think thats the way its going to be for the foreseeable future. Thank you, madame chairman. If i could make a unanimous consent request to put in the record a copy of the u. S. Pledges for the general climate fund which appear to be around 3 billion. We have a number of states i was born in one that produce a lot of coal. Astrying to deal with this issue, we need to be helpful to those states adversely effected. If we dont provide leadership, the rest of the world is not doing to do much at all. Thank you again to the panel. I thank all those who attended. Ill call this hearing adjourned. [ chatter ] is there going to be a sense of the Senate Resolution on the week of the 30th . Well have to wait and see. Do we know who is going to paris . No, i heard senator carden had a group going, but i really dont know. What about on the republican side . I dont know either. I think senator inhofe has been the last two times, i think, but i dont know what his plans are. He hasnt shared them with me. Budgetary agreement making the sorry, funding for the Green Climate Fund Contingent [ inaudible ]. I dont see where a scenario where this senate is going to approve in the omnibus bill any language that would open any door for any clean climate fund. Regardless of if whether the agreement is submitted . Correct. Arent some of those funds already appropriating . Thats what the administration has said. That these funds, except for about 500 million, are already there. We zero appropriated it. They asked for 500 million. They gave them nothing in the appropriations committee. Thats probably going to be wrapped into the omnibus that we have in the next two weeks. I dont know where theyre going to come up with 3 billion without congress appropriating it, so i dont know. I have to go. Sorry. Thanks, guys. Its called the crossroads of new york state, and this weekend our cspan cities tour will explore the history and literary life of syracuse, new york. On book tv, well visit the special Collections Library at Syracuse University and learn about the Antislavery Movement in the area through the papers of abolitionist garrett smith. A local author discusses her book, prelude to prison. Then well talk with jeff hems lee about his book going viral. Reality is a process of social sharing. Its the process by what that happens. Viralty is what happens when people share content usually into their own networks. Oftentimes somebody who has a lot of following, a lot of followers or a lot of people paying attention to them, also spreads the content. On American History tv, well visit the Erie Canal Museum to learn how the canal influenced the growth of syracuse, the state, and the nation. Then it is on to Harriet Tubmans home. Our trip to syracuse takes us to the Matilda Jocelyn gage home. Her speech at a Womens Rights Convention in 1852 launched her into national prominence. Matilda jocelyn gage is 26 at the time and has had four children already. She learns the convention is going to occur. She writes a speech and she travels to syracuse bringing her oldest daughter helen leslie with her. Now gage hadnt contacted any of the organizers. She wasnt on the program. She just shows up. And she waits in the crowd. And when theres a quiet moment, she marches up on stage and trembling takes the podium and begins to speak. And she gives this incredibly moving speech. Let syracuse sustain her name for radicalism. From that moment, she goes on to become a leader in the womans movement. This weekend watch cspans cities tour beginning saturday at 8 00 p. M. Eastern and sunday afternoon at 2 00 on American History tv on cspan 3. The cspan cities tour working with our cable affiliates in visiting cities across the country. On the next washington journal senator gary peters of michigan, a member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committee on the u. S. Strategy against isis. Then a look at Climate Change with ben curtman a professor at the university of miami. Washington journal live every morning at 7 00 a. M. Eastern on cspan. You can join the conversation with your calls and comments on facebook and twitter. Tomorrow on cspan 3, well take you to capitol hill for two hearings on the recent terror attacks in france. In the morning, a House Judiciary Committee will meet to discuss the refugee crisis and National Security. Thatll be live at 9 00 a. M. Eastern. Then the senate Homeland Security committee will discuss some of the Lessons Learned in the paris attacks. Now, a hearing on policing and the role of the department of justice Civil Rights Division. This meeting of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on Oversight Agency action, federal rights, and federal courts is just under three hours. This hearing will come to order. Welcome to everyone here. Welcome to the witnesses on the first panel and welcome to those who have come to participate in this hearing. The purpose of this hearing is to look at the challenges facing the brave men and women of Law Enforcement. A great many of us have been growing more and more concerned at seeing Police Officers the subject of public vilification. Seeing Police Officers being undermined. And hearing from Police Officers across this country that they are less and less able to do their jobs, but they feel their hands are tied, that they are scared if they engage in proactive policing in the community to keep the community safe, that they risk being personally hung out to dry, that they risk seeing their careers, their livelihoods destroyed, that they risk seeing their family held up for public condemnation. And sadly, the consequences of this are significant. The men and women of Law Enforcement risk their life each and every day. Police officers go into dangerous neighborhoods with criminals, and every day theyre taking a risk that their life may be lost protecting the community. If the police are intimidated, if theyre scared, if theyre not willing to do their jobs, we know the result. The result is the loss of life. The result is a rise in crime. Some recent headlines underscore the consequences of this. Just three days ago, the Washington Post reported that homicides have risen in several u. S. Cities this year. This, quote, dramatic surge in killings has been confirmed as well by Media Outlets as diverse as usa day, National Review, the economist, the New York Times, and the wall street journal. Indeed here in the nations capital, according to the Washington Post there have been 143 homicides so far this year. That is 53 more homicides than at the same point last year. Nearby, baltimore has suffered even worse. Baltimore has now suffered over 300 homicides this year. This gruesome milestone, the Washington Post lamented, represents the violence baltimore experienced days ago. Similar statistics can be found in st. Louis, new orleans, chicago, in cities across the country. And of great deal of concern to Law Enforcement, the number of Law Enforcement officers killed through acts of violence has been on a precipitous upswing according to the hill in an article published this past may. Specifically the officers killed in 2014 was nearly double those killed in 2013. James comey, the current director of the federal bureau of investigation, has been vocal about his concerns over crime trends. Director comey has expressed the views that excessive unjust scrutiny of state and local Law Enforcement may be contributing to this trend. Now everyone here agrees that we should enforce the law and we should vigorously enforce americas civil rights laws. And any Government Organization there can be bad actors. In any large group of people there can be individuals who choose to violate the law. Anyone who chooses to violate the law should be held accountable. But in my view it is deeply harmful not only for the men and women of Law Enforcement, but for the safety of the American People for the federal government to treat Police Officers as the enemy, for the president or the attorney general to be holding up Police Officers for vilification. I will say i was particularly disappointed last year when president obama nominated an individual to serve as the head of the Civil Rights Division who had previously represented an admitted cop killer. Had not just represented him, but represented him pro bono for free and had lionized and celebrated this cop killer. Every individual in a criminal proceeding is entitled to representation, but those that you go out of your way to volunteer your time for free and those who you lionize and celebrate reveal a great deal about your beliefs and where you stand. I would know it. I was proud to stand with others, including pennsylvania senator pat toomey, in helping leading the fight against confirming that nominee to the Justice Department. And it is worth noting that even with a Democratic Senate under the leadership of harry reid, the senate refused to confirm that nominee as a number of democrats joined the republicans in saying, we should not have a senior official in the Justice Department be an individual who has chosen to celebrate and lionize a murderer who has murdered Police Officers. It was a few months ago that i attended the funeral in my hometown of houston for deputy goforth. Deputy goforth was shot at a gas station in an act of violence that i believe was a manifestation of the growing antipathy growing in Law Enforcement. And i will note the Funeral Service was an incredible and powerful Funeral Service. It was held at Second Baptist Church in houston. It was an incredible sight to sit in the sanctuary and to see thousands upon thousands of Police Officers filling that sanctuary everywhere you could see were men and women dressed in blue. In their dress uniforms there to honor that fallen officer. Dr. Young in the eulogy powerfully observed in the Old Testament the levis, the priests, wore blue. And he drew from the lords prayer to describe the core mission of police and indeed in particular one phrase in the lords prayer, deliver us from evil, which dr. Young rightly observed if he were to sum up the Mission Statement of a Police Officer. It would be difficult to do so more effectively or more succintly than deliver us from evil. I believe every one of us, republican and democrat, should stand unequivocally with the brave men and women of this country. I dont think it is good for this country to have a culture where the men and women of Law Enforcement feel under siege. There was seminole moment in this country where the members of the nypd stood and turned their back on mayor de blasio. That was a moment that penetrated into the heart of millions of americans. What on earth are we doing when senior government officials are treating the Police Officers as the bad guys . This hearing is to discuss the challenges facing Police Officers, the degree to which they have been vilified publicly and the consequences we are facing in terms of innocent men and women facing crime, facing murder, lives that have been lost because the police have been unable to do their job. And i appreciate everyone for being here for this hearing. I recognize senator coons. Thank you, chairman cruz. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the core issue of how we can simultaneously honor and respect the civil rights that are at the very foundation of our Constitutional Order while still securing peace and safety. How it is that the Law Enforcement officers with whom i had the honor of serving in county government for a decade can meet their call to not just, as has been put, deliver us from evil, but to protect and serve. While i do think we have an important topic before us today, the title of the hearing war on police reflects unfortunately i think more overheated rhetoric all too common in congress when discussing complex policy matters rather than any on the ground reality. It is belied by the fact that there are no Law Enforcement leaders testifying today despite there being more than 17,000 Law Enforcement agencies in the United States in support of the proposition that there exists a war on police being waged by the federal government. Well hear from two chiefs of poli police to the opposite. When i first arrived in the senate in november of 2011, i looked through the very long list of caucuses already in existence and discovered none of them was dedicated to the issues of Law Enforcement. The Law Enforcement caucus continues on a bipartisan basis to meaningfully educate members and staff on the issues facing Law Enforcement and their relationship with the federal government and to advocate for the brave men and women of Law Enforcement. Im pleased our caucus includes a strong Bipartisan Group of 26 senators, 14 democrats and 12 republicans, and well invite the chair should he be so inclined to join us at some point. One of our first events as a caucus in may of 2012 discussed the bulletproof vest partnership, a program that has saved the lives of over 3,000 Law Enforcements, including two in the New Castle County courthouse in my hometown. I was honored to work with the champion of legislation Ranking Member leahy. We have held events that focus on the resources shared between federal and state Law Enforcement that provides critical equipment and Specialized Services that local Law Enforcement needs but most often cant afford. I think these are the sorts of meaningful actions to support Law Enforcement that we should be discussing today. I would like to enter into the record 11 letters, all bipartisan, in supporting federal programs critical to this task of state and local Law Enforcement. Four weeks ago we welcomed local Law Enforcement leaders from delaware and missouri to a local Law Enforcement caucus in improving the relationship between Law Enforcement and the communities they serve. It was a productive conversation that highlighted the successes and challenges in implementing modern Community Policing programs, which brings us to our topic today. We cannot choose between these objectives. We must work to achieve both. The role the department of justice is both to support state and local Law Enforcement and protect the Constitutional Rights of every american, which sometimes requires intervention. The statute enforced by the Civil Rights Division was enacted in 1994 as part of the Violent Crime control act and was inspired by National Outrage over the beating of rodney king in los angeles. This provision ensures there can be no pattern or practice that deprives individuals or Citizens Rights under our constitution. I think a war on police is contrary to our ideals as a nation. Implementation of my statute, including this important one, requires effort and oversight. I welcome the testimony to ms. Gupta. We are aided in this effort by recent reporting as the chairman referenced from the Washington Post and front line in their joint investigation of Police Departments that are undergone reforms. Ill share one of many case studies. The Justice Department launched investigations of the Prince Georges County Police Department after dogs in its canine unit inflicted 800 bites in over seven years. The reforms the Justice Department required included provisions that supervisors approve the use of police dogs and that a board be established to review officerinvolved shootings. The chief of police, a department veteran, was recently quoted in this very article saying, quote, it was a painful time. Theres no question about it. But both of these agreements have made us better as a Police Agency hands down. The article then notes the number of complaints to the naacp have been reduced dramatically from 15 calls a month to just one or two. Read a helpful report that came out of a summit organized by the Police Executive Research Forum entitled civil rights investigations of local police, Lessons Learned. The summit included Police Representatives from agencies all over the country. I ask that that full report be included in this hearing record. I look forward to hearing chief davis testimony on the state of that initiative today. I will briefly share one story from that report. The Las Vegas Review journal pu published a series of articles and raised questions about accountability. Then cops Office Director contacted sheriff Doug Gillespie in developing reforms. He sent a team to washington to meet with its leaders and to discuss the proposal. They reached an agreement and in november of 2012 the cops Office Released a full report detailing its findings and all engaged have concluded this was a constructive and positive advance in both policing and civil rights. As the most visible form of government, Law Enforcement officers are at the front line of our responsibility to safe guard Constitutional Rights while ensuring Public Safety. It is unsurprising they are held to a very High Standard given the tremendous responsibility we empower them with in our Constitutional Order. It is also why i believe when certain commentators talk about a ferguson effect it is insu insulting to the brave men and women who do get out of their cars, who do put their lives on the line every day to protect those in this country. I might close with a quote from one of Law Enforcements most important voices. A recent statement by chuck cant canterbury, who stated first in rejecting fbi director comeys claim that when politicians use their police to deal with years of inequities in urban blight and do nothing to build a better life for their citizens, it is these politicians and not the police who have failed their citizens. Law enforcement is generally left to deal with all the issues that other parts of government tend to avoid. And a closing quote from fop president. Police officers have not been chilled and have not stopped responding to calls, especially high priority calls that involve violence. This is evidenced by the fact 32 officers have been killed by firearms in the line of duty already this year. Officers who are killed or injured in the line of duty do not speak to a lack of engageme engagement. It shows real engagement. With that in mind, i would like to thank the witnesses on both panels today. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, senator coons. I would now like to introduce our first two witnesses. Ms. Vanita gupta currently serves as the department of justice as the head of the Civil Rights Division. A graduate of yale and New York University school of law, gupta has worked for the naacp and the aclu. Mr. Ronald davis is also with the department of justice. He serves as the director of the dojs Community Orienting Police Services cops office. A graduate of southern illinois, mr. Davis has a lengthy and distinguished Law Enforcement career in california before joining the department of justice. I would ask each of the witnesses to please rise and raise your right hand. [ swearing in of witnesses ] thank you. Ms. Gupta, you may begin. Chairman cruz, Ranking Member coons, and distinguished members of the committee, good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in todays hearing and to share with you the Justice Departments efforts to support state and local Law Enforcement and to promote constitutional policing and Public Safety. Our nation is in the midst of an important conversation about policing and the relationship between Law Enforcement agencies and the communities they serve. As part of this conversation, we must all recognize the dedication and bravery of americas Law Enforcement officers. They put themselves in harms way every day to keep us safe. We are committed to working together to restore trust between Law Enforcement officers and Community Members where it has eroded. We all want the same things, safe streets, officers who come home every night, and the protection of the rights of all people to be treated fairly and justly. We went Thriving Communities in which residents and Law Enforcement work hand in hand to ensure peace and safety. Mistrust between police and citizens, however, breaks down collaboration. It impedes the sharing of information and it leads to less effective policing. This is dangerous for everyone. The Justice Department is committed to supporting state and local Law Enforcement and to strengthening local communities through funding for more officers and vital equipment, through training and research, and through the investigation of misconduct. Let know one mistake this. The overwhelming majority of women and men who police our streets do their jobs with honor, pride, and distinction. They have drirven to the Police Academy out of a diesire to mak an impact in their communities. Moreover the vast majority of Law Enforcement Agencies Police their communities professionally, successfully, and within the bounds of the law. As congress has recognized, however, there are times when the federal government has a role to play in protecting americans Constitutional Rights. The departments Civil Rights Division has long Standing Authority to investigate individual officers for criminal violations of Constitutional Rights. And in carrying out this mandate we are committed to impartial fact driven investigations. In addition, congress in 1994 charged the division with the responsibility to investigate Law Enforcement agencies for a pattern or practice of conduct that violates the constitution and to eliminate such misconduct where it is found. We have incorporated Lessons Learned into our work and continually strive to achieve constitutional policing and promote Public Safety in the most effective and clollaboratie manner possible. We speak directly with line officers and learn firsthand what challenges they face in on the streets and in their jobs. They report often a lack of support, training, and equipment to keep themselves and their community safe. The truth is we ask more of our Police Officers than anyone can reasonable expect. Daily they encounter people in crisis, people struggling with drug addiction. In pursuing remedies we aim to ensure that officers receive the equipment, the tools, the specialized training they need to do their jobs consistent with the constitution and the law. And we also strive to provide them with critically important professional support to cope with the stress and trauma they encounter on the job. The remedies we seek clear policy, modernize systems, and more positive Community Engagement are substantially informed by input of Police Experts and the Police Executive Research Forum, the International Association of chiefs of police, and the major city chiefs association. I routinely engage with these groups and others, such as the fraternal order of police and the National Sheriffs association to ensure that we take into account their expertise and their experiences. Informed by these perspectives and the perspectives of the community, theyre helping to reduce unnecessary force, enhance Public Safety efforts, and strengthen the relationship between the Police Department and the communities they serve. We are seeing meaningful change in Building Trust. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this important work at this very critical moment. I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you, ms. Gupta. Mr. Davis. Thank you, senator. Good afternoon, chairman cruz, Ranking Member cruz, and distinguished members of the committee. Thank you for this opportunity to discuss the many ways in which the department of justice is providing valuable support and resources to the nations 800,000 Law Enforcement officers in the more than 16,000 local, state, and Tribal Police agencies across the country. I come to you today but as one who has spent close to 30 years as a local Police Officer. I served 20 years in the oakland Police Department rising to the rank of captain and close to nine years as police chief for the city of palo alto, california. I simply followed my fathers footstep who served 25 years on the philadelphia Police Department. There is no greater or noble profession than policing. I can tell you without hesitation that the men and women who answer this call are truly americas finest. For example, since 2009, cops has awarded over 2 billion in hiring grants to create and preserve more than 10,000 Police Officer and depositions in nearly 2600 Law Enforcement agencies across this country. For some agencies providing funding for just one officer may mean the difference in having a full shift and making sure officers have sufficient cover and safety. As a former police chief, i have implemented several of these initiatives. Over the past 20 years, cops has been providing trains to over 700,000 officers and deputies and supports valuable research releasing publications on a wide range of issues from Homeland Security, to Building Community trust, to enhancing officer safety and wellness. These are critical to the field because as you know most agencies have fewer than 50 officers and do not have the capacity to conduct this research on their own. Just last month two reports were released. One addressing ambush attacks against the police and the other protecting the physical and Psychological Health of Police Officers. Through our executive session cops brings together the best and the brightest minds in the field to tackle crime and violence, preventing violent extremism. The information gleaned from these sessions is distributed to the field. At the Law Enforcement agencys request, we investigate training, internal investigations, use of force, and racial profiling and provides recommendations we believe will enhance Community Trust and Public Safety. Cops works closely with the agency in implementing these recommendations. The las vegas Police Department was the first to complete this process and we now have collaborative efforts in spokane, philadelphia, st. Louis county, and fayetteville. This voluntary process has received support from the civil rights decision and ms. Vanita gupta. It is considered a viable option when appropriate. Cops works with and supports the major Law Enforcement organizations in addressing key challenges in Law Enforcement ranging to animal cruelty and officer safety and wellness. For example, within days of the start of the mass demonstrations in ferguson, cops was able to connect regional leaders with Police Executives. We have provided support to nearly a dozen agencies. The Lessons Learned from these cities are then shared with the over 16,000 Law Enforcement agencies throughout the United States. This year the cops office served and provided administrative support to the president s task force on 21st century policing, which issued 59 recommendations to help agencies and communities build trust and advance Public Safety. While policing is primarily a local issue, it is clear the federal government has a role to play. Under the leadership of president obama and attorney general lynch, the department of justice has made supporting Law Enforcement one of the administrations top priorities. As a career Police Officer, i know firsthand just how important this support is and i can say without hesitation the men and women of the Justice Department make this their priority every day. Thank you. I look forward to your questions. Thank you very much both of you for coming and testifying here today. On october 13th, i sent a letter to the attorney general requesting some basic information about both the closed and the ongoing Civil Rights Division investigations of state and local Law Enforcement agencies, including municipal Police Departments. Yesterday, monday, november 16th, the department of justice responded to that letter. Without objection, i will move both the letter and the response into the record. In response to our questions on the topic, the department of justice listed 16 state and local Law Enforcement agencies that have had investigations opened against them since january 1st 2011. Those agencies are the ferguson Police Department, the los angeles Sheriffs Department, the meridian mississippi Police Department, the miami Police Department, the Missoula County Attorneys Office, the missoula Police Department, the newark Police Department, the Portland Oregon police bureau, the seattle Police Department, the university of Montana Office of Public Safety. The letter also mentions that 9 of these 16 investigations have been closed via Consent Decree or settlements while 7 remain open. Are there any additional open investigations against state or local Law Enforcement agencies currently in the Civil Rights Division . No. The ones that we listed are the ones that are actively ongoing. So there are no additional investigations that are open . No, not to my knowledge. I want to turn for a moment to a case that has become known as the dansinger bridge case. I suspect its a case that youre quite familiar with. Im familiar with it, yes, senator. Can you summarize for this committee the departments conduct in that case. Certainly, senator. First, thank you for the question. The bridge case involved significant prosecutorial misconduct that was found by the office of financial responsibility at the Justice Department of assistant United States attorneys who have ultimately left the department. It is a case that is currently in ongoing litigation. Therefore im not able to comment that much more in depth about the matter, but it is a matter that obviously came to my attention as soon as i came into the building. You know, i will note this began as an investigation to a shooting that occurred in louisiana in the wake of hurricane katrina. But it has now produced two lengthy judicial opinions detailed what has been described as a wide pattern of misconduct by the u. S. Department of justice. Both the u. S. District court of the Eastern District of louisiana and the fifth Circuit Court of appeals have had a chance to review the facts underlying this case. District judge curtwrote 129page opinion chronicling what can be described as a pattern of wrongdoing by the department of justice. Im going to enter both opinions into the record. The u. S. Attorneys office for the Eastern District of louisiana and the Civil Rights Division were repeatedly posting online comments against the Police Officers who they were seeking to prosecute. They were doing so anonymously under pseudonyms, seeking to stoke up public anger and resentment directed at these Police Officers, agitating the potential jury pool. One of these attorneys who was posting these antipolice online comments was a Civil Rights Division attorney named carla dobinsky. Her conduct at the department of justice was particularly astonishing given that her official responsibility was she was assigned to prevent the defendant Police Officers from having their public reputations smeared during the legal process. It is more than a little astonishing that the lawyer charged with preventing the Police Officers from having their reputations smeared would be going online with an anonymous pseudonym smearing the reputation she was charged to protect. Is that conduct of which the department is proud . Senator, i share your view about the seriousness with which employee misconduct has to be taken at the Justice Department. My understanding is that in light of the facts that emerged that the Departments Office of professional responsibility conducted a thorough review of all three of the individuals of which you speak and concluded that two of the members of the United States Attorneys Office had indeed engaged in misconduct, but concluded after reviewing her limited postings of what were illadvised and inappropriate comments that those did not rise to the level of misconduct. The Civil Rights Division reviewed the facts and circumstances pursuant to the law and took appropriate action in light of that. The fifth circuit described the department of justices conduct as what could only be described as a quote, online 21st century carnival atmosphere. Thats a federal court of appeals describing the department of justice. It went on to state that it was, quote, beyond dispute that, quote, three supervisory level prosecutors committed misconduct in the dansinger bridge prosecution. Do i understand correctly that ms. Dobinsky remains with the department as a trial lawyer in the Civil Rights Division . She remains with the Civil Rights Division. The office of professional responsibility did conduct a thorough review of all three employees and found her actions, while as i said inappropriate and illadvised, did not constitute misconduct unlike the other two individuals. Well, it seems both the Federal District court and the federal court of appeals disagree with the department in that regard. Senator coons. Thank you, chairman cruz. Let me just take us back, if i could, to the beginning of your testimony, ms. Gupta, in which you began by observing of the 800,000 Law Enforcement professionals in this country, i think is it 18,000 agencies at the state, local and tribal level the overwhelming majority of Law Enforcement officers are honorable, dedicated, and carry out their Public Safety duties with exceptional quality and service. In fact, as the chairman reviewed, you have, i think, on average three cases per year since 2011 and have only seven open today out of 18,000 agencies. How many staff attorneys are there in the United States department of justice . How many attorneys are serving the whole country as part of the u. S. Department of justice . As part of the entire department of justice, theres over 100,000 professionals. Out of 100,000 professionals, how many of them are working for the Civil Rights Division roughly . Just under about 700. About 700. I will agree with you and with the chairman that the conduct of the prosecutors in the dansinger bridge case was absolutely outrageous. Conduct unbecoming. There have been sanctions by the office of professional responsibility. It is no more accurate than the describe the entire department of justice or the entire Civil Rights Division as being out of control or outrageous than it is to incorrectly smear the entire Law Enforcement community nationally because of a few isolated consequences of misconduct. Ive been struck by your depth of support for national Law Enforcement organizations. Some of this was reported in usa today with the headline, department of justice and Police Unions finding common ground. It notes your daily contact with the leadership of the Baltimore Police during the crisis that occurred. I would like to enter that article from usa today for the record. Without objection. There was a recent letter addressed to you from the executive director of the major cities chief association that sates, quote, your efforts to reach out to Law Enforcement has been noticed and has made a real difference, unquote. Can you discuss your commitment to working respectfully and collaboratively with our Nations Police and how your work in upholding Constitutional Rights leads to better policing, safer for Law Enforcement officers and for the community, and enhances Public Safety . Thank you, senator. I would be happy. Ever since i came into the Justice Department, it has been very important to me to reach out and very often to engage with Law Enforcement, with chiefs from around the country, with union leaders, with Police Officers, as well as with civil rights and Community Groups in part because we are all in this time together. Really trying to assess some of the hard questions about how to build trust. In too many communities around the country where there is frayed trust, frankly it puts officers lives at risk and it undermines Public Safety. And our work at the Civil Rights Division to advance effective constitutional policing actually advanced Public Safety. These things are not at odds. They are partners in providing information to solve and prevent crimes. They serve as witnesses in trials. Of course officers lives are much more likely to be enhanced and protected when they have the trust of the community. My outreach is because a lot of people in Law Enforcement as well as Community Leaders are kind of working together to address and really understand how to rebuild trust where that has eroded because it is so critical to Public Safety. Thank you, ms. Gupta. Chief davis, thank you for your 20 years of service with the oakland Police Department. Can you also discuss how mistrust hurts Public Safety and describe the efforts that the department is making, that the cops program is making, to address this issue and to improve Law Enforcement safety and Public Safety and then last if youd just comment on how officers and Police Chiefs and leaders around the country are reacting to a socalled ferguson effect or a war on police . Thank you, senator, for the question. I think it will be fair to say that trust is the foundation of Public Safety. As ms. Gupta has said, you really cannot achieve effective or sustaining Crime Reduction, enhanced Public Safety, or National Security if you dont have the trust of the community. So i think as a former police chief your focus on Building Trust is your number one Crime Reduction tool. People testify. They give you information. They support you when theres trust. Where the field is at right now is the field is acknowledging and recognizing there is strain within communities, not all, and we need to do something to strengthen it. There is a lot of focus to really focus on building that trust because it makes everyones job easier. With regards to the socalled ferguson effects, i think the Opening Statements both senator cruz and yourself made really answers it best. First, there really is no data to suggest that there is a ferguson effect and that somehow thats linked to any increase in crime in certain cities because there are some cities where theres an increase, but there are cities where there are decreases, so we do need to find out. I think director comey was head on about making sure we can find out the data. But i think we need to be very cautious. In having this discussion, senator, that were not suggesting that the brave men and women who serve in Law Enforcement and this is based on my 30 years are somehow scared, reluctant, or even suggesting their cowards and will not do their job because theyre afraid of public scrutiny. Public they want what we want which is fairness, consistency. They want people to recognize the challenges of their job. I reject any notion that would suggest that the officers are choosing not to do their job, that theyre reluctant to not protect the American People. We do have to acknowledges in a very tough time to be a cop. With intense scrutiny and social media and videotaping, clearly it is adding to the stress of being a cop. But these new stresses are not an effect. Theyre the challenges of policing in the 21st century. I think this field is up to it. I think the chiefs and Law Enforcement officers are up to the challenge, and i think theyre working with the communities to do exactly that. Thank you, chief. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you, senator lee. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ms. Gupta, i would like to ask you about an issue that is likely to come up within your division at the department of justice, the Civil Rights Division. As youre probably aware, earlier this month the u. S. Department of education concluded that Township School district 211 located in illinois had violated title 9 when it prohibited a transgender student identifying as a girl to change and shower in the girls locker room at the Public School that she attends without any restrictions. Now, the school and the School District had permitted this student to participate on the girls sports teams and to use the girls restrooms at the school. Even the plan to have the student change behind privacy curtains in the girls locker room would not be sufficient according to the department of education in this letter issued on november 2nd because requiring only transgender students and not all students to change behind a curtain according to this letter amounts to differential treatment based on a sexbased consideration and would according to the department of education therefore constitute a violation of title 9. So ive got a question for you. Is this also the view of the Civil Rights Division of the u. S. Department of justice . Is it the view of your division, the Civil Rights Division, that requiring a transgender student that change and shower behind a curtain while theyre in the locker room of the opposite biological gender asking them to do that would amount to a violation of title 9 . Senator, thank you for the question. I can say at the moment that the Justice Department has not taken a fixed position on this matter and i cant get into internal deliberations, but we are aware of the matter and are in conversation about it. Okay. As im sure youre aware, if the School District doesnt conform to this standard, the department of education may well refer this case to your division. Have you or has anyone else within the Civil Rights Division at the department of justice been in contact with the u. S. Department of education about this matter . We are aware of course that could happen. Its why we are right now in conversation about this issue, but we havent taken any position on it. And i am not aware of direct communications with the department of education on this right now. There are a lot of deliberations happening in the building on these various issues. So you have been consulted on it . We are aware that the department of education filed that matter and that it very well could be headed over to the Justice Department. Will the department of justice seek enforcement of title 9 on this issue if the School District at issue doesnt conform to the demands of the letter on november 2nd . Unfortunately, im not able to comment on that as we havent made any decisions. Based on my description of what happened and based on what you know about this instance, do you think the u. S. Department of education correctly concluded that its against the law for the School District to say that a transgender student who identifies as female, but was born male needs to shower and change behind a curtain . Do you agree with that s assessment that that would violate federal law . It would be inappropriate for me to comment on that since the Justice Department has not made its decision known. I find it stunning that you cant right now sit here and tell me that it wouldnt be a problem. Ive got a 14yearold daughter. Shes in junior high. If what youre telling me is that it is too close to call if a transgender student at her school who identifies as female but was born male would have to be able to shower and use the locker room in the girls locker room just like any other girl without being asked to use a privacy curtain, if you cant tell me that that doesnt violate the law, then what youre telling me is her principal could and should be expected to be hauled into court for making that determination on a local basis based on the needs of that school . If you cant tell me that, i think you have a lot of parents who have a lot of questions. A lot of parents of doctors, parents of sons, who are going to wonder why it is that our department of justice has to get so mired in the administration of a school that its getting into questions like who and under what circumstances, someone who was born male but is a transgender student identifying as female, must be given full unfettered access to showers, locker rooms, and changing facilities within the school. I hope youll follow up on that. The American People certainly deserve clarity on that. If were going to start taking away Educational Resources from local School Districts to fight battles like this in court, thats money that cant be spent on legitimate educational programs. They need to be given discretion to run their School Districts f if in the manner they deem fit. The title of this hearing is the war on police. How the federal government undermines state and local Law Enforcement. I know there was an effort to make this a neutral title for this hearing, but i think it leans a little bit in a provocative way, so i ask my staff take a look at the actual investigations initiated by the Obama Administration of Police Departments. They came up with the fact that there were some 17,000 departments. I heard senator coons say 18,000 departments in the United States. Under the Obama Administration theyve opened investigations on 23 Police Departments. About 0. 1 of 1 of the Police Departments across the United States. And this is being characterized by some as a war on police. Id like to ask you, ms. Gupta and chief davis, isnt it true many investigations were requested by local agencies . Thank you, senator, for your question. That is indeed the case. In many of the jurisdictions we ended up going into, they were initially requested. It was only after we conducted a preliminary investigation to determine whether there was enough evidence that would merit our involvement, but that is the case. Isnt it true that the vast majority of investigations the 23 out of 18,000 Police Departments were conducted with the cooperation of the jurisdiction and resolved on a voluntary basis . Yes, thats correct. Some war. Let me ask you a little bit about video cameras, if i can. Theres going to be testimony in the next panel, chief davis, that video cameras inhibit police work and lessen their determination to pursue crime. Its interesting when we look at the money thats given out by the Justice Department to help local Law Enforcement to pay for these body cameras, the Justice Department cameras under pilot program, 23 million. 73 Law Enforcement agencies in 32 states, including three in my state, chicago, belgian, lake county sheriff, received funds under this program. According to the bureau of justice assistance, 285 agencies from 42 states applied for these bodyworn camera funds. There wasnt enough money to serve them all. It would have taken more than twice the total amount to pay for all of the body cameras that Police Departments across the United States were asking for as part of their Law Enforcement. So what is your take, chief davis, from that statistic and your zpeerns in dealing with body cameras . Thank you, senator, for the question. And think the numbers is actually larger than that. That would be close to the 300 that applied for this specific program, versus the thoughts equipping officers as we speak that are still looking for assistance to do so. What made this program unique, was working with Law Enforcement and academia to identify the best practices and policy and making sure we have policies regarding privacy. So these were more demonstration sites to help the field in using this technology. Now, what youll hear from most agencies, what im hearing from the field, is that the cameras were part of a larger accountability program, they are very positive. Results from rialto, california, where theyve seen over 70 reduction in use of force. We hear stories all over the country where they are reducing use of force and complaints. And what the officers are starting to see, even in one of my old places of oakland, where the cameras prove what everyone at the hearing has said. It capts the overwhelming job that men and women of Law Enforcement are doing and clears them more than indicts them. But it is misconduct, it is needing to be leld to account. And it is the right thing to do. That is an important point. Because cameras may capture conduct but they might also capture the truth of the situation when dharjs are charges are made against Law Enforcement that are plain wrong and unfair. And as were dealing with this new world with dna evidence and Science Behind police work and this hard body of evidence coming out of video cameras, that i would agree with you. It seems to me that most members of Law Enforcement would feel that this body camera will tell a true story about what actually happened when specious and wrongful charges are brought against them. So i thank you for that. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, senator durbin. Senator sessions. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And this is a hearing i think that is important. We need to talk about some of these issues and there is a perception, not altogether unjustified, that this department, Civil Rights Division, goes beyond fair and balanced treatment. But as an agenda, thats been a troubling issue for a number of years, frankly. Your predecessor nominee was rejected for this job, the Civil Rights Division job. Was calling to the fraternal order of police, they wrote a letter and noted that under his leadership, the Legal Defense fund for the naacp volunteered their services to represent wesley cook, better known as moonia abu jamal, our countries most notorious cop killer. This nomination could be interpresented only interpreted only one way, a thumb in the eye of our nations Law Enforcement officers it. Demonstrates a lack of regard orem pathy for those two strive to serve you and everyone in our nation and keep them safe in their streets and homes. And we believe that Law Enforcement in minority communities need to build even greater bonds of trust and respect, yet your Civil Rights Division under the leadership of the prior officer, thomas perez and royalityston, has build obstacling to this goal with a punitive approach toward local Law Enforcement agencies. So now youre nomination youve been named as acting, is that right . But have not yet been nominated . That is correct. And you are joining the department of justice you served with the American Civil Liberties union and director for its center for justice and prior to that you were an attorney for the Racial Justice program and prior to that you served as a lawyer for the naacp Legal Defense and education fund. So i just say that you come from a background that indicates an aggressiveness in these cases. Civil Rights Division can fulfill an important role. Ive seen attorneys, ive worked with them in a grand jury investigating police, and the goal is and must be to obtain truth and find out what the real facts are. So, lets talk about this a bit here. First i talked to an experience Law Enforcement officer in alabama who said he said the kind of problems that were seeing and the legal actions that have been taken, and the marches and protests about police do have the tendency to cause people, as he said, to stay under the shade tree. And not walk the streets like communitybased policing that you advocate promotes. We wont go into the details about it. But i truly believe communitybased policing is a great thing. And police are going to be in dangerous situations, i know youll agree. And sometimes theyll con freethrfront people who are violent and they have to be able to defend themselves, do they not. Yes they do. And sometimes that could lead to false claims by the Police Officer, sometimes. That is correct, senator. And i would tell you, and im sure the esteem colleague and your state will share this with you, when it comes to the evaluation of those decisions, the officers are more concerned about the decisions in their local department and local elected leaders and how they are treated for their decisions. And that is a concern because the officers want understanding and the nuances of being a police. I keep thinking that gilbert and sullivan, i think it is pirates of pen zans. The policemans lot is not a happy one. So it is not easy to arrest people and make these decisions and put them in the slammer, sometimes. In your speech that you made to the United States attorneys in new jersey, miss gupta, you said that you talk about the charges made against police and what police say in their own defense and conclude there is truth in both of these perspectives. Presumably what both sides say about it. The criminal or the arrestee or not. And you also close by saying, if we would take time to listen, really listen, why protesters take the streets and Police Officers risk their lives every day, we would find that while perspectives differ peoples aspiration and valleys tend to values tend to be similar. We all want safer streets and community and we all believe in justi justice. And that was an article written by roger clay and hans peskoffski, both members of the Civil Rights Division. And they say we find it hard to imagine that, for example, black lives matter protests in st. Louis chanting big pigs pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon. Right after two new york Police Officers were assassinated, had the same aspirations and values at Law Enforcement officers who risk their lives every day. Do you see the concern that Police Officers might have about those kind of comments . I find those kind of comments abhorrent and i think that they do a disservice to the legions of Peaceful Protesters that are raising attention to serious issues around the country. Well, i was really refer to your comments. In 2013, while working for the aclu, you wrote an op ed in the New York Times in which you stated you were elated when you learned that attorney general holder had, quote, directed all federal prosecutors to exercise their discretion toward ending the relentless warehousing of inmates, the vast majority of whom are minorities in federal prison for lowlevel drug crimes. Do you think most of the prisoners are for lowlevel drug crimes . Senator and how would you define a lowlevel drug crime. There are only 15 in the federal penitentiary. Not for simple possession of drugs. As head of the Civil Rights Division, i enforce the civil rights statutes that we are given. And do not have a say so in our sentencing policies at the division. Well, im troubled by your comments, that is all im saying. You want me to have the Civil Rights Division, i dont feel good about that comment. How about this, in the fordham law review in 2005 you wrote, we do not have criminal Justice System whose subjugation of people of color is contingent upon excuse me, we do have a criminal Justice System whose subjugation of people of color is contingent upon individualizing all cases. It is how we have managed to rationalize racism in the criminal Justice System. Now as i understand this theory, and it has been about for sometimes, it says you should not valuation individual cases based on whether or not a person is guilty of that crime or not. What some other theory involving racism, do you think a case should be evaluated simply on the facts of whether the person is guilty of the crime or not. Senator, at the Civil Rights Division, i oversee career prosecutors and lawyers who are committed to investigating the facts and the evidence and going where the law takes them based on that and that is what we are committed to at the Civil Rights Division. Well im very troubled by that radical statement you made in that article. You go on to say in the article, critical race lawyering is about transforming business as usual in the criminal Justice System. A business that is usually masked as being racially neutral biasfree and just the crime facts industry. We have to transform that business as usual into a counter narrative about Police Practices, racial bias, and the irrationality of many of our criminal justice policies. Do you still adhere to those views . Senator, that was an article that i wrote i think over a decade ago. But at the Civil Rights Division, i enforce the statutes congress has given us to enforce and that is what i do and that is what the career lawyers and prosecutors do at the Civil Rights Division each and every day. Well it is clear that Police Officers all over america are concerned about the department of justice. And i think based on those writings, that the acting head you now have about Law Enforcement and police gives them a basis to be concerned. Thank you, senator sessions. Senator cloeba char. I served as eight years as a chief prosecutor in heada pin county and we took our role as ministers of justice seriously. That meant our role is to convict the guilty and protect the innocent. And one of the things i learned is that it is especially vital that our Law Enforcement officers have the training that is necessary to do their jobs and they have the equipment. That they have the Information Systems so they could better coordinate and our judges could get information on those in front of them. And i also saw how effective Law Enforcement could be and we do see crime in working with the community through the cops program and the Justice Program and since ive gotten to the senate, i have championed those programs and led the bills to increase funds for those programs. The cops program has put more than 100,000 cops on the beat since 1994, in my home state, cops grants funded 155 additional Police Officers and sheriff deputies. And guess i would start with you, mr. Davis. You have an extensive Law Enforcement background with the Police Department of oakland and east palo alto. Thank you for your service. And how is your personal experience as a career Law Enforcement officer shaped your belief in the cops program and do you think we have sufficient resources for it now . Thank you, senator, for the question. As a former chief, i was a very happy consumer of cops grants and the support for my agency which was very challenged, in a beautiful city with high crime and violence to add two or three officers made a difference. But what also made a difference, senator, is that a lot of the research and the publications that the cops office put out is used that information, because i didnt have a research component, i would implement evidencebased programs that worked and very affective and that reduced crime in a challenging nabz because of the crime. I was able to connect with my peers so i learn the lessons valuable. And reforming a organization. The challenge as a cleave was an organization in need of reform. I turned to the Lesson Learned from the Consent Decrees from the Civil Rights Division which now shape the Lessons Learned for the collaborate reform agreement so that we could not only reduce crime but do it in such a way, senator, that embraces the core values of this country and embraces the constitution to your point. So it was for me to be appointed was a dream come true because i was a supporter and a consumer and it really contributed to the affectiveness of my city. My second question was just the funding. As we go into this budget, as we go into next year, do you think that the Police Departments could be helped in this pursuit of justice in fighting crime with more cops grant resources . On behalf of the thousands of chiefs that call me and speak to me, same as you, senator, they would really drastically need and want more resources and more support. The policing today is not just local. I think recent events will highlight the role that local police will play in National Security. So they need the staffing and resources and support. That is why i think this hearing is critically important. We do need to support them. Yes. But i think they need more resources. I invite my colleagues to help me on this bill. We are reintroducing this year. The other piece is protecting the innocent piece. And in my job, for eight years, we worked hard on that piece of it with dna reviews, with we have video tape interrogation in our state. One of the first states to do that. The police werent big fans of it and then they came to see instance wheres it helped them to convict the guilty. How people appeared on a video tape immediately after committing a crime was useful for the jurors to see. And i also think that it obviously improved policing because they could see if mistakes were made and it certainly didnt limit their interrogation at all. The issue in that vain now is body cameras and im wondering what you are hearing from the police when you go around and talk to them about that issue. What are the concerns. And how would that be helpful Going Forward . I will start senator, so thank you for the question. I think the biggest challenge for many agencies locally for the body cameras, the cost of storage is a challenge. And in also navigating privacy issues. And in one sense we need them for enhancing accountability. The officers and the community sees the benefit but as you could imagine there is a lot of privacy concerns and also cost. And so i think we could provide support by helping to develop best practices. And we say help develop, not as the federal government, but to help advance the field. We bring in the best and brightest to come in with policies and help with issues of storage and training and the ability to purchase. Because for some agencies even the cost of a camera is too much for the general fund budget. Ms. Gupta, do you want to add anything. I would say right now jurisdictions are engaged in the thinking around the policies that i think they havent been set and we have a lot to learn at the Justice Department in the ways local jurisdictions are managing the privacy issues and the cost issues. So we have been in a lot of conversation with local jurisdictions about what their experiences are so those could we could take back and inform the work that were putting out to support best practices and policies around these issues right now. All right. Thank you very much to both of you. Thank you very much. Id like to thank both of the witnesses for your Public Service and also for your testimony today. And with that, we will move on to the second panel. Would you like to ask the i would ask the second panel of witnesses to come forward. And as soon as everyone is seated, well move on to the second panel of witnesses. I want to thank each of the witnesses from the second panel for being here. I will briefly introduce them. We have six witnesses of. Well begin with hedger mcdonald, the thomas w. Smith fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor of city journal. A graduate of yale, cambridge and Stanford University law school. Writings on policing, profiling, criminal Justice Reform and Race Relations have appeared in a wide variety of respected publications over the years. Miss sherrillin eiffel is the president and director counsel of the naacp Legal Defense and educational fund. A graduate of Vasser College and the nyu school of law. She has also worked for the aclu. Served as a professor at the Maryland School of law. And published a book on the legacy of lynching in the 21 century. Mr. John p. Walters is the chief operating officer at the hudson institute. A graduate of Michigan State and the university of toronto. Mr. Walters served for severn years in the george w. Bush administration. As a cabinet members and the director of the White House Office of National Drug control policy. Before that, he worked in the department of education, during the reagan administration. Dr. Cedric alexander, serving as the chief of police for Dekalb County, georgia. He obtained his degree in clinical psychology, and a masters degree in marriage and family and a masters in sociology. Prior to leading the Dekalb County Police Department, dr. Alexander worked as the tsa federal Security Director at the dallasfort Worth International airport. I hope your time in texas was a pleasant one, dr. Alexander. Mr. Robert driscoll. Leads the washington, d. C. Office of the law firm mclynchy stafford and serves as cochair of the whitecollar investigate group. A graduation of the business and law center, he previously served as the Deputy Assistant attorney general and chief of staff for the Civil Rights Division. And finally, mr. Andrew mccarthy, the senior fellow at the National Review institute and a contributing editor to National Review. A graduate of columbia and the new york law school. He served as a federal prosecutor for 18 years in the United States Attorneys Office for the Southern District of new york. Perhaps most notably, he was the lead prosecutor in the terrorism case against the blind sheikh and 11 others convicted in 1995 of conspiring to wage a war of urban terrorism against the United States. He is the author of several books on terrorism and National Security. I thank each of you for being here and miss mcdonald, well begin with you. Thank you so much. Esteemed senators, my name is hedger mcdonald. Im honored to address you today. For the last year, the nation has been convulsed by a protest movement known as black lives matter. The movement holds that Police Officers of the greet are the greatest threat facing young men today and the criminal Justice System is racially biased. Cops are now routinely called racist and murders. Policing in urban areas has become fraught. President obama has done little to prevent the black lives Matter Movement. Indeed, he has amplified them over the last year. Speaking in new york city this may, for example, the president claimed, quote, young black men experience being treated differently by Law Enforcement in stops and in arrests and in charges and in incarcerations, end quote. In fact, there is no Government Agency more dedicated to the proposition that black lives matter than the police. Tens of thousands of black lives have been saved thanks to the datadriven policing revolution that began in the 1990s in new york city. The police could end all uses of lethal force tomorrow and it would have a negligible effect on the black death by homicide rate. Over 6,000 blacks are murdered each year, more than the number of whites and spanks combined. Even though blacks are less than 13 of the nations population. Their murderers are neither the police nor white civilians but other blacks. The rate of Police Shootings of blacks, less than onethird of all police fatalities, is less than what the black crime rate would predict. Blacks commit over 60 of all robbers and nearly 60 of all murders in the largest u. S. Counties and they commit 40 of all cop lethal shootings. I request permission to submit for the record the relevant Justice Department documents. Countless lawabiding residents in inner city communities fer veptly support the police. At a Police Community meeting in the south bronx this june, a woman skplamed, how lovely whether we see the police. They are my friends. Residents begged for a Police Surveillance tower to protect them against gang shootings and asked the police to break up the crowds of teens hanging out on corners and fighting. A routine request at Police Community meetings is for more drug enforcement, not less. As for the broader claim that the criminal Justice System is biased, that too is false. The over reputation of blacks in a function of their elevations crime rates. I request permission to submit for the record the criminal Justice System racist if the city journal which addresses this question in depth. Crime is now spike ago cross the country. Fbi director james comey observed in october, quote, most of americas 50 largest cities have seen an increase in homicides and shootk this is year and many of them have seen a huge increase, end quote. The director also suggested that the cause of this crime spike is what i and others have dubbed the ferguson effect. For the last year activists have denounced pedestrian stopz and public orden forcement as racist. In response, officers are doing less of those activities. Rather than getting out of their cars to question someone hanging out on a known drug corner at 1 00 a. M. , they increasingly now just drive on by. The available data document this drop in proactive discretionary policing and the key here is this is discretionary policing. Certainly the police are responding to 911 calls but the whole realm of proactive policing is what is under threat. In new york city, for example, summons for lowlevel offenses like public unination and drinking were down 26 in the first half of 2015. Arrests in every crime category were down 15 as of late october. Even as homicides were up 8 . In los angeles, arrests were down 10 , even as Violent Crime is up 20 . Despite evidence of the crime surge and the reason for it, president obama had the temerity this month to accuse director comey of cherry picking data and pursuing a political agenda. To be sure, Police Departments must work relentlessly on improving officer courtesy and making sure that officers use lethal force only as a last result. But the president s delegit hiation of Law Enforcement is irresponsible. It puts officers lives at risks, since suspects are more likely to resist arrest with force if they believe the cops are racist. It puts the lives of law abiding residents as risk since when the cops back off, crime shoots up. But it also threatened the very legitimacy of law and order itself. Which puts our very civilization at risk. Thank you. Thank you miss mcdonald. Miss eiffel. Good afternoon, chairman man cruz, Ranking Member coons and members of the sub committee. On behalf of the naacp defense and educational fund, i want to thank you for the opportunity to testify about the crucial role that the department of justice has played in investigating and supporting this countrys Law Enforcement agencies. While im grateful to appear before you today, i regret that the name of this hearing so inaccurately describes the relationship between Law Enforcement and the communities they serve. There is no war on police. What has been called a war is an admittedly painful but necessary National Conversation about the police use of excessive, sometimes fatally excessive force, against unarmed citizens. A disproportionate number of victims are africanamerican. The protests that have erupted around the country are in response not to just what the entire nation has seen in graphic and disturbing videos over the last year, instead they reflect the decades long reality of the relationship between police and many communities of color. Our painful confrontation with this long simmering issue has compelled us to confront what james comey has described as hard truths about race and Law Enforcement. The conversation were having is long overdue. But im confident that it will result in better policing, stronger and more trusting relationships between the police and the communities they serve, and a safer america. Its not only appropriate, but we believe that americans expect our federal government to bring its resources and leadership to bare when we find ourselves confronting an issue of National Magnitude that threatens Public Confidence in our Justice System. The department of justice is a resource to local Law Enforcement and communities throughout this country. And as you heard earlier, the linchpin of their process has been collaboration. The department has through the cops program provided an array of Technical Assistance to local Police Departments, including training at critical moments as unrest developed in communities around this country over the last year. Where necessary, they have used their Enforcement Powers to ensure that local Police Departments are not violating the law. This goes to the heart of the function of the Justice Department. Some have raised concerns about the cost of the departments pattern and practice reviews, but in fact, the cost to local jurisdictions of Police Misconduct is astronomical. The wall street journal reports this summer between 2010 and 2015, the ten cities with the largest Police Department paid out a total of over a billion dollars in settlement and Court Judgments in private Police Misconduct cases. The entire annual budget of the department of Justice Division overseeing pattern and practice investigations is but a fraction of that amount. I would like to address comments made today in recently about the socalled ferguson effect. There is no credible evidence that increased scrutiny of policing has led to n uptick in Violent Crime. What we do know is that a lack of confidence in police does exacerbate crime because good and effective policing depends on vigilant citizens who know what is going on in the community and willing to share Vital Information with Law Enforcement. A collaborate relationship between the police and the communities they serve produces this result. The question is not whether citizens should closely scrutinize the professional practices of public servants. In a democracy, this is precisely what citizens should do. You are doing it today on behalf of those you represent with this hearing. The fact that citizens are more closely observing police and taking videos of Police Encounters is not the problem. The real question center on what that increased scrutiny reveals. And sadly what the public has witnessed over the past year is a disturbing pattern of policing that has resulted in the lowest level of Public Confidence in the police in 23 years. If there is a ferguson effect, i would describe it quite differently. The effect of the protests and increase ed scrutiny of Law Enforcement has provoked a conversation that includes Law Enforcement, lawmakers and citizens and members of general public. We should be encouraged by the widespread consensus about the need for several critical reforms. Including the need for body worn cameras and better and more effective training. 21 century Police Officers need training in managing encounters with in persons with Mental Illness and members of the Lgbt Community and training in implicit bias which the fbi director recognizes also as critically important. Finally, almost all agree that we lack reliable data on policeinvolved killings and assaults. In our view, this committee should applaud the work of the department of justice over the past year. They have carefully deployed resources and expertise to support muchneeded reforms in policing. Where they have used their enforcement pourers, they have fulfilling a key aspect of the core mission to ensure that rule of law is followed by state and local Law Enforcement and to promote Public Confidence in our Justice System. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Walters. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Members of committee. [ inaudible ]. Is that better . Im sorry. I would ask that my written statement be submitted into the record. Im going to make a couple of comments to get to the points that have been covered before. Im here as an individual. I served in the past in the administration of both george w. Bush, george bushs father and president reagan. I got started at the department of education working on the drug issue on crack and cocaine were sweeping our country and a problem even for our schools. I think the hearing has shown that in some sense there not a disagreement about the courage and the dedication of people in Law Enforcement. There is not seems to me, although im somewhat unclear from the testimony, that there arent more instances of misconduct by anybody, that they are minor and they are they are wrong when they are wrong and there is still an amazing amount of professionalism and courage in our Law Enforcement agencies every day. And we all support that. The big difference now, it seems to me, is the indictment of the criminal Justice System without substance. Especially by senior federal officials in past and current in this administration. And the indictment of the criminal Justice System as punishing people wrongly in our prison system. Weve had a remarkable decline in crime. Most is focused in neighborhoods where people have lesser voice. We saves if not tens of thousands of lives through reductions in murders, especially among young black males which have been of particular concern for every administration and every american citizen who cares about the safety of our fellow citizens. The difference seems to be that the president and past attorney general holder, at any rate, led the impression that our jails and prisons are somehow an example of injustice. That people have not been that even though theyve been apparently convicted through due process and fairly, there has been no massive indictment of unjust convictions, that somehow the sheer number of people in the racial composition of our criminal Justice System is somehow an indictment of the people in it, especially the police who are the ones with direct contact with members of community. Now we know and because the federal government has created this data, that the victimization of individuals matches the results in our criminal Justice System. That were protecting the very people of color who are more frequently,en fortunately, victims of crime. We are protecting the people with less money and less resources who are very frequently the victims of crime. We know from the very data the federal government is has been collecting that weve been able to reduce things like drug crime and addiction in communities in the past. Nonetheless, the administration has made it a priority to indict the criminal Justice System and not just the federal system, but the state and local system. And the danger of that, of course, is to make everybody in the criminal Justice System and the institution of government seen as aggressors, perpetrators of wrongdoing, if not victimizers of the citizens they are sworn to protect. This corruption, and agree with the earlier statement and think we all know trust is the base of our government as well as Law Enforcement. This is the fundamental corrosion of the institution of justice and the relationship between citizens and communities and the criminal Justice System. So see these acts of protection as acts of wrongdoing. That is what is really going on here. And it is unfortunate and it is wrong. And it is false. And its a situation that has led to reducing penalties, that you are going to consider reducing mandatory minimum sentences that have protected many people from crime. Have broken down drug organizations that have victimized the least powerful in our communities. Youre going to be asked to look at changing the structure of relationships between the federal and State Government as the Justice Department witnesses earlier testified and as you heard. The sentiments those people presented in private life that senator sessions raised, that are then seen in positions of power lead people to believe that people that are supposedly fair are unfair. They are perpetrating falsehoods and suggesting the criminal Justice System is the criminals. That is what is wrong here. And that is something that needs a voice and im pleased that youve been able to get the people here together for a hearing like this. Its taken its taken far too few people that have had the courage to do that. So thank you for doing this and giving us an opportunity to state what i think most americans know and wonder why they dont hear. Thank you, mr. Walters. Doctor alexander. Thank you, chairman cruz and Ranking Member coons and the subcommittee for an opportunity to be here with you today. Ive been looking forward to this. It is an honor to be here today to participate as a witness in this Senate Hearing on the war on police. How the federal government undermined state and local Law Enforcement. I would like to acknowledge and thank you very much, senator cruz, for the holding of this hearing because i think it is very important and i think it is very timely, as well too. I speak to you from the perspective of a Law Enforcement officer for over the last 39 years. And ive been through several generations. Of the profession, going back from 1977 until today. Ive seen Law Enforcement change tremendously over the years. Growing up in pensacola and spending some of my life in the great state of alabama, ive learned that for me Law Enforcement and Public Safety is one of the most valued opportunities that we all must have and share in order to have a Safe Community and a safe country as well too. Ive also had an opportunity to more recently serve as immediate past president of noble, to ensure equity in the administration of justice and the provision of Public Service to all communities and to serve as a conscious of Law Enforcement by being committed to justice by action. It is my position that this country has a unique opportunity today to address the lack of trust and understanding of Law Enforcement in many communities across this country. It is imperative that every citizen that we collectively Deploy Solutions in the areas of training, Community Policing and technology to ensure that america is secure both domestically and internationally. Secondly, through these solutions, were able to further the hopes and dreams of many of our forefathers in realizing excuse me, in realizing true civil rights and human rights as stated in the declaration of in dependence. We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their creator with certain rights that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The most recent events that we all are very familiar with, ferguson, missouri, Staten Island new york and other cities across this great nation, when combined are real or perceived attacks on civil rights, legislations that created an environment which many people across this country feel disenfranchised by national and local governments. So what are some of the solutions we can talk about here. Solutions to building bridges of understanding and partnership between Law Enforcement communities, they are to protect and serve. Training is a very important element. Competency, a word we hear a lot of it, is a critical component in communities of color. We know too, as this country as great as ours as diverse as it is, we all me be sensitive to the variety of cultures and and attitudes that exist among us. And i think it is important that we all have some sense of culture competency, understanding too at the end of all, we all are americans at the end of the day. It is important to note too, and im not going to bore you with that, but when i think about Community Oriented policing, it is a recommend that Law Enforcements and community adopt Community Policing as a philosophy of policing in this country. When i started out in Law Enforcement 39 years ago in south florida, dade county, florida, it was one of those very troubling times in america. And a time where we had just come off a very major riot, the mcduffie riots of 1980, and the loss of a lot of lives and property and civil unrest and racial issues that extended out of that particular event. But we overcame that, because we understood the importance that that community and that community at that particular time, that police and community had to find a way to Work Together. And we did. And communityoriented policing is, as you have said, senator sessions, very important to Public Safety across this nation. And if i could very quickly before my time runs out, i want to talk just one moment about advancing policing under the idea of this whole war on policing. As a veteran officer, and as a conservative senior Law Enforcement administrator, i feel the issues deserve much further discussion and i certainly look forward to having that discussion and answering any questions that you may have because i think i would like to share, if given the opportunity, some of my thoughts about this whole idea, this whole notion of war on police in this country. And what it means to some as being true and what it means to others as being a misperception. Thank you very much for this opportunity. Thank you, dr. Alexander. Mr. Driscoll. Thank you chairman cruz, Ranking Member coons and members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the role of the department of justice in enforcing the pattern and practice statute. Ill refer to section 14141 in the context of Law Enforcement. I had the privilege of serving at the Deputy Assistant attorney general under ashcroft and ralph boyd and active in supervising the special litigation sections in resolution of Consent Decrees or agreements with Law Enforcement agencies in cincinnati, columbus, miami, pg county and others. The work is important and difficult and the men and women who do it deserve our respect. But those at doj should carefully analyze this and make sure it is not used as a tool to manipulate political outcomes but to enforce constitutional standars where there is a pattern of violations by state and local Law Enforcement. Just to add a little bit of law here, to put some context into this. The statute was passed in the wake of rodney king beating and trial. And it was patterned under an unsuccessful bill brought up in 1991. And the legislative history made clear 14141 is a gap filler statute. It was designed to fill a gap from a section in 1983, the longstanding civil rights law that by which private citizens could sue for violation of Constitutional Rights. Gap in 1983 is that if your Constitutional Rights are violated and beaten by an officer you could recover money damages but no mechanism for the Police Department. So you could not be successful in reforming the Police Department. But 14141 was passed to fill that gap and thus is a a proven pattern of constitutional violations, the attorney general has authority to get an injunction against the Police Department and say fix that policy or fix that practice or procedure and get a federal court order to do that. However, section 14141, and that is important if you look back at the legislative history, did nothing to change the constitutional standard of proof for violation of the constitution and didnt make the Civil Rights Division a roving Police Practice review board with the ability to require best practices all around the country. But over time, the pattern and practice statute has been used broadly by doj. For example, recently the department will find a pattern and practice of constitutional violations without ever proving any individual underlying violation of the constitution. This happened recently in alamance county, north carolina, where the division went to trial and lost against the Sheriffs Department down there, alleging a pattern and practice of racial profiling and the Federal District court judge said there was no violation, never mind a pattern and practice. So the pattern and practice statute has been used unsecfully to use any individual violation. And remedies go beyond the unconstitutional conduct but overflow into political irregulartory decisions that would and should otherwise be handled locally or legislatively. If you read the cleveland consent order, which is one of the big consent orders the department has highlighted this past summer, it establishes a Community Policing commission, it has specific provisions in the order to ensure diversity of the commission and how often it is going to meet and how often it is going to issue a reports. And the order is 100 pages long. And if you read the order, i submit to you, it is down right statutory in nature. It is as though the department of justice drafted a new statute under which this department is going to operate. Committees like this may or may not be good a good idea. I tend to think Community Policing like everyone is a good idea and Community Involvement is good but the city of cleveland could decide whether it wants to create a committee and requiring establishment in a federal Consent Decree is far beyond in a pattern of violations. Rather such provisions use consent as a pros he threw which doj and local municipalities could obtain political out comes through federal court order rather than political process. It is limited the pattern and practice statute to this use to enjoy specific pract is, the Civil Rights Division becomes the roving best practices unit, appearing to tell local Law Enforcement agencies that it must collect certain racial data and use a particular system and report uses regardless of the underlying facts. Had wh a division functions in this matter it acts a regulator and not an enforcer and the regulations arent reviewable or suggest to comment and authorized by congress. And to use raw Racial Disparity as the department did in ferguson to accuse the Police Department of racially biased policing, that is, as the panel points out, the same disparities exist in all Law Enforcement agencies in the country and that is letting every Law Enforcement agency now, you better be doing Data Collection because if we show up, well find a dir parody and require you to do this kind of Data Collection as a remedy. So these type of broader imposition of policy and political structures in local department and resentment by Law Enforcement and feel they are been accused of civil rights violation without prove when they have agreed to settle a pattern and practice case. Rather than simply having the departmenten course constitutional standards and target policies that have proven constitutional violations. I welcome any questions you may have. Thank you, mr. Driscoll. Finally, mr. Mccarthy. Thank you. It is an honor to be here. Apart from my submitted testimony, mr. Chairman, i feel compelled to Say Something about the title of the hearing since it has been the subject of such debate back and forth. I dont see that there could be any conceivable question that there is a war on the police. We have police that have been threatened. Police have been assaulted and police have been killed. That is not a National Conversation. That is a war on the police. I took the question of the hearing not to be whether the Justice Department was the totality of the war on the police, i took the question presented by the hearing to be that there is a war on police, and has the Justice Department created the impression among the police that it is on the wrong side. Um, what i would like to direct my limited time to is the ethos or culture of Police Departments and Law Enforcement. When an agency ethos informs police that taking enforcement action can as a minimum expose an officer to internal forms of discipline and derail the possibility of career advancement, and in addition may expose the officer to criminal and civil liability entailing all of the hardships of the criminal justice process, including the need to retain legal counsel, the public stigma of being suspects of wrongdoing and the anxiety of worrying about the financial and social wellbeing of the officers family, then inevitably there will be a reduction in Law Enforcement activity and there is a bund ant reason to believe this is what is happening in our country at the present time. My submitted testimony outlines three reasons or rationals for this police passivity. First, the Obama Administration has signaled in various ways it is sympathetic to a dem og goingic narrative that depicts the police as violators of the federal civil rights laws. This narrative proceeds statistical disparities in racial and ethnic makeup of people who are subjected to Police Investigative tactics are the result of police bias. This simplistic and deceptive method of statistical inference is itself systematically skewed. It fails to account for criminal behavior. As it occurs and as it is reported by crime victims, witnesses and criminals who confess. When criminal behavior is accounted for, the fact is that employment of investigative tactics by police, such as stop and frisk techniques, to minority suspects actually under represents the portion in the criminal population even if it over represents their portion in the general population. Since a great deal of crime involves minority offenders preying on minority communities, it is those communities that bear the brunt of police passivity. The second rational is a pattern of extremely destructive rather, extremely destructive of effective Law Enforcement that the Justice Department has followed over the past several years. A tragic event occurs with racial overtones, whether real or manufactured. It will be patent that theres insufficient evidence of intentional killing or intentional deprivation of rights by the police. Yet Minority Community activists will demand prosecution. Rather than help the communities understand that not all tragic events constitute federal criminal wrongs, the Justice Department and its Civil Rights Divisions convey the opposite message, appearing to confirm the activists claims that violations have occurred, even pressuring state Law Enforcement agencies to embark on prosecutions based on insufficient evidence. Naturally, this fans the flames of community discord. Inevitably, it becomes obvious that no civil rights or other violation occurred. Yet while unable to bring a case in connection with the tragedy that drew its attention, the Justice Department exploits controversy to commence a large scale civil rights investigation. A socalled pattern or practice investigation. Not just of the individual Police Officers involved in the tragedy but of the entire Police Department. These investigations and the threat of civil suits have been used by the Justice Department to obtain effective control over several Police Departments as we have heard already today in the testimony. While there can be little doubt that some real abuses should be addressed and these do turn up in these investigations just as a thorough investigation of the department would turn up abuses, the claim they are violating peoples rights is absurd. I would also stress in light of some of the testimony already it is not the number of cases against the Police Department that the department of justice has brought that is the material thing. It is that these cases are used as a proxy for cases the Justice Department cant bring because it lacks evidence. It appears under the circumstances in which these cases are brought to validate the anticop narrative. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Mccarthy. I want to note at the outset that i, like many members of this committee, served a number of years in Law Enforcement. Both at the United States department of justice and as the solicitor general of the state of texas. We have seen many aspersions cast in recent months and years directed at the men and women in Law Enforcement. I want to start, mr. Walters, with in your long experience in the world of Law Enforcement, are you aware of any evidence that there is a widespread pattern of racism among Police Officers . No. To the contrary. Theyre devoting themselves to try to save young people, even when other institutions fail. The family, education, young people to get them the care they need. They see themselves as trying to make again, there are mixtures of rare people who are obviously are bad actors in any institution. But the pattern thats talked about way too commonly is not only false but its an insult to the many people who have dedicated their lives to making people who are on the wrong track back on the right track. Mr. Walters, i will say your experience precisely mirrors mine. That in the years i have served in Law Enforcement, i have seen dedicated professionals, both Police Officers and prosecutors, who care passionately about following the law. And, indeed, in a very large percentage of the cases where you are prosecuting criminals, the victims are members of the Minority Community. The victims are africanamericans. The victims are hispanic. They are the one that is are being preyed upon. Ms. Macdonald, there has been a considerable discussion in this hearing about whether theres a pattern of increased crime nationwide. The New York Times, that famed right wing outlet, in august described the murder rates in a number of large cities. City of milwaukee has seen from 2014 to 2015 an increase of 17 in the homicide rate as of august of this year. New orleans an increase of 18 . Baltimore, 35 . D. C. An increase of 30 . St. Louis, an increase of 37 . New york, an increase of 9 . Chicago, an increase of 20 . Ms. Macdonald, how do you explain the number of people at that hearing and democratic politicians nationwide that keep insisting, pay no attention to your lying eyes. We have no evidence that crime is increasing . Senator cruz, i think its because the rise in crime is seen as a block to their preferred narrative. So the thinking is because we dont like the facts, the facts must not be true. I find it astonishing that president obama apparently thinks he knows more about crime patterns in this country than his own fbi director who is the source the place where Crime Statistics are kept. When director comey confirms what not only the New York Times but the liberal blog 538 has said, which is that when you look at all of the 60 largest cities, you have a crime and murder increase of 16 , which is a huge increase. If there was a drop of 16 in homicides, we would be high fiving each other. It is simply preposterous that obama thinks he knows more about the crime patterns in this country than fbi director comey. And to pick up on the question about whether the cops are racist, the very fact that we are dependent on what mr. Mccarthy talks about, the disparate impact of racism, is because we have so little evidence of intentional discrimination. So instead, we have to fall back upon the fact that sadly, most any enforcement of a criminal law is going to have a disparate impact on blacks because of the elevated rates of crime and the breakdown of the black family. But that is because officers are there to protect lives, not because theyre racist. I want to underscore the point you just made. Mr. Comey is the director of the fbi. He was appointed to that position. By president barak obama. He was confirmed by the United States senate into that position. What do you make of the president of the United States impugning the integrity and the voracity of the director of the fbi that he appointed simply for having the tu temerity to speak about the truth about the rising murder and crime rates we are seeing . I think its a demonstration of the extent to which ideology rules this white house. It is of a piece with president obama claiming that the criminal Justice System is racist when the Justice Departments own statistics show that the relationship between crime and incarceration when the president can go around claiming that the prison population is driven by drug enforcement, when the Justice Department statistics show that nationally only 16 of state prisoners are in for drug crimes and less than 4 are there for drug possession. And yet, our very president is going around stating an untruth. That is because this is an administration i think that is ruled by an ideology that claims that Law Enforcement is somehow racist. And that, as you say, is a disservice to officers of all colors who are there to help the good people in the community. Mr. Mccarthy, you rightly observed that the title this hearing, the war on police, is directed more broadly than just the department of justice. But it is rather what i see as a pervasive, to use a term of art, pattern and practice across the federal government and this administration, and indeed, i think no one bears more direct responsibility than the president. As ms. Macdonald just noted, president obama has directly tried to attack his own fbi director for observing that Violent Crime and homicides are increasing. We saw at the very beginning of the Obama Administration where the president chose in a confrontation in cambridge, massachusetts, to immediately assume that the police were in the wrong and were demonstrating racism. You know, there was a time back in the 1968 Democratic Convention where the radicals and anarchists outside protesting against the cops describing them as oppressive, that used to be a fringe view. We now see that vilification coming from the very top, from the president of the United States, echoed by the attorney general of the United States, manifested in things like appointing as the head of the Civil Rights Division an attorney who voluntarily for free represented an admitted cop killer. In your view, mr. Mccarthy, does having a president who at every turn in ferguson, in baltimore, assumes the police are guilty until proven innocent, assumes the police are bad actors and blames Police Officers and holds them up for vilification . Its a Terrible Development for the country because in our previous experience and i had the privilege of working in the Justice Department under administrations of both parties. The government took it to be, as i understood at least, and certainly in the traditions of the Justice Department, its duty to clarify narratives that were fraudulent and certainly narratives that were evil. What were seeing today is a government that puts its thumb on the scale. And its had a terrible affect on the country. The one Silver Lining i would point out from your remarks and from also ms. Macdonalds, i actually had the pleasure of serving in the u. S. Attorneys office with director comey under then u. S. Attorney guliani more years ago than either of us would want to admit to. Hes a straight shooter. I imagine he will make a lot of people around here pretty uncomfortable. Thank you, mr. Mccarthy. The final line of questions i want to ask, i want to go back to you, ms. Macdonald. In april in baltimore we saw the death of mr. Gray. There were protests. The police were held up for vilification and demonization. The court of Public Opinion, the Police Officers were convicted at the outset before one shred of evidence was gathered. The very next month, the month of may, there were 42 homicides in the city of baltimore. Two months later in july, there were 45 homicides in baltimore. Which matches the monthly record last set in 1972. The most murders the city of baltimore has ever seen since 1972 occurred in july of this year following the protests and vilification of the Police Officers, 45 people were murdered. Of those 45 people, 43 were africanamerican. In the context of protests, talking about black lives matter, who pays the price when Police Officers are not able to do their jobs and crime rates and murder rates goes up and 43 black lives are taken by violent criminals and are murdered . Who pays the price when the Police Officers cannot protect our inner cities . The people who pay the price when the cops back off are the people that the black lives Matter Movement purports to be speaking for but is inevitably silent about which are law abiding and sometimes, lets be honest, criminal residents of poor inner city neighborhoods. But those are the people who i hear again and again saying, we support the cops. I need the cops. I think about mrs. Sweeper, an elderly cancer amputee in the mt. Hope section of the bronx, who said the only time she feels safe to go down to her lobby and pick up the mail is when the police are there. She said, please, jesus, send more police. They dont have a problem with the cops. And i have spoken to a lot of young, black men who have been stopped and frisked by the police. And they will say, the police were doing their jobs. Because in these communities informal social control has broken down. The family has broken down. When that happens, the police are the only thing that stands between lawabiding residents and anarchy. If we want to save black lives, we have to stop this vilification because the data are clear. The police are not engaged in precisely the type of policing that was key to the 50 crime drop that this nation has experienced over the last 2 decades. It is now reversing because cops are not making pro active pedestrian stops. Theyre not enforcing quality of life laws. The people who are going to be hurt are going to be residents of inner city communities. And, ms. Macdonald, when in july of this year 45 people were murdered in baltimore, the most since 1972, when 43 of them were africanamericans, were there any protests from left wing groups about the black lives that were lost to the skyrocketing murder rates . Did president obama speak out about the black lives that had been taken from skyrocketing homicide rates . It would seem that that crime is taken as a matter of course. I have not heard the live matters protest against criminal murderers. No cop starts out with criminal intent. Thats the difference. We have been hearing that somehow its a miscarriage of justice that grand juries do not routinely convict cops of murder. The reason for that fact is that grand juries understand the difference between a murder with criminal intent and an officer who in a split second of pressure and confusion may make the wrong call in retrospect. Thank you, ms. Macdonald. Senator coons . Thank you, senator cruz, and i appreciate the opportunity to talk to the issue now raised repeatedly. Do minority communities plagued by crime welcome policing . Absolutely. So lets review the record of what happened in the appropriations process earlier this year. We just heard paraphrased a cry, please, god, send more police. Ill note that in the appropriations process, it was the democrats led by senator mccullski who offered an amendment that would have added 60 million for u. S. Attorneys, 35 million for the u. S. Marshal service, 58 million dea and 153 million for assistance to state and low Law Enforcement and 95 million for the cops hiring program. This amendment was sadly rejected on a party line vote. This hearing has tolerated a wide range of sloppy, unfounded and unscientific insults to the Law Enforcement community. That has suggested somehow that it is citizens protesting civil Rights Violations that are causing increases in crime. Allow me to read again from the statement from the National President of the fraternal order of police, chuck canterbury, who in part in responding to what he views as the offensive comments of fbi director james comey in suggesting in february that Police Officers need to acknowledge, quote the widespread existence of unconscious bias, unquote. Fop president canterbury later in his letter says, to blame the rise in crime on officers behavior is just not grounded in fact and is wrong. I think the sloppy suggestion that there is a socalled ferguson affect in which cops back off because they are afraid of accountability was directly addressed by chief davis earlier who said, in a democracy Law Enforcement officers welcome accountability. And in the earlier testimony of ms. Gupta that detailed how successful partnerships between the Civil Rights Division and a series of Police Departments has actually improved policing through investments in equipment, training and accountability. I would be interested, chief alexander, if you are have any comments on the valuable program that noble led in part under your leadership to improve the relationships between 13 to 18yearold young men of color and minority communities and the Law Enforcement profession. Why that is valuable and the role of the cops office in helping support proactive policing. Ms. Ifill, i would like you to invite you to expand on a comment that was in your written testimony and ill just remind you. Quote, this has been referred to as a ferguson affect, unquote. Even if comeys speculation proves to be supported by data, it reports the need to engage more intensely. Although earlier you say there is noda that to support it whatsoever. If you would first, chief, and then ms. Ifill, tell us about the investments that are valuable and that noble has helped lead to try and restore relations between police and community and, ms. Ifill, what do you think we should be doing to deal with the rise in crime, and about some of assertions of whether there is or isnt a war on crime. Chief alexander . Yes, sir. If you would oblige me, we refer to comments made by director comey. Certainly, that many across this country see in a variety of different ways. But heres what i also need to note, as well, too. Back in february i think it was, director comey at Georgetown University also stated that this country, Law Enforcement need to acknowledge the fact that we have done some things wrong over the years. And that is absolutely true. We have to go back through this nations history and take a look at policing and the things that have been done to people across this country, particularly people of color and particularly people that may have been may have well be white as well, too, but did not have the ways and means to do better for themselves. The whole notion is here is that somehow we just got here today. We just did not get here today. This has been a long haul. Since the Michael Brown event of last year, which really brought all of this to bear and everything that followed, there have been a number of incidents have followed, one just behind the other. Let me say this. Im a 38year veteran. Active duty police administrator. So im going to talk to you about this from a realistic point of view. Not a black point of view. Not a white point of view or republican or conservative point of view. But from a police point of view. This is a very complex issue. When we Start Talking about engaging communities and policing. Theres a lot of history, a lot of feelings and a lot of legacy that is still to be moved through. Thats what were in the process of doing. Thats what this administration, the president , the cops office, the department of justice have made attempts to do. They have afforded the opportunities of financing and helping departments across this country to be better. Most of the Police Departments across this country that have reached out and asked for help, even organizations such as noble have had somewhere to go in order to be able to say what can i do to better my Police Department and my community . There are a number of agencies across this country, a number of them that are reaching out to the cops office every day. So i think its important to note that this is not as simple as im quite sure a lot of people would like for it to be because this is rooted in the fact that there are men and women out there every day, theyre not racist. Theyre not sexist. Theyre dedicated men and women who want do a fantastic job. But you have 800,000 Police Officers in this Police Officers in this country. Are we going to have some that go off the rail . You are going to find that in any profession, anywhere. We see it from the top of our government to the last individual born on the face of this earth. Or leaves the face of this earth. We all have fault. But much of what we see as it relates to crime in this country, as it relates to this socalled ferguson affect, which has become a term that somehow has gotten coined to be of some real significance. I suggest to you today here it is of no real significance, senator, because my thought of it is this. We have issues right now in this country that we have relationship problems as relates to policing. Its not all about white policing on black subjects. I hear it the other way as well, too. I hear black Police Officers violating peoples rights. I hear hispanic Police Officers violating rights. Women violating other womens right that may be Police Officers. So this is a broad issue. This is not just a racial issue. This is a human rights issue. A civil rights issue. But i will contend and i will confess to you today as a longterm Law Enforcement official that we need all the help that we can get out here. That help, of course, is contingent upon the fact that the facts are reported to you, not the notions. Friends that we all have who sometime talk about how bad it is because we are in a place where policing is changing in this country. We have to accept that. Im almost a four 40 years at this. This is a long time, a very long time. And i hate that sometime in the near future im going to leave this profession pretty much like i found it 40 years ago. But i think the work the Justice Department is doing, the administration is doing and all fairness to both, is that theyre doing their best to change policing across this country. I think we have to continue to demand that policing change. And i think that it needs to be continued funding for programs such as noble, to your question, senator, as it relates to the law in your community. We got funding from the Justice Department to do what . To go out and teach these young men and women across this country between 13 and 14 between ages of 13 and 18, im sorry, to tell them what the law is. How do you respect the law . How is it important for you when you are stopped, what are you supposed to do . Basic fundamental things you and i may have had the opportunity to learn but the minute these youngsters in the urban areas may not have had this opportunity. Its meaningful. It helps them better understand how to respect authority. We are expecting sometime for them to do things in which they have no prior training. Not no fault of their own, but we know that do exist. These programs have proved to be quite successful. And if i would just close by adding to this, as well, too. When we talk about uptick of homicides across this nation, for every city theres an uptick that were seeing, were also seeing cities where there are declines in homicides, as well, too. We dont know whats driving this. We can take ferguson im sorry. We can take baltimore. That was an anomaly. That was a clear noted voiced slow down of work following the death of freddie gray. We know that. But if i talk to my colleague tomorrow in chicago, which i did on yesterday, mccarthy, superintendent there, his men and women are not slowing down. Department of over 10,000 Police Officers. They recovered over 25 more guns this year than they did last year. But the raise and the rise in homicides are not just based on the fact of this administration has some vendetta on policing. The issues are far bigger and far greater. I would also say to the rest of my colleagues out there in the Law Enforcement community, as well, too, they know because i talk to them every day as many of you say you do, i talk to them every day. From large cities to moderate size to small cities across this country, nobody is telling me that their men and women are slowing down. Are they are a little bit more cautious . Do they have more pause as a result of the negative comments and thing that is might be being said to them or about them in a community . Yes. Its a tough time to be a Police Officer. But this is the these tough times that Police Officers across this nation always at the end of the day get it done for us. And theyre getting it done. Theyre fighting every day. Theyre getting shot at every day. I can attest to that coming from a community of 750,000 residents and 1,000 Police Officers. I know what theyre doing every day. They havent slowed down one bit. Thats not based on something i heard from someone else. Thats based on what i see every day in Metro Atlanta and other cities across this country. Thank you, sir. Thank you, chief. Ms. Ifill, would you just speak to the ferguson affect and whether theres support for it in the role of private litigants and the office of civil rights in terms of addressing challenges and the complex discussion you raised earlier . Im in the unusual position feeling i have to be counsel for the fbi director, which is unusual for me. Let me be sure to clarify mr. Comeys remarks. There is no question that there are many communities in which there has been an uptick in Violent Crime. He did say that. The controversial part of the statement was that he opined that this might be a ferguson affect. He never claimed that he had any data to support that there was a correlation between the uptick in Violent Crime and the increased scrutiny of Police Departments. I think its critically important that we be very careful that we not make these leaps because it can really move into the realm of irresponsibility. I and many others in this country have a higher ambition and believe that it is possible for us to have safer communities, sound policing, respect for Police Officers and policing that is constitutional and that adheres to the rules of law and that also upholds the dignity of those who live in the communities. Its important for this committee to recognize that were sitting here at a snapshot moment in which the nations consciousness has been heightened to an issue that has been discussed in africanamerican communities for decades. We did not have this hearing year before last when Anthony Anderson was killed by the Baltimore Police. We did not have this hearing the year before that when tyrone west was killed by the Baltimore Police. Those matters were managed by the community in baltimore and by the police chief who conducted his own investigation. These issues have been percolating to the surface over time. We did not think that there was a war on policing in june 2014, a month before eric garner was killed many new york and several months before months before Michael Brown was killed in ferguson. When two Police Officers were ambushed and executed in las vegas by a husband and wife who then flu a nazi flag over them and screamed dont tread on me as they were taken away. But they were killed in june of 2014. So depending on how far back we take our lens, tells us what the story is. I want to caution this committee from taking this very narrow lens and suggesting that what we see today is the product of what has happened over last year. As the letter that you read at the beginning of this hearing demonstrates, we are seeing the product of decades of policies and practices that have produced the conditions that we see in many of our nations cities. And now we have an opportunity to address a problem. I would suggest to this committee that we cannot look at a video of walter scott being shot in that park in North Charleston and a Police Officer appear to go back and drop a taser next to him. We cannot watch Samuel Dubois killed as he was in cincinnati. We cannot watch Police Officers a Police Officer barrel into a pool party of teens and do what they did and suggest that we dont have a problem. So we have an opportunity. We also know what the Police Report said and what the video showed. We know that if we didnt have that video, we would have all believed the Police Report because we are hardwired to believe the police because we do understand the difficult job that they do and the challenges they face. Now america has been able to see a different reality. Its a reality thats existed in communities that i represent over decades. Its incumbent upon us in this democracy to get our hands around this problem and to recognize that when the state when agents of the state who we have empowered and we have given a gun and a shield and pepper spray and we have authorized them to take life on our behalf where necessary, when they violate the law, it has a particularly pernicious affect in the community. Last thing i would say is, once again, the snapshot we take are important. There are regular protests about violence in the africanAmerican Community including in may i have had the advantage of living in baltimore for 20 years. Including in may and june when there were continuous protests about the uptick in the murder rate. It has continued unabated. There have been protests in chicago and cities all over this country. I admit they do not get the Media Attention of other kinds of protests but i think this kind of anecdotal sense of what is happening really has to be challenged because we are at such a critical and delicate moment. Thank you very much for your testimony. Can i ask unanimous consent that i be able to put a statement in the record. I have been at the hearing but i have to leave. My time has run out. If you want to ask if senator sessions he would yield his time. Thats kind of the senator. I appreciate it. Hes a good friend and good man. Thats another expression of that. I just wanted to say this. The politics is now a big part theater. Some of the groups that are represented here are part of the theater of politics. Its not surprising to me how some of the testimony has come out. But i do want to say having been the United States attorney in my state and having been the attorney general of my state, which in rhode island also means you are the d. A. , that there is nothing that i see in rhode island that communicates to me anything like a federal war on police. I just had a meeting this past week with the head of the rhode island state police, colonel odonnell, with the head of the providence Police Department. Colonel clemens. They have both been friends for decades. They get along very well. The United States attorney peter naruna was there, as well. It was a meeting that was with the community. We had our local naacp leaders, it was at a Community Group called open doors and it was to help advise me on how what we can do to keep the criminal sentencing bill we worked on in this committee moving forward. Nobody was concerned, not for a second, that there was anything like a war on the police happening. The u. S. Attorney has led joint investigations in which our local Police Departments have participated. One of them was against google and led to a massive settlement that rewarded those Police Departments and their municipalities enormously. So if anything, if theres a war on police in rhode island, its a very lucrative one for the local communities and its one the local police dont seem to notice. Community Relations Service has come to rhode island on several occasions. They have been helpful. I havent seen them do any harm. Not too long ago i left an awards ceremony in which the state police, the Providence Police and a number of Community Organizations all shared awards for having gotten together and formed a commission, a Police Community commission, to look at the question of profiling. And that community and Police Together effort was so effective that they actually have come up with a bill that has passed in the rhode island General Assembly as a result of their work. The notion that one witness suggests which is that for the department of justice to force a Police Department to enter into some kind of a Community Commission relationship in rhode island nobody had to force us. We did that on our own. Everybody thought it was great. The outcome was very positive for the Police Departments. They were there receiving their awards with pride and great satisfaction in the work that had been accomplished. I think chief alexander hit the nail on the head. This is more complicated than it seems. I dont think its appropriate for theater. And throughout local Law Enforcement, there are inumberable efforts to make policing better. In those efforts, we find at least in rhode island that the support of our federal Law Enforcement community has been very beneficial to those efforts. Thats just been our experience. I wanted to share it for the record. I thank the chairman for indulging me. I thank senator sessions for letting me take that time. Thank you, sir. Thank you, senator whitehouse. I thank senator sessions for graciously yielding his time and recognize senator sessions. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank all of you. Its a very, very Important Panel today. Ms. Ifill, you did a good job by yourself there. Made some valid points. I would just say this. All of us i say in Law Enforcement. I used to be that for a long time. Know how sensitive these issues are, how careful we need to be. How people can misinterpret things. But i do think its a real problem when we have black lives matter making statements that are really radical. That absolutely false. And then being invited to the white house. And meet with Valerie Jarrett and never to my knowledge have the head of the Civil Rights Division criticize some of the statements like pigs in a blanket fry them like bacon. Talking about the police. So i just think we do have a we have to be careful how we handle these issues but i would expect that the leadership in this country would be effective in defending the legitimate daytoday work of police. Mr. Mccarthy, you have prosecuted a listening time. You have thought about these issues. What about the acting head of Civil Rights Division in 2005, not too long ago, wrote a fordham law review article which ought to be carefully considered saying we have a criminal Justice System whos sub jo gags of people of color is contingent upon individualizing all cases . It is how we have managed to rationalize racism in the criminal Justice System. Closed quote. In other words, its wrong to treat cases individually. We should see them in some sort of pattern, i suppose. Does that trouble you . That we have the head of the Civil Rights Division taking that view and do you think its an extreme view . Senator, it troubles me that she took that view at a time he was thinking deeply about this. I would note in every single joint trial in america federal judges and state judges tell the juries that theyre supposed to consider each defendant individually and not allow the evidence that only is pertinent to one defendant to taint the other, and thats because our tradition and i think its a worthy one, is that guilt is, in fact, individual, and i would say that having been a prosecutor for a very long time and having worked with Law Enforcement even before that theres nothing that makes prosecutors jobs more difficult than corrupt prosecutors, and theres nothing that makes good cops jobs more difficult than corrupt cops, and when we find them theres probably nothing more important to the administration of justice than that we come at them with the full force of the law which means prosecuting them with vigor. But the point is that you can have a credible Justice System. You can have the rule of law the way we have always had it. Which is, that guilt is individual and that people who have public positions, positions of public trust, know that if they walk outside the lines the system has a powerful incentive to go after them double what what the incentive is with respect to other actors. I think youre right. I dont think theres any other system that can claim justice to its name that doesnt individually determine whether the individual did wrong or not. Goodness gracious. I just this doesnt answer the question we have talked about but i see an article here of last few weeks ago, rahm emanuel, mayor of chicago, president obamas chief of staff for a number of years, says intense media and public criticism is making Police Officers too passive, quote, going fetal, close quote. All of us want officers to be proactive and to be able to do Community Policing in a proactive way. We have to encourage them so its not their job on the line or that judgment call all the time that if they stop this could be a career ending. If that happens its going to have an impact and were seeing it. Thats why every other police chief and mayor and u. S. Attorney applauded when i said that. Said mr. Emanuel. May best judgment having been in it business for a long Time Starting in the mid70s as a prosecutor, it is having an impact. Maybe im wrong. My judgment is that it is. Now, mr. Walters, i have a sense having been appointed by reagan in 1981 when drug use among High School Students was at 50 and the authoritative of michigan study. Under a series of president s and over a period of time isnt it correct that drug use dropped to under 25 among High School Students . Dropped 25 in the last administration, during those 7 years. It dropped more than 25 between the peak at the roughly 1978 through to 1992. It went up from 1992 to 2000 and then went down again. But at one point its now rebounded. You get the numbers correct. The michigan study showed 50 use around 1980. Right. And it dropped steadily until it got below to 25 . I believe it was. I dont think it ever got as low as 25 . 25 is the reduction from 2000 to 2008. Thats the reduction in the numbers. I just want to make sure. All right. I know too much. Drug czar here. I know. Great progress was made. Yes. Substantial progress. Do you see the difficulty that were having in the streets, the increase in murder rate, the increase in drug use, p8p uju qqts own statement, goodness gracious, i have to ask you about that because i know how hard youve worked on trying to reduce crime and drug use. Well, ive lost it, but the president himself said its not much different than alcohol or smoking. And so, were now see being one study i saw recently that drug use among High School Seniors admittedly by them was 49 . So thats gone back up. Will, in your opinion, all of this result in more crimes of all kinds . Will it result in more drug use . Will it result in more addiction . And is this a very bad trend that were on . Could we be starting on a very bad trend . Yeah. I dont think theres any question those who have worked on this problem. Those in Law Enforcement know that the catalytic effect Substance Abuse has on crime, on child endangerment, on addiction and on the survivability of young people that are in atrisk situations over time. Look, the real shame here is, and i say this without any kind of partisanism or theater. President obama has a unique connection to young people, younger president. The example he sets is very powerful. All president s have an important example that they are to young people and to the American People, but he had a particularly strong one. He could have talked about Substance Abuse in his generation, his own experience. He could have been the more powerful than nancy reagan in terms of being a leader in prevention and changing attitudes of young people. Instead what we have is a downplaying of the seriousness of Substance Abuse in the comments you quoted, a suppression of federal law to allow the legalization of marijuana in states which has been horrific and created forms and concentrates of marijuana weve never seen before, bringing suits in the Supreme Court from surrounding states who are affected by colorado. The growth of heroin in this country thats been devastating. Its partly a result of what weve talked about in terms of Opioid Pharmaceuticals and transmission, but its really about, and ive done some analysis of this, its really about the explosion of supply out of mexico. And we have not worked effectively with our International Partners on these, and by the way, the biggest Single Source of of heroin is, of course, afghanistan. That heroin is already in canada. We can have this could be the prelude to the worst explosion of Substance Abuse weve ever seen. The growth of marijuana, the potential for spreading marijuana into communities, first under the guys of medicine which is false and second freeflow sale and then the kinds and concentrates of this will be devastating. And it will not just be one generation. We now know not only does marijuana use heavily as young people cause permanent iq loss that we didnt know years ago, but it also changes the chemistry of the brain to make people more susceptible to Substance Abuse for the rest of their lives. Baby boomers have higher rates, you may have seen the recent study of death from Substance Abuse and overdose and suicide by baby boomers as they reach older age. So there is there is such a catalytic effect of destruction in this phenomenon that for us to turn our backs, for us to say that we shouldnt enforce the law, for us to lie about who is in jail, the criminal Justice System has sorted people into treatment, through drug courts, who need treatment, you in the senate have passed, bypassed this to make sure lowlevel offenders do not get into federal prison. To suggest these tools are unjust, to break a tool for state, local and federal governments to break local organizations and bring people to justice and protect the communities, to cause declines in Substance Abuse and addiction, to turn all that around when we know what works. We have made these achievements and to throw them away, i mean, look, i dont have to do this. I could go back to my private life. I was pleased to serve. Im here and i recognize this is controversial. Ive been called, as some others of you have been called all kind of things for what i do, and the drug czar is not a hip guy in parties or on campus. But the reason ive gone and continued to say these things is ive sat with the parents who say youve got to do something. You have to be my voice and i went and spoke at funeral of Angela Dawson in baltimore in 2002. Angela dawson, as you may recall, stood up to drug dealers in her community of baltimore. She said, youre not going to take my kids. Youre not going to take my community. They tried to kill her with a fire bomb. They offered to move her out and put her into witness protection and she said, no, i will not give up. They came back, an individual who was supposedly under supervision and wasnt, and firebombed her house. Killed her, her husband and her five children. I spoke at that funeral. I looked at those small coffins. Shes an example of the kind of victims whose voices dont get heard until its too late. I know whats going to happen if we dont stand up and speak and maybe im too passionate. Maybe it seems like theater to to some of the members of the committee, but the fact of the matter is this is going to be worse than weve seen before if we do not turn it around, and we need the support of national leaders. We need we need the large and vocal support and thats why i congratulate you on having this hearing, and i think, you know, to argue about whether or not we have data about the effects of criticism and attacks on police, i think thats a diversion. I think we really all know. I mean, director comey is an Expert Witness if there ever was one on this. And secondly, i think we all see what the numbers are happening in terms of crime. And thirdly, while it can be anecdotal, i would say randomly just start asking Police Officers that you see whether they feel they are under attack, and i would say you will not find it a close call. Well, thank you. You know, were having 120 deaths a day from Drug Overdose in america. That is just a stunning figure, and it has monumental impacts throughout our entire culture. I gave up many times i often regret being with my family, meeting with drug antidrug groups in the 80s when i was a United States attorney, and it worked. Drug use went down. Substantially. And fewer people became addicted and the crime rate began to go down after time. And we to me i can just see us letting this slip away. The gains, the lessons we learned. As you said, mr. Walters, were ignoring and the culture and the nation will pay a price for it. Thank you. Thank you, senator sessions, and thank you, mr. Walters, for that powerful testimony a moment ago. You know, i will Say Something mr. Walters said a minute ago i think is powerfully correct, as i travel both the state of texas and the country. I am stopped by Police Officers almost on a daily basis who express to me one after the other that they feel they are under assault. I cannot tell you the frequency with which individual officers and cities all over the country say thank you for standing up for me. That sentiment is being felt, and its being felt powerfully. You know, theres been some suggestion that there has not been a vilification of Law Enforcement, and i think that suggestion is counter to the facts and counter to the evidence and, indeed, you go back to 2009. President obama was newly elected, and you had an incident with a harvard professor, and president obama who i might note was not there in cambridge, massachusetts, did not know what the facts were, but even not knowing when the facts were the president saw fit to say, quote, the Cambridge Police acted stupidly. I, for one, dont think the president of the United States ought to be insulting Police Officers for, quote, acting stupidly, when the president by his own admission doesnt know facts of what occurred. That started to set the stage. For beginning with the assumption Police Officers are guilty until proven innocent. President obama in 2014 at the United Nations stood in front of the world and held up Law Enforcement in a negative way. He said, i realize that americans critics will be quick to point out that at times we, too, have failed to live up by our ideals, that america has plenty of problems within its own borders. This president has made a pattern of describing what he thinks are americas problems and doing it in front of foreign nations. He continued, this is true. In a summer marked by instability in the middle east and eastern europe, i know that the world also took notice of the small American City of ferguson, missouri, where a young man was killed and a community was divided. President obama, in front of the United Nations, comparing the Police Officers to terrorists in the middle east. And lets be clear. He is giving his opinion on that. A young man was killed. We have failed to live up to our ideals. Those are president obamas words. This is true. We have failed to live up to our ideals. This is true. He is rendering judgment and verdict. I would note the grand jury in ferguson disagreed with president obama. The actual people our Justice Department charges with reviewing the evidence, something that doesnt seem to trouble president obama when hes opining Law Enforcement must be in the wrong. The grand jury that reviewed the evidence concluded to the contrary. But president obama goes in front of the United Nations and lambastes Police Officers. You dont think that message is heard by Police Officers throughout the country . In 2015, president obama said there are some police who arent doing the right thing. Rather than close ranks he said some Police Chiefs recognize they got to get their arms around the problem but president obama continued. We cant just leave this to the police. Important to understand, he doesnt think the police can govern themselves. Instead, president obama is saying i think there are Police Departments that have to do some soul searching. I think theres some communities that have to do some soul searching, but i think as a country we have to do some soul searching. This is not new. Its been going on for decades. The president standing as judge and jury convicting Police Officers. In response to his own fbi director mr. Comey, president obama speaking right after mr. Comey stands up and says we do have to stick with the facts. What we cant do is cherry pick or use anecdotal evidence to drive policy or feed political agendas. How about what we cant do is have the president of the United States impugning the integrity . Is he suggesting the director of the fbi is cherry picking data . Its not an implicit suggestion. It is an explicit suggestion. In the summer of 2014, the department of justice targeted the seattle Police Department said in writing that the officers were engaged in, quote, discriminatory practices subconsciously. Im very pleased to know that the u. S. Department of justice have now become psychiatrists, have now become mystics delving into the subconscious. How about the department of justice enforce the laws instead of worrying about the deep subconscious of Police Officers which the president has already told us apparently they are acting stupidly anyway. Weve talked about the president nominating for Senior Department of justice position a lawyer who not only voluntarily and for free represented an admitted cop killer, lionized him and held him out as a cause celeb. But, you know, thats not the only cop killer that the administration has turned a blind eye to. We should all remember Joanne Chesimard. Who is Joanne Chesimard . On the fbis most wanted list. She is wanted for escaping from prison in clinton, new jersey, while serving a life sentence for murder. On may 2nd, 1973, chesimard, who was part of the revolutionary Extremist Organization known as the black Liberation Army and two accomplices were stopped for a Motor Vehicle violation on the new jersey turnpike by two troopers with the new jersey violation on the new jersey turnpike by two troopers with the new jersey state police. At the time, ms. Chesimard was wanted for involvement in several felonies, including bank robbery. Chesimard and her accomplices opened fire on the troopers. One trooper was wounded and another was shot and killed, execution style at point blank range. Chesimard fled the scene but was subsequently apprehended. One of her accomplices was killed in shoot out and the other was also apprehended and remains in jail. In 1977, chesimard was found guilty of first degree murder, assault with a dangerous weapon, assault with intent to kill. Illegal possession of a weapon and armed robbery. She was sentenced to life in prison. On november 2, 1979, chesimard escaped from prison and lived underground before being located in cuba in 1984. Shes still living in cuba. We were all given the pleasing situation of seeing president obama and john kerry and the Obama Administration embracing, apparently, our newfound friends, raul castro and fidel castro, cruel, communist dictators. You know, in the whole course of opening this reproachment with cuba, in the whole course of opening a Cuban Embassy in washington, d. C. In the whole course of silencing cuban dissidents in washington, d. C. , did the Obama Administration ever once say of their new communist buddies, how bu about you hand over the cop killer living in cuba . If youre going to be part of this community of nations. If were going to embrace cuba in a way that will make every leftist faculty lounge in america cheer, how about, as the tiny price of that, you hand over a cop killer instead of shielding someone who murdered a new jersey state trooper in cold blood, execution style . Does anyone in their right mind think that the Obama Administration ever even once mentioned that . You want to know why the cops feel thrown overboard . Because nobody would suggest they would even think to say hand over the cop killer. You know, its not an accident that at deputy goforths funeral, president obama was nowhere to be found. Its not an accident that at funeral after funeral of Police Officers who have been murdered, targeted, singled out for defending their communities, that president obamas nowhere to be found. There is a consequence when you vilify, when you demonize, when you hold out for contempt the good men and women who protect our communities. Of course there can be individuals who violate the law, and we have a Justice System. If there is an individual in Law Enforcement who violates the law, we have a Justice System to handle that. But this president , this department of justice has not approached it saying lets enforce the law. They started with the assumption that Law Enforcement is, as they said to the seattle Police Department, sub consciously discriminating. Theyre guilty. Weve seen the consequences. Weve seen crime rising. Weve seen homicides rising. Weve seen black lives being lost over and over and over again, being murdered. It is wrong. And i believe it should end. Senator . Mr. Chairman, as we come to the close of what has been a very long afternoon, i simply want to thank the two Police Chiefs who have actually testified today, both chief davis and chief alexander and the many other witnesses whove testified from a wide range of back grounds and perspectives but have helped us focus on the fact that increases in crime are the result of very complex issues and require us to Pay Attention to knowing the facts. Theres been a great deal of yoe pining today on a wide range of issues. Ill simply close by suggesting two things that i think are worth reflecting on. One, as i said at the outset is a very pointed comment by the National President of the fraternal order of police who takes some umbrage at those, including witnesses today, who suggest that it is the fault of Police Officers who are refuse being to actively police that there is an increase in crime. He said to blame the rise in crime on officers behavior is just not drowned in fact and is wrong. And, as we search the many complex possible sources for why there might be an increase in crime, ill suggest one thing that was not addressed in any meaningful way in todays hearing, which is the hundreds of millions of dollars of Additional Support for local Law Enforcement requested and denied in this years appropriations process. There are 18,000 Law Enforcement agencies across this country. Hundreds and hundreds of them applying to the cops office for increased resources, training, equipment and support, which they will not receive this year because of appropriations, priorities and decisions of a republicancontrolled congress. And it is, to my regret, that we have not yet achieved a bipartisan consensus on how to responsibly Work Together to support local Law Enforcement. It is my hope, mr. Chairman that we can find a path towards doing more to help Law Enforcement and less of vilifying the very officers who weigh rely on to secure order and enforce our constitution. Thank you. Thank you, senator. Ill briefly make an observation that i would note that its not just fbi director comey who has observed about the ferguson effect, but also the dea administrator, Chuck Rosenberg said comey was, quote, spot on, regarding his comments on the ferguson effect. And he said, quote, ive heard the same things from police. I think its worth talking about. I want to thank each of the witnesses for coming today. I want to thank you for your learned testimony. I think this has been a valuable conversation and one that i hope will continue well beyond this hearing. We will be keeping the hearing record open for an additional five business days. Which means the record will close on the end of the business day on tuesday, november 24th, 2015. Ms. Mcdonald in her Opening Statement asked for a number of things to be submitted to the record. They will be without objection. I will also note that the doctor alexander mentioned in his testimony that for every large city and jurisdiction where crime rates and murder rates have gone down that there are an equal number that have gone up that there are an equal number that have gone down. This committee would certainly welcome any data to that effect, and i would encourage you to submit ha data so we would have a full and complete record. That is at a minimum not what the reporting of the New York Times and other establishments have indicated. So we simply want to invite any and all data that the witnesses have access to. And with that, i want to thank each of you for being here and western you wish you a good evening. The hearing is adjourned. All persons having business before the honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States are admonished to draw near and give interetheir atten. Coming up on landmark cases, well discuss brown versus the board of education, for a third grader, separate but equal meant a six brolock walk to the bus. Her father sued the school board and their case made it all the way to the Supreme Court. Well examine this case and explore racial tensions of the times. The personal stories of the individuals involved and the immediate and longterm impact of the decision. Thats coming up on the next land mark case, live, monday night at 8 00 eastern on cspan, cspan 3 and c pspan radio. Order your keep of the landmark cases companion book. Book tv, 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors. This weekend it includes the miami book fair, our live, allday coverage starts saturday and sunday at 10 00 eastern. Afterwards with historian Neil Ferguson on his bookinger kissinger. I think its what made his contribution fundamentally distinctive and made him stand out from the pack of people who thought that could you solve the cold war with system analysis or something of that sort. Hes interviewed by carla ann robbins. And sunday night at 8 00, former editor of the londonbased al quds, and author of the islamic state. Watch book tv all weekend, every weekend on cspan 2. Tomorrow on cspan 3, well take you to capitol hill for two hearings on the recent terror attacks in france. In the morning, a House Judiciary Sub Committee will meet, that will be live at 9 00 eastern. Then, in the afternoon, the senate Homeland Security committee will discuss some of the Lessons Learned in the paris terror attacks. Securities and Exchange Commission chair Mary Jo White testifies at a House Financial Services Committee Hearing on sec operations and the commissions fiscal year 2017 budget requests. This is about three hours. The committee will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to have a recess at any time. I recognize myself for three minutes. This morning, we welcome securities and Exchange Commission chair Mary Jo White. [ inaudible ] performing. It is on their behalf this committee acts to ensure that the sec protects investors. All key ingredients to growing a healthy economy with bigger opportunity for us all. We want to make sure the sec is a good steward of its resources, a budget that has increased by 64 over the last 10 years, while the monitors to my left, right and in front of me show the rapidly rising red ink of our national debt. This is chair whites last appearance before our committee. We have seen both good news and bad news. First, the good. The sec finally completed the bipartisan rule makes to implement the red aplus in crowd funding titles. Further, the sec has asserted its jurisdiction to hopefully stop Financial Stability Oversight Council from l regulating banks. There is much that is not commendable. A pay ratio rule which was pushed through which may apiece leftwing activists but does nothing to protect investors or facilitate Capital Formation for small and mediumsized businesses. Does nothing to help struggling families get ahead. Another example of the sec squandering resources that does nothing that protect investors or facilitate Capital Formation. Additionally, as much as leftwing activists may want to drag the sec into political advocacy, the Citizens United decision does not involve or implicate federal securities laws. A political discrowure rule making is not within the secs core competency or more importantly, it is not within its mission. It with simply create more opportunities for abuse and politicized enforcement as we have seen with the irs scandal. And further damage the secs credible. The sec should instead, redouble efforts to simplify the disclosure regime and by the Supreme Court in 1976. Instead of modernizing our proxy system, the chairs recent action to cut off staff guidance to Public Companies in the middle of this past proxy season was illadvised. And the universal proxy ballot proposal favors special interests in short termism rather than benefitting the vast majority of Public Company shareholders. Finally, the sec does have an opportunity to act and stop the ra Labor Department from making Retirement Planning less available and more expensive for americans with low and moderate incomes. This we hope they successfully do. It comes from Innovative Capital markets that are vigorously policed for deception and fraud. They give investors the freedom to make decisions free from government interference and control. I now yield three minutes to the Ranking Member for an Opening Statement. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Welcome back to the committee, chair white. Today we gather to discuss the secs work to oversee our Capital Markets. This work, however, is hampered by harmful republican cuts to your budget requests, which, will make it harder for you to police these markets. Please know that democrats are committed to full funding for the sec, because the commission provides the first line of protection for investors. It has been eight months since you were last here and more than five years since dodd frank was enacted. But the sec is still yet to propose a uniform fid uuciary standard. Im pleased to learn that certainly, while the department of labor is doing its part to create a rule that works, that you are working toward this end and that there should be something in the reasonable future, dealing with this issue. Regarding the inadequate level of adviser exams, i join Industry Associations and advocates in calling for a modest fee on advisers, and im concerned about any costly thirdparty exams which your staff may be working on. Im also concerned well, as weve discussed, im deeply concerned about the continued seemingly reflected granting of waivers of bad act or disqualifications. These waivers allow some of the worse actors in our Financial System to continue business as usual, and i look forward to your explanation of exactly how these decisions have made. In recent times, ive learned that theyre made quite differently than i thought. Lastly, i received your letter concerning a bull a bill we considered last week, while this isnt quite the bill i would have offered. We did draft a compromise which i braef addressed most of your earlier concerns with the administration. I also offered an amendment with mrs. Velasquez. We disagree relative to the modst increase in leverage, but i urge you to help us craft language to further improve this bill before it moves to the house floor. Thank you, and i yaeld back the balance of my time. The gentle lady yields back. The chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey, mr. Garrett. So i thank the chairman. I thank chair white. Its good to see you again. I may be echoing some of the comments that have been raised. I do that because the last time you appeared before the committee, i noted my concerns back then over the large number of 32 votes that were occurring in the commission over the last several years as well as the general perception that the sec is becoming well, increasingly politicized. Since that time, really little has happened to relieve any of those concerns of myself or the chair or others have raised. In fact, in the last six months, the sec has prioritized and completed the partisan politicized raesh yoe rule. These are two things that may apiece special interests but do very little to make our markets more competitive. I would note that this was also done along a partisan vote, three years after the congressional deadline. At the same time, the secs ongoing failure to develop what i might call a Capital Formation agenda remains one of the most serious deficiencies. It seems that the only time the sec actually modernizes the security laws to the growing number of businesses is when we tell them to. As in previous years, i expect this forum to produce a number of valuable ideas that would help Small Enterprises get capital and grow. But in previous years, i also expect that the majority of these recommendations will be basically ignored by the sec. Finally, the sec clearly has an Important Mission and role within our sector, Financial Sector. But right now its up to the agency thats got to get its priorities in order. So i look forward to hearing from you today on how the sec can refocus for the pen fbenefi the american public. I thank the chairman for heading this important hearing and welcome chair lady of quite a bit has happened since chair white last appeared before this committee in march. For starters, the sec has finalized several rules, such as the ceo pay ratio rule and two jobs act rules. Perhaps most importantly, the extreme volatility in the markets on august 24th was the first real test for many of the market safeguards that the sec put in place after the flash crash of 2010. In particular, the automatic trading pauses for stocks that experience extreme volatility. Known as the limit up limit down rules were triggered. Nearly 1,300 times on august 24th. And a lot of the stocks that were halted that day were Exchange Traded stocks, rather than stocks of individual companies. Many stocks that were temporarily halted had trouble opening up again, because when they opened pack up for trading, their prices rose too quickly, which triggered another automatic pause. Hough, despite this widespread disruption, the marketwide circuit brake breakers which wo have halted trading for 15 minutes were not triggered on august 24th. So i would be interested to hear how these new safeguards performed. Did they work as intended . Or are there problems with the safeguards that need to be fixed . Today we have the testimony of the honorable Mary Jo White. I believe she needs no further introduction. Without objection, chair white, your written statement will be made part of the record, and you are now recognized for five minutes to give an oral presentation of your testimony. Thank you. Thank you. This is on, right . Okay. Chairman, Ranking Member waters and members of the committee. First, thank you for inviting me to testify about the recent activities of the u. S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Since i last testified in march, the sec has advanced makings an significant progress on our initiatives involving the Asset Management industry, equity Market Structure and disclosure effectiveness of the commission has adopted or proposed 17 substantive rule makings, including rules required by the doddfrank and jobs acts. And these have included final or proposed rules addressing overthecounter derivatives, new means for Small Businesses to access capital, including the final rules at chairman mentioned for updating and expanding regulation aid. And our supervision of Investment Advisers and mutual funds, amendments to the sec rules, executive compensation disclosures and removing references to Credit Ratings from our rawls. The Commission Also approved a row posal by the National Security exchanges and fenra that would widen tick sizes. We deliver very strong results with the commission bringing 807 Enforcement Actions and obtaining monetary remedies of approximately 4. 2 billion in fiscal year 2015. Of the 807 Enforcement Actions filed, 507 are record independent actions for violations of the federal securities laws. More important than the numbers, these actions addressed meaningful issues for the markets and investors, spanned the industry and included a number of firstever kinds of actions, approximately twothirds of our substantive actions in fiscal year 2015 included charges against individuals. The Commission Also continued to seek admissions, including the firstever admission settlement with an Auditing Firm and to pursue complex cases with criminal authorities, including a recent action involving dozens of defendants with a global scheme to profit from hacked, nonpublic information about corporate earnings announcements. Going forward, weigh plan to continue to focus on completing our mandatory rule makings while pursuing other initiatives that are critical to our mission, including those related to Asset Management oversight, and disclosure effectiveness. This afternoon, for example, the commission is expected to consider new rules to enhance the transparency of equity alternative trading systems. We will also continue to strengthen our enforcement and examination programs, straiving for highimpact measures. And well continue developing a number of ongoing initiatives designed to facilitate Capital Formation, particularly for Small Businesses. We seek to hire individuals with the skill sets necessary to enhance the agencys oversight of increasingly complex securities markets. Strafing to continue to enhance our technology, including our ability to of analyze large volumes of data. As we continue to try to allocate or resources effectively and efficiently, we received an unmodified audit report, the best ever from the gao with no deficiencies identified in fiscal year 2015. We plan to build on these improvements and continue to enhance the execution of our mission. The commissions extensive work to protect investors, preserve market integrity and promote Capital Formation is not limited to the initiatives ive just sum ryed today or in my written testimony, but ive tried by example both here and in the written testimony to convey the breadth and importance of the commissions ongoing efforts and provide a sense of our progress in the last few months. Thank you for your support and for inviting me to be here today. Your continued support will allow us better to protect investors and facilitate capital for make and more effectively oversee the markets we regulate. The chair now yields himself five minutes for questions. Chair white, it was reported that you announced at a conference recently that the sec is quote, fullout focussed on developing its own fiduciary rule. I alluded to it in my Opening Statement, you were last here in march, and weve spoken about these matters both privately and publicly, and it is my understanding that the sec has, staff is not yet performed an updated analysis of the potential impact of uniform fid usualary involvement on Retail Investors, is that correct . . Theres not another study thats been done as we proceed with the staffs recommendations which are actively in prose s. Is there any work being done to update the 2011 study . Part of the rule making as it advances will be very deep Economic Analysis by our economists at the sec to judge impacts as well as all relevant baselines. Will that analysis be complete before the proposal of any uniform fiduciary standard . Certainly, there will be Economic Analysis that is complete before theres any proposal. Theres always additional check analysis as there should be before you proceed with any adoption, but certainly, that would be part of a proposal process. And not necessarily the complete analysis. Not necessarily, but it depends on how its assessed as we go through that process including with our economist. Will this be shared with the committee and made public prior to the proposal . Typically, unless theres a paper produced separately, which happens from time to time, from our dera folks, its part of the proposal and made public this that way. We would encourage you to do that. Chair, i dont know if you share the concerns of many in looking at the similar proposal in the u. K. U t the public sources ive been able to access show they imposed a similar fiduciary rule that 310,000 clients stopped being served by their brokers because their wealth was insufficient to advise profitably. 60,000 investors were not accepted as new clients for the same reason. And in the year before the Commission Ban went into effect a number of advisers serving retail accounts plunged by 23 . Is the experience in the u. K. Concern you . Im familiar with several, actually u. K. Analysises. Clearly what impact does it have on the ability of resail investors to get reasonablypriced reliable advice. Part of this rulemaking process will be very much devoted to what impact it will have on resiesly that. I would hope that the sec would look very closely at the u. K. Experience and also look at i hope you have received similar testimony that we have received that the best interest contract exemption is frankly unworkable and not an exemption at all, meaning that the u. K. Experience is most parallel. Switching subjects to bond market ill liquidity, you last appeared before us eight months ago in march. You acknowledged the concern about bond market il liquidity, and we spoke about these matters publicly and privately. Since you testified that you, at that point you did not see a link between the volcker rule Capital Requirements in reduced bond liquidity, it has been eight months. In that intervening eight months, may 20th, the wall street journal reported that the number one concern of Financial Professionals was lack of liquidity in the market. Price waterhouse published a report saying that multiple factors last week, the wall street journal reported that the u. S. Firms are holding negative Corporate Bond inventories for the First Time Since the fed began reporting this separate data. The chair of fenra has testified in this committee. Quote, there have been dramatic can changes that have led to much higher capital requiremans, the volcker rule, a range of other issues that have all had Significant Impact from the standpoint of liquidity of the fixedincome market. So since its been eight months since youve last appeared before us, there has been news. Have you been able to determine whether regulations like the volcker rule are a contributing cause to the dramatic decrease in liquidity. It remains a concern of mine. But the answer to your question is no. As is reflected in the quarterly reports that we make actually to this committee on that subject with our fellow financial regulators. I think the most recent one reflects both levels of liquidity in the primary and secondary markets as set fort there and the conclusion that one cannot determine impact from the volcker rule. Obviously there are a lot of factors, including Capital Requirements and others that go on. I do note that at least recently, reports do indicate that dealer inventories have gone into negative territory, and thats something that obviously we will be looking at very closely before the final report for this year, not try to get ahead of the report, but well be looking very closely at that for its existence, its meaning and whether impacts can be judged. My time is expired. But the rest of the world is concluding otherwise, so i would hope the sec would pay very careful attention. The chair now recognizes the Ranking Member for five minutes. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Chair woman, you will be asked today about your efforts on a number of issues. And im appreciative for your response on the fooushry rule making, but would you explain to us how a lack of Adequate Funding does not allow to you move as quickly as we would like you to move on some of these issues . Are you at all hampered by inAdequate Funding of the if sec . Weve clearly, we have responsibilities far beyond our resources. And so we obviously try to make the smartest decisions we can in core areas, in new areas weve been assigned since doddfrank and the jobs act. But clearly, it becomes a zero sum game as they say at some point, and it does slow you down. Of course it does. Well, thank you very much. With that, id like to just have you describe to us the sec waiver process. The last time you testified, i expressed concern with the secs policy of providing waivers of disqualifications to bad actors on a seemingly reflective basis, and i question the transparency or whether or not there should be public input. As you know, i have a proposal that i think would remedy this problem that among other things would require the process to be conducted and voted on by the commission level. Provide the Public Notice and an opportunity to request a hearing and require soek staff to keep complete public records of all waiver requests and denials and create a public database of all disqualified bad actors so here i am, even with the bill talking about more work for you in this area. Before i go any further, because i know this is a rill bit more complicated than most people think, would you explain to us a little bit about that process . Yes, first i want to make it clear that the sec very aggressively pursues Financial Institutions and executives. And our record bears that out following the crisis. Its very important to understand that those are not enforcement remedies. Those are separate provisions in the securities laws that are governed by their very separate rules, very separate guidances that the commission and Commission Staff apply very vigorously case by case. Whether an enforcement action of ours or someone else may trigger a disqualification and if a party is seeking a waiver, and its typically a waiver to be allowed to pursue or continue to pursue business in a totally unrelated area than the enforcement action was about. The burden is on that party to show us that, you know, to simplify it a little bit. It would be in the Public Interest to grant that waive, the staff in order to increase transparency and robustness as upgrade the at my tenure at my direction the wicky waivers as well as the bad actor waivers, and i think the commission and the staff do very deep dives and apply those standards quite robustly before making those decisions. If a waiver is granted, it is made public on our website. If a waiver is not granted, typically, the party will withdraw the request for that, and it includes nonpublic information. So one of my challenges is to, because i think, if you look at only the public record, you think were granting them routinely in all of them, and that is not the case. There are many, many that we do not grant. So the challenge is preserving the privacy of nonpublic information but yet being able to provide publicly the information that shows were not granting these waivers as they are requested each time. Its a very robust process. Id like you to take a look at my legislation and see if theres anything that we could do with that legislation to help you improve the process if you believe theres room for improvement. Lastly, on bbcs, youve written a letter to us with your concerns. I and others are concerned about support for Small Businesses. And we want to make sure that we do everything to create resources. Can you help me understand what your concerns are a little bit better and what we can do to make the bill better. First, bdcs are designed to be an engine for Economic Growth for Small Businesses. Thats good for everybody. And something that the staff and the commission have been supportive of throughout the years, frankly, since they were set up. And i appreciate, by the way, that some of the concerns that ive expressed a couple years ago with a prior bill were addressed, happy to talk about it further, but i did recently submit a letter to you and to the chairman expressing my concerns with certain aspects of the current bill, really Investor Protection concerns that are significant concerns that i felt, that i really must express, obviously, its up to congress what they do. Essentially, in several areas, but primarily the increase in leverage as well as the reduction of rights, if i can again, oversimplify a little bit in preferred stockholders. You also enup allowing the bdc to invest 50 of their assets in a financial institution. It used to be 30 . And the core objective for the bdcs is really to invest in operating companies that, and new operating companies that you want to give a boost to. These are Retail Investors that were talking about who own the vast majority of bdc shares, so that heightens whatever investor concerns we have. Thank you mr. Chair, and i hope youll work with us to improve the legislation. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from new jersey, mr. Garrett of our Capital Market sub committee. Thank you, chair white. When you were here once before i opened with the statement, are the markets rigged. Let may follow up now tw specific rigged as far as the coverage you get from there. Does the small investor actually know that he has no coverage under sfic. Ive gotten Dividend Payments out, ive gotten capital gains, i withdrew money over the years to pay tax and do likewise. Over the past 30 years, my statement say its going up and up in value. My statement which says i have 6,000 in an account, my coverage is exactly zero. Is that correct . As i heard your scenario, that is correct because of what spic is designed. I have zero Coverage Even though my statement is telling me i have like 5,000 in there. Theres an indication on the bottom that cpic coverage, does anyone have an of obligation to inform me that i have zero coverage on my brokerage statement . Whose obligation first of all, your account statement should be accurate, and what has given rise is a huge ponzi scheme. Who should tell me that i have zero coverage right now . The broker should tell you, but the broker in question may be committing a massive ponzi scheme. It is a fiduciary duty of the Investment Adviser to tell me i have zero coverage . Im not sureki give you a legal opinion. But what it does is if for example in your example that when you put in your 2,000 you had invested in certain securities. Right. That had appreciated, so there were securities in the hands of that broker, they would be covered by cpic, but instead, if what your breck i find out something went wrong. But in actuality if your answer to the first question is i have zero coverage, there is an obligation of someone, i guess the broker, to tell me this. And at that point, the wise thing for me to do would be what, move down to the street to another brokerage account . If you put that amount in that brokers custody, it with be covered by cpic. The new account. So investors should be told, the smart thing to do, once youve withdrawn the initial investment, the smart thing to do is to move to another company. Keep in mind if you withdraw your 2,000 and it appreciated toen 7,000 and the broker had those securities and then went under, you would protected not by cpic. What youre not covered for is essentially these ponzi schemes that are reflected falsely on your account statements. So it depends on how the investments are made, in other words, so i as an investor now need to know when i get this statement whether the investments are being done like in a madoff situation or whether theyre done in some other way. It really depends, how is the investor supposed to know that, whether hes really getting coverage or not. The problem is in the madoff, investments werent being made, so you had a massive ponzi scheme. So you were being defrauded from beginning to end. The bottom line, me as a simple investor, and that describes me well in these things, i dont now how its being done and i dont know whether cpism c is going to be there at the end of the day. The regular d and 506 under the doddfrank act, you propose amendments to that. And the question is what is the affect of those amendments. The risk analysis said that only 2 or 33 billion of the capital raised under regular d has come under 506 of the jobs act, which we did. That would tell me theres a suppression effect. Can you withdraw those amendments so we can get the full effect of the jobs act and 506c . There hasnt been consensus on those amendments. I do brielieve they are importa. We have a year and a half of operation and we have a group looking at those markets. Ive laalso inquired about, iv heart concern that that maybe hampering those markets. The feedback ive gotten, at least from our folks being they dont believe thats the case. But clearly the 506 c market has been used, but not as much as one might have anticipated and certainly not as much as the 506 b market. The chair recognizes the gentle lady from new york, ms. Velasquez. Thank you. Recently it was reported that it was on the bonds for puerto rico and placing the same bonds into mutual funds that were sold to customers on the island, something that would be prevented by the Investment Company act of 1940. However, due to the high cost of air travel at the time the act was passed, puerto rico and other u. S. Territories at the time, including hawaii, were exempted from the 1940 act. The i have recently introduced legislation, hr 3610 to close this loophole and ensure that puerto rico and other u. S. Territories have the same presbyterians protections that other states do. Do you believe this loophole should be closed . When the exemption was put into law it was many, many years ago when the thought was that the practical and Financial Difficulties to be able to enforce that law in the territories was just not there. Todays a very different world. So i share your concerns. I think the loophole should be closed. Thank you. In the ongoing financial crisis in puerto rico, hedge funds are playing a significant role. It is impossible, however, to fully understand the scope of their investments. Some Disclosure Requirements are only available to regulators, while others do not cover debt securitie securities. The i recently introduced legislation to close these loopholes on hedge funds, do you brief that further disclosure in this area will benefit investors and the public . I think, i would have to study it further, the precise parameters of it. I can see pros and cons, frankly, to that approach. Clearly legislation and reporting are critical to promoting transparency and protecting investors in private funds, and this has been looked at very closely with doddfrank. And there ais a lot of information on form pf by hedge funds and others, but the judgment was made then, you know, not to basically expose or expose more than was prescripted to be exposed the Actual Holdings and strategies of private funds, whether hedge funds or not, because that could lead to front running and other kinds of actions with respect to that kind of disclosure. So there are pros and cons to that. I need to study it further. Thank you. And i hope that we can work with your office, at least to hear some feedback regarding the legislation. Another issue that has come to our attention and that i care about as ranking of the Small Business committee. As the Small Business line lending industry that has grown rapidly in the past five years and experts are expecting doubledigit growth through 2020. Last week i sent a letter requesting information on your agencys involvement with Small Business online lending. If theres anything, any preliminary comments on my request . Ive seen the letter, weve obviously been responding to it in due course. Just in terms of what our space is, with respect to online lending, we dont, you know, regulate the loans themselves. The lenders, you know, and the terms of the loans to borrowers. The thats not in our space. Hough, we do regulate online lenders when they sell securities to investors, that they essentially fun these lo l loans. They may need to register the offerings. Some platforms would have to register as broker dealers. We have brought cases in the enforcement space in some of this, but our jurisdiction really relates to protecting investors if in fact there are offerings made under the federal securities laws. Thank you. I yield back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from texas. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and thank you for being here today. I want to go back to something that ive had a great deal of interest in, and that is the fixed income market. Can you tell me what resources the sec is dedicated to the fixed income market . And i think we may have had this discussion at our last hearing. Primarily, but it clearly is not confined to our trading and markets division. And its not segregated out as a separate unit, which i think we did talk about before, and ive had conversation, but weve, i dont know, 15 to 20 folks to deal with it. Deals exclusively with that area as well. And i had several conversations with steve, who is our director of trading and markets about the need for additional resources, perhaps a restructuring so we make sure that the fixed income markets are getting the attention that they deserve. Certainly in his view now, and hes persuaded me. I think were structured as we should be and i will note in our budget request, i think its for fiscal year 2016, were operating under cr now. We sought an additional 15 positions in trading and markets and at least two of those will relate exclusively to a study of the fixed income markets. And thats in the future. But today theres how many people doing that . I would say in trading and markets, the last time i asked for that sort of number, and, again just for Corporate Bonds. Not counting the muni securities, about 16 was the last number i was given. I mean, its a rough number, congressman, if i may say, because its not how its structured. It theres other people who work in the space as well but dont devote the freedom nance of their time. Back in august, price water house released a statement on the brittleness of assets and the study is of concern to me where areas of liquidity had declined, including difficulties in executing trades, reduction in market depth and the bifurcation of liquidity. The study also notes pending future rules could have Significant Impact on the market, make being ing activitie you aware of the Price Waterhouse study . Have you read that . The answer is ive read a number of studies, and i brii b that one as well and our staff has. It is something in the trading and markets area that weve been very attuned to and in dialog with the Market Participants about those risks and those eventualities particularly when Interest Rates go up. Market liquidity is a pretty big deal, isnt it . It certainly is. I think the concern we have is that im not sure your agency is giving the the attention to it. Because we hear that from a lot of different Market Participants, that the liquidity issue is a real deal. And so i would hope that, as you move forward, that if you are doing studies in that area that would you share some of the findings with this committee. I want to move to, in 2015, commissioner stein released a statement supporting proposals to shorten the trade is settlement cycle for certain security transactions. Industry groups encouraged the commission and Market Participants to move forward on reducing the settlement cycle citing it would improve Investor Protections and reduce systemic risk. Additionally, a group issued a paper indicating the timelines requiring the move from t 3 to t 2 in the United States in the Third Quarter of 2016. Do you agree with moving to t2 . The answer is yes is the direct answer. And we actually responded to a letter, i think it was from cifma and maybe others as well. I think the letter was addressed to my as both the position i took on it and also asking for regulatory support, you know, to help bring that about. And my letter was quite supportive. Its public. We can certainly provide that. And i think the only thing i wanted to be sure of is that it didnt foreclose possibly, you know, down the road, even a shorter settlement period. Why havent, why havent you all acted on that . I mean, i think its not timely to act on it. But we will act timely. What does timely . Its essentially were, again, the letter reflects this. Were, because i think theyve gotten traction. Were allowing the industry coalition, if i can call it that, to get to the place where their systems can actually accommodate the t plus 2. So the regulation they need will be in place by the time that happens, in 2016. The time of the gentleman has expired. The chair recognizes the gentle lady from new york. Thank you, chairman. As i mentioned in my Opening Statement, i am interested in the events of august 24th in the markets, the extreme volatility that day meant that the secs automatic trading halts for individual stocks were triggered nearly 1,300 times. And i know the sec has said that it is collecting data ak quickly as possible to analyze what happened and to determine if there are any changes to the agencys rules that are necessary. Can you give us a sense of where this preliminary review, which you have found in this review . Yes, its well along, i mean, and im expecting that we can share some initial results from that in the near term. Youre absolutely right, as you commented earlier, we obviously had a we didnt invite the mini stress test on august 24th but we had one. The markets did perform quite well, but there were issues that came out of that. And one of the significant ones was obviously the marketwide circuit breakers, as you said were not triggered, given the amount of volatility and the timing and so forth, but we did have a large number of limit up limit down trading pauses, and particularly request etfs, interestingly not on all etfs. So its a more complex issue, which were, you know, were studying, and in part, what were looking at is obviously, we have the up limit down limit rules in place which were put in place as a volatility mod rateder after the flash crash. Its on a pilot basis. The data that comes out of august 24th as to what modifications if any, what calibrations need to be made in the up limit down limit rules. There was somewhat delayed openings, particularly on the new york stock exchange. The. This information or this analysis be available before the end of the year . I hope it will be. I dont want to commit to it, but i would hope it would be. Last december, you outlined a comprehensive plan to update the regular hattori regime for Asset Managers in order to account for the significant changes that this industry has undergone in recent years. The sec has now proposed two of the rules thaw prt you proposed. But we still havent seen the third rule, yet, which will require transition plans for winding down Asset Managers. Can you give us an update on this third rule and when can we expect the third rule to be proposed . I think the next in the series it could change, but in terms of the work flow would probably be the rule on derivatives and following that would be the transition rules and also stress testing. I think i categorized it as three, but its five separate areas. In terms of the transition planning rules which is essentially designed to have funds and the industry be able to deal with disruptions in their business in an optimal way, that will not this be year, but i would hope it would be relatively early into next year. In terms of the stress test, when to you expect the sec to have a stress test for large Asset Managers, and what are the challenges youve encountered in developing stres tests. Why is it such a challenge . It is a challenge. It is problem lit fifth ably th five. But theyre not banks. One first cant transfer stress testing for banks into this space. And so, to come up with a meaningful test for very different funs with very different kinds of assets, different stresses that matter is a real challenge, but were working very hard on it, its actually a requirement under doddfrank. Lastly, id like to ask you about the secs use of administrative cases. Where decisions are made by law judges rather than always having to go to federal court, which is expensive and timeconsuming. Some critics have claimed that the secs administrative hearings deprive clients of due process. Can you speak to these issues . Do you think the sec does get an unfair homecourt advantage when they try in front of an Administrative Law judge, and what protections are in laplace . Administrative law judges have been used for many, many years. The Congress Gave the sec as well as other federal agencies the ability to bring enforcement cases in either District Court or administrative proceedings. With respect to the sec, we have a lot of expertise in our administratortive law judge. They deal with technical issues. Theyre impartial and have unique due process rights. Not the same as a District Court, but for example, in unlike in District Court, if youre responsible didnt in an administrative responding, we provide jakes and brady material, which is exculpatory material. Time of the gentle lady has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from missouri, mr. Lukemire. Thank you for being here today. I want to start off my questions with regard to designation of cifist. It as we continue to discuss this issue with a lot of Insurance Industry folks as well as those Insurance Companies that have been designated, can you tell me the specific standards that you looked at whenever you voted in favor of designating two of our Domestic Companies as cifis over the objection of the Insurance Expert on fsoc . I shall tonly, i participatee aig and met life cases. Thats why you said two. And the met life is in litigation, so im somewhat limited as to what i can say, but what i can say because the stat try criteria are in the public, fsocs data my question is what standards did you look at that were more significant to you than what the Insurance Expert on fsoc said were not something in his eyes that rose to the level wheres to you the alarm . I think, sir, if i could get into the granularity on that, i think we get very detailed presentations and anal cease from the staff. We have a standard were applying. And looking for a certain criteria, i was satisfied that those were met in that instance. Listening very carefully and respectfully and understanding the knowledge that the insurance representative bringing to bear on this. But you still went without i made my independent decision, yes. Okay. The other question that we always get is, or concern that we always get from industry folks is we need off ramp. Some way, some sort of mechanism or delineation for things for them to do to be dedesignated. Would you support Something Like that . It exists to a degree. So i mean, its important to know that. Because theres actually an annual review process of any company that is designated. I think tw all due respect, madam chair, thats not a delineation of things for them to do. All that is is a report of where theyre at. It doesnt tell you what a company thats designated will have received, and will have received is a very Detailed Analysis for the basis of designation. In some cases, in many cases, you may have a situation where its kind of the core Business Model and how much leverage is used or the kind of derivatives that are used. So there hasnt been a delineation. It could be difficult in many cases to do did, but the bottom line for me, the clearer that we are at fsoc about what it is that gets you designated and dedesignated is a good thing. The concern that we have, though, is there is a rubber stamp effect. When you have Insurance Expert on fsoc, so you know its not a problem, and yet everybody goes along with International Designation versus what we think is good for our companies here in this country, it raises some questions and concerns. So moving on all i would say, theres not a rubber stamp. Its an independent decision in my view, clearly. Appreciate the comment, i would venture to disagree with that. At this point, also cifi seems to be headed down that same road. Fsoc, does that concern you at all . I think fsoc hasnt ruled out designations of Asset Managers, but i think the pivot, if i can call it that, the products and activities that may may raise substantial systemic risks exists. Did you believe Asset Management is important . As phrased that way, you know, i dont think the Business Model in general creates that, its not confined to Asset Managers. Securities lending is one of the activities. Is the Business Model of Asset Managers, do you grieve can bet6uy systemically importa . As a Business Model, its an agency model, and therefore, i think that ordinarily it would not be. Interesting. I see my times about up. I yield back. Thank you, mr. Chairman. The chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. Capuano. Thank you for being here. Madam chair, in the last 20 years, do you know which issue at the sec has received the most comments of any . Youre probably going to tell me political contributions. Im not going to tell you anything. Thats my understanding is political contributions has received over 1 million. I think 2,000 of those are unique. So thats a lot of comments. Or questions. The. That being the case. Im asking do you plan on addressing that issue in the foreseeable future . Essentially, you know, and i know we had this conversation last time as well. Very strong views on both sides of this issue. I think i have three fairly recent outstanding letters from members of this committee, two different letters and some members in the senate as well. Ill be responding to those. And i, you know, but as ive said before, our focus is on mandates. I do want to make clear there are avenues through the secs rules which is the shareholder proposal route to raise these issues, and they are raised quite actively, and the staff yeah, raised but they are not required by the sec theres not a mandatory disclosure rule. Which is great. There are some people that are good citizens that like to tell people what theyre doing but there are a lot who are not. And companies are voluntarily and i applaud those doing it voluntarily. No regulation is done because everybody is doing it voluntarily. All regulations are done on every group because there are always a handful of people who are not good players. Regulations are not targeted at everybody because everybodys a bad player. All regulations are targeted because theres always a handful of bad ones. That gives some voluntary clie compliers, thats very good. I applaud them. And you have some that are not. I appreciate the fact that you clarified. Youre trying to focus on congressionally mandated ones, it generated 64 comment letters, 64 versus 1. 2 million. And, by the way, as i understand it, of those 64, ten of them related to corporate political discrowures. The. A come uple of those letters were related to political, but they urged us to focus on congressional mandates. Clearly america has spoken in every capacity they can, to you and your organization that they want to prioritize this. The its not that difficult. Its not that difficult. And the fact that you refuse to it raises lots of questions. What doddfrank 956a. The incentive compensation rules. It is a joint rule making with our fellow regulators, and were very active, theres been a proposal some time ago before i even got to the commission. 2011. Correct. And we are all working on it very, very actively as we speak. 2011, 2015, almost 2016, and you think thats active