Full Debate: Jamie Raskin Shuts Down Republicans In Heated House Clash Over 'Truly Strange' GOP Bill

[0:00] I rise today in strong opposition to the Keeping Violent Offenders Off of Our Streets Act, [0:05] which is a truly strange bill. The bill, first of all, refers to violent offenders, but [0:14] it's unclear exactly why it applies to all offenders, was when President Trump en masse [0:20] pardoned more than 1,500 convicted felons who were Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, Rioters, [0:29] insurrectionists who assaulted 150 police officers right here on the Capitol campus. And departing [0:37] from the traditional process of examining each case individually, which is what the Department [0:44] of Justice has done in the pardon office, he just pardoned all of them. Thank you very much, [0:51] Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman is recognized. Mr. Harris, [0:56] thank you for your thoughtful remarks. I rise to support and I will vote for H.R. 5625, [1:03] the Cashless Bail Reporting Act, because it would simply direct the Attorney General to publish a [1:08] list of state and local jurisdictions that permit cashless bail. This is already publicly available [1:14] information. I just Googled it and the answer seemed to come up, but it would be good to have some [1:19] some perhaps professional refinement and certification that these are actually the numbers. Look, [1:27] National Police Week is typically an opportunity for us to bring meaningful legislation forward that [1:31] will support law enforcement and help them perform their critical life-saving duties because Congress [1:37] wants to support and to honor their work. I'm not quite sure that we are living up to this high [1:45] calling in this National Police Week. This bill, for example, is unobjectionable, but it doesn't do much [1:53] work at all. It's hard to see how issuing a report advances community safety or justice. And given the [2:02] strangely hostile rhetoric we are hearing from our colleagues about cashless bail, I thought I'd take a [2:09] moment to talk about what bail is and what it's not. As the gentleman correctly states, [2:16] bail is not a mechanism for punishment. In America, everybody is innocent until proven guilty. Whether [2:24] you are the President, the Pope, or a pauper, you are considered innocent and presumed to be innocent [2:32] until you've been proven guilty in a court of law, observing due process by a jury of your peers, [2:38] beyond a reasonable doubt, with the prosecution satisfying every element of the burden of proof. [2:45] So people have a right to their freedom while they're preparing to stand trial for, among other [2:52] reasons, to get ready for trial, unless they are a flight risk or unless they pose a danger to themselves [3:00] or to other people. That's basically the rule, as I understand it. In fact, that's the rule we've been [3:08] using in the federal system for more than 60 years. We have a cashless bail system under Congress in the [3:18] federal courts. There are 94 federal district courts all across America operating in red states, blue states, [3:25] purple states, everything in between. They all use a cashless bail system. So when a person is brought [3:33] forward on an arraignment before the court, and those of us who have practiced law or been prosecutors [3:41] know this process in a very familiar way. The court asks one simple question, which is, is this person [3:48] a flight risk or do they pose a danger to themselves? They could be the richest person in the world, [3:55] but if they're a flight risk, as for example some of the Epstein defendants clearly are, these are [4:00] globetrotting criminal defendants. It shouldn't make any difference how much money you have to pay [4:09] for bail. The money should be irrelevant to it. And conversely, if you're not a flight risk, if you're [4:17] not a danger to the community, but you're a pauper and you have no money, you should not be held simply [4:23] because you can't pay $5,000 or whatever the bail is. So somebody might be able to put up a million [4:30] dollars or a billion dollars. But if they're going to abscond, if they're going to run away, [4:35] they should be held. And so that's the federal system. Money doesn't enter into it. And to my [4:41] knowledge, I don't think there are any bills out there, my staff will correct me, that seek to [4:47] overthrow the federal bail system, which is a cashless system. I don't know of a single candidate in America [4:54] who's running for Congress on the premise we need to overthrow the cashless federal bail system, [5:00] which is working great everywhere. Okay, so now cash bail is a billion-dollar for-profit industry. [5:13] Who makes money off of that? The bail bondsmen make money off of it. And they are very politically [5:19] active. And they don't want to see any change. They don't want to see the federal system being adopted [5:25] by states and jurisdictions around the country. A cash bail system asks a different question. Doesn't [5:33] focus on are you dangerous? Are you a flight risk? It focuses on can you pay? Can you pay? And from the [5:40] standpoint of the federal system, that's an irrational, arbitrary issue that just confuses [5:47] the question of why a person who's presumed to be innocent but now facing serious criminal charges [5:54] should be held in jail during the pendency of their trial, waiting for the trial to take place. [6:03] So I don't know why I'm surprised that there are members of Congress who are demonizing jurisdictions [6:10] simply because they prefer to employ a policy that exactly mirrors federal law. To say that that's [6:17] somehow soft on crime strikes me as just bizarre, unless the entire federal system is soft on crime [6:25] because of the system that we've used. And so I am not in any way afraid of or intolerant of this debate. [6:34] I think we should have the debate. And, you know, to the extent this bill is just asking DOJ to compile [6:40] information that's already publicly available, fine with me. I'm going to vote for it. And indeed, [6:47] nothing currently prevents the Attorney General from compiling and publishing this information [6:53] right now. Because of the miracles of artificial intelligence, it seems to be pretty quickly, [6:59] readily available. I think I got it in less than one second. But this bill could help to officially [7:04] coordinate the collection of this information and ensure that it's reported accurately. So I plan to [7:10] vote for it and I reserve the balance of my time. From Maryland reserves, a gentleman from New [7:15] North Carolina is recognized. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the support of this bill by the ranking member and [7:22] of our committee and what he has shared. And at this time, I would like to yield four minutes to the [7:29] gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Edwards. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for four minutes. [7:34] Thank you, Mr. Harris. I appreciate you bringing this important legislation forward. Mr. Speaker, [7:41] public safety should never take a backseat to politics. That's why I rise today in support of the [7:47] Cashless Bail Reporting Act. This legislation brings transparency and accountability to jurisdictions [7:53] that release individuals charged with serious violent crimes without requiring bail. The American [8:01] people deserve to know where dangerous offenders accused of crimes like murder, rape, robbery, carjacking, [8:07] rioting, and assault are being released back into communities before trial on unsecured bond or [8:14] personal recognizance. We've seen the devastating consequences of these failed policies. In [8:21] Charlotte, Irena Zaruska was tragically murdered by an individual who had been released on a cashless bail [8:29] despite a violent criminal history. I joined my colleagues for a hearing in Charlotte to meet with [8:35] families who've lost loved ones at the hands of repeat offenders. Their stories are truly heartbreaking [8:42] and their message was clear. Enough is enough. We must stand with victims, support law enforcement, [8:49] and put public safety first. And with that, I yield back. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman [8:54] from North Carolina. Preserve the balance. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized. Mr. Speaker, [8:58] thank you. I yield two minutes to the very distinguished general lady from Georgia who is the ranking member [9:04] of the House Subcommittee on Crimes Under Judiciary. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for two minutes. [9:09] Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you so much to the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. [9:13] I rise in support of H.R. 5625, the Cashless Bail Reporting Act. This bill directs the Attorney General [9:22] to put together a public list of every state and local court that allows cashless bail. And while I [9:30] think that this bill doesn't actually do very much, I hope that its passage will help to at least cut [9:36] through some of the red tape and the partisan rhetoric and the fear mongering that we keep hearing about [9:43] cashless bail. You know, the system of bail that is used in our federal courts and this body actually [9:51] has the jurisdiction over it. So I just want to reiterate over and over again that public safety is [9:57] not a red or a blue issue and we need to stop making it that way. It is an American issue that affects [10:05] everyone here. Yet we've got to remember that the United States Constitution leaves it directly to [10:12] the states. And we all the time talk about states' rights. My colleagues across the aisle, [10:18] Republican colleagues, talk about, you know, giving more responsibility to the states to make the [10:24] decisions for their constituents. Well, if we're talking about states' rights, the Constitution does leave [10:31] it to the states to decide issues of public safety, including how the courts should operate. States [10:40] are grappling with these issues every single day. And in my home state of Georgia, Republican politicians, [10:47] they just reversed course on a whole slate of reforms that they ushered in by Republicans in the [10:57] state legislature just a few years ago. And they didn't need Congress here. They didn't need our flip-flopping [11:04] on that. They very well did it on their own. But since this bill does nothing more than just tell the [11:11] Attorney General to publish a list of information that already has been publicly made and available, [11:17] I will support it. I just hope that the final product will be put to good use and I yield. [11:21] The gentleman from Maryland reserves, the gentleman from North Carolina is recognized. [11:27] Mr. Speaker, I yield five minutes to my colleague from North Carolina, Mr. Moore. [11:33] The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for five minutes. [11:37] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You know, this week is police week and I think our law enforcement [11:43] officers would agree that public safety should not be a partisan issue. But what we have seen around the [11:48] country are leftist judges and DAs who are pushing policies that put criminals back on the streets and [11:54] take tools away from law enforcement. And one of the ways that happens is through cashless bail. [11:59] I was an attorney for 30 years and I practiced all levels of court including criminal practice. And I've [12:06] seen in particularly in certain areas in my home state and other areas around the country where violent [12:14] criminals are released on either very low bail or in sometimes cashless bail. As Mr. Harris pointed out, [12:21] you had the tragic situation of Irina Zarutska who was brutally murdered on the light rail there in [12:28] Charlotte. And she would be alive today had that criminal been in jail. He'd been released over and [12:34] over and over again. You know, the cashless bail reporting act that we're debating today at least [12:40] creates a list of jurisdictions that release individuals accused of serious offenses like murder, [12:47] rape, carjacking without requiring cash bail. Now, I do think that the ranking member's assessment of [12:53] bail, I would not disagree with the gentleman's assertion of how bail is set up. But I would submit, [13:00] and perhaps the gentleman would agree with me, that there are instances where the courts simply are [13:05] getting it wrong and someone with common sense to look and say, why was this guy released on the street? [13:11] The seriousness of the underlying crime, the criminal record. When you see someone who's been through the [13:15] courts over and over again, and when the crimes get more serious every time, you know, it starts off [13:21] with maybe just stealing, then it goes to robbery, then it goes to assault, then it involves a weapon. [13:28] Why in the world would that person be released on a cashless bail, let alone why would they not be held [13:33] in jail awaiting trial? Because here's what happens. You look at the statistics of the folks who commit crimes, [13:40] my state, sir, your state, other states, a lot of the crimes are committed by the same folks over and [13:46] over again. The statistics are out there showing the folks who go out and commit crimes while they [13:51] are awaiting trial on other charges. We have to rein this in, and we've seen situations around the [13:58] state, around the country where that hasn't happened. Look, I'll tell you, in our home state of North [14:03] Carolina, former Governor Roy Cooper actually released over 3,500 convicts to people who had already been [14:09] convicted, released them early from prison with lengthy criminal records. The stats are showing [14:14] of those folks released, most of them have re-offended since then. Look, the reality is there [14:19] are some people who are dangerous. They are criminals. They are going to rob, they're going to murder, [14:24] they're going to commit crimes, and they should be incarcerated. And what this bill does, at least, [14:29] this is going to shine a light, and I appreciate you doing this, Mr. Harris, this is going to shine a light [14:35] on those jurisdictions where the judges are just letting these violent criminals back out again. [14:41] But I hope a day will come. I hope a day will come when even folks who are on the left and where some [14:46] of this stuff is happening in these districts will realize it's not about left or right, because when [14:52] these criminals offend, they don't pick and choose who their victims are. And they often terrorize those [14:57] communities that least can afford to be done so. So I appreciate this work, and I tell you, we've got other [15:03] steps. There's a bill I'm supporting that would actually create liability in the case of gross [15:07] negligence when folks are released out on cashless bail. But I appreciate this and hope we pass it [15:13] without a yield back. The gentleman yields back, the gentleman from North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, [15:18] that is all the speakers. We're prepared to close. The gentleman from North Carolina Reserves, [15:23] the gentleman from Maryland is recognized. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. And I thank the [15:27] the gentleman for his thoughtful remarks there. We certainly don't want to see anybody being released [15:35] without regard to whether or not they pose a danger to the community or whether they will abscond and [15:41] disappear, right? A good example of that happening recently was when President Trump en masse pardoned [15:49] more than 1,500 convicted felons who were proud boys, oath keepers, rioters, insurrectionists, [15:58] who assaulted 150 police officers right here on the Capitol campus. And departing from the traditional [16:07] process of examining each case individually, which is what the Department of Justice has done in the [16:13] pardon office, he just pardoned all of them. So he didn't look to see which ones had been convicted [16:18] before of domestic violence, armed robbery, other forms of felony crimes. Some of them had no criminal [16:26] records. Some of them had serious violent criminal records. All of them were released. And what do you [16:31] know, dozens of them have since re-offended since that terrible process took place. One guy recently, [16:42] Andrew Paul Johnson in Georgia, was released by Donald Trump, pardoned by him, got out of jail, [16:49] and went and sexually assaulted two 12-year-olds. And when they and their families were about to go to [16:56] the police to report the crimes, he said, well, I'm about to get millions of dollars from Donald [17:01] Trump because I'm a J6-er. I'll split the money with you if you don't go in. Thankfully, they went [17:06] and they reported him to the police. He was prosecuted. He was just sentenced to life in prison. [17:10] But those two kids' lives are irrevocably altered because of the process that took place, [17:17] which was no process, which is I'm just going to go ahead and release everybody. [17:21] We've had other J6-ers who were pardoned by Donald Trump who have since been convicted of [17:30] offenses including domestic violence, violent assault, home invasion, and so on. So I could not [17:37] agree more with the point that people should not be getting out of jail or prison without any regard [17:43] to the danger that they pose to the community. Now, how does this all relate to bail? Well, [17:53] I hope we agree that nobody should be getting out of jail without regard or without the court taking [18:04] analysis of whether they're a flight risk or whether they pose a danger to the community. [18:09] That's what the focus should be. So certain jurisdictions have said, including the federal [18:15] system, that's all we need to know. You could be the richest person in the world. You could be worth [18:22] a billion dollars. It doesn't make any difference. If you're a flight risk, if you're a community danger, [18:27] we're not going to let you out. Conversely, you might be the poorest person in the world. But if you pose [18:36] no flight risk, if you pose no danger, then you should be allowed to be released because that is the [18:43] constitutional presumption, the presumption of innocence. So the injection of a financial payment [18:50] into the process just confuses the issue. Now, I'm not saying every state has got to follow what [18:56] the federal courts do and what we've done for more than 60 years. That's up to them. That's a question [19:01] of federalism. That's why I'm trying to prefigure where this whole inquiry leads. It looks like it's [19:08] leading to an attack on the states who want to do it the way the federal system has done it for more [19:14] than a half century. And I'm just raising the point that I think we should look very carefully before [19:22] we go down that road and we impose a different view on the states and some kind of straitjacket as to [19:31] their criminal justice policies that we don't accept for ourselves because the current system is working [19:36] great here. So I agree with the prior speaker. We don't want people getting out of jail for any [19:42] reason, whether it's bail or parole or a pardon from the president, without due consideration of [19:51] what the effects are going to be on the community. I am now prepared to offer... [19:59] Oh, you're waiting. Okay. Then we have no further speakers and we're prepared to close as well. [20:05] The gentleman is recognized. But I would just say I want to thank the gentleman for his bill. I'm [20:12] going to vote for his bill. More information is always better. I've got no problem with that. [20:18] The only thing I reject is the insinuation that the states that do it differently from the federal [20:26] system are somehow better than the states that do it in accord with the federal system. We've had [20:33] cashless bail at the federal level for many decades and our system zeros in on the critical criteria [20:40] of whether or not this criminally charged suspect poses a flight risk or a danger to the community. [20:48] And I hope that we can continue the conversation about what we can really do to advance and enhance [20:56] community safety. And I yield back. The gentleman from Maryland yields back. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized. [21:00] Mr. Speaker, I do thank the gentleman from Maryland for his support of this bill and for his statements [21:08] and do hope that we will be able to continue conversations. I would say in closing, Mr. Speaker, [21:14] how many more victims must there be before we act? Cashless bail policies have proven to be a disaster. [21:22] Soft on crime jurisdictions have released criminals on mere promises to reappear in court without [21:28] adequately considering the flight or safety risk they pose to those around them. And I believe the [21:35] American people would believe their enough is enough. The American people deserve to live in safety. [21:41] The American people deserve safe public transportation. The American people should not have to live with [21:47] the consequences of reckless bail policies. And it should not take brutal murders for these reforms to [21:54] happen. We must stop prioritizing ideology over safety. We must stop playing politics with bail policy. [22:02] And we must fight for a safer America regardless of state or locality. I urge all members to stand for [22:09] public safety and to support this bill. And with that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. [22:14] The gentleman yields back. All time for debate has expired pursuant to House Resolution 1275. The [22:20] previous question is ordered on the bill as amended. The question is on the engrossment and third reading [22:26] of the bill. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion, Chair, the ayes have it. Third reading. [22:33] The bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on. The yeas and nays are [23:01] requested. Those favoring the votes on the yeas and nays will rise. A sufficient number having arisen, [23:08] the yeas and nays are ordered pursuant to Clause 8 of Rule 20. Further proceedings on this question [23:13] will be postponed. For what purpose does the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Fitzgerald, [23:46] seek recognition? Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1275, I call up Bill H.R. 6260, [23:55] and I ask for its immediate consideration in the House. Clerk will report the title of the bill. [24:00] Union calendar number 521, H.R. 6260, a bill to amend Title 18, United States Code to prohibit fraud in [24:07] connection with posting bail. Pursuant to House Resolution 1275, the amendment in the nature of [24:14] substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary, Printed in the bill is adopted and the [24:23] bill as amended is considered red. The bill as amended shall be debated for one hour equally divided [24:31] and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee of Judiciary or their [24:38] respective designee. The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Fitzgerald, and the gentleman from Maryland, [24:44] Mr. Raskin, each control 30 minutes. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Fitzgerald. [24:51] Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days [24:56] in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 6260. [25:02] Without objection. I will yield myself as much time as I may consume. [25:08] The gentleman is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of H.R. 6260, [25:15] the Keeping Violent Offenders Off Our Streets Act. The bill defines the posting of cash bail by a [25:22] corporate, non-profit, or for-profit entity as engaged in the business of insurance, subjecting [25:30] them to federal insurance laws and our criminal fraud statute. The use of crowdsourcing for posting [25:38] bail has long been scrutinized by the courts now and as a way to disguise the true source of the funds. [25:46] That's because if there is little or no relationship between the defendant and no supplying the money, [25:54] the bail money provides no incentive to prevent or defend from simply fleeing the jurisdiction. [26:02] This is especially true if the money does not have to be paid back. But while crowdsourcing funds is [26:10] generally illegal, the use of charitable bail funds remains legal in most states. Charitable bail funds [26:16] generally flew under the radar until 2020 when George Floyd, the George Floyd riots caused revenues [26:24] to balloon thanks to solicitations from celebrities and some politicians. What used to be kind of a small [26:32] community-based organization that helped post bail for non-violent misdemeanors has grown into a [26:40] multi-million dollar industry. For example, the Minnesota Freedom Fund saw revenues increase [26:47] by 18,000% between 2019 and 2020. In a similar situation, the Bail Project saw its contributions [26:56] triple in 2020 to nearly $42 million. Perhaps more alarming, what was intended to help bail out low-level [27:03] non-violent protesters has instead been used to release violent felony offenders back into the streets with [27:10] no or little oversight. And in 2021, for example, the Minnesota Freedom Fund released a domestic abuser [27:19] back onto the street. Two weeks later, the man, George Howard, was charged with second-degree murder for a road [27:25] rage incident. Michael DeWitt of Louisville, Kentucky, was bailed out by the Bail Project in February of 2021 [27:34] after being arrested on multiple charges. Two months later, he was arrested for murder. Sean Michael Tillman, [27:42] three weeks after having bail paid by the Minnesota Freedom Fund, murdered a man at a light rail station [27:49] in St. Paul and is now serving life sentence for that crime. So, Mr. Speaker, the list kind of continues [27:57] to go on and on. And according to an investigation conducted by CNN in Hennepin County, Minnesota, [28:04] the Minnesota Freedom Fund has bailed out at least 65 defendants who are awaiting trial on felony charges [28:11] involving violence, physical threats, or sex crimes. Similarly, in Indiana, of the roughly 1,000 defendants [28:20] released on bail supplied by the Bail Project between 2019 and 2021, 24 percent had previously been charged [28:29] with a crime of violence and 35 percent were accused of felony charges and had a previous charge of at least [28:35] one crime of violence. And because these funds are crowdsourced, there's no incentive for the [28:43] defendants to show up for their court date. And guess what? Many of them don't. Again, according to the [28:50] network CNN, nearly 42 percent of roughly 500 defendants bailed out by the Minnesota Freedom Fund [28:56] later failed to appear at one or more court hearings between 2021 and 2022. Commercial bail companies, [29:04] by comparison, had a failure to appear rate of only 22 percent. So it's working in the private sector. [29:12] And during that same period, there are new numbers that demonstrate that this trend will continue. [29:19] This is why many states have begun regulating the use of charitable bail funds. Georgia, for example, [29:26] limits the amount of cash bonds a charitable bail fund can pay in a given year. Indiana prohibits the use of [29:34] charitable bail funds for posting bail for violent felony offenders. And unfortunately, state-by-state [29:41] patchwork is now developing and that will obviously not solve this problem. That's why we introduced the [29:49] Keeping Violent Offenders Off the Streets Act. This bill makes a small, a very small but important change [29:56] to our criminal code to define bail bonds as an insurance product. That's it. Thereby subjecting it [30:04] to the same federal background check and regulatory requirements as those of for-profit bail agencies [30:12] under the Federal Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1994. This change would also bring charitable [30:19] bail funds under state insurance regulation, giving states the ability to better scrutinize the use of [30:25] these funds. Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. This bill does not outlaw the use of charitable bail funds, [30:33] nor does it regulate the posting of cash bail by family and friends of the accused. This bill merely [30:39] says that if you are operating as a not-for-profit with the purpose of posting cash bail, you should be [30:47] subjected to the same regulation and oversight requirements as those operating as a for-profit [30:53] entity. This will bring needed oversight to organizations that for years have gone unregulated. While [31:00] ensuring accountability of these funds by subjecting them to federal insurance fraud statutes if they [31:06] misappropriate funds or misrepresent the use of these funds in any financial reports. I urge all members [31:15] to vote yes on the bill. I thank you and I reserve. Gentlemen of the reserves, gentlemen from Maryland. [31:22] Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Gentlemen from Maryland, [31:28] I rise today in strong opposition to the Keeping Violent Offenders Off of Our Streets Act, which is [31:35] a truly strange bill. The bill, first of all, refers to violent offenders, but it's unclear exactly why. [31:45] It applies to all offenders. But in any event, it would redefine the business of insurance to include [31:53] the posting of monetary bail, criminal bail bonds and federal immigration bail bonds. [32:00] It would accomplish this dramatic reclassification for the purposes of prosecuting and [32:09] punishing community bail funds as a form of criminal insurance fraud. Only in surreal MAGA Washington would [32:21] someone think to change the definition of insurance fraud to include the posting of bail and bail bonds. I can't [32:30] even begin to reconstruct the giant mental leaps that must have been used to get to this fallacy. [32:38] Well, this week is National Police Week. And as we do every year, we recognize and honor the men and women [32:43] who put their lives on the line for us to protect our communities. Our colleagues have vaguely and [32:50] inscrutably billed this legislation as pro-police, although they have yet to show how it would support the [32:57] police or address the articulated needs of police officers anywhere in the country. The true aim of [33:05] H.R. 6260, apparently, is to discourage and destroy not-for-profit bail funds that raise money for people [33:16] who cannot afford to pay bail for themselves. These groups try to address the basic injustice that results [33:23] when wealthy people can walk free while poor people are held in jail pending trial for no reason other [33:30] than their inability to pay. Which is why the federal system, as I was arguing in our last bill, eliminates [33:39] money from the equation entirely and says the only question is whether you present a flight risk or a [33:44] danger to the community. Now, my distinguished colleague, the author of the legislation, ties the [33:52] beginning of these bail funds, I think he said, to 2020 with the killing of George Floyd. Actually, [33:59] the history of these funds goes back a lot further than that. It really begins during the period of [34:07] abolitionism in the Civil War, when various people were being jailed for either assisting enslaved people [34:15] in the Underground Railroad or being arrested for their attempts to interfere with the Fugitive Slave Law. [34:23] But in any event, money was raised to get people out of jail for those purposes. [34:26] That lasted through the Civil War and it went into the Reconstruction period as well. [34:34] Because we know that the criminal justice system in the South was turned into an instrument of [34:41] incarceration and domination and reimposing a discipline on the freed slave population. And so that's [34:49] what they were using the criminal justice system for. And so people throughout the country were [34:54] raising money to try to get people out of jail to repurchase their hard-won freedom. But this process [35:02] of communities raising money to pay bail has persisted all the way through the 20th century and into the [35:08] 21st century. The ACLU did it. They created a bail fund for people swept up in the Palmer Raids and the Red [35:16] Scare and obscenity prosecutions for people who couldn't afford to get themselves out of jail. It was [35:23] critical to Reverend Martin Luther King and the SCLC and John Lewis and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating [35:31] Committee. Bail was raised. Bail money was raised to get people out of jail for often pretextual and [35:38] fraudulent arrests and incarceration throughout the South. It has continued to be used since then. It was [35:48] used during the anti-Vietnam War movement when bail money was raised to get people out of jail. Again, [35:55] in mass dragnet arrests without regard to what people themselves had done. It is being used today [36:03] in the LGBTQ community. And it's been used, as the gentleman references, in Minneapolis, where we saw [36:12] exactly what ICE was doing when they shot dead in broad daylight at point-blank range U.S. citizens, [36:20] Renee Good and Alex Preddy. So if they're willing to kill people, they're certainly [36:24] willing to rough them up, beat them up, and arrest them falsely. And yes, the people of Minneapolis, [36:30] to their great credit, came together to create funds to bail people out of jail when they were [36:35] mistreated by the police. So should we twist the law of insurance fraud into unrecognizable knots [36:47] in order to deter and destroy bail funds and to threaten people with felony convictions, like people [36:57] who go out and sell fraudulent insurance policies? It's hard to see why we should do that. And by the way, [37:04] it's not just those that you would put on the liberal or progressive side of civil movements in American [37:11] history. Because the exact same thing happens with anti-abortion protesters, with the pro-life movement. [37:18] You better check with the pro-life movement before you vote for this legislation, because they could [37:22] get swept up in it too. They've raised a lot of money for people who are willing to put themselves in the [37:29] way of a women's reproductive clinic, a health clinic. They consider those killing places. Obviously, [37:36] we have a profound disagreement about that. We believe that people have a constitutional right [37:40] to their own health care. But in any event, set that aside. These people are sincerely motivated in [37:45] what they're doing. And yes, they've raised money to bail people out of jail when they get arrested [37:51] for blockading abortion clinics. Now, should we describe that as a form of insurance fraud, [37:56] so it can be regulated? And then if somebody misstates something on a form or on a, you know, [38:03] a bail statement, they don't properly record it or whatever, suddenly the whole Orwellian dragnet [38:09] of the federal government can come down on them? And by the way, what's the federal interest in this [38:14] anyway? I mean, that's very hard to see. The original law creating a federal crime around interstate [38:24] insurance fraud was all based on the idea that the insurance has an interstate nexus because it's being [38:30] sold across state lines. But the vast majority of protests take place in one town, in one city. [38:38] Where is the interstate nexus that would even give us jurisdiction to adopt this dramatic expansion [38:46] of the law governing insurance fraud? I would love the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin [38:51] to illuminate where is the interstate nexus or character that justifies this dramatic enlargement [38:59] of law governing insurance fraud in the United States. So I understand that for some reason [39:10] inscrutable to me, they want to target basically the federal system of bail during police week. I don't [39:19] see what the connection is. But in any event, this is a this is a step way too far. I was willing to go [39:26] with the attorney general report out of deference to my friends. We will support the attorney general [39:32] report so we can get a clearer picture of what's going on. But to change insurance fraud law and policy [39:39] in America to target, when you think about it, a really noble and honorable practice used by both people [39:48] on the left, people on the right, people in between to support those who either deliberately engage [39:54] in civil disobedience or are falsely targeted by the police strikes me as a very bizarre thing to do [40:03] in a strange way to honor law enforcement week. I reserve. [40:07] Gentlemen reserves, gentlemen from Wisconsin. [40:10] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll just say a number of the issues that were raised by the ranking member [40:19] are issues that I thought we addressed in the committee. I've talked to a number of members [40:25] and some district attorneys, certainly prosecutors and public defenders. [40:30] Again, this is a situation where the sites are created. Donations pour in nationwide to fund some of [40:40] these, not only the crowdsource fund, but also additional dollars that, quite honestly, are very [40:49] difficult to track. So we thought that this would be a simple solution to it. I think there's enough [40:55] support for it. And we have no further speakers and I would simply yield back. [41:01] The gentleman reserve? [41:03] Reserve. [41:04] The gentleman reserve. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized. [41:06] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You know, another gigantic logical leap in this legislation just occurred [41:12] to me, which is that our friends are blaming the bail funds for this or that person getting out of jail. [41:23] Okay. They've skipped over a major step, which is the judges who are the ones who are actually [41:29] deciding whether or not someone poses a flight risk or a danger to the community. So if there's a judge [41:36] who's not doing their job, they shouldn't be on the court. They just shouldn't be there. [41:42] But as we've seen in the federal system, the vast majority, if not all of the judges, [41:46] can act and behave responsibly with respect to the essential criteria for deciding on bail, [41:53] which we know. So really what they're saying is, we like a for-profit system that benefits the [42:02] bail bondsmen all over America, because they make like 10%, it might be 15% now, I'm not sure, [42:07] 10% on all the bail posted, which means if you're a criminal defendant, you've shown you're not a [42:13] flight risk. You've shown you're not a danger to the community. You're not done yet in those [42:18] jurisdictions, in the cash jurisdictions. They want $10,000 from you. You don't have $10,000, [42:25] you get it from a bail bondsman, but you owe the bail bondsman $1,000. So the bail bondsman [42:33] essentially takes out $11,000 in the loan, gives you $10,000, you give it to the state, [42:39] and they pocket $1,000. This is extremely lucrative. There are a lot of very wealthy [42:46] bail bondsmen and women out there. Okay, so that means that it's the court that's responsible. [42:57] It's not the people who raised the money, but now they want to say, well, it's only the rich people [43:02] who should be able to make bail in the cash jurisdictions. Because if you're arrested, [43:07] if you're a pro-life protester, and you do civil disobedience in an abortion clinic, [43:12] that's your decision to make. I'm not going to say it's your First Amendment right. [43:16] It's not exactly a right, although you've been written into the FACE Act [43:23] for these purposes. But you decide to do it, you're willing to pay the consequences, [43:27] but you don't have the money. It means your political supporters can't raise money for you. [43:32] If you're participating in a peace protest, or a civil rights protest, but you happen not to be [43:38] rich enough to pay the bail yourself, they're trying to impede your ability to get money from [43:45] other people by threatening these bail funds, which are a venerable part of American society, [43:53] with insurance fraud charges. Well, that's amazing. All right, I'm going to yield a minute to my friend [44:01] from California, Representative Latifah Simon. [44:05] The gentleman is recognized for one minute. [44:08] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And you're right, Ranking Member, this is a very, very strange bill. And [44:12] you're absolutely right that it is judges that make the determination whether bail should be [44:18] recorded in the record. It is the judge. But I want to make sure that we're really clear what is in the [44:26] language of a bill. This bill directly targets faith institutions and nonprofit organizations that step [44:35] in every single day to support families navigating a deeply unequal justice system. Across the country, [44:42] a wide network of faith leaders every Sunday pass a hat to ensure that there is deep and formal due [44:51] process for individuals facing prosecution. Under this legislation, those churches, those individuals [44:59] would be subject to enforcement. You know, this bill changes how we think about the justice system in this [45:08] country. It allows for people to return their children, keep their jobs, and prepare for their next day of [45:17] court. That's what the bail process should be about. While I don't have much time left, if you would [45:24] allow me, my mentor, Dr. Clarence Jones, the speechwriter for Dr. Martin Luther King, told me a story. [45:31] I yield the gentlelady an additional minute. [45:33] Told me a story that during the civil rights protests in the mid-1960s, hundreds of black and white [45:43] and Jewish young people sat at lunch counters throughout the South, understanding and knowing [45:48] what they were up against while the Klan burned cigarettes on their backs, spit in their faces, [45:54] pushed them from behind, knocked them down. They left outside to hoses and dogs. [46:00] Harry Belafonte and Dr. Clarence Jones, on the push from Dr. Martin Luther King, drove up to New York [46:08] City and sat with donors and folks on the right side of justice to get bail, to bail those hundreds of [46:15] children out. Would we have rather they sit in jails in the deep South and be beaten and killed? [46:22] Think about what we're asking today, for churches and charities to stop their mission to ensure that [46:29] people in this country have the life and liberty and due process that they so deserve. I yield back. [46:38] Gentlewoman yields. Gentleman from Maryland reserves. [46:41] We reserve. Gentleman from Wisconsin. [46:43] Mr. Speaker, I have no idea what the gentlelady is speaking about. This has no effect [46:50] on any of the charitable situations that she just described. And as for judges, you know, I think if [46:59] my colleagues wanted to debate kind of jurisdictions and prosecutors and judges setting weak bail policies, [47:08] we can certainly have that discussion. I think that's a separate discussion than what would be [47:13] appropriate for the bill before us. In fact, just this morning, Judiciary Committee held a hearing on [47:20] Fairfax County Commonwealth attorney who seems to care far less about what crime a defendant may have [47:26] committed than whether they are in the country illegally. The prosecutors apparently have a history of [47:33] offering these sweet ordeals, which we're all very aware of. So you can go across the country, New York, [47:39] California, Illinois, Maryland, doesn't matter. All these policies that restrict judges and prosecutors [47:46] from imposing constraints on criminals is what we should be talking about. This all came about and I got [47:55] involved in it because of what happened in my own state and in my own district. When a judge released a [48:01] known violent offender and the individual proceeded to drive through the Waukesha Christmas Parade and killed [48:10] six innocent bystanders. The best thing we can do is try and check this system and make sure that it's working [48:19] properly. And that's what this bill aims to do. I find it hard to believe that that people donate [48:26] to these funds knowing that funds will go specifically to bail out somebody who is a violent criminal. But [48:33] quite honestly, that's another issue, I believe, is that people oftentimes are misled or don't even know [48:40] what they're donating to to actually fund at this point. So I would hope that, you know, this would be [48:49] given a little bit further consideration on its face rather than trying to, I think, judge it based on [48:57] many different situations that, quite honestly, I don't believe exist. They're the same types [49:02] of red herrings that we've been hearing since the day that we introduced the bill. And I would reserve. [49:08] The gentleman reserves. The gentleman from Maryland. [49:10] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It occurred to me to go back and check with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine [49:16] Maxwell. What happened in their cases? Well, in a cash bail system in Florida, Jeffrey Epstein was [49:23] freed and allowed to go and operate his dubious affairs before he was convicted. But in the [49:31] federal system, there was no bail. He was denied bail because he was clearly a flight risk and a danger [49:37] to the community. Same thing with Ghislaine Maxwell. She offered to put up $30 million to get [49:43] to get out of jail. And the federal system said, we don't do that, right? We don't release people [49:48] based on money. You're a flight risk and you are a threat to the community. And that's the only thing [49:54] that should count. It shouldn't be like an auction that you go to and whoever can put up the most money [50:00] gets out of jail free. And then the poor people don't. But now they want to go beyond that to say, [50:06] well, poor people can't even pool their resources and get support from people in the community or other parts [50:12] of the country, because that could constitute insurance fraud. So that strikes me as ridiculous. [50:19] I'm going to yield one minute to the very distinguished gentleman from Texas, Representative [50:25] Menifee. The gentleman's recognized. Thank you to my colleague. I want to be [50:28] very clear about what this bill is. This is part of a greater effort to ensure that we have cash bail [50:35] systems throughout this country, which would keep rich people on the streets, even if they're violent [50:41] criminals and would have poor people locked behind bars because they don't have the money. [50:45] Picture two people accused of the same low level, nonviolent misdemeanor come from the same background. [50:52] A judge looks at both of them and says, neither is a flight risk and neither is a threat of harm to [50:56] the community. But the bell is set at $1,500. And because one person can pay the $1,500, they're back [51:02] on the street. The other person in jail, six months, maybe a year, they lose their apartment, [51:07] they lose their job, they maybe even lose custody of their child. That's not justice. That's a tax [51:13] on people who don't have spare cash. And I know this because we experienced this in Harris County. [51:18] My home county, Harris County, asked the right question and found the answer. Judges started [51:23] releasing people accused of nonviolent misdemeanors before trial. And you know what happened to crime? [51:28] Absolutely nothing. Pre-trial release went up 30 points from 50% in 2015 to over 80% today. [51:34] Repeat offending did not go up. Yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds? [51:39] Gentleman's recognized. Not even a little. And I was proud to defend that consent decree. [51:43] So let's be clear about what this is. If somebody's a threat to the community, [51:46] they should be in jail, regardless of whether they have a billion dollars or a thousand dollars. [51:52] If they're not a threat to the community, they should not be left to languish in jail, [51:56] potentially lose their livelihood, their family, all so we can make cash bail companies more rich. [52:02] We should be about protecting the community, not protecting industry. I yield back. [52:06] Gentleman Yields, gentleman from Maryland Reserves. [52:08] We reserve. [52:09] Gentleman from Wisconsin. [52:12] Mr. Speaker, again, I think the gentleman from Texas comments are not specifically directed at this [52:21] legislation. There's a larger frustration maybe with the bail bond industry, but certainly that's not [52:28] something that we need to be concerned with here. The criticism that bail funds how low-income [52:37] individuals and individuals of color are handled. The bill in no way prohibits the use of charitable [52:43] bail organizations or limits their use. The bill merely subjects them to the same level of scrutiny. [52:50] We apply for profit bail companies. So I would reserve. [52:54] Gentleman Reserve, gentleman from Maryland. [52:56] I yield three minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from Georgia, Representative McBath. [53:00] The gentleman is recognized. [53:01] Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to HR 6260, the Keeping Violent Offenders Off Our Streets [53:10] Act, which is, I think, just another example, again, of an unnecessary federal meddling into policies [53:18] that should be left to the states. There again, we keep talking about states' rights, but we keep putting [53:24] forth legislation that meddles in those states' rights. This bill actually weaponizes the federal [53:29] government against bail bonds or bail funds and strengthens the for-profit bail bond industry. [53:37] It has the potential to destroy bail bonds, including any organization that posts monetary bail, [53:44] criminal bonds, or federal immigration bail bonds, which would be subject to the federal insurance fraud [53:51] statute. That means that churches, faith groups, non-profits, and other community organizations [53:57] that pool their financial resources, we just heard an example of that, pool their financial resources to [54:04] protect people from a system that punishes poverty and destabilizes families and oftentimes coerces [54:13] guilty pleas that are subject to criminal liability. Proponents of this bill have previously claimed [54:21] that bail funds operate in the shadows and that their donations come with little to no scrutiny, [54:28] and that's simply not the truth. For example, the bail project, it's a 501 organization. It's subject [54:37] to regular monitoring and oversight by the IRS. Adding nonsensical layers of bureaucracy is most likely [54:45] going to make more communities unsafe, but it will also make it harder for organizations to help those [54:52] people in need. We just heard examples of organizations that are doing really good work to help people [54:57] get out because they don't have money for their bonds. There are nearly a half a million people [55:02] across the country in pre-trial detention, meaning they're sitting in jail right now, and they've not [55:10] been convicted of a crime. They're simply there because they can't afford to pay for their freedom, [55:16] and we should all think that's pretty tragic. Without the help of organizations willing to provide free bail [55:22] assistance, people can't afford bail. They could just continue to languish in jail for years while [55:30] they're waiting for their trials. And I've talked to constituents in my own district that are doing [55:35] that very thing. While they sit in jail, they're actually losing their jobs, they lose their homes, their [55:41] medical coverage, or even custody of their children. I want to be perfectly clear, too. I want to make sure that we keep [55:50] violent offenders off the street. Yes, my own situation, having lost my son. Yes, the violent [55:58] offender who murdered my son, he is in jail. He is in prison. He is off the street. And I want that for [56:05] every violent offender. And I believe that everyone in this chamber also wants all of our violent [56:12] offenders off the street. John Lady, an additional 30 seconds. Thank you, but this bill doesn't do it. [56:17] So I need to reiterate that a charge is not a conviction. And H.R. 6220 will keep charged [56:25] Americans jobless, it's going to keep them homeless, and it's going to keep them in poverty. And it has [56:30] the potential to leave the children of charge, not convicted Americans, parentless. So I urge my [56:38] colleagues to vigorously oppose this legislation, and I yield back. [56:42] General Manields. General Man from Maryland Reserves. General Man from Wisconsin. [56:46] Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers at this time, and we're prepared to close. [56:51] General Man from Maryland. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me address a few [56:59] points that are still lingering out there. As I listened to the distinguished [57:04] ranking member on the crime subcommittee and Mr. Menifee, a couple other points occurred to me. One is [57:09] that our same colleagues who want to crack down on the ability of people to associate and raise money [57:20] for the purposes of providing bail for people who can't afford it are also the ones who basically [57:25] want to blow the doors off the hinges when it comes to campaign finance. They believe in an absolute [57:31] deregulation of money going into the political system. Yet when it comes to community groups, [57:38] neighbors, and people across the country in sympathy or solidarity with people who may be caught up in [57:46] the criminal justice system through no fault of their own or through civil disobedience, you could [57:51] say peace protesters, environmental protesters, pro-life protesters. They want to cut down on that form [57:58] of association and that form of freedom of speech and assembly, which is protected by the First Amendment [58:04] to the Constitution. Moreover, we don't even know what federal power is being purported to cover this [58:16] exercise of federal jurisdiction, right? They're pasting this on to the law against interstate insurance [58:26] fraud, which is a categorical extension of federal power when people engage in interstate insurance [58:35] maneuvers and are defrauding somebody out of their money. Okay, fine. But now they want to apply that [58:43] to money that is raised locally for the purposes like in Minneapolis of defending people who are arrested [58:53] in an anti-ice protest. For example, where is the federal interest? Is it the Commerce Clause? It's certainly [59:01] not the First Amendment because it cuts directly against the First Amendment. I don't think it's [59:05] Section 5 of the 14th Amendment. What is the asserted basis of our constitutional authority to [59:13] criminalize as insurance fraud people raising money locally to support local protesters? I just, [59:20] I don't get that, and I reserve. [59:21] The gentleman yields. The gentleman reserve. [59:27] I reserve. [59:28] The gentleman reserves. The gentleman from Wisconsin. [59:30] I guess if we're done. [59:33] The gentleman is prepared to close. [59:36] The gentleman reserves. The gentleman from Maryland. [59:39] Mr. Speaker, we oppose H.R. 6260 for the aforementioned reasons, but also because the bill does [59:46] nothing to actually support law enforcement officers on Law Enforcement Week. For this reason, at the [59:55] appropriate time, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to committee, back to the Judiciary [1:00:01] Committee. If the Republican House rules permitted, I would have offered the motion [1:00:06] with a very significant amendment to the bill. My amendment would bring not just rhetorical support, [1:00:13] but real support to police officers. Specifically, the police officers who defended this chamber, [1:00:21] this Capitol, this Congress, all the members of Congress, and the Vice President, and our democracy, [1:00:27] during the January 6th attack, by creating the January 6th Law Enforcement Heroes Compensation Fund, [1:00:34] to provide compensation for any injuries inflicted on our officers that day, as well as any corresponding [1:00:42] economic losses. More than 140 officers from the Capitol Police Force. These are people who serve with this [1:00:50] every day. You see them every day, and you may know some of them. More than 140 of them, from the [1:00:55] Capitol Force, from the Metropolitan Police Department, and several other regional police departments, [1:01:00] including the Montgomery County Police Department in Maryland, were wounded, injured, and hospitalized [1:01:07] as a result of the mob attack on our country, where our officers fought valiantly for hours against [1:01:16] atrocious violence that one of the officers likened to medieval battle. Many officers were forced out of [1:01:25] policing by the injuries inflicted on that day. Many suffered grievous physical and emotional injuries, [1:01:33] including post-traumatic stress, for which they are still being treated and from which they may never [1:01:39] fully recover. One of them, I know, Sergeant Gunnell, suffered a crushed right foot, a destroyed rotator cuff, [1:01:52] and because he could barely lift his arm and he could barely walk, he was forced out of his dream job [1:01:58] of being a Capitol officer. He became a Capitol officer because his high school class from Long Island, New York, [1:02:06] came and visited the Capitol, and he saw what the officers were doing, and he said, one day, [1:02:14] I'm going to do what those officers do, and I'm going to protect the Congress of the United States. [1:02:19] And in the middle of his career, he was so disabled by the attack that he had to leave it, [1:02:26] despite wanting to stay, but he simply no longer could live up to the physical expectations of the job. [1:02:33] And now his family is living in a fraction, on a fraction of the salary that he had before. [1:02:40] And we could tell you lots of stories like this. Some of the officers, like Officer Brian Sicknick, [1:02:45] who died on January 7th, gave the ultimate sacrifice, the last full measure of devotion to this body. [1:02:55] Several took their own lives after this brutal and nightmarish convulsion, [1:03:00] an attack incited by the President of the United States, as determined by the House of Representatives. [1:03:07] Some of these people are disfigured and disabled for life, but all of them, [1:03:11] and their politics are irrelevant, some of them are Republicans, some are independents, some are Democrats. [1:03:17] But all of the officers responded on January 6th like heroes, and they deserve our eternal thanks, [1:03:26] and they deserve, more than that, the actual commitment of this body to help them. [1:03:31] The Trump administration wrote a check for nearly $5 million to the family of Ashley Babbitt, [1:03:37] even though two separate investigations determined that our police officers acted responsibly, lawfully, [1:03:45] and reasonably to defend this chamber and the people who work on it, work in it on that day. [1:03:52] And yet they gave them nearly $5 million. You know what they've given to the families of the police officers, [1:04:00] injured, wounded, whose lives were irrevocably changed on that day? Zero. Nothing. [1:04:06] It's time for us to pass this legislation and show that our commitment is real to the police officers [1:04:12] who work with us right here every day. That's what we need to be doing, and I urge everybody to support [1:04:19] the January 6th Law Enforcement Heroes Compensation Fund. I ask unanimous consent to insert into the [1:04:25] record the text of this amendment, Mr. Speaker, and I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for the [1:04:32] motion to recommit so we can move forward with this absolutely essential legislation, and I yield back. [1:04:38] The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from Wisconsin. [1:04:42] Mr. Speaker, this bill before us will ensure accountability for charitable bail funds that break the law. [1:04:50] It's that simple. We're not trying to eliminate any crowdsourcing. We're just trying to make sure [1:04:56] that there's some monitoring going on here. We know these funds have bailed out violent felony offenders [1:05:01] in the past, and we have a responsibility over these organizations that claim a tax-exempt status [1:05:07] to ensure funds are being spent appropriately. HR 6260 will allow states to enact licensing requirements [1:05:15] for entities that post bail on behalf of defendants, which will bring needed scrutiny. I want to thank [1:05:22] Chairman Jordan for his leadership on this issue and would again urge passage of HR 6260. Thank you, [1:05:29] and I yield the balance of my time. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. All time for [1:05:32] debate has expired pursuant to House Resolution 1275. The previous question is ordered on the bill as [1:05:37] amended. The question is on engrossment in the third reading of the bill. All those in favor say aye. [1:05:41] All those opposed no. The ayes have it. Third reading. Bill to amend title 18 United States [1:05:49] Code to prohibit fraud in connection with posting bail. What purpose does the gentleman from Maryland [1:05:55] seek recognition? I've got a motion to recommit at the desk, Mr. Speaker. Clerk will report the motion. [1:06:00] Mr. Raskin of Maryland moves to recommit the bill HR 6260 to the Committee on the Judiciary. [1:06:06] Pursuant clause 2B of rule 19, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. [1:06:13] The question is on the motion. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed no. In the opinion of [1:06:18] the chair, the noes have it. The motion is not agreed. The gentleman from Maryland. [1:06:22] I'll ask for the yeas and the nays on that one. The yeas and nays are requested. Those favoring [1:06:25] a vote by the yeas and nays will rise, sufficient number having arisen. The yeas and nays are ordered [1:06:29] pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20. Further proceedings on this question will be postponed. For what purpose [1:07:01] is the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Biggs, seek recognition? Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House [1:07:05] Resolution 1275, I call up the bill HR 8365 and ask for its immediate consideration in the House. [1:07:12] Clerk. Clerk will report the title of the bill. Union Calendar Number 551, HR 8365, [1:07:18] a bill to provide for conditions on the appointment of monitors by courts and for other purposes. [1:07:23] Pursuant to House Resolution 1275, the amendment and the nature of a substitute recommended by the [1:07:30] Committee on the Judiciary printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in Part A of House [1:07:36] Report 119-648 is adopted and the bill as amended is considered red. The bill as amended shall be [1:07:44] debatable for one hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committees [1:07:49] on the Judiciary or their respective designees. The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Biggs, and the [1:07:53] gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Raskin, each will control 30 minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman [1:07:58] from Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to [1:08:03] revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on HR 8365. [1:08:08] Without objection. I yield myself such time as I may consume. [1:08:11] Gentlemen recognized. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [1:08:14] HR 8365 is the result of a field hearing that's a subcommittee on crime and federal government [1:08:20] surveillance held in February in Phoenix, Arizona. While that hearing focused on the special monitor in [1:08:26] Maricopa County, it has implications for residents across the nation who also find their law enforcement [1:08:32] agencies held hostages by a special monitor or consent degree. Since December 2013, the Maricopa [1:08:40] County Sheriff's Office, MCSO, has been under federal judicial oversight following a DOJ intervention [1:08:48] into the case of 2008 case Ortega Melendrez v. Arpaio. In 2007, Latino motorists and passengers aided by [1:08:57] the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the then Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. The lawsuit alleged that [1:09:04] MCSO violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments by engaging in a systematic practice of unconstitutional [1:09:10] racial profiling, including stopping, detaining, and arresting Latino individuals during traffic stops [1:09:16] and patrol operations based on race or perceived immigration status. Following a bench trial in [1:09:22] December 2011, U.S. District Judge Murray Snow ruled in 2013 that MCSO had violated constitutional [1:09:29] protections and imposed permanent injunctions that required MCSO to implement sweeping reforms to [1:09:34] policies, training, operations, and internal investigations. Unlike a consent decree, which is a negotiated [1:09:42] settlement agreed to by the parties, the court imposed these injunctions after findings of [1:09:46] liability. DOJ consent decrees are typically entered into voluntarily by state or local governments [1:09:52] to resolve a civil rights investigation without a trial, even though they can result in similarly [1:09:57] extensive federal oversight and court-appointed monitoring. In January 2014, Judge Snow appointed [1:10:03] federal court monitor Robert Warshot to oversee MCSO's compliance with the court's permanent injunctions, [1:10:08] including reforms intended to address racial discrimination during traffic stops and deficiencies in policy [1:10:14] development, development, and oversight. Following that, in July 2015, the court mandated additional [1:10:19] remedial measures, including further policy revisions to further strengthen oversight mechanisms. [1:10:25] The federal court monitoring was intended to last only until MCSO achieved full and effective [1:10:30] compliance with the court's injunctions, yet oversight has continued for more than a decade without a [1:10:36] fixed end date. This extended judicial supervision has placed significant financial burdens on Maricopa County [1:10:42] taxpayers, with costs reportedly reaching nearly $350 million. Most of these expenses include the [1:10:49] administrative efforts needed to demonstrate compliance with court orders. For example, despite remote [1:10:54] work and meetings in 2021, the county was responsible for funding a 3,200-square-foot office suite for the [1:11:00] monitor, which cost taxpayers more than $97,000 per year. This persistent federal judicial intervention has [1:11:08] created operational challenges for MCSO, including difficulties in recruiting, retaining, and retaining [1:11:14] qualified deputies. All of these things, by the way, are consistent with monitoring that's going on in most of [1:11:21] the country. The increased administrative workload and ongoing scrutiny have led to a decline in staff retention [1:11:27] and discouraged potential recruits from pursuing careers within the department, which is ultimately impacting [1:11:33] the officers' ability to serve and protect the community, one of the largest counties in the country, [1:11:40] with over five and a half million people. The federal court monitor typically issues quarterly reports [1:11:45] tracking MCSO's compliance with the court-ordered reforms and provides the court with independent [1:11:50] assessments of policy implementation. Over the course of more than 40 reports, MCSO's compliance rate increased [1:11:56] from below 30 percent in 2014 to more than 94 percent or over 94 percent by 2025, which meets the standard [1:12:04] that requires the agency to demonstrate adherence in more than 94 percent of instances under review. [1:12:10] According to Warshaw, the MCSO's compliance framework has become, quote, [1:12:13] self-sustaining and institutionalized, close quote. Warshaw also labeled the MCSO's compliance with [1:12:19] policies, training, and supervisory review as solid, noting that compliance measures were fully built into [1:12:24] the agency's daily work showing full independent accountability. And earlier this year, the [1:12:30] Department of Justice, which originally intervened in this case in 2011, filed a brief supporting [1:12:37] Maricopa County's request to end federal oversight, noting that the litigation has been successful in [1:12:42] reforming the agency. And by the way, we're on the fourth sheriff elected since this original complaint was [1:12:51] filed. The Department argued that the extensive reforms imposed through the court-appointed monitoring [1:12:56] regime have been successful in correcting the unconstitutional practices identified in the [1:13:01] original case, which you will recall was the racial profiling of Latino motorists. DOJ cited multiple recent [1:13:10] monitor reports which document consistently high compliance rates, institutionalized policy adherence, [1:13:17] effective training programs, and durable accountability mechanisms. [1:13:21] The Department indicated that continued federal supervision is no longer necessary to ensure [1:13:26] constitutional policing supporting termination of the court-appointed monitoring regime. [1:13:32] Maricopa County is not the only jurisdiction monitored by Robert Warshaw and his associates. [1:13:39] Warshaw has been accused of taking exorbitant payments without producing results in monitoring law [1:13:43] enforcement and agencies in New York, in California, in Michigan, and Louisiana. [1:13:50] For example, Warshaw faced criticism for the duration, high cost, and evolving compliance benchmarks, [1:13:56] in other words, he was moving the goalposts, of federal oversight in Oakland, California. [1:14:01] Despite reportedly spending little time in Oakland, Warshaw is paid, currently, more than a million dollars [1:14:07] annually by the city, a structure that incentivizes prolonging the monitorship, just like we see in Maricopa [1:14:13] County. Compared to monitors who operate under narrowly defined mandates and fixed timelines, [1:14:18] Warshaw's role continuously blurs the line between oversight and management. Questions about judgment and [1:14:23] incentives also follow Warshaw from Niagara Falls, New York, for example. Together, episodes in New York [1:14:32] and across various jurisdictions that have had Warshaw, they have, the critics have cited this systemic [1:14:40] pattern in which Warshaw's work unfolds with limited transparency. In fact, he won't even tell, [1:14:45] when he bills Maricopa County, he won't tell him what he did, and the court won't make it. Minimal cost controls, [1:14:53] little external check on the expansion or duration of his authority. And while I agreed with very little that [1:14:58] former AG Merrick Garland did while in office, he actually had pretty good ideas with how to deal with these issues [1:15:04] involving monitors. In April 2021, he asked then Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta to conduct a four-month review of how the [1:15:12] Justice Department appoints and oversees federal monitors and settlement agreements and consent [1:15:17] decrees. In August of 2021, Assistant, excuse me, Associate AG Gupta responded with 19 recommendations [1:15:26] stemming from five core principles. The principles include minimizing costs and conflicts of interest, [1:15:32] ensuring monitors accountability, compliance assessment, community engagement, and efficient reform. [1:15:37] A notable reform included in the memorandum was opposing term limits for federal monitors. The [1:15:44] significance of these recommendations set clear expectations for time-limited oversight, ensuring [1:15:50] that federal monitorships are not indefinite. And Mr. Chairman, I want everyone to realize that this [1:15:58] applies to monitorships not just in Maricopa County, not just in Niagara Falls, New York, not just in Oakland, [1:16:04] California, or Baltimore, Maryland, where Warshaw was a monitor, or any place involving Warshaw. It is, [1:16:12] it was so spread out, the concern was so great that former Attorney General Merrick Garland asked for the [1:16:20] study because even he understood the monitorships have been abused. And so that, with that, Mr. Chairman, [1:16:26] I will reserve. [1:16:27] The gentleman in reserve. The gentleman from Maryland. [1:16:29] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as it may consume. [1:16:32] The gentleman is recognized. [1:16:33] The gentleman is recognized. [1:16:33] The gentleman is recognized. [1:16:34] So, federal monitorships are a critical tool for federal courts and federal judges. Monitors [1:16:41] ensure compliance with court orders, with settlement agreements, and consent decrees, all to remedy [1:16:48] entrenched systemic violations of federal law in matters of school desegregation, prison conditions, [1:16:57] civil rights, policing, detention, disability rights in education, the environment, and antitrust law. [1:17:05] This bill appears to have been written as part of an attempt to undermine federal monitorships, [1:17:11] but, indeed, focused on one very special monitorship in particular. The bill targets [1:17:18] the ongoing federal monitorship of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office in Arizona, which the gentleman [1:17:24] just discussed, was put into place after a federal judge determined that the office under the notorious [1:17:32] tenure of Sheriff Joe Arpaio had displayed a pattern and practice of using race and ethnicity, [1:17:41] rather than objective evidence of criminality, to target people for criminal investigation [1:17:47] and detention, and for a profusion of illegal stops and seizures and frisks in violation of fundamental [1:17:54] rights protected by the U.S. Constitution. One expert called it the worst pattern of racial profiling [1:18:03] by a law enforcement agency in the history of the United States. Following this ruling, the federal [1:18:09] district judge placed the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office under supervision by a court-appointed monitor, [1:18:16] to ensure it would take the steps necessary to correct its structural violations of the law [1:18:24] and violations of the rights of the people. For years after the initial court order, Sheriff Arpaio [1:18:30] proudly and gleefully violated a succession of court orders, refusing to end his office's practice of [1:18:39] rampant, unlawful racial and ethnic profiling, which eventually led federal judges to find him in civil [1:18:47] contempt, in criminal contempt, and then finally in need of a presidential pardon, which, of course, [1:18:55] he got from the King of Pardons when he took the White House. Now, as a result of all this defiance and [1:19:02] contempt, the court had to issue subsequent orders each time to more specifically articulate and delineate [1:19:11] the steps the Sheriff's Office needed to take to come into compliance with the law. So recently, [1:19:18] our colleagues held a field hearing in Phoenix, the gentleman's hometown, where they took issue with [1:19:26] the fact that the Sheriff's Office is still under a federal monitorship more than 10 years later in [1:19:32] his home state. They did not take issue with the fact that the office has gone for more than 10 years [1:19:38] without fully and meaningfully complying with the court order. The monitor is in place only because the [1:19:46] sheriff's office has failed to remedy its egregious and systemic violations of the law, despite multiple [1:19:53] court orders directing them to do so. More than a decade later, and even under a new sheriff, data [1:19:58] reveals that racial disparities in the Sheriff's Office arrest rates persist to this day. Now, we're open to [1:20:06] having a serious nationwide policy discussion about ways to strengthen and improve the federal monitorship [1:20:14] process. We're always up for that. But the bill before us today is focused on one case, one monitor, and [1:20:24] therefore ignores the entire dynamics of monitorship nationwide. They hadn't even pretended to claim [1:20:31] that whatever is taking place in that district that they don't like is reflective of what's going on in [1:20:36] the rest of the country. Now, we heard the gentleman say that this is some kind of a codification of [1:20:41] recommendations made by Attorney General Merrick Garland and Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta [1:20:48] in a 2021 DOJ memo on monitors, which they like. But that's not the full story. The bill, as opposed to [1:20:58] the memo, scoops up the points that they like within the memo, like a kid scooping up Easter eggs in the [1:21:06] backyard, the ones they like, but then discards the rest. The bill includes some of the recommendations, [1:21:15] changes the others, and just simply excludes others. Critically, Attorney General Garland said [1:21:24] that at the end of a five-year period, there should be an analysis of how well the monitorship is going. [1:21:33] Should it be terminated? Or should it be continued based on the facts? Well, the gentleman's bill [1:21:41] takes that five-year number but says we're just going to cut it off after five years. We're not [1:21:45] going to do an analysis of it. We're not going to assess the situation. We're not going to see whether [1:21:51] the monitor is needed to go forward. We're just going to take the five-year number and say it's over. [1:21:58] So that person's gone. If you need a new one, bring somebody else in. All of that institutional [1:22:04] knowledge, everything they understand is out the window. Now, I understand that would accomplish [1:22:08] the gentleman's objective, which is they want to terminate the monitor out in Maricopa County. [1:22:14] They don't like that monitor, all right? That's really not how we should be legislating [1:22:19] Department of Justice policy for the entire country. Far from making this a more efficient process, [1:22:28] the various requirements put in would delay, prolong, and confuse, as a new monitor and a new judge, [1:22:35] would have to attempt to get up to speed on the complicated history of the case and the progress [1:22:40] completed by the party prior to this new abrupt appointment. They would have to review years worth [1:22:46] of briefs, orders, reports, motions, replies, pleadings, and so on. Together, these provisions could [1:22:53] incentivize a reluctant party simply to run out the clock until a more indulgent monitor and judge [1:23:00] are appointed to the case. The retroactive application of the bill is, of course, curious. [1:23:08] The Garland Memo warned against retroactivity, noting that because existing consent decrees and [1:23:13] monitorships are the product of extensive negotiations with approval by the federal court, [1:23:18] the specific recommendations should apply only to consent decrees and monitorships used in future [1:23:23] cases. But the whole trick here is to make this apply retroactively to get at the guy that they don't [1:23:31] like. And of course, that's not up to us. We don't go out and decide specific cases. If they've got a [1:23:37] problem with what the monitor's doing, bring it to the judge in that case. But don't change federal law [1:23:42] and make a federal case out of it. Look, if the majority is serious about improving the appointment [1:23:50] and use federal monitors, and I'm sure they are, then I urge them to work with us to do a nationwide study. [1:23:55] Let's craft a bill fully reflecting the recommendations of the Attorney General. Let's invite Attorney General [1:24:01] Garland to come in and testify about it. He's a constituent of mine. I'm happy to write him to [1:24:05] have him come in and testify about what should be done, rather than rushing through this last-minute, [1:24:11] case-specific, makeshift legislation. I urge all colleagues to oppose this bill, and I reserve the [1:24:17] balance of my time. The gentleman reserves the balance of his time. The gentleman from Arizona. [1:24:21] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the gentleman's willingness to work with us. [1:24:24] You know, that's why we had a field hearing. That's why they extended the invitation. [1:24:31] Come. Give us the name of someone you want to testify. You know what? You know how many people [1:24:37] across the aisle came to that hearing? Zero, zip, nada. They didn't come. They were uninterested. [1:24:45] They didn't want to hear from Merrick Garland. They didn't want to come. So they said, oh, well, [1:24:51] okay, we're not going to do that. And then they're going to stand up and say some rather wild things [1:24:59] about that this only applies to Maricopa County, and that the monitorship ends at the end of five [1:25:05] years. That is not true. That is not what this bill does. The bill says the monitor, the current [1:25:12] monitor, is done after five years. And why is that? Because regardless, not just this monitor, but how [1:25:21] about the monitorship that he's been doing in Oakland, California for 20-some-odd years? Or other [1:25:26] monitorships around the country? What happens is, as Merrick Garland said, and as Associate Attorney [1:25:33] General Gupta said, they build up incentives. All of a sudden, they have incentives because it's a [1:25:43] monetary incentive, and they need to avoid the conflict of interest. That was the first principle. [1:25:50] That was within the first principle that Merrick Garland put together. Avoid the conflict of [1:25:55] interest. But guess what? If the court were to say we're going to continue the monitorship, [1:26:01] you get a new monitor. And quite frankly, the AGs also said these things should be simple. These [1:26:10] things should be simple. They should be focused. I don't think that someone who is capable of becoming [1:26:18] court monitor is going to not be able to get up to speed pretty doggone quickly. And that's the [1:26:25] argument that they're making over there. But let's see who else supports this. National Association of [1:26:31] Police, Arizona Sheriff's Association, Major County Sheriffs of Arizona, Phoenix Law Enforcement, and also the [1:26:40] California Police Association. They all support this because their department's taken over. How about this [1:26:52] one? I think this is a kick in the pants. They basically roll. The monitor rolls this. This is the [1:26:58] fourth sheriff. The DOJ has said, hey, they're in substantial compliance. And guess what? This monitor is [1:27:08] taken to micromanaging. Even the uniforms, the stripes for officers. Where are they? Oh, no, [1:27:15] you can't put them up here. You want them down on the front part of the sleeve. That's what the [1:27:21] Maricopa County monitor's done. But that's not unique to Maricopa County. The monitors get in, [1:27:27] and they micromanage even the most absurd things that have nothing to do with the issue that brought [1:27:33] this forward, which is this, is the racial profiling in traffic stops. And the monitor himself has said [1:27:42] in his reports, they're in substantial compliance. There is no statistical significance in any difference [1:27:49] between any racial demographic in Arizona. But the monitorship has a monetary incentive. And that's [1:27:57] what you're seeing. And that's why you see these monitorships run amok around the country. So with [1:28:03] that, Mr. Chairman, I'll reserve. Gentleman reserve. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized. [1:28:07] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The gentleman asks why members of the minority didn't come to his hearing [1:28:14] in Arizona. And because he asked, I'm afraid I'm going to have to tell you the truth. [1:28:20] We don't think it was a serious hearing. It was about one monitor in one case to target one guy [1:28:25] in the context of the gentleman's exciting campaign for governor of Arizona. And so I understand [1:28:33] the gentleman prefers to be in Arizona. Well, we prefer to be in our districts too. I will happily leave my [1:28:40] district for a serious substantive hearing, but I'm not going to be part of a witch hunt or attack [1:28:46] against one particular monitor. And so, you know, with that, I'm happy to yield three minutes to the [1:28:54] gentlelady from Georgia, Representative McBath. Gentlelady is recognized. Thank you. Thank you, [1:28:59] Mr. Speaker. And I do rise today in opposition to H.R. 8365, the Monitor Accountability Act. [1:29:08] This bill addresses the work of federal monitors who are appointed by a court to oversee the progress [1:29:15] a state or unit of local government is making after violating federal law. Often monitors are put in [1:29:25] place after there's a finding of serious misconduct, including violations of constitutional rights [1:29:32] or actions that jeopardizes people's public health, safety, and well-being. For example, [1:29:40] last January, the Department of Justice in Fulton County in Georgia, which I represent, they entered [1:29:49] into an agreement that included the appointment of a monitor to oversee changes to address [1:29:55] what we have found to be very dangerous, unhealthy, and unconstitutional conditions at our Fulton County [1:30:03] jail. So this bill proposes restrictions on monitors, which ultimately could result in [1:30:11] consequences that really actually don't serve the public interest. By requiring unnecessary turnover [1:30:19] of both the federal monitors and the judges overseeing these cases, this bill would waste our time in the [1:30:28] hard-earned taxpayer dollars instead of actually focusing monitors and the local officials to actually [1:30:37] kind of come together and truly work to solve the problem and find some solutions. [1:30:43] The stakes are awfully incredibly high in these kinds of cases. A delay could leave more people incarcerated [1:30:54] in unconstitutionally dangerous conditions. A delay could also force employees [1:31:00] like the prison guards to continue to work in very, very dangerous conditions [1:31:07] that make it impossible for them to actually do their jobs effectively and safely. [1:31:11] And I've had the chance to work with the newly appointed director of the Board of Prisons, [1:31:18] hearing about what is happening all over the nation. And so I too am very concerned about making sure [1:31:25] that our employees are working in safer environments within these institutions. But ultimately, [1:31:32] this legislation could result in more waste and more time and more delays while worsening the public [1:31:39] services that are meant to be improved under the watchful eye of our federal monitors. So I stand to say that I, [1:31:48] too, as the ranking member of the Prime Subcommittee, I oppose H.R. 8365. And I will be urging all of my [1:31:58] colleagues on judiciary to do the same. And I yield. [1:32:02] We reserve. The gentleman reserves. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized. Thank you. [1:32:07] The Merrick Garland's memo says this. Principle, monitorships should be designed to minimize the cost to [1:32:16] jurisdictions. The one in Maricopa County is $350 million. The one in Oakland is who knows how many [1:32:23] millions of dollars. And to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest. And goes on to be a little bit [1:32:28] more specific. Monitorship must nonetheless be designed and administered with awareness that every [1:32:35] dollars spent on monitorship is a dollar that cannot be spent on other policy priorities. In other words, don't divert [1:32:45] the taxpayers money so they can't fulfill all of their responsibilities. Here's another [1:32:53] quote. Monitorships should be designed to avoid even the appearance that a monitor is primarily motivated by [1:33:00] profit. We have a monitor in Maricopa County, for instance, gets $3 million a year on average over the term of his [1:33:08] monitorship. And seems to be moving the goalposts, just like he did in Oakland. These seem to be saying, [1:33:17] hey, maybe he does have a profit motivation. And specifically, this is what they recommend. Cap the monitor [1:33:27] fees. An annual cap on monitor fees. Encourage use of pro bono time. Reduce rates in nonprofits. And explore [1:33:35] alternative fee arrangements. And restrict lead monitor participation in multiple monitorships. [1:33:43] We've tried to get at all those things in the current bill. And they go on to say this. Future [1:33:50] consent decrees should limit the ability of the individual who serves as the lead monitor to serve [1:33:55] on more than one monitoring team at a time. The person serving as a lead monitor should be solely [1:34:02] committed to the jurisdiction they are serving and should not be simultaneously supporting multiple [1:34:07] monitorships at the same time. A reserve. Reserves. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized. [1:34:13] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just to restate for everybody where we are. The monitor serves at the [1:34:19] discretion and the pleasure of the judge. If the judge thinks the monitor is doing a bad job or feathering [1:34:25] his nest or taking money, the judge would get rid of the monitor immediately. That's up to the judge. [1:34:30] If you've got a problem with a particular monitor, bring a motion before the judge to change the [1:34:35] situation. Instead, the gentleman wants to make a federal law out of it. I appreciate it's his last [1:34:42] few months in Congress and he wants to try to accomplish something in that particular case. But [1:34:46] it really doesn't relate to the rest of the country. And there's been no study done of monitorship [1:34:52] generally except for what Attorney General Garland did. And his bill departs radically from what Attorney [1:34:59] General Garland was talking about. Just take, for example, this five-year idea. The idea is, [1:35:04] look, the judge can review the monitor at any point in the course of the monitorship, [1:35:08] but there should be, Attorney General Garland said, a five-year review where they look and see [1:35:13] how's it going. Is the jurisdiction complying or not? And if they're not complying as it's taking [1:35:19] the place in Maricopa County, why not? What needs to be done? Is the monitor actually showing up at work [1:35:25] and being zealous and vigilant about it or not, right? That can happen right now. But in any event, [1:35:30] Attorney General Garland says, have a five-year review. Their bill says, terminate the monitor [1:35:37] regardless of whether or not that person's doing a good job after five years. They could be doing the [1:35:42] best job in the world, but know they want to start all over again and take all of the time and energy [1:35:47] required in getting somebody else up to date on the case. It's just not serious legislation, which is [1:35:53] perhaps why there's not a counterpart over on the Senate side. There's no companion, so good luck to [1:35:59] the gentleman about actually getting this done before the election in November. Perhaps people [1:36:05] will be impressed by catalyzing all of this attention to one case, but it tells us nothing [1:36:10] about what's happening in the rest of the country. I yield one minute to the very distinguished gentleman [1:36:14] from Ohio, Representative Landsman. The gentleman is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, [1:36:21] Chairman Raskin. This morning in our newspaper in Cincinnati, there was a story about how we're [1:36:28] spending $25 million on police overtime because we don't have enough cops. Our community, like every [1:36:35] community across the country, is struggling to hire police officers. I don't understand why we're messing [1:36:42] with monitors or one monitor. All these issues that communities across the country are facing [1:36:48] with public safety, crime, gun violence, cities, towns, communities, counties, they all have this one [1:36:54] thing in common. What they need is more cops. And in the middle of police week, we got four bills, [1:37:00] including this one. As Mr. Raskin said, I don't think any of them are going to become law. They don't [1:37:05] have a companion bill in the Senate, so I don't know what we're doing during police week, except we're not [1:37:10] funding cops. In fact, since y'all took the majority, the cop funding has gone down. Byrne has gone down, [1:37:18] the cops grant funding has gone down. I've tried to get my bill on the floor, which would just allow [1:37:25] folks who have the cops grant to use that money to retain and recruit police officers. Just the [1:37:32] flexibility. But I can't get it. I can't get a hearing. I can't get a vote. If you want to help police [1:37:38] officers and communities, if you all want to help police officers and communities, especially during [1:37:45] police week, hire more cops, help communities pay for police officers. Thank you. I yield back. [1:37:52] Thank you. And we reserve. Gentleman reserves. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized. [1:37:56] Yes, the gentleman was just arguing essentially four monitors, which continues to hamstring [1:38:03] police agencies around the country. So I guess he wasn't here when I started reading off [1:38:10] how agencies around the country support this bill because they're impacted negatively by rogue monitors. [1:38:19] And I'll just go back to my colleagues saying, hey, nobody came. Nobody went to Phoenix because [1:38:25] we thought this was an unserious endeavor. You could have come. You could have tried to make it serious [1:38:32] by bringing your witness. The witness you said you'd like to have come in now. You could have brought that [1:38:38] witness in then. Chose not to. I think maybe the unseriousness is on your side not taking this issue [1:38:46] serious because it does impact the entire country. And we know it does. Because why? Because former [1:38:54] Attorney General Merrick Garland said, hey, I am so concerned about it. I'm going to commission [1:39:00] somebody to spend several months to research this and give us some recommendations. And my bill's [1:39:08] attempting to implement those recommendations and encourage their support of it. Reserve. [1:39:12] Gentleman reserves. Gentleman from Maryland. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The gentleman says [1:39:17] that if we had come, it would have been serious. I [1:39:21] applaud the implicit concession. It wasn't serious. But in any event, it would not have been relevant [1:39:27] because studying what goes on in one office is not relevant. Now, if we want to take the Attorney [1:39:33] General's handiwork and turn it into law, we could do it. But that's not what the gentleman's proposing to do. [1:39:38] He's changed it and contorted it in a lot of different ways in order to fit his particular case. [1:39:43] In any event, I don't think we should rely exclusively on the executive branch. I think [1:39:47] we should have our own serious hearings with the whole committee. Only two Republicans joined [1:39:53] that trip to Phoenix, Arizona. Although there was another Republican member who I think was a [1:39:59] key witness there. I think Ms. Lesko testified before the committee, increasing the sense of the [1:40:07] closed circle that they had there. But in any event, why don't we look at this as a serious national [1:40:14] problem? But in any event, of the top 25 things Americans are thinking about, I can guarantee you [1:40:21] that's not one of them. One of them, though, is the billion dollars that the administration is asking [1:40:26] for the big, wretched ballroom that they want to build over at the White House since they bulldozed [1:40:32] the east wing of the White House. I'm going to yield four minutes to my distinguished friend from [1:40:37] Pennsylvania, Representative Boyle, the ranking member on the budget committee. [1:40:40] I was recognized. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, right now, costs are going through the roof [1:40:47] thanks to President Trump's tariff taxes and his reckless war in Iran. Families are paying more for [1:40:55] gas. They're paying more for groceries, paying more for housing, paying more for health care. [1:41:01] The list goes on and on. 15 million Americans are about to lose their health care coverage [1:41:08] because of that so-called big, beautiful bill Republicans passed and the president signed into [1:41:14] law last summer, which just happens to be one of the most unpopular pieces of legislation in modern [1:41:21] legislative history. Millions losing food assistance because of that disastrous law. Working families [1:41:29] getting stretched every day by the dollar. And while all this is happening, what is our president [1:41:38] focused on? A ballroom. This tells you everything you need to know about this president's priorities. [1:41:46] The American people are asking for lower costs. Donald Trump is asking for a taxpayer-funded vanity [1:41:54] project at the White House. So maybe we should start calling Republicans Reconciliation 2.0 what it [1:42:01] really is. The Billion Dollar Ballroom Act. Because this Republican agenda can somehow find money for [1:42:10] Donald Trump's ballroom and his billionaire donors, but it can never seem to find a dime to lower costs for [1:42:17] the American people. Not enough money to protect health care. Not enough money to protect food [1:42:24] assistance. Not enough money to lower the cost of gas, groceries, housing, or health care. But somehow [1:42:31] there is more money for Donald Trump's big, beautiful ballroom. That is the problem with this entire agenda. [1:42:40] It asks working families to pay more and get less. All while Donald Trump gets exactly what he wants. [1:42:49] They can find money for tax breaks for billionaires. They can find money for giveaways to the well-connected. [1:42:56] They can find money for Donald Trump's ballroom. But when it comes to helping families afford a gallon of [1:43:02] gas, a bag of groceries, a doctor's visit, a safe place to live, suddenly Republicans say, [1:43:10] we have no money. Americans have been loud and clear. They want costs to go down. And they want it now. [1:43:18] They do not want their taxpayer dollars spent on a ballroom so this president can host lavish events [1:43:26] with his billionaire friends. If the president cared as much about lowering costs for the American people [1:43:32] as he does his precious ballroom, maybe a pound of beef would not cost more than an hour of work at the [1:43:39] federal minimum wage. For this reason, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to recommit [1:43:45] this bill back to committee. If House rules permitted, I would have offered the motion with an important [1:43:51] amendment to this bill. My amendment would simply prohibit taxpayer funding for Donald Trump's White House [1:43:59] ballroom. It is simple. Not one taxpayer dollar, not one dime, should be spent on a vanity ballroom [1:44:08] while Americans are losing health care, losing food assistance, and struggling to make ends meet. [1:44:15] I ask unanimous consent to insert into the record the text of this amendment. [1:44:20] Without objection. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I hope and indeed urge my colleagues [1:44:26] to join me in voting for this simple motion to recommit. With that, I yield back. [1:44:31] Mr. Speaker, the president's repeatedly claimed that the ballroom would actually be entirely funded [1:44:40] by private sources. Leaving aside the legality of that proposition, now they're asking the American [1:44:48] taxpayers for a billion dollars for the ballroom when the cost of it would have been zero had he not gone [1:44:56] ahead and bulldozed the White House without the permission or consent of Congress, which has control [1:45:03] over all federal buildings and property. It's up to us, not the president, and yet he thinks that the [1:45:10] White House is like a personal vacation home and he bulldozed it and now they're asking us for a billion [1:45:17] dollars. I want to thank the distinguished ranking member of the budget committee to come here to [1:45:24] talk about this very serious issue and I'm very glad you're moving to recommit so we can have some [1:45:29] serious legislative investigation into that outrageous proposal. But I want to link it to the [1:45:35] bill from the gentleman from Arizona. Because if you think about it, neither of the agendas being proposed [1:45:43] have anything to do with the national common good. The ballroom, the gilded ballroom for Donald Trump and [1:45:51] his family and friends has nothing to do with what's going to advance the well-being of the American [1:45:56] people. And similarly, this bill is all about picking a fight with or retaliating against one monitor [1:46:04] they're upset with about one case. And they might be right or they might be wrong. Sounds to me like [1:46:11] they're wrong. But in any event, those merits have nothing to do with the rest of the country and what the [1:46:16] rest of us are dealing with. But on the Republican side of the aisle now, it's all about, I want my thing. [1:46:21] I want to get my thing before the whole ship goes down. We know Donald Trump's numbers are sinking [1:46:27] like a stone across the country, making him the most unpopular president in American history. So [1:46:32] everybody wants to get a little piece of the action for whatever they can. Nobody's thinking [1:46:36] about the public interest. Who's thinking about getting health care to all the American people? [1:46:41] Who's thinking about lowering groceries, lowering the cost of groceries for American people? Who's thinking [1:46:46] about getting housing to the American people so young people can afford a place to go and live? None of it. [1:46:52] President said he was going to lower inflation on day one. Inflation soaring. Now the cost of [1:46:56] gasoline is up a buck fifty across the country because of his illegal unconstitutional war he's [1:47:03] waged against us. And so they want us to be spending our time talking about one federal monitor under the [1:47:09] supervision of one federal judge in Maricopa County, Arizona. I'll reserve. [1:47:16] The gentleman reserves. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized. [1:47:19] Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. You know, this bill actually would help the cost save money [1:47:28] by holding monitors responsible, making sure that they're responsible. I mean, that's important. [1:47:35] And when they start talking about a billion dollars, remember that just compliance costs and the cost of [1:47:42] this particular monitor that they're very focused on is cost of the taxpayers there over 350 million [1:47:49] dollars, over a third of a billion dollars. And, you know, the Baltimore, the monitor in Baltimore [1:47:55] right now submitted their bill recently for 1.5 million dollars. That's just the fee, mind you, [1:48:01] of the monitor. 1.5 million dollars. That doesn't include, that doesn't include whatever compliance [1:48:10] costs there may be. So the second principle that came out of Attorney General Merrick Garland's position [1:48:19] was this. Consent decrees involves, when they can involve state and local entities, monitors hold a [1:48:24] position of public trust, not only as agents of the court, but as drivers of significant change in public [1:48:29] institutions that are central to the communities that they serve. And thus, they must be structured [1:48:35] to ensure that monitors are accountable, accountable for their work. That's what my bill does. It creates [1:48:42] accountability, because there's not accountability there. And if it was all resting in the judge, [1:48:48] Merrick Garland could have just said, well, we'll just leave it up to the judge, because that's what the [1:48:52] Democrats want. But they say you've got to have an opportunity for public input. And then this is [1:49:00] interesting. Consent decrees should include term limits for monitors that could be renewed, [1:49:07] but they should have term limits. And what should those term limits be? They need to be reviewed [1:49:11] after two to three years to determine whether they are performing properly, are cost effective, [1:49:19] and providing technical assistance. That's, that's what the, uh, the memo said. And we're trying to get [1:49:28] that codified. Reserve. Gentleman reserves. Gentleman from Maryland is recognized. [1:49:36] Thank you. How much time do I have, Mr. Speaker? Gentleman has eight minutes remaining. Thank you, [1:49:41] kindly. Look, if the gentleman really wants to save the taxpayers money, why not encourage the [1:49:48] Maricopa County Sheriff's Department actually to implement the reforms that have been required by the [1:49:55] court for more than a decade and finally redeem itself from the shameful legacy of entrenched racial and [1:50:02] ethnic discrimination conducted by Sheriff Joe Arpaio? I've not heard one word in utterance of [1:50:09] criticism of Sheriff Arpaio by the distinguished gentleman from Arizona. Is he here to say that [1:50:16] Sheriff Arpaio did nothing wrong? All of those court judgments are wrong. The court orders are wrong. [1:50:22] There never should have been a monitor in the first place? Or is he saying, oh, well, yes, he made some [1:50:28] egregious systemic structural errors, but actually the process was completed. Everything is fine now, [1:50:35] but the monitor doesn't see it and the court doesn't see it. In any event, why are we litigating this case [1:50:43] from Phoenix, Arizona? That just makes no sense. Congress is not allowed to adjudicate cases. We govern in [1:50:50] the interest of the whole country. The gentleman keeps going back to the Attorney General's statement. [1:50:56] This is the first time I ever heard him refer in any kind of positive way to Attorney General Merrick [1:51:01] Garland. Great. Terrific. Does Attorney General Garland support this legislation? Because he hasn't [1:51:07] mentioned it to me. I haven't heard anything from him about it. Did the Deputy Attorney General who worked [1:51:13] on their report endorse this legislation? I hadn't heard anything about it. Ms. Gupta didn't get in touch [1:51:20] with me. Did they go and testify out in Arizona? Or did they just want to use that as a fig leaf [1:51:27] for this effort to go and get this monitor that they don't like? Come on, that's not serious legislative [1:51:33] policy. That's kind of like a drive-by hit on Congress on your way out. Like, oh yeah, I'm going to go after [1:51:42] this one guy. We can't govern on that basis. How come there's no U.S. Senator who's introducing this legislation [1:51:50] targeted at Maricopa County? So if it's all about that one case, why don't we tell the people we know [1:51:57] there — and I don't know anybody there — but why don't we tell the people we know there to comply [1:52:02] with the law? A lot of the — I think that the average is around five years for a court monitor. Some [1:52:10] of them have gone 15 or 20 when you have a real case of obstructionism, defiance, and intransigence. [1:52:16] This one has gone on for more than a decade, which doesn't speak well for what's happening in that [1:52:21] office. But in any event, most of the monitors are gone within several years because compliance is [1:52:29] accomplished. The gentleman doesn't seem to recognize the whole purpose of having a monitor is to see that [1:52:34] the government will comply with the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the rights of the people. [1:52:40] That's what's at stake here. And so are we going to just stampede in there and squash one monitor [1:52:49] at the behest of one congressman in one hearing taking place in one city without any serious [1:52:55] legislative analysis of what's going on? I doubt very seriously the House of Representatives will [1:53:01] do that. I know the Senate will not do that. So this seems to me to be a completely hopeless exercise [1:53:08] in vain and a complete distraction from the real issues of the country, like the illegal unconstitutional [1:53:15] war Donald Trump has unleashed in the world, costing us more than a billion dollars a day, like the [1:53:21] billion dollars they want for us now for the the gilded ballroom of his dreams and visions, like the [1:53:30] ruinous effects of their illegal unconstitutional tariffs on American businesses, small businesses and [1:53:36] consumers across the country. They're continuing cover-up of the Epstein files and their refusal to [1:53:42] deal seriously with that situation. So they want us to talk about Maricopa County. No thanks, Mr. Speaker. [1:53:49] No, I'm not interested in that. I don't think there's gonna be anybody voting for this silly legislation, [1:53:54] but I yield back. [1:54:00] I I yield back. [1:54:11] Can you say Yes! [1:54:14] No, I am not a king.