Today, Ranking Member Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) delivered the following opening statement, as prepared, for the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance Hearing on "The Consequences of Soft on Crime Policies":

"Mr. Chairman, in our first week back from the August recess, this Subcommittee’s first hearing is nothing more than a campaign event for Donald Trump.  Rather than addressing policies that currently affect the American people, the Majority’s witnesses are here to talk about incidents from as far back as 2008. 

What happened to our two victim witnesses is unacceptable.  No person deserves to be a victim of crime, and I appreciate your being here to share your stories.  But the Majority’s attempt to use this hearing to prop up the Trump/Vance campaign is not even thinly veiled.  There is no intent whatsoever to disguise the purpose of this hearing. 

Not only is the Majority desperate to attack the surging popularity of Vice President Harris and Governor Walz, but they are well aware that if they want to hold a hearing about the current levels of crime in the U.S., that hearing would show that crime has been declining dramatically, and steadily, under the Biden-Harris administration.

The murder rate, in particular, is down sharply this year in cities across America, as it was during the past two years.  Meanwhile, Red States continue to have murder rates that are higher than those of Blue States.  Seven of the 10 states with the highest murder rates are Red States.  And 8 of the 10 most dangerous cities in the U.S. are in Red States. 

As we hold this hearing about the alleged consequences of so-called “soft on crime” policies, Republicans and their leader, Donald Trump, continue to call for pardons for the January 6 defendants who violently attempted to overthrow our government on that bloody day three years ago.  

And they continue to try to help Trump avoid accountability for his own serial criminal conduct, in his numerous court cases, by attacking the prosecutors, the judges, and the legal system itself. 

Last Congress, under Democratic control, we advanced important public safety legislation—such as the VICTIM Act, which would have provided critical funding to law enforcement to solve murders and other violent crimes. Republicans opposed it.

Now that they are in the Majority, Republicans have called for abolishing or defunding the ATF, and they have repeatedly attacked the FBI and the Department of Justice through endless, conspiracy-focused hearings and closed-door investigations that border on harassment.  

It is Republicans who oppose sensible gun safety legislation that would curb the flow of illegal guns and stem the tide of gun violence in America. 

It has only been a week since the latest school shooting, in which a teenager used an AR-15 to take the lives of two students and two teachers at a school in Apalachee, Georgia—a place where students, parents, and teachers have a right to expect that they will be protected. 

Republicans have made protection of deadly assault weapons a top priority this Congress over the protection of students, yet they have the audacity to claim that it is Democrats who are soft on crime?

Democrats have focused on actual legislation and policies that keep Americans safe. Democrats are keeping guns out of the wrong hands, addressing the root causes of violence, and investing in law enforcement.  House Democrats have secured substantially more money for public safety investments in their districts, such as hiring police officers, than House Republicans have secured—in some cases as much as 15 times more. This disparity should tell us which party is more focused on public safety and which is soft-on-crime.

The data also shows us that criminal justice reform policies work.  In 2018, both parties were able to unify behind the First Step Act—a comprehensive sentencing reform package that gave federal inmates the opportunity to earn time off their sentences for completing productive courses designed to prevent them from reoffending.  

That legislation has been a resounding success, as the recidivism rate for inmates released early under the First Step Act is far lower that that of other inmates.  And in the cities in this country that have enacted bail reform by reducing or eliminating the use of cash bail systems, study after study has shown that the reforms have not led to an increase in crime.

Of course, no crime prevention or reform strategy is perfect, and there will always be individuals who slip through the cracks and continue to the break the law.  That is what happened with the individual who snatched Ms. Keifer’s purse in 2008, when he was in the Back on Track Program in San Francisco. 

But when then-District Attorney Harris discovered that the program had mistakenly admitted undocumented immigrants who were not eligible for jobs in the United States, she quickly closed that loophole. What the Majority won’t tell you is that the person who took Ms. Keifer’s purse is the only undocumented person who was admitted into the program and failed to successfully complete it.

Instead, my Republican colleagues paint all immigrants with the same broad brush as the ones who break the law—this week going so far as to make up fake and preposterous crimes that they claim immigrants are committing, such as killing and eating pets.  Not only is this sort of demonization of immigrants dangerous, but it flies in the face of the data, which tells us that U.S.-born citizens are nearly twice as likely to be arrested for violent crimes as those who are in the country illegally.

That is why we do not legislate by anecdote. While it is important to hear from crime victims and other impacted persons, we must focus our policymaking on current data and on verifiable trends.  

We must also focus on what we know works to combat crime—a combination of accountability and prevention that addresses not just punishment but also the root causes of crime, such as poverty, drug addiction, and structural inequalities.

When and if my Republican colleagues are willing to have serious conversations about criminal justice policy, as we did when we passed the First Step Act in 2018 and the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act last Congress, I will happily join them.  But this hearing is nothing more than a campaign ad.  I do not endorse this message.

Thank you, and I yield back."