Skip to content

By: Jeff Mordock of the Washington Times

The ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee Thursday called for Chairman Jerrold L. Nadler to hold a “minority day of hearings,” which would allow Republicans to call their own witnesses to testify before the panel.

Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia sent a letter to Mr. Nadler, New York Democrat, saying congressional rules require a hearing with witnesses held by the minority party ahead of drafting articles of impeachment.

“The requested minority hearing day must take place before articles of impeachment are considered by the committee,” Mr. Collins wrote citing a House rule he described as “clear and unequivocal.”

On Wednesday, the House Judiciary Committee held its first impeachment hearing. During the hearing Mr. Collins and Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, Wisconsin Republican, both urged the panel to schedule a minority day of hearings.

“Where is fairness? It was promised. It is not being delivered,” Mr. Collins said.

Mr. Nadler, New York Democrat, tabled the request for a later day. He concluded the hearing Wednesday saying he “looked forward” to discussing the Republican’s request.

Mr. Collins interrupted and told the chairman “there is nothing for you to review.” Mr. Nadler ignored the comment and started his closing remarks.

By: Craig Gilbert of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

WASHINGTON - It should come as no surprise that the first Republican voice to be heard at Wednesday’s House Judiciary hearing on impeachment was that of Wisconsin’s 41-year veteran of Congress, Jim Sensenbrenner.

Moments after the Judiciary chair, Democrat Jerry Nadler, began the lengthy hearing, Sensenbrenner interjected to demand a separate ‘“minority day” of hearings for witnesses called by Republicans.

Nadler said the request would be considered.  

Sensenbrenner was the first of many Republicans to register their objections to the impeachment process over the course of the hearing, which featured four constitutional scholars debating the meaning of “high crimes and misdemeanors” and whether President Donald Trump has committed impeachable acts.  

“I’m a veteran of impeachments. I’ve been named by the House as an impeachment manager in four impeachments: Clinton and three judges. That’s more than anybody else in history,” the Wisconsin Republican said when his regular five-minute turn to speak at the hearing arrived.   

Sensenbrenner, a past chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the longest-serving Republican in the House, has been a vocal critic of how Democrats have pursued the impeachment of Trump. He co-wrote an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal last month complaining that the current inquiry “is so fundamentally unfair that justice cannot be served.”

Sensenbrenner was one of the House impeachment managers named by Republicans in the impeachment case against Democrat Bill Clinton in 1998 and 1999.  

When his turn came up at Wednesday’s hearing, he assailed Democrats for tying “the country up for three months and going on four now, wrapping everybody in this town around the axle rod. … I think the American public are getting a little bit sick and tired of impeachment, impeachment, impeachment when they know less than year from now they will be able to determine whether Donald Trump stays in office or whether somebody else will get elected.”

Sensenbrenner suggested Trump’s July phone call with the Ukraine president, in which he asked for an investigation of Democrat Joe Biden, constituted less of a “quid pro quo” than when Biden as vice president held up Ukraine aid until that country’s top prosecutor was fired.

Sensenbrenner quoted Biden taking credit in a speech for threating to freeze the aid unless the prosecutor was fired within six hours and then bragging, “Well, (bleep), he got fired.”

Republicans who were in charge of Congress at the time Biden made that comment didn’t launch an impeachment inquiry into Biden, Sensenbrenner said, contrasting that with the Democrats’ inquiry into Trump over the Ukraine phone call.

But Biden’s public comments about the firing of the Ukraine prosecutor were actually made at a talk in early 2018, when he was no longer vice president.

And while Republicans have accused Biden of wanting to fire the Ukraine prosecutor to thwart a corruption investigation into a company tied to his son Hunter, there is little evidence for that. The firing of the prosecutor was widely supported in the international community and stemmed from concerns the prosecutor was too lax on corruption, not too aggressive, according to U.S. and Ukrainian officials.

By: Susan Ferrechio of the Washington Examiner

There are only a dozen days left in the 2019 House legislative calendar, and House Democrats are weighing whether to squeeze in an impeachment vote before they leave town for the year.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders who met privately with Democrats Wednesday did not discuss a date for considering articles of impeachment against President Trump, who they accuse of abusing his office and obstructing Congress.

“There were no dates discussed,” Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland told reporters Wednesday. “The speaker has said, I've said, others have said, we want to do this as expeditiously as possible.”

Behind the scenes, Democrats are weighing a Judiciary Committee vote next week on a handful of impeachment articles pertaining to their allegations that Trump tried to bribe Ukrainian government officials into investigating Joe Biden and the Democrats.

The articles would also charge Trump with obstructing Congress for refusing Democratic demands for witnesses and documents.

In the closed-door briefing Wednesday, Pelosi cautioned Democrats to “give room for their colleagues to reach their own conclusions as the inquiry proceeds,” a top aide said.

The caucus, however, did not reach any group conclusion on whether to move forward with impeachment, but rather, “members overwhelmingly indicated that they want to continue to advance the inquiry on its current deliberative path, one step at a time.”

Next week, the Intelligence Committee lawyers from both parties will testify before the Judiciary Committee about the 300-page impeachment report Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff released Tuesday. Democrats could take up the articles next week, leaving open the possibility of a floor vote before Dec. 20.

Democrats deny they are aiming for a vote this month.

“We are not focused on any timeline, other than to get this right, keep it fair, and make sure our election is secure,” Rep. Eric Swalwell of California said Wednesday.

Swalwell and other lawmakers participated in a public Judiciary Committee hearing on impeachment featuring constitutional scholars.

Democrats said they are still not ready to endorse or reject impeachment, which Schiff has already declared will be a group decision.

“We need to finish this hearing, see all of that evidence from the report,” Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington state, a member of the Judiciary Committee, said Wednesday. “I’d like to see if the president is going to come and testify. There is a few more things we need to get on the table before we can make that decision.”

The Judiciary Committee consideration of impeachment articles could take days.

The Judiciary Committee took three days to mark up articles impeaching President Bill Clinton in 1998 and six days to mark up articles impeaching President Richard Nixon in 1974.

Democrats, meanwhile, plan an ambitious legislative agenda over the next few weeks that includes a voting rights bill, a prescription drug measure, and critical spending legislation that must pass before a Dec. 20 deadline. Each of those measures will take considerable floor time.

The schedule has left some GOP lawmakers skeptical Democrats can get it all done and impeach the president by the Dec. 20 target adjournment date.

“They could do it, but I don’t think they are going to,” Rep. Mark Meadows told the Washington Examiner when asked about a pre-Christmas impeachment vote.

House Democrats are facing stagnant impeachment poll numbers that may motivate them to move off the matter as quickly as possible.

Rep. Donna Shalala of Florida, who flipped a GOP district in 2018, told the Washington Examiner Wednesday not one constituent raised impeachment during a Thanksgiving week town hall. Instead, they wanted to talk about healthcare, infrastructure, and gun safety.

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, who helped run the Clinton impeachment process, accused Democrats of dragging out the Trump investigation for months and consuming the House agenda.

The investigation technically began in the Judiciary Committee in July, when Nadler declared he was holding impeachment proceedings, although Pelosi did not endorse them until the end of September.

“The American public is getting sick and tired of impeachment, impeachment, impeachment, when they know a year from now they will be able to determine whether Donald Trump should remain in office or someone else should be elected,” Sensenbrenner said.

By: Benjamin Siegel of ABC News

Some of President Donald Trump’s fiercest critics and defenders on Capitol Hill return to the spotlight Wednesday as the House Judiciary Committee holds its first hearing in the Ukraine impeachment inquiry.

On Wednesday morning, the panel will hear testimony from constitutional scholars just hours after the House Intelligence Committee released its report Tuesday evening into whether Trump improperly ordered military aid to Ukraine withheld to pressure the country to launch investigations against a potential 2020 political rival.

Led by Democrat Jerry Nadler of New York, the committee is also responsible for drafting and approving any articles of impeachment against Trump, which some Democrats have suggested could include charges focused on bribery, obstruction of justice and obstruction of Congress.

The House Judiciary Committee is much more contentious

Unlike the House Intelligence Committee, a historically buttoned-up panel that has traditionally conducted its oversight of the intelligence community quietly and in a bipartisan fashion, the 41-member Judiciary Committee is one of the oldest and largest in the House, and tends to attract sharp-elbowed lawyers, former prosecutors and passionate advocates because of its sprawling jurisdiction over the justice system, immigration, federal and criminal law.

A mix of party leaders, junior lawmakers, and partisans from both sides of the aisle, the Judiciary Committee also includes some of the most prominent defenders and critics of the president on Capitol Hill.

Members to watch

Trump confidants such as Republican Reps. Matt Gaetz of Florida, who led a Republican protest in the closed-door SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility) and disrupted the Intelligence Committee’s work in October, and Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas, who has accused Democrats of waging a “coup” against the president, are both members of the committee, and will take part in questioning of any witnesses moving forward.

For the majority, Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., a constitutional law professor-turned-Trump critic who has helped craft the party’s messaging on impeachment, and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., the chair of the Democratic caucus and potential successor to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, are among the Democrats to watch.

The Judiciary Committee also includes veterans of past impeachment efforts, including GOP Reps. Steve Chabot of Ohio and Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, who were House mangers in the Senate trial in President Bill Clinton’s impeachment, and Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., who was a committee staffer during Watergate.

Four members of the committee will be familiar faces to viewers of the Intelligence Committee’s hearings: Democratic Reps. Eric Swalwell of California and Val Demmings of Florida, along with Republican Reps. Jim Jordan of Ohio and John Ratcliffe of Texas who serve on both panels.

Democrats plan keep the hearing focused on the details of the Ukraine impeachment investigation, and whether they meet the constitutional threshold of bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors.

Nadler under pressure to keep hearing under control

After Schiff led two weeks of tightly-controlled hearings, many hope Nadler will be able to keep the hearing on track, and prevent the session from resembling the combative hearing with Corey Lewandowski, Trump’s former campaign manager, earlier this year, before the Ukraine matter exploded into public view.

Republicans, for their part, have accused Democrats of running an investigation that has denied Trump due process and the ability to question fact witnesses to events at the center of the impeachment inquiry. Using parliamentary inquiries and points of order, they could seek to fluster Democrats and air their concerns about the proceedings.

The White House has rejected Democrats’ offer to participate in Wednesday’s hearing, but has not ruled out taking part in subsequent hearings.

“We're back, by the way, in rerun season here in the Judiciary Committee. We've already had constitutional scholars in the committee talking about from the Mueller report and others,” Rep. Doug Collins, R-Georgia, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said on “Fox News Sunday” this past weekend, referring to the committee’s earlier hearings on the investigation by former special counsel Robert Mueller.

“This is a complete American waste of time,” Collins said, foreshadowing the kind of attacks he and other republicans can be expected to stage when the hearing gets underway.

Schiff, meanwhile, says his committee will not let up.

“Even while Judiciary does its work, we will continue investigating.” he said on MSNBC Monday night.

He did not tip his hand on the timing of any impeachment vote, but said Democrats believe the matter has some “urgency.”

“This is a threat to the integrity of the upcoming election, and we don’t feel that it should wait.”

He also said he believes the evidence of obstruction of Congress is “overwhelming.”

What are the witnesses expected to say?

The Judiciary Committee will hear from three constitutional experts called by Democrats and one by Republicans.

The GOP’s witness, George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley, recently wrote in The Hill:

“House Democrats have done a masterful job of holding hearings with testimony from distinguished diplomatic and national security witnesses on the alleged quid pro quo that President Trump sought from Ukraine. The problem is that the record is incomplete and conflicted on critical points. The question is whether Democrats want a real or a recreational impeachment. A real impeachment case can be made, but to make it, they will have to reschedule, reframe, and repeat their House investigation. As compelling and upsetting as much of the testimony has been, the record still lacks direct evidence of a quid pro quo on American military aid to Ukraine," Turley wrote.

Testifying for the Democrats, Noah Feldman, a professor at Harvard Law School, recently wrote in The New York Times: “To be sure, Donald Trump had already created a crisis in the presidency by abusing the power of his office to pressure foreign governments to investigate his political rival Joe Biden. But that act on its own didn’t count as a constitutional crisis, because the Constitution prescribes an answer to presidential abuse of office: impeachment.

“Now that President Trump has announced — via a letter signed by Pat Cipollone, the White House counsel — that he will not cooperate in any way with the impeachment inquiry begun in the House of Representatives, we no longer have just a crisis of the presidency. We also have a breakdown in the fundamental structure of government under the Constitution. That counts as a constitutional crisis,” Feldman said,

Another Democratic witness, Michael Gerhardt a professor at the University of North Carolina School of Law, wrote in The Atlantic:

“If you add up the nonsense that the president’s defenders have proliferated and his protestation that the Constitution allows him to do whatever he wants, their proposed result is disturbing: an executive who can shut down an impeachment inquiry and protect from disclosure anything done by anyone in the executive branch, and who is immune to criminal investigation and allowed to defy subpoenas.

“This is not the president our Constitution established. He would be a king, in spite of the fact that the Founders’ generation rebelled against one. They set out to create a presidency that was accountable to Congress if the occupant abused power and breached the public’s trust. Donald Trump’s efforts to delegitimize the impeachment inquiry destroy their vision,” Gerhardt wrote.

The third Democratic witness is Pamela Khan, a professor at Stanford Law School.

By: Victor Jacobo of CBS 58

MADISON, Wis. (CBS 58) – Democrats expressed disappointment in the lack of action on gun violence following a school shooting in Waukesha South High School.

“My heart is with the students, educators, and staff of Waukesha South High School and the entire Waukesha community as they mourn and endure the trauma of today’s shooting,” Gov. Tony Evers said in a statement. Evers added gratitude for the action of educators and first responders who worked quickly to keep students safe.

Evers continued, “Today is a grim reminder that this can happen anywhere, but I do not accept—nor should we accept—that this is an inevitable reality for our kids, our communities, our state, or our country.”

The governor hinted at the need to address the issue in the State Capitol, something he has tried to do recently.

In November, a Special Session called by Evers ended almost as soon as it began as republican leadership, including Assembly Speaker Robin Vos and Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald refused to take up a pair of bills on gun safety up for debate or a vote.

It’s unclear as of now whether or not those bills would have prevented Monday’s incident at Waukesha South.

Other officials were more explicit in their call for action.

“Lawmakers have an obligation to do everything possible to ensure people feel safe where they attend school, work, and events in their community,” Assembly Minority Leader Gordon Hintz said in a statement. “People in every corner of the state have voiced these fears to their elected officials and are looking to their leaders to act.”

Hintz ended his statement saying, “While there are no easy solutions to end gun violence, we cannot continue to sit back and do nothing. We will continue to pursue common sense gun safety measures to lower these incidents of violence moving forward.”

Republicans expressed gratitude for the work of first responders and educators.

“I commend the students, school personnel, and first responders at Waukesha South for their swift response to today’s incident,” said Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R – WI 5th).

GOP Senator Ron Johnson said that he was, “Thankful for the swift response at Waukesha South High School this morning. My thoughts are with the entire Waukesha community.”

By: Brad Evans of WISN12

Police say a police officer shot an armed student at Waukesha South High School.

The shooting happened just before 10 a.m. Monday.

Students were dismissed after they were placed under a lockdown.

School officials told parents the shooting happened after a police officer confronted a 17-year-old boy after receiving information the student was armed with a gun in the school.

Police said the student would not remove his hands from his pants pocket.

They said the suspect removed a gun from his waistband and pointed it at the officer.

The officer ordered the student to drop the gun before the shots were fired, police said.

Witnesses told WISN 12 News they heard at least three shots fired.

Administrators said the confrontation was isolated to one classroom.

Police Chief Russell Jack said multiple officers responded to the classroom.

The school resource officer was present but did not fire the shots.

Some students reported hiding in closets and under desks.

News Chopper 12's Matt Salemme said he saw at least 17 police cruisers at the scene on East Roberta Avenue.

Waukesha police called the response a "critical incident."

"The building is safe and secure," police tweeted. "The suspect is in custody."

Officers said it was an "isolated incident" and they were not seeking any other suspects.

"We are in the investigative stage right now as the scene is stabilized," police tweeted.

Investigators have not said how many shots were fired.

The suspect was taken to a hospital, where he was listed in stable condition.

It's not clear how serious his injuries were.

No officers were injured.

"The safety and security of all students and staff are a top priority," school officials said.

Police said the officer was an 11-year veteran of the department.

According to the Waukesha South High School website, the school resource officer is Josh Tyndall.

The names of the student and officer who fired the shots have not yet been released.

Greenfield police will lead the investigation, with the assistance of the Milwaukee police.

Superintendent Todd Gray called the shooting his "worst nightmare."

The Milwaukee County Medical Examiner's Office said it was not called to the school or hospital.

U.S. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner commended students, school officials and first responders and said he was monitoring the situation.

No other details were immediately available.

Washington, D.C.—Today, Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (WI-05) offered the following statement after a school resource officer at Waukesha South High School responded to a potential threat:

“I commend the students, school personnel, and first responders at Waukesha South for their swift response to today’s incident. I will continue monitoring the situation as details are released and encourage anyone with information to contact the Waukesha Police Department.”

By: Amy Dupont of FOX6

WAUKESHA -- An officer shot a 17-year-old male student who was armed on Monday morning, Dec. 2 in a classroom at Waukesha South High School.

Waukesha Police Chief Russell Jack spoke with the media and indicated around 10:15 a.m., a student at the school reported that another student brought a handgun to school -- and was in possession of it. A student resource officer (SRO) immediately responded to the classroom where the armed student was located.

Police said the SRO made efforts to secure the classroom by getting the other students to safety. Other Waukesha officers also responded to the school.

Officers spoke with the student to de-escalate the situation, but Chief Jack said the student would not remove his hands from his pockets -- and ignored officers' commands. At one point, the student removed the handgun from his waistband and pointed it at officers. An officer was forced to discharge his firearm -- striking the student. Life-saving efforts were immediately put into action -- and the remaining students were evacuated from the school. Chief Jack said a firearm was recovered.

The 17-year-old was taken to the hospital -- and listed in stable condition.

The officer who fired his service weapon is an 11-year veteran of the Waukesha Police Department. Neither he nor any other officers or students were injured in this incident.

"This is clearly a superintendent's worst nightmare," said Waukesha Schools Superintendent Todd Gray. "We are very grateful for the response of the South High School SRO, the Waukesha Police Department, and the Waukesha County Sheriff's Department."

"For the citizens of Waukesha, I know this was a terrifying day for many students and parents," said Waukesha Mayor Shawn Reilly.

Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner offered the following statement on this matter:

"I commend the students, school personnel, and first responders at Waukesha South for their swift response to today’s incident. I will continue monitoring the situation as details are released and encourage anyone with information to contact the Waukesha Police Department."

Governor Tony Evers issued this statement:

“My heart is with the students, educators, and staff of Waukesha South High School and the entire Waukesha community as they mourn and endure the trauma of today’s shooting. I am grateful for our educators and first responders who worked quickly to keep our kids safe and ensure no one else was injured."

"We are continuing to learn more details about the situation this morning, but what I can say is it's gut-wrenching that our kids wondered whether this was a drill or it was real—our kids shouldn't have to fear for their life in our classrooms or at school, and no parent should have to send their kid off to school in the morning worrying about whether or not they’ll come home."

"Wisconsinites believe in helping each other in times of need, so I know we will come together to do everything we can to support the Waukesha community as they begin to heal. Today is a grim reminder that this can happen anywhere, but I do not accept—nor should we accept—that this is an inevitable reality for our kids, our communities, our state, or our country.”

Attorney General Josh Kaul issued this statement:

“No student should have to go through a day like the one that students at Waukesha South went through today. And no parent should have to go through a day like the one those students’ parents had today."

“My thoughts are with the Waukesha community and the Waukesha School District. Our Office of School Safety has reached out to offer assistance to the school district."

“A school resource officer and first responders helped prevent this event from potentially becoming even more tragic than it was. We thank them for their bravery and their service.”

Wisconsin Superintendent of Public Instruction Carolyn Stanford Taylor issued this statement:

“Ensuring the safety and security of our students and staff is the highest priority. The quick response today by law enforcement and staff at Waukesha South High School protected the school community. As state superintendent, I am committed to working with all our school districts to provide them the resources and supports they need to have safe and supportive environments in all our schools.”

By: Jack Rodgers of Courthouse News Service

WASHINGTON (CN) — The impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump will play out on a new stage next week, as the House Judiciary Committee said Tuesday it will hold its first public hearing in the probe.

Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., wrote in a two-page letter addressed to the president that the Dec. 4 hearing will be consistent with rules used in the Clinton and Nixon impeachments. Nadler also invited the president to attend next week’s hearings, in accordance with the House’s impeachment inquiry resolution.

“I write to ask if …you and your counsel plan to attend the hearing or make a request to question the witness panel,” the letter states. “If you would like to participate in the hearing, please provide the Committee with notice as soon as possible, but no later than by 6:00 pm on December 1, 2019.”

Nadler wrote that he “remains committed to ensuring a fair and informative process,” but noted invitations for a president to attend impeachment hearings are only a courtesy, not a right.

The House Intelligence Committee recently completed two weeks of public hearings into accusations of presidential misconduct by Trump, specifically over a July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in which Trump pressured Ukraine to announce an investigation of former Vice President Joe Biden and the 2016 presidential election. Biden is seen as Trump’s likely opponent in the 2020 election.

The inquiry began with a whistleblower complaint reported directly to Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff, D-Calif.

Schiff said Monday that lawmakers on his committee will soon issue a report on evidence gathered so far, working through the Thanksgiving holiday to do so.

“Fundamentally, the question that Americans who watched the hearings must ask themselves is: Are the president’s actions compatible with the office of the presidency?” Schiff wrote in his message. “All members of the House will have to examine their conscience and their constitutional duty and decide.”

In a statement Tuesday, Nadler said Trump has a choice to make in the impeachment proceedings.

“He can take this opportunity to be represented in the impeachment hearings, or he can stop complaining about the process. I hope that he chooses to participate in the inquiry, directly or through counsel, as other Presidents have done before him,” he said.

Nadler’s letter states that the continued refusal to produce documents and preventing witnesses from testifying to the House committees helming the inquiry will have consequences.

If the administration continues to stonewall the House, “the chair shall have the discretion to impose appropriate remedies,” the letter states.

Brian Kalt, a law professor at Michigan State University, said he thinks the Judiciary Committee will work on putting all the information dumped on it by the Intelligence Committee into context. Hesaid the committee will try to decide what constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor and hear from both sides, rather than go straight to a committee vote on impeachment.

“Personally, I think that works out better than having the president rely on his proxies from the committee, although the president might be happy to leave it to those people,” Kalt said.

Kalt noted that Republican Congressmen Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin and Steve Chabot of Ohio both presented evidence against Bill Clinton in his 1998 Senate trial. They were appointed as managers to argue the case in those proceedings.

Lawmakers from that impeachment saga will flip-flop, Kalt predicted, noting that South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham – a staunch defender of Trump – argued during Clinton’s trial that a crime was not required for impeachment.

“We’re going to have some colorful exchanges here. They tend to appoint less moderate people to Judiciary, more ideological,” Kalt said. “There are some people we can expect to hear some interesting things from.”

Washington D.C. – Today, Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and Congresswoman Robin Kelly (D-IL) introduced the Gunfire Detection and Location Technology Act.

The legislation would direct the U.S. Attorney General to provide grants to states and localities for gunfire detection and location technology. Specifically, it would authorize $40 million in grants to be distributed in equal parts over the coming four fiscal years.

“Gunfire detection technology has proven to be successful in many cities across the U.S., including in my home state of Wisconsin. It’s time we empower law enforcement officers in other locations to implement this technology so they may better protect their communities,” said Congressman Sensenbrenner. “This bipartisan bill will help bring modern solutions to some of the longstanding challenges facing violence-plagued areas, and I’m grateful to Congresswoman Kelly for her leadership and cooperation on this effort.”

“As we work to prevent gun violence, we can and must use technology to equip first responders with the resources to respond more quickly in service of victims and investigations. This bipartisan measure will help cities and states adopt this powerful technology that is yielding positive results in our efforts to reduce gun violence and violent crime,” said Congresswoman Robin Kelly. “I thank Congressman Sensenbrenner for his support of this measure and his long history of working across the aisle to advance the best policies and innovations in serve to our communities.”

Background:
A network of sensors is used to detect gunshots, many of which are unreported to 911 dispatchers. Once a gunshot is detected, the technology triangulates the origin and notifies law enforcement with real-time data. This increase response time allowing for speedier access to victims and rapid securing of the crime scene. Additionally, the data can be used, via a secure database, for predictive intelligence, which further improves response times and resource allocation.

This technology is already used by more than 100 cities, including Chicago, Milwaukee and New York City. According to a report, the city of Milwaukee has seen a 38 percent decrease in the amount of gunshots fired in areas where this technology was used from 2017 to 2018 showing that its use can act as a deterrent.