▶ 0:02:59Them to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. Today, the rules committee is convening to consider five separate measures. H. Conrad 96 h.r. 5625. H.r. 6260, h.r. 8365, and h.r. 8469. First, we'll turn to h. Conrad 96, a concurrent resolution expressing support for law enforcement.
▶ 0:03:29This week marks national police week, a week dedicated to honoring law enforcement officers who've made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty, as well as to recognize those who continue to serve. This resolution honors the hard work, personal sacrifice, and often unacknowledged work carried out by law enforcement officers. It recognizes the undeniable reduction in crime that comes when law enforcement departments are respected and fully funded.
▶ 0:03:59Today and every day, we should honor the brave men and women who work around the clock to keep our communities safe. H.r. 5000 625, the cashless bail reporting act, would bring necessary and timely transparency for the american people by requiring publication of the jurisdictions that have cashless bail policies and laws, so americans are aware of policies that affect their communities.
▶ 0:04:26Americans have the right to know if they're living in or near a community that permits people accused of certain violent crimes to be released pending trial on personal recognizance or unsecured appearance. Bond h.r. 20, h.r. 6260. The.
▶ 0:04:42Keeping violent offenders off our streets act reigns in the democrat soft on crime cashless bail policy by requiring bail bondsmen, including so-called, quote, charitable bail bonds, end quote, to adhere to common sense accountability measures. Charitable bail bonds are organizations that use money from donations to help pay cash bail for defendants.
▶ 0:05:10Charitable bail bonds regularly post bail for individuals charged with violent felonies and previous convictions. This legislation amends the federal criminal statute dealing with insurance related crimes to include the posting of bail by a corporate entity, nonprofit entity or for profit entity as being, quote, engaged in the business of insurance.
▶ 0:05:39Therefore, if a charitable bail bond is posting bail, it will be subject to the state licensing requirements and oversight by state insurance commissioners to ensure accountability for charitable bail bonds that break the law. H.r. 8365. The monitor accountability act would set a series of defined terms and expectations for federal court monitors.
▶ 0:06:07Court monitors are independent oversight officials appointed through agreements between a government agency and a public or private entity, often in response to concerns involving civil rights violations, fraud allegations, misconduct or regulatory violations.
▶ 0:06:25Although court monitors are intended to operate independently from both the government and the monitored entity, this independence has raised concerns in practice, particularly regarding cost, duration and accountability. In long running consent decree regimes.
▶ 0:06:44In some cases, monitor ships have remained in place for more than a decade, prompting debate over whether their role is to ensure compliance or to sustain managerial control of agency operations. The reforms contained within this legislation set clear expectations for time limited oversight, ensuring that federal monitor ships are not indefinite. Finally, h.r.
▶ 0:07:118469, the military, construction, veterans affairs and related agencies appropriations act of 2027 provides a total discretionary allocation of 157 billion, which is nearly 4 billion above the fy 26 enacted level.
▶ 0:07:33In addition, the bill provides 323.9 billion for mandatory programs, for a total of 469.49 billion in overall funding.
▶ 0:07:46This package allocates 90 million in additional funding for design of barracks and child development centers, vital for the quality of life for service members and their families to address deficiencies identified by the government accountability office.
▶ 0:08:04Further, it provides 450.29 billion for the department of veterans affairs, which is 83.6 billion above the fy enacted level to fully fund veterans medical care and to fully fund veterans benefits and toxic exposure related needs. We can and should pass this legislation on a bipartisan basis to support the nation's veterans and their families.
▶ 0:08:34With that, I now yield to the ranking member, Mr. mcgovern, for any comments he wishes to make. >> well, thank you, madam chair. Um, today we are considering the military construction and veterans affairs funding bill, as well as a package of bills that republicans are advancing that pays lip service to law enforcement but does nothing to address their actual concerns.
▶ 0:08:56These bills are simply a half attempt to paint democrats as soft on crime, while advancing lousy legislation that will not make our cities and our towns safer. Now, here's how you know that this is all political theater. There is a resolution on the floor right now to honor law enforcement officers and commemorate those killed in the line of duty.
▶ 0:09:18It has broad bipartisan support from both democrats and republicans, but that is not the resolution we're considering here in the rules committee tonight, because apparently for the radical right, it wasn't good enough to honor the police in a bipartisan way. So now we also have to advance a separate partizan resolution filled with lies attacking democrats. That's the resolution. That's before the rules committee right now.
▶ 0:09:45And I think that just says so much about what this place has turned into. Partizanship for the sake of partizanship, it's pathetic. And I would just say to my friends on the other side, people don't like it when you use them. And that is exactly what republicans have turned police week into. You drag out support for law enforcement once a year. You use the police like props, and then you discard them. Once you're you're done with all the photo ops and the press conferences.
▶ 0:10:15Nothing in these bills, not a thing, will actually address the public safety concerns that I hear about back home, like more funding for cities and towns to hire more cops. You guys want to spend $1 billion on a ballroom, and you come up here talking about supporting the police, and you come up with a bunch of bills that do nothing to actually support the police, no additional funding to hire police or to provide our communities with the
▶ 0:10:47Funding to be able to get state of the art equipment. Let me tell you something. Talk is cheap and nothing in these bills deals with the number one thing I hear about back home, and that is the issue of affordability. Just this morning, the wall street journal reported that inflation is rising thanks to trump's policies, the highest rate in three years because of the tariffs and because of the war. I had a town hall meeting this weekend and people are off about inflation.
▶ 0:11:16They come up to me at event after event to talk about it, and I tell them to call the white house and call speaker mike johnson's office to complain, because that's who's to blame for gas and food prices going up because of the tariffs and because of this illegal war. Now, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what's going on here. The economy is great for billionaires.
▶ 0:11:38The price gougers and giant corporations, they're all doing great, but it's not working for the people who actually keep this country running. It's not working for families struggling to make ends meet, or the parents who have to pick between gas and groceries before the next paycheck comes in. And instead of trying to bring down the cost of living instead of fighting inflation, republicans are doing the opposite. They're making it worse.
▶ 0:12:04They ripped health care from millions, cut food assistance for kids, veterans, and seniors, and raised the price of everything from utilities to groceries, all to give tax breaks to their billionaire donors and rubber stamp every one of trump's stupid ideas, including his tariffs, his war, and now his billion dollar ballroom.
▶ 0:12:25One other thing that I would like to point out, madam chair, we are apparently also going to consider a rule today to detach an e 15 provision from the farm bill, a provision that would cost billions because it handed over taxpayer dollars to, you guessed it, the oil industry. But just remember, speaker johnson told one group of republicans that e15 would get its own vote. And he added, and he.
▶ 0:12:54And be added to the farm bill. And then he told another group the exact opposite. What a great strategy. The problem with making multiple shady backroom deals is that sometimes the people in the different shady backrooms actually talk to each other. So now, after all the all that time wasted coming up with a rule that combined e15 with the farm bill, we are now going to waste more time on a new rule to separate it out again.
▶ 0:13:21And I'm surprised, quite frankly, that midwestern republicans are supporting this new strategy from the speaker, because it really is just a way to ensure that the senate never, ever, ever takes it up. But that's your problem now. Uh, but that's how this place works. Thanks to republicans, promises made, promises broken, republicans break promises to their own members. They break promises to the american people. They cannot govern. They cannot keep their word.
▶ 0:13:49And while they stumble from one internal meltdown to the next, the rest of us keep paying the price. And with that, I yield back. >> thank you, Mr. mcgovern. Without objection, any prepared statements that our witnesses may have will be included in the record. And now welcome our first panel, chairman carter and representative wasserman schultz from the committee on appropriations. Your full statement will be submitted.
▶ 0:14:18For the record, we ask that you summarize your statement in five minutes. And, representative schultz, let me assure you, you didn't miss anything. We just went ahead with our opening statements so as to save time. But I assure you, we. You didn't miss anything. Chairman carter, I welcome your testimony.
▶ 0:14:38>> uh, thank you, madam chairman, and thank you, madam chairman and ranking member mcgovern and members of the committee for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the final year, 2027 military construction, veterans affairs and related agencies appropriations bill. I want to thank appropriations chairman cole for his leadership in getting this bill through. The committee.
▶ 0:15:08I also want to recognize ranking member and full committee members, miss delauro and ranking member of the subcommittee, miss wasserman schultz, for their help in getting us to this point. I value my relationship with Mrs. wasserman schultz.
▶ 0:15:26As I have said before, while I know we don't agree on everything in the bill, we do agree on the importance of taking care of those who sacrifice so much for each of us. While it's not perfect, the legislation before us today receives receive unanimous support out of our committee.
▶ 0:15:52I greatly appreciate the bipartisan efforts of all those involved. The efforts show bipartisanship is not only possible but yields legislative success.
▶ 0:16:07I acknowledge we can agree the on the importance of supporting our troops, their families and the nation's veterans for fiscal year 2027, the military, construction, veterans affairs and related agency bill, discretionary allocation is 157 billion. I want to briefly highlight some of the priorities of this bill.
▶ 0:16:39First and most importantly, we fully fund veterans health care. We provide an advance for toxic explosion fund. We include 900 million for medical and prosthetic research. We address long standing concerns of mental health, homelessness, and among our veteran population.
▶ 0:17:05This bill includes over 19 million for military construction, invests in barracks deficiencies, boosters, investment in dod laboratories, assist in demolishing absolute infrastructure, provides nearly 2 billion for military in military housing.
▶ 0:17:31In closing, this bill supports those of us who sacrificed for our country and served us well and maintain our commitment to them, as well as being both service members and for veterans. I look forward to working with all of you as this bill moves forward.
▶ 0:17:58Again, I want to thank you for considering amendments to the bill from members of both sides. I appreciate your time and opportunity to testify today, I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. And now recognize representative wasserman schultz for five minutes. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. And I want to also thank chairwoman fox ranking member mcgovern.
▶ 0:18:22And I'm really pleased to be able to be here to testify as ranking member of the appropriations subcommittee on the fiscal year 2027, military construction, veterans affairs and related agencies appropriations bill. The past few years, the va bill strayed from our usual tradition of being one of the few appropriations bills that had bipartisan support. Our committee has a shared goal of supporting our service members, veterans, and their families. No matter who holds the majority.
▶ 0:18:49We are very proud to report that as the bill currently stands, this is a bipartisan bill, one we reported out of full committee, 58 to 0. I want to share with you how rare that is these days and the effort that was made on both sides of the aisle to make sure that that vote was possible. Each side made compromises.
▶ 0:19:15Each side swallowed things that perhaps they didn't like or left things out, that perhaps they would have preferred be in the bill, but making sure that we can come together and be unified in standing up for our service members and our veterans and their families is absolutely critical. And I really want to thank chair carter for his partnership in writing this bill and doing his best to keep the bill clear of controversial, unrelated policy riders that in the past have kept us from supporting this bill.
▶ 0:19:45I hope that as this committee considers amendments to this bill, that members of the rules committee uphold the bipartisan commitment that we both made, chair carter and I, and that if any controversial provisions are added, I want to make it clear that we will not be able to support this bill going forward. Overall, the bill is a good one.
▶ 0:20:03It fully funds health care for veterans at a time when health care costs are on the rise, and demand for va services continues to increase as pact act claims increase, we must do all that we can to keep our promise to provide health care to our toxic exposure veterans. This is why it is critical that we advance fund the toxic exposures fund or the tef. I appreciate chair carter's willingness to work with me at the full committee markup to ensure that this bill includes $53.7 billion in advance funding for the tef.
▶ 0:20:32The bill also provides sufficient funding for barracks, child development centers and pfas remediation, which is critical in ensuring readiness and troop morale. Most importantly, as I mentioned earlier, it does not carry offensive cultural war riders riders that were total nonstarters in years past. The bill also maintains certain provisions that reclaim congress's power of the purse provisions that we believe we all can support as this administration continues to bypass our exclusive constitutional role in appropriations.
▶ 0:21:01However, however, I do want to be clear that this is not the bill that I would have written, and it contains some funding and language decisions that I would not have made. But in spite of that, I voted yes anyway, and I encouraged my colleagues to do the same. The most problematic provision is section 413, the knicks rider. Long standing federal law requires that va report a benefit report of beneficiary that has been deemed mentally incompetent based on medical evidence, and therefore is assigned a fiduciary to protect them in handling their finances.
▶ 0:21:31So the national instant criminal background check system, this provision prevents this reporting, and it is in violation of the law. In addition to this provision, I oppose the funding level for the nato security investment program. This bill keeps the funding equal to last year, but it is $122 million below the request level. Now, more than ever, we should be reinforcing deterrence with the help of our european allies, who disproportionately fund this program, especially as the war in ukraine continues.
▶ 0:21:58But there are instances in which we have to vote against our preference. One should never vote against your principle. But sometimes, sometimes we cast a vote against our preference to achieve a greater good. And I believe that this bill accomplishes that, which is why I support it. And I want to thank the members of this committee for your consideration of our bill. Thank chair carter for his friendship and for really being a remarkable colleague to work with.
▶ 0:22:25We each endeavor, no matter who is in the roles that we hold now, to work together closely to make sure that we can have as much consensus as possible. And as it stands now, this bill is a bipartisan one, and I am hopeful that we can keep it that way. What a message we could send about our ability to work together. If the house votes unanimously for this milcon va bill, which I am hopeful that we will be able to. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you very much. I now recognize the gentlelady for her time of questioning.
▶ 0:22:56>> well, I just want to say thank you so much for bringing the bill forward by personally, I appreciate that, and I especially appreciate the full funding for the va medical, um, medical care. And, um, and so I just want to say thank you. Thank you for bringing it forward. We're excited that, uh, um, so that we can say we have a bipartisan bill. And when you, when you said that it was 540, I had a 58, 58, excuse me. And you said, that's unusual.
▶ 0:23:20And I kind of, uh, yeah, so I, I really appreciate the hard work that it came forward, but I think this is a topic that we really can come together on because we all do care that our va, that our veterans are taken care of and that our, our military has the proper housing. So thank you and I plan on supporting it. I yield back. >> kennedy yields back. Now recognize the ranking member, Mr. mcgovern, for his question and comment. >> thank you. I thank you for both being here and.
▶ 0:23:46And although I appreciate that this bill does not have many of the culture war policy writers that have plagued the process, the process last year, uh, I'm very bothered that this bill continues to prevent the va from reporting a beneficiary to the national instant criminal background check system. This policy blocks the va from helping keep guns out of the hands of people who are already prohibited under federal law from purchasing or possessing firearms.
▶ 0:24:16And nearly 5000 veterans die from suicide with a gun every year. Uh, we all should be ashamed that this bill undermines an effective tool that can keep veterans safe. And so, Mr. wasserman-schultz, I know that you share my concern about this provision.
▶ 0:24:33Can you talk about whether any progress has been made to remove this provision from the bill or other policy ideas, uh, that, uh, that you have to ensure that we protect at risk veterans from harming themselves or others. >> and I thank the ranking member for your question, and I definitely share your concern. Um, congresswoman escobar of texas did offer an amendment to strike this provision during our full appropriations markup, and it was not successful.
▶ 0:25:02Um, in spite of that. And she's offering an amendment here in the rules committee as well. Um, in spite of that, as I said in my opening remarks, it was important for us to try to come together and make compromise.
▶ 0:25:18This bill doesn't look like it would if I if I were the chair, but it it was important to send a very strong message that because there was an effort made to make sure that we could have as much consensus as possible, um, that we have an opportunity to really demonstrate the example of trying to come together. >> and I'm also concerned that the bill does not sufficiently fund our commitments to nato. Um, can you, Mr. wasserman schultz, can you explain why?
▶ 0:25:49Why is this nato funding important? And what funding level would you like to see as the process moves forward? >> so the bill does drastically underfund the nato security investment program. It's actually funded at $122 million below the president's request. And I know this was not the fault of the chairman.
▶ 0:26:06Uh, he was working under difficult circumstances with a very low allocation and an incredibly late budget request that really resulted in the funding levels that we have in this bill. I know we would have all preferred to have a much more robust allocation. I supported the bill at a full committee, because I knew we would be able to work together on a bipartisan basis to fully fund this program in conference. The current funding level of the bill is insufficient. Um, so we should certainly not be cutting the program even further.
▶ 0:26:36Uh, cuts to this program would renege on our commitment to our allies and would undermine our own troops in europe. A very significant portion of the projects funded by the ncip, either directly or indirectly support american troops stationed in or traveling through europe. Cutting funding for ncip would be fiscally irresponsible. The us only pays for around 15% of these projects, many of which directly replace what would otherwise be a U.S. military, construction or construction burden.
▶ 0:27:05Directly replace what would otherwise be a us military construction burden. These requirements wouldn't simply go away just because some members see any funding cut to nato as a win. Instead, without joint, joint and cip funding, our commanders in europe would have to consider other ways of meeting these requirements at a greater expense to U.S. taxpayers. Since the ncip program is disproportionately funded by our allies abroad. In fact, even this administration has recognized the value of the program and the return on investment each american dollar provides.
▶ 0:27:34The administration has once again requested to fully fund the program and meet U.S. commitments for nato infrastructure. So I would urge our colleagues to oppose any amendment which would cut funding further from ncip, and I would expect that this would be a topic of discussion when we reach the conference process. >> thank you very much. Thank you both. I yield back. Thank you. >> gentleman. Yields back. Now recognize myself for my five minutes of questioning and comment. And judge carter I'm I'm happy to work with you.
▶ 0:28:04You may have seen the same thing I did on the nix language. Here's my problem with it. I practiced for nearly 30 years, uh, in a small town practice of law. And I've represented a lot of people who came in to do things. And a lot of times what happens because there's not a court that's made a decision when we're dealing with the va benefits, a lot of times what happens is you've got somebody who is older and decides they just don't want to deal with their finances anymore.
▶ 0:28:30They may be living with a child, or it could be somebody like me and I'm not a veteran, but if I were, I've turned over all our finances because I'm running up and down the road all the time to my wife. And what happens with the va's form is I could very willingly have signed over my rights, you know, hey, you take care of it, son, or you take care of it, honey. Here, I'll sign the form at the va so you can do all my financial stuff.
▶ 0:28:56And the next thing I know, I'm not able to go turkey hunting because they've they've told me I can't buy a gun. I can't get a gun. I'm not supposed to be. And that's the disconnect. I'm very concerned about the the military suicides. I think that's a serious concern. And while the system is not perfect, as you know, the former judge, there can be a finding that somebody is a danger to themselves or to others.
▶ 0:29:23And then in that case, absolutely, it needs to go to the next system. But if it's just somebody who for because they're very busy with lots of other things, whether it be their business concerns or something else, or they're just, you know, living with a family member and decide it's just, you know, they want to be able to do their day to day stuff and not have to deal with the finances. That shouldn't automatically keep you from being able to purchase a weapon. Would you agree with me? >> yes, sir. I agree with you.
▶ 0:29:49>> and, and miss wasserman schultz, I appreciate your your whole attitude on this, and I'm happy to work with people to try to come up with language. If there's if there is a need to work with the va and work with others to come up with a language that's somewhere in between, because I don't want the folks who, who are just doing it for financial reasons because it's easier for them. Uh, they travel a lot or whatever. But I also recognize that some of these folks may be slipping through the cracks, and maybe they do need a determination of, of being a danger to themselves or to others.
▶ 0:30:19So that's, that's the fine line we have to get. And that's why we get the language that we have in, in the bill. And just striking that out doesn't solve the problem. But over the course of the next year, I'm happy to work with anybody to try to come up with correct language to try to protect our veterans if they are, in fact, having some kind of mental health issues. Right? But if it's just finances, we can't be taking away their right to, uh, go hunting for deer or squirrel or turkey or whatever. >> I would look forward to working with you.
▶ 0:30:49The problem here is that this is a straightforward, comprehensive prohibition from referring a veteran to the nics system. And I want to just be clear, if the veteran believes that the determination is wrong, they have a right to appeal. If a veteran veteran believes that they were wrongly reported to nics, they can have their rights restored through the court system. That is part of the process. So here's the blanket provision. >> of that.
▶ 0:31:14What you do is you take somebody who, uh, unaware of this law, signs over their financial rights. They haven't gone to court at all. And the next thing is to get their gun rights back. Then they have to spend the money to get an attorney to go to court, to declare that they're not a danger to themselves when it was only financial to begin with. So we've got to figure out a way to work it out. And, and I, I recognize your concern.
▶ 0:31:39Um, but I also know that unfortunately, what because the va just blanket did it with everybody who turned over their finances to somebody else. It was just a form you fill out basically. >> no. >> sometimes the va will step in and say, we want you to do it, but sometimes it's just you've done it as a matter of if a matter of, of convenience. >> if you wouldn't mind my just correcting the record. There's, there's actually, and I appreciate your openness to working on this.
▶ 0:32:06There's an extensive bureaucratic process in place to protect veterans, especially those who have been deemed incapacitated or mentally incompetent, to determine when a fiduciary is needed. It's not just I mean, there's a very it's not a determination that's made lightly. It's not just a form that gets filled out and. >> and maybe that's changed and you can show that to me. But I know that I practiced with, with people who just turned it all over because it was just easier to do.
▶ 0:32:32And they there was not, I mean, maybe somebody handed them a form, but they weren't, uh, in a position to either they didn't pay attention or they didn't feel like paying attention to all the forms, and they just signed it over and away it goes. Is that am I wrong? >> no. And I agree with what you say, but in in addition to that, I represent fort hood.
▶ 0:32:53And when we started having these folks coming back with all the problems that they were having, we tried to get them professionals that understood them and they would talk. They think those professionals, they respected their opinion. But the, the, the shrink or whatever you want to call them that didn't have any experience with the military.
▶ 0:33:19We that's what we had to get in there because they're just not that many people that have that kind of experience. And they didn't trust anything those people did. And they were very, very vocal about they don't understand this. They don't understand what we went through. They can't make a judgment on us.
▶ 0:33:42And remembering all that that I went through 20, 15 years ago and, and all the work I did trying to get, you know, people with the kind of experience that they did, which were very, very few. I realized that it could someone who didn't understand the soldier wouldn't understand his competency.
▶ 0:34:03And it's not a, it's not a fully in in informed, uh, professional that doesn't understand the military. And I thought all this together with the things you said. I just don't think it's fair for that, that person to be able to deprive someone of their constitutional right.
▶ 0:34:32>> and, and, uh, that, you know, if I'm, if I've got it all wrong, you feel free to tell me, but we'll try to work on it over the course of the. >> and if we could get better psychological people that could talk to them. And we're working on that. I'm telling you, we are. The military is. >> but and hopefully and I'm. Very difficult, I'm going to yield back. But hopefully we'll be able to use, uh, telemedicine for that too. I'm a big proponent of that. And thank you.
▶ 0:34:58That can get us the right people in a lot of different places without having to have them travel all over the country. >> that's right. Absolutely. >> I appreciate it very much. Thank you both. And I yield back and now recognize the gentlelady from pennsylvania, miss scanlon, for her five minutes or thereabouts. >> thank you. Chairman, ranking member wasserman schultz and and our chair. I greatly appreciate the efforts you've made to make this a bipartisan bill. I mean, obviously, we all strive towards that goal.
▶ 0:35:28Um, and I do understand, representative wasserman schultz, that you were able to mitigate some of the more outrageous nonsense that some folks wanted to include in the milk on va. Bill. Uh, I am concerned that the package still falls way short of what's needed to adequately fund our military bases, nato and veterans health care. I'm very concerned about this ban on the nics reporting because, um, we have a lot of veterans in pennsylvania. We have a lot of concerns about veteran suicide.
▶ 0:35:58And this has been an important tool in preventing veteran suicide. Um, so at any rate, glad you were able to make bipartisan progress here. Um, although it may not be the bill that, that many of us would prefer. Um, but as this bill kicks off, the 2027 appropriations process, um, we once again see that there is a split in the party's priorities.
▶ 0:36:26If our budgets reflect those priorities and concerned that as we're heading towards the introduction of a 1.5 trillion, I believe, trillion with a t bill for the department of defense, that our colleagues are prepared to light hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars on fire for wasteful defense spending and unlawful ice activities, and then want to use that wasteful spending and the national deficit that exploded as a result of their big, ugly bill last summer as
▶ 0:36:56An excuse to cut funding for vital programs that americans rely upon, like funding for health care and medical research and education and housing. I mean, we are seeing that in their spending bills. Our republican colleagues would rather build massive ice detention camps and ballrooms rather than new homes.
▶ 0:37:14And we're seeing they'd rather put more masked and armed federal agents on american streets without meaningful protections for citizens than making the necessary investments for our troops and veterans and their families. So I, I wish that we could get the bipartisan buy in across a broader spectrum of bills. But, um, obviously want to recognize the effort that went into this one. So thank you, I yield back.
▶ 0:37:42Thank you gentlelady. >> yields back. Now recognize the gentleman from georgia, Mr. scott for his five minutes question. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. And, um, chair and ranking member. I want to go back to what you said the vote was what was what was the vote counting committee. >> 58 to 0. And I assume there were multiple multitude of amendments and other things.
▶ 0:38:08And, um, I just, I just want to reiterate the, the need for the committee process and the use of the committee process to get things done around here. And I appreciate the fact that you used the process. The process was successful. And, you know, this is this is what happens in the right when when you do that. And so members get to have their votes on their amendments. And I intend to vote for this rule and this legislation.
▶ 0:38:34And, um, this is where these discussions need to be had, not the rules committee, but in your committee where people bring the amendments. And so I appreciate the way the committee has been run. Um, and the fact that you were able to get to a unanimous vote among the members, it shows that you, as the chair and the ranking member, respect those chairs, and the process works under your leadership. Uh, I also want to affiliate myself with Mr.
▶ 0:39:01Griffith's remarks about, um, when a veteran would be put into, into that system. I mean, they shouldn't be put in the system and then have to fight to get their rights back. And so, um. I mean, I just, I just, again, want to urge caution as we, as we push forward there. I, I don't want them to have to fight to get their rights back, their rights that, uh, they have earned. Uh, with that said, I'll yield back to the chair, but I appreciate you.
▶ 0:39:32>> before you yield back. Do you mind if I I'm not going to respond on the next thing. I just want to. >> okay. Go ahead. >> I really thank you for the kind words. I agree. I think we both agree that the committee process is the best place for those of us that serve on the committee, that have the expertise in these in the subject matter of the committee. >> more importantly for the citizens of the united states. >> yes, absolutely. >> that's where the expertise is. >> yes.
▶ 0:39:57And so you will hear in that spirit, you will have a lot of amendments that are proposed today, um, that I would implore you to carefully consider and not upset the apple cart with by adding culture war riders and controversial items that we considered that the chairman considered, you know, when, when crafting the bill and that we carefully considered and were able to come together to
▶ 0:40:28Ensure that a bipartisan result was possible. >> well, I have I've heard the chair call been chair, respectfully, I've heard you called a lot of things. The liberals never been one of them. >> nope. >> um, I'm assuming that whatever it came out of the committee with is probably pretty good. >> definitely not calling him a liberal, I can assure you. >> so I appreciate both of you, chairman. I especially appreciate your long tenure here and your service. And with that, I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Now, recognize the gentleman from georgia, Mr. jack, for his time.
▶ 0:40:59>> thank you, Mr. chairman. And I echo my colleague, the dean of our delegation's, uh, thoughts and and 58 to 0 is, um, an incredible number. And, uh, one that, uh, that makes me wonder why we're not doing this on suspension, but nonetheless, here we are. Um, but I just judge, I want to thank you for your leadership.
▶ 0:41:18And I just want to note too, you know, with respect to my district, I, I do not represent a formal military installation or base, but I do represent armories across my national guard armories. And in some cases, they have housing associated with it. And because of that, I'm sure funds from this are going to flow to that. So it's just it's a healthy reminder that on the mill con side, many of us can touch it. And of course, on the veterans side, veterans affairs, um, we all have va service centers and clinics across our district.
▶ 0:41:46So you are your leadership, both of you are helping make my constituents, um, receive the benefits that they earned and receive the honor of the service that they carried for this country. So, um, grateful for your leadership and appreciate you being here on a flying day. And with that, I will yield back to our chairman, Mr. griffith. >> thank you very much. Uh, the gentleman yields back. That concludes the members questions and comments. And so we will release the first panel.
▶ 0:42:15And I believe we're going to take just a few seconds while. So y'all can leave the. And then we'll start with the second panel. >> sounds good. >> I'll leave it with one comment. When we had the vote, I wasn't expecting it to be unanimous, and I was shocked and, uh, very proud of the fact we were able to put together a unanimous bill. Thank you. >> thank you.
▶ 0:42:46>> I yes.
▶ 0:43:22>> I now welcome our second panel, representative biggs and ranking member raskin from the committee on judiciary. I know I saw representative raskin stick his head in a minute ago, so I know he's close by. And, uh, your full statement will be submitted for the record. And we ask that you summarize your statement in five minutes. Welcome.
▶ 0:43:48And, representative biggs, you are now recognized for your testimony. Thank you, Mr. chairman. And as you know, this week is national police week. So it's fitting that we're considering these four measures to support law enforcement and promote public safety. Legislation like this is increasingly important because we need to show the men and women in law enforcement that this body supports their mission and appreciates their service.
▶ 0:44:1564 years ago, president john f kennedy signed a proclamation which designated may 15th as peace officers memorial day and the week in which that date falls. As police week, thousands of law enforcement officers are visiting washington, dc this week to honor their colleagues who have made the ultimate sacrifice while bravely and selflessly serving their communities. Among those is apache junction police officer gabriel fazio, who was killed in the line of duty just a little over a year ago.
▶ 0:44:44May 6th, 2025. The first measure I'll discuss is house concurrent resolution 96, which expresses support, which is expressing support for law enforcement officers. This is a resolution I think everyone in this body can, can and should support. It expresses support for law enforcement officers and recognizes the risks and sacrifices they make to keep american communities safe. It criticizes efforts to defund police departments and anti-police rhetoric from radical activists and some politicians even.
▶ 0:45:12Finally, this resolution commends the trump administration for restoring law and order, which has contributed to the lowest homicide rate in over a century and the lowest overdose deaths since 2019. I think these are all easy facts and ideas to support, and I hope that there will be a bipartisan vote supporting this measure. Second is h.r. 5000 625, the cashless bail reporting act. Again, this is another piece of legislation that should receive bipartisan support.
▶ 0:45:38It was approved by a voice vote at committee markup, and I don't recall hearing any major reservations about it. Americans should know which jurisdictions have enacted dangerous and irresponsible cashless bail policies when deciding where to live, work or travel. The cashless bail reporting act requires the attorney general to list publicly those jurisdictions that permit cashless bail for individuals accused of certain crimes.
▶ 0:46:02These crimes include those involving a violent or sexual acts such as murder, rape, sexual assault, carjacking, robbery, burglary and assault, as well as public disorder offenses such as looting, vandalism, destruction of property, rioting or inciting to riot or fleeing from a law enforcement officer. We know violent criminals released on cashless or artificially low bail have reoffended. For example, in waukesha, wisconsin, darrell brooks was released on $1,000 bond after running over a woman with a vehicle.
▶ 0:46:30Despite a lengthy criminal history and an outstanding warrant, brooks was previously charged with aggravated battery and had an outstanding warrant in nevada after skipping bail for a sex related crime. On november 21st, 2021, brooks drove through a christmas parade, injuring more than 50 individuals and killing six, one of whom was an eight year old child.
▶ 0:46:51Further, a march 2023 study by researchers at the john jay college of criminal justice found that approximately 72% of violent felony offenders who were released without bail were rearrested. In farming. Americans. Which jurisdictions have implemented these irrational and irresponsible policies is just common sense. The third measure is h.r. 6260 the keeping violent offenders off our streets act of 2025 h.r.
▶ 0:47:206260 defines bail bonds as insurance products, which subjects them to federal insurance fraud laws and allows states to enact licensing requirements for corporate, for profit and nonprofit entities that post bail on behalf of defendants. This bill also prohibits charitable bail funds from making materially false statements in any financial reports or documents sent to an insurance regulatory official or agency.
▶ 0:47:44Charitable funds regularly post bail for individuals charged with violent felonies and previous convictions, for example, a scene investigation in 2023 found that in indiana from 2019 to 2021, 24% of the roughly 1000 defendants cut loose by the bail project. Among the largest charitable charitable bail groups in the united states have been charged with a crime of violence. 35% were facing felony charges and had a previous charge of at least one crime of violence. H.r.
▶ 0:48:136260, will ensure accountability for charitable bail funds that break the law. For example, charitable bail funds and their agents could more easily be prosecuted for embezzling or misappropriating the funds money. The criminal penalties associated with the violation of this section vary by the specific offense, but generally include both a fine and a prison term not exceeding 15 years.
▶ 0:48:35Additionally, as charitable bail funds would be, quote, engaged in the business of insurance, close quote under federal law, this bill would subject them to state licensing requirements and regulation and oversight by state insurance commissions. The final bill is h.r. 8365, the monitor accountability act. As you may know, monitors oversee compliance with consent decrees and settlements.
▶ 0:48:55When the federal government enters into a consent decree or other settlement with a state or local government, a monitor is appointed by the court to implement and monitor compliance with the terms of the consent decree or court order. Court courts appoint monitors on a case by case basis under individual consent decrees and enforcement decrees agreements resulting in a variable number of active monitors at any given time. H.r. 8365 would place conditions on a district court's appointment of a monitor of a state or unit of local government.
▶ 0:49:24These conditions include a cap on fees, a term limit on the monitors and judges overseeing monitor cases, public comment on the selection of the monitor and providing a public accounting of the activities of the monitor. In several cases, monitor ships have remained in place for a decade or longer.
▶ 0:49:43The tenure of some monitors has prompted debate over whether this oversight remains narrowly focused on ensuring compliance with the consent decree, or if it expands into sustained managerial control of agency operations. The tenure of longer serving monitors has also raised concerns regarding cost, duration and accountability of monitors. Some court monitors have amassed a great deal of wealth at the taxpayers expense, and have no incentive to to conclude their monitor ships.
▶ 0:50:10For example, maricopa county, arizona the monitorship of the county sheriff's office has cost the taxpayers almost $350 million since 2013. Since it began, about $32 million has been paid directly to the monitors firm. The same monitor has been accused of charging exorbitant fees without producing results in similar monitoring duties in new york, california, michigan and louisiana. To be clear, this bill does not end monitors.
▶ 0:50:36It only requires that a fresh set of eyes is placed on jurisdictions subject to a monitor. And let me give credit where credit is due, and I'm not going to go through the entire letter, but, uh, I agree with very little of the biden-harris administration, but this biden, uh, excuse me, this bill attempts to codify reforms based on five core principles first proposed by the biden-harris administration under the, um, stewardship of
▶ 0:51:07Former U.S. attorney general merrick garland. And I would like to include that record, that letter, as part of the record in. >> objection so ordered. >> in 2021, the department of justice reviewed monitor practices and proposed reforms. Those reforms include applying a series of principles that included limiting costs and conflicts of interest, ensuring managers accountability, compliance, compliance assessment, community engagement and efficient reform.
▶ 0:51:37That's what this bill, the monitor accountability act, does. I look forward to your questions and I'll yield back. Mr. chairman. Gentleman yields back now. Recognize ranking member raskin for your time. >> thank you, Mr. griffith. And greetings to all the distinguished members of the rules committee. Uh, it's police week when congress, uh, is accustomed to honor the federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement officers who put their bodies and their lives on the line for us every day.
▶ 0:52:06And by, uh, recognizing the many challenges that officers across america face in their work, law enforcement officers confront danger, uh, investigate and help derail crimes, connect victims with resources, and work closely with state and federal partners to oppose criminal networks. Congress should do everything that we can to support their important work.
▶ 0:52:27We should make sure that officers get the training and resources they need, that federal agencies are supporting state and local crime fighting, and that groups which partner with law enforcement to provide training, technical expertise and victim support are also well funded. But our colleagues have, alas, offered up four bills that do nothing to keep officers safe or help them carry out their jobs more effectively.
▶ 0:52:50This week, package contains a nonbinding and polemical partizan resolution that does nothing other than try to score cheap partizan points. The least problematic bill h.r. 5625, the cashless bail reporting act, is a relatively straightforward and minor transparency measure that directs the attorney general to publish a list of jurisdictions that permit cashless bail.
▶ 0:53:15While this bill is not problematic on its face, I do think it important to remind everyone that bail is not a mechanism for punishment in our system. Uh, in america, whether you're a president or a pope or a pauper, you're innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Doubt as to every element of the charged offense. And no one should be detained pretrial simply because they don't have the financial resources to post bail.
▶ 0:53:45The federal courts recognize this basic principle that we hold people only because of the danger of flight or violence to other people. The federal courts, uh, release pretrial defendants on cashless bail every single day. If my colleagues would like to study our policies around the country, they should ask for a report assessing how each jurisdiction handles pretrial criminal defendants.
▶ 0:54:12Instead, they're asking for a list focused exclusively on jurisdictions that, like federal courts, use cashless bail. Information, is already publicly available and known. But, uh, this resolution would have the doj compile the information for them. I suppose that's fine. And accordingly, I do not oppose this bill. Uh, h.r. 6260, keeping violent offenders off our streets act of 2025 is a different story.
▶ 0:54:43This bill would redefine the business of insurance to include the posting of monetary bail, criminal bail bonds, and federal immigration bail bonds. My gop colleagues have built this legislation as vaguely pro-police, although they've yet to show how it would support the nephron, the efforts of our nation's law enforcement officers or address their needs. What it would actually do is discourage or even destroy nonprofit bail funds that raise money for people who cannot afford to pay bail by themselves.
▶ 0:55:13These organizations try to address the clear injustice that results when wealthy people can pay their way out of jail while poor people are held in jail pending trial on minor, nonviolent criminal charges for no reason other than their inability to pay the bill amount set by the court. This bill will do nothing to keep our communities and law enforcement safer, and I strongly oppose this one. H.r. 8365.
▶ 0:55:40The monitor accountability act appears to be a rear guard attack on federal monitor ships nationwide. Federal monitor ships are a critical tool for judges to ensure compliance with court orders, settlement agreements and consent decrees, and to remedy entrenched violations of federal law, especially in matters of civil rights, police detention, disability rights, the environment, education and antitrust.
▶ 0:56:05Well, the bill's sponsor claims this legislation simply codifies recommendations made by attorney general merrick garland. The monitor accountability act actually goes much further than those recommendations. In an apparent effort to undermine monitor ships by making them less effective and less efficient nationally.
▶ 0:56:23For example, the bill mandates that federal monitors and even the judges overseeing a case be replaced every five and six years, respectively, an approach that the attorney general strongly opposed.
▶ 0:56:37These punitive reforms have a clear purpose to put an end to judges and monitors ability to ensure that entrenched violations of law, like the persistent racial discrimination by the sheriff, joe arpaio, in maricopa county, arizona, are fully addressed in the case. I oppose this legislation and urge colleagues to do the same.
▶ 0:56:57Finally, rather than demonstrating our unified support for the law enforcement officers who protect and serve our communities, the non-binding resolution h con res 96 is gotcha legislation containing false information and inflammatory rhetoric that is clearly designed to engender partizan division. We know how to pass nonpartisan resolutions that are truly about honoring law enforcement officers. When we want to do that. We just passed one h. Res.
▶ 0:57:251252 on the suspension calendar honoring law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty. Just last year, we passed h. John rose 30, a bipartisan resolution expressing support for local law enforcement officers. The year before that, we passed h. Res. 1213, condemning calls to defund the police and violence against officers. I proudly voted for these bipartisan measures and have repeatedly supported resolutions honoring our law enforcement, but I must oppose h.
▶ 0:57:55Con res 96, which is littered with tiresome screeds and polemics against, quote, leftist activists and progressive politicians that have no place in a resolution purportedly meant to bring us together to honor law enforcement. Republicans claim to be the party that backed the blue, but the legislation on the floor this week just reminds us that they were the party that backed the coup.
▶ 0:58:21Violent crime is indeed declining, but it has nothing to do with president trump or congressional republicans. In fact, it was democrats who made historic investments in public safety and law enforcement, empowering cities to develop programs and evidence based approaches that actually work to combat crime. For example, baltimore has reduced homicide by an amazing 60% since 2021.
▶ 0:58:44The city used american rescue plan funding to implement its group violence reduction strategy, a form of community violence intervention that identifies people who are most at risk of committing or becoming a victim of gun violence, and gives them the choice to turn away from violence and get support in their daily lives, or face accountability for committing crimes. Of those who enrolled in these services, 97% did not commit additional crimes.
▶ 0:59:09It was these investments that paid off, contributing to an overall nationwide decline in violent crime. Instead of continuing this momentum and focusing on restoring law and order, as the resolution claims, the administration has systematically undermined law enforcement and jeopardize public safety.
▶ 0:59:26My republican colleagues stood by idly while the trump administration canceled millions of dollars in critical grant funding that supported state and local law enforcement, diverted more than 25,000 officers away from fighting organized crime, terrorism and human trafficking, leading non-immigration criminal prosecutions to fall to their lowest point in decades invaded american cities, with federal agents unleashing chaos, chaos, and violence on american citizens under the
▶ 0:59:56Pretense of immigration enforcement repeatedly threatened to cut off funding for state and local law enforcement in certain jurisdictions, and attempted to commandeer state and local police departments to do the federal government's job. In fact, republicans on the house judiciary committee actually voted to defund the police in the 119th congress. H.r.
▶ 1:00:137640 the shutdown sanctuary policies act of 2026 would strip federal funding from jurisdictions that have laws placing any limitations on the amount of resources state and local law enforcement agencies devote to federal immigration matters. Despite the fact that immigration enforcement is the job of the federal government.
▶ 1:00:34In the spirit of this week, national police week, I once again call on my colleagues to stand together with law enforcement in word and deed by restoring critical public safety grants, holding the administration accountable for undermining proven methods of fighting crime, and ensuring that the that the federal government supports and provides assistance to state and local police rather than making their jobs harder.
▶ 1:00:56We should also pass legislation to support all those january 6th officers and their families still suffering from the violent injuries and deaths that were inflicted by the mass attack mobilized against the capitol in the congress on that day. Thank you, Mr. chairman. I yield back. >> gentleman yields back and now recognize miss fischbach for her time questioning. >> thank you, mister chair. And, uh, Mr. biggs, I know that several states have moved to minimize and eliminate monetary bail systems.
▶ 1:01:26Um, moving towards the cashless bail. And can you tell me what have been the impacts of the change on crime rates and recidivism, recidivism rates for violent offenders? >> well. When cashless bail has been imposed, um, what we have seen is that, um, with cashless bail, there has been an increase in violence and violent crime. That's what we've seen. The result.
▶ 1:01:53The result, of course, is that victims and victims families have been devastated. So these these are the things that happen when you have this. I'll quote, um, a study done by the yolo county district attorney's office in california that found that 70% of defendants released on no cash bail went on to reoffend. >> thank you. And, you know, it's clear that the cashless bail systems increase crime rates and recidivism rates.
▶ 1:02:22But I'm just wondering what role um, have the charitable bail funds played in the movement to end monetary bail systems? >> so the, the charitable bail funds, they have virtually no oversight, no regulation. And it is true that in some cases, they're, they're, uh, providing, uh, bail to low, low propensity to reoffend or, or less dangerous offenders.
▶ 1:02:49But they also have actually, uh, caused a great deal of, of harm as well. And for example, uh, and here's the way they work. The minnesota freedom fund received 231,000 in 2019. But after george floyd, they received $42 million, um, in 2020. And so what they're doing is in some instances, they have provided, um, bail to people who are very violent, get out, commit reoffend.
▶ 1:03:19The executive director of the minnesota freedom fund stated, quote, I, I often don't even look at a charge when I bail someone out. Close quote. He added, I'll see it after I pay the bill because it's not the pnt is the system we are fighting and the result has been sometimes you get people victimized, uh, by, uh, these violent offenders that are being paid for by charitable, um, bail organizations. The other aspect of this too, is this doesn't eliminate charitable bail organizations.
▶ 1:03:50It just says you can't defraud people by telling them you're not going to bail money for violent offenders. It. So it kind of provides that regulation on their ability to, to raise money. >> and Mr. biggs, I just wanted to in a cnn investigation in 2023, found that in indiana from 2019 to 2021, 24% of the roughly 1000 defendants cut loose by the bail project. Among the.
▶ 1:04:18And it is among the one of the largest charitable bail groups in the us had been charged with a crime of violence. So we're we're, you know, putting violent offenders back on the road. And 35% were facing felony charges and had a previous charge of at least one crime of violence. So I appreciate that you mentioned it. And I just think this is a cnn investigation. Um, that explains what's really happening.
▶ 1:04:45And I think putting one violent offender back on the street is one too many, because we need to make sure that we are protecting our citizens. And so I appreciate you bringing the bill forward. Um, and if you had anything else to add. >> uh, I'll, I'll add to on this on your comment, I'll just give you a couple of cases where, uh, the minnesota freedom fund, uh, or provided bail.
▶ 1:05:12So christopher boswell was twice convicted for rape and he was a level three sex offender. He was bailed out by the minnesota, uh, fund in the summer of 2020 after he was charged with ten felonies, including sexual assault, kidnaping and assault. Not those aren't he wasn't convicted of those. He had these other convictions already.
▶ 1:05:35But despite his violent history, the mff paid $350,000 to secure his release, and by september 2020, boswell had already violated the conditions of his release and a felony warrant was issued. And I can give you several more. I won't belabor it, but these are these are not always the the the low level nonviolent offenders that are being bailed out. >> yeah.
▶ 1:05:59And I would like to say that this does help the police officers do their job because when they catch someone and put them in jail, then they stay there instead of being released, and they have to be picked up when they reoffend. So this does help officers do their job. So I appreciate it. And with that, I yield back. >> gentlelady yields back. Now recognize the ranking member of the rules committee, Mr. mcgovern, for his time. >> yeah, I find this conversation interesting.
▶ 1:06:27Um, given the fact that I don't recall anybody on the other side. Um. Stating any objections to the mass pardon of all those who attacked this capitol building on january 6th? Uh, well, then I stand corrected, but, uh, I think you're the only one that I know of. Um, and, and many of those people that were pardoned went on to commit further violent crimes, um, including sexually assaulting children and minors.
▶ 1:06:59Um, I just wish there had been more concern over, uh, law, law and order at that time. Um, Mr. raskin, I don't know if you wanted to respond to any of what was just said or not, or. >> thank you, Mr. mcgovern. Well, first, let me respond to something that you just said, and I'm glad you're not letting that go. Um, but one of the 1600 people who were pardoned on mass is a man named andrew paul johnson.
▶ 1:07:25Um, and understand that before president trump, uh, the, that all of the prior modern presidents followed the advice of the pardon office in the department of justice. So they would get the applications and they would study them. They would compare them to each other, they would sift through. And it was a very tough discriminating process.
▶ 1:07:46But they looked for people who had actually been reformed, who had been rehabilitated, who had paid their fines, who had paid their restitution to the government, and then they would issue an exhaustive opinion on why this person should not be pardoned or they should be pardoned. Uh, in the vast majority did not get pardon recommendations. Now, on the contrary, president trump, through that whole process out, uh, he said we're not going to look at individual applications.
▶ 1:08:13We're going to pardon these people en mass, which may have been the basis for the objection from, uh, from our colleague on the rules committee. I don't know exactly why he objected, but, um, it was an outrageous mutilation of the system. And then what happened? Well, uh, a bunch of these people have gone out and committed crimes since they were released from prison. So, for example, andrew paul johnson was one of the rioters who had been convicted.
▶ 1:08:37He was in jail at the point when the president issued the pardon, he got out and he proceeded to sexually molest and abuse 212 year old children. He was prosecuted for it and has now been sentenced to life in prison, which you could say is a just result for what he did. But meantime, those were two other forms of, uh, two, two forms of sexual abuse and two crimes that would not have been convicted absent that blanket.
▶ 1:09:08Pardon? Um, let me just say, um, about cashless bail. Um, for 60 years, the federal court system has had a cashless bail system. Um, and, uh, to abolish the ideal that, uh, pretrial release should depend on the wealth of the defendant. People should be held if they pose a risk of flight or if they pose a danger to the community.
▶ 1:09:33And that's what cashless bail means, since congress imposed it on federal courts 60 years ago, it has served well. But now, you know, there's an effort not to crack down on this federal system, but to go after particular states and to step on their, uh, decisions under the system of, uh, of federalism. >> and let me just make one observation here that this is one of the frustrating things about serving in this chamber.
▶ 1:10:03And I think it's one of the things that the american people are frustrated with. Um, you know, we are debating, um, I think we, maybe we finished debating a suspension, um, in support of, and honoring our law enforcement officials that I is a bipartisan un resolution that will, I assume, get bipartisan support on the house floor. Uh, and then we have the bill before the rules committee today, which is basically that resolution with a few gotcha clauses in it.
▶ 1:10:30Um, things that kind of are meant to attack democrats, um, and to politicize a resolution, which I think there'll be division on. And for the life of me, I don't know why that is in the interest of law enforcement or the interest, you know, of, of congress or anything good. Um, other than just to try to further divide and to polarize people. And, um, it's become a habit around here.
▶ 1:11:00Um, and I just, I think it's a rotten thing to do. Um, and I hope that, um, again, that the resolution that has bipartisan support passes overwhelmingly, uh, which we will vote on it at suspension, but, uh, you know, to, to this is such a blatant attempt at partizanship. It really, it cheapens this institution. >> well, I think that's well put. Uh, Mr.
▶ 1:11:24Mcgovern, it's unfortunate because, uh, when we put up real resolutions that are about honoring the police and supporting the police, we have unanimous support, uh, in the body. Uh, and this has a number of paragraphs that could be lifted from one of those resolutions, and then all kinds of ideological finger painting, uh, all over it, uh, things about leftist activists and progressive politicians and democrats seeking to defund local police departments and all that stuff.
▶ 1:11:54There's also a false claim that the trump administration is focused on restoring law and order, and that that is what is responsible for declining homicide rates, giving no credit to the states and local governments that have for three years been engineering the steady reduction in crime. And that's obviously where it's been coming from. And that can be shown by lots of criminologists and people who actually study it.
▶ 1:12:18And I, I'm sorry to say, but I would not vote for something claiming that president trump has a law and order administration, leaving aside that he's got 34 felony criminal convictions to to his own record, but he is pardoned, 1600 criminals, many of them violent criminals who've gone out to engage in domestic violence, uh, home invasions, uh, sexual abuse of children, uh, and so on.
▶ 1:12:42And they have dismantled the counter terrorist and counter intelligence operations that are that were keeping us safe from terror attacks from abroad. Uh, and we've seen a real gutting of the criminal justice muscle in the department of justice as everything has been mobilized to the task of deporting immigrants. >> I appreciate both of you being here, and I yield back.
▶ 1:13:13>> gentleman yields back. Now, recognize myself and, uh, Mr. biggs, uh, appreciate you being here. Um, I heard you go over the, uh, the four measures that you brought before us. And I don't remember hearing anything about pardons. Did you bring us a bill about pardons I wasn't aware of? >> uh, no, sir, I did not. These don't pertain to pardons, uh, including the thousands of unmasked pardons issued by president biden, including to some in this room.
▶ 1:13:45>> okay, I yield back. And I recognize the gentlelady from pennsylvania. >> thank you, Mr. chair. Um, as we've heard, it's police week in dc. Uh, police week was established by a democratic president, john f kennedy. And it's traditional for congress to consider bills during this week to honor law enforcement officers who died in the line of duty and to support their families. And if we had those bills before us, I think there would be strong bipartisan support for them. But we don't.
▶ 1:14:17Instead, we have a package of do nothing messaging bills, none of which actually help law enforcement or make some of our neighborhoods safer. And as we've heard, some of them even contain gross misstatements of fact. So we don't have bipartisan bills here.
▶ 1:14:32Look, immediately following the pandemic, um, we've seen a dramatic reduction in violent crime due in large part to community investments we were able to make during the last administration investments in community violence prevention, police body cameras, mental health resources and police accreditation and training. But our republican colleagues are undermining this progress.
▶ 1:14:56They talk a big game, but it's just messaging bills and not meaningful action. The white house and congressional republicans have cut police funding. They've rescinded grants they have that have actually been shown to reduce crime. Um, they've refused to hold immigration enforcement personnel to the same professional standards as other law enforcement officers.
▶ 1:15:19And they've tried to make it easier for bad actors to acquire and use firearms, whether by eliminating century old regulations governing silencers or allowing guns to be mailed through the united states postal service.
▶ 1:15:32And, of course, as ranking member raskin suggested, this white house has shown contempt for law enforcement by pardoning criminals who violently attacked police officers right here in the capitol on january 6th, 2021, and ordering the department of justice to drop charges against Ms.
▶ 1:15:5213 gang leaders at the request of the president of el salvador and pardoning the president of president of honduras, who was convicted of trafficking hundreds of tons of cocaine into the U.S. and forcing government agencies to drop investigations and prosecutions of major corporate crimes, and pardoning dozens of white collar corporate criminals who've defrauded americans of their hard earned money, including retirement savings.
▶ 1:16:23While pardoning white collar criminals doesn't sound like it would impact cops on the street, those pardons have forgiven billions of dollars in fines and restitution that otherwise would have funded community based organizations and public agencies that provide voca assistance, which is assistance and compensation directly to crime victims, which makes the lives of police officers easier.
▶ 1:16:49So that's why I'm frustrated with the do nothing bills that have been served up this week, because it's more talk and no action to address the real problems that police encounter every day. Ranking member raskin, I think you looked at the billions of dollars in fines that had been forgiven, by pardons by this administration, and which were then unavailable for voca funding. Can you talk about that a little bit? >> yeah.
▶ 1:17:16The dollar is another fascinating difference we found in the treatment of pardons by this administration and all prior administrations, democratic and republican, all of them before said before, you can, uh, you know, either apply for a pardon, but certainly get a pardon. You've got to show, absent some compelling reasons, that you have paid your debt to society by paying restitution to the government. If it was a crime against the government or fines to the government or restitution to your victims.
▶ 1:17:47Okay, so I believe we found, uh, that under president biden, uh, all of the parties had paid money back, uh, except for a handful of them is less than $1 million worth. But president trump did not make that a condition for pardoning either.
▶ 1:18:04The around 1600 rioters and insurrectionists or the white collar criminals and fraudsters, uh, who found a way through people in the trump entourage to get to the president, $1.3 billion in restitution to the victims was forgiven by donald trump.
▶ 1:18:26So there was one guy who stole tens of millions of dollars from his own employees by taking the money that they paid under fica for social security taxes, uh, and as well as state unemployment, worker comp taxes and stuff like that. He just pocketed, he bought yachts, he bought houses and so on. And then he was sentenced to jail. He was, uh, ordered to repay all this money for his workers.
▶ 1:18:55And, um, he sent his mom to a, uh, a campaign event or a political fundraising event for $1 million, uh, for the trump and, uh, gop enterprises. And what do you know, he got a pardon, and millions of dollars were forgiven, which means the victims of his offenses were out of that money. So all of those fines don't have to be repaid. And we saw that time and time again, $1.3 billion.
▶ 1:19:26How is that a law and order agenda? How is that a tough on crime agenda that's a weak on crime agenda? >> well, so that 1.3 billion figure was actually from about a year ago. It was for the the pardons that happened immediately following the president's inauguration. There have been other pardons of folks who had substantial fines and restitution owed since then, hasn't there? >> um, I believe so. I don't have those numbers right in front of me. Oh I guess oh, I know, I do. Thank you very much. It's up to 1.56 billion.
▶ 1:19:56But understand like the radical policy policy shift there before it was said, are you actually rehabilitated? Are you reformed? Are you going to continue to be a threat to society? And have you repaid the people you ripped off, the people you injured before? And he's not asking that question. So he's putting these criminals back out on the street. And of course, they many of them have reoffended already.
▶ 1:20:22>> well, the the really offensive part of it is these pardons are going to people who have actually made substantial donations to trump, um, efforts, nonprofits, whatever, um, or our political allies. But I think what every member here is probably hearing from their community is the serious harm to the voca funding the violence of the victims of crime act, which relies upon fines in these federal cases in order to fund, um, domestic
▶ 1:20:53Abuse shelters, victim assistance, um, efforts, uh, drug rehabilitation, a whole bunch of things that, that actually help our justice system work and help make people whole when they are victims. >> well, thank you for pointing that. >> miss gamble, because it's a double hit.
▶ 1:21:08You remember when the administration first came in, they sent over elon musk and doge, and they cut $500 million out of already appropriated and obligated funds going to state and local victim assistance in anticrime fighting organizations. $5 million was cut in all of our states, in all of our districts. >> I remember I got a lot of calls.
▶ 1:21:33>> then they pulled the plug on our ability to replenish this other fund that you're talking about, which which has been used to help victims simply by forgiving these fines to the people who, for some reason, they're showering all this forgiveness on. >> well, I also want to focus for a minute on h.r.
▶ 1:21:518365, the monitor accountability act, because hiding behind this kind of boring title, um, is a bill that seems designed to hide corruption and free the sheriff's office in maricopa county, arizona, from accountability for decades of violations of civil rights of the people of arizona.
▶ 1:22:13This is the office that was run by the notorious sheriff, joe arpaio, who oversaw the worst pattern of racial profiling in us history, a man who willfully ignored more than 400 reported sex crime cases and whose office negligently cleared thousands of other cases without conducting investigations.
▶ 1:22:34So over a decade ago, the office was found guilty of systemic racial profiling and other unconstitutional behavior, leading to the appointment of a monitor to oversee the office's efforts to comply with the law. But rather than undertaking meaningful reforms, the sheriff's office undertook a pr campaign to grossly misrepresent the cost of complying with the court's order and to undermine the reform effort.
▶ 1:23:00So when the court ordered an independent audit of the sheriff's claims, uh, last year, the auditor found that the sheriff's office had misused taxpayer dollars and massively inflated the cost of the reforms, claiming that over 72% or $160 million worth of those reforms falsely were attributed to the court order.
▶ 1:23:25So the bill before us, by getting rid of the monitor, is seems designed to cover up this massive lie to the public. And that office's failure to comply with court orders. So it seems bizarre that we would be championing the cause of a rogue law enforcement agency during police week, when we should be honoring the good work of law enforcement officers across the country.
▶ 1:23:49Um, would you care to comment on on anything with regard to that bill, including the, I believe, false claim that it actually codifies a memorandum by attorney general garland? >> yeah. Well, uh, the apple case has been going on since 2013 for 13 years. Um, and you state the reason why, uh, sheriff arpaio thought he had done nothing wrong.
▶ 1:24:13Uh, he rejected all of the findings that there was racial, ethnic and national origin discrimination taking place as a pattern and practice and policy of his office. He was held in criminal contempt. Of course, president trump pardoned him, uh, for his criminal contempt. And it's still enforced today because they haven't complied fully yet with the orders of the monitor.
▶ 1:24:35If this legislation passes, the federal monitor, um, would immediately be terminated and replaced, as I understand it. And I'll stand corrected if the gentleman from arizona has a different interpretation, bill, but they would be replaced immediately because they've been there more than five years, and the judges have to be replaced if they've been there more than six years.
▶ 1:24:56So it seems like a fairly transparent, obvious attempt just to get rid of the judge and the monitor in the case, which means new people will be put in who don't know anything theoretically about the last 13 years. They're way behind on the case, but, uh, presumably would be more subject to some kind of political manipulation. If that's not true, if it's not meant to displace the current monitor, I would love to be corrected on that. >> yeah, it does seem like an invitation to fraud, waste and abuse.
▶ 1:25:24Just to cover up what's happened already, to inject more uncertainty into the process and get rid of a monitor and a judge who are trying to, uh, hold the feet to the fire for that office. So, um, I also think that the, to the extent that this bill purports to rely upon, uh, ag garland's memo, that memo explicitly said it would not apply retroactively and therefore would not apply to this case.
▶ 1:25:50>> uh, and, and also the attorney general, uh, opposed the idea of automatically cutting off the service of a monitor after five years or a judge after six years. Um, with your permission, I'd like to submit for the record two articles. And again, I didn't know a lot about this, but this whole legislation seems to be designed around the maricopa county case. But this one, um, it says that, um. Mcso not in total compliance with decade old court order.
▶ 1:26:17Maricopa county sheriff's office still hasn't totally complied with decade old court order. And the other one says this sheriff says his department eliminated racial bias. Data shows otherwise. >> well, and it is also disturbing. It seems to be also part of this broader move to weaponize the department of justice, because, of course, it was the U.S. department of justice that brought this case. And it's my understanding that, um, not the U.S. department of justice.
▶ 1:26:44Okay, then I stand corrected and we'll move on. Thank you. I yield back. >> uh, thank you very much, Mr. scott. >> thank you, madam chair. And as I as was indicated before, I'm, uh, I'm opposed to blanket pardons. Uh, I don't think anybody who was convicted of a violent act, uh, should have received an unconditional pardon. Certainly.
▶ 1:27:09Um, but I'm also opposed to preemptive pardons, uh, that the biden administration issued. I'm opposed to the pardons that he issued for his family. Um, I'm also opposed to the defund the police movement and what the other, uh, I guess the socialist movement of the democratic party, I mean, their press for antifa and the other anti-law enforcement and anti-law movements that they, uh, continue to support, uh, in this country.
▶ 1:27:37Uh, I am for law and order. I am thankful that we have law and order at the border. Now, I'm a little taken back that the democrats want to claim to be the party of law and order. Now, after they allowed millions upon millions of people into this country unchecked. And we have absolutely no idea who they who they let in here. Um, I want to tell you something else I'm opposed to. And as I read this letter and I'm going to come to you on this first, Mr.
▶ 1:28:04Biggs, I mean, this this 56, 25, we're talking about violent or sexual acts such as murder, rape, sexual assault, carjacking, robbery, burglary and assault. Is that correct? >> that's correct. >> okay. And then we said those that promote public disorder, such as looting, vandalism, destruction of property, rioting or inciting riots, fleeing from a law enforcement officer. Is that correct? >> that's correct. >> okay.
▶ 1:28:31And so all we're saying is that the voters in a political jurisdiction of this country should know if non cash bail is being allowed by their elected officials. Is that correct? >> yes. And and moreover, in some jurisdictions, they can't impose cash bail at all. That even for these types of. >> events, even for violent crime. >> that's correct.
▶ 1:29:04>> they cannot impose a cash bail for a violent crime. >> in some jurisdictions. That's correct. >> so do they just let them on the street, or do they hold them until until trial? >> they don't hold them till trial. >> yeah, I didn't think so either. Um and that's where the risk to us, the citizens come in. Mr. raskin, is, is what we have said so far. Correct. >> but we don't oppose. >> that bill that you just referenced.
▶ 1:29:33>> but you said, if I'm not mistaken, I wrote this down. No one should be detained pretrial. >> oh, no, I didn't say that. I said they shouldn't be detained simply because they don't have enough money to pay. Everybody should be ♪detained if they pose a threat of flight or a threat to the public safety, even if they can pay. That's the problem that the money gets it wrong. It it allows some people out who shouldn't be out and keep some people in who shouldn't be in. >> okay. So just let me let me ask you this.
▶ 1:30:02And this is just a serious. So, so then you oppose cashless bail for anyone who has committed, um, one of these crimes that we were talking about, the, the violent or sexual acts such as murder, rape, sexual assault, carjacking, robbery, burglary and assault. You agree that there should be no cashless bail for anybody who has been arrested for one of those acts? No.
▶ 1:30:30You do support cashless bail for people who have been arrested for those. >> but what I support is the federal system, which looks at the question of whether or not the person poses a danger of flight or in danger of violence in the community. And that just confuses the question. So I think that we've been doing it the right way in the federal system for the last 60 years. So I won't do it. I didn't do it according to the offense. Um, I mean, some offenses categorically people are held.
▶ 1:31:01Um, I believe in the federal system, but, um, yeah. >> we just differences of opinion on this. And, uh, Mr. biggs, do you have anything else that you would like to add before I turn the time back over to you? >> yeah, I, I would I want to cover the monitored court monitor system because two people who just admitted they don't know much about the case, um, um, they presume everything about this bill deals with the, um melinda's case, which it doesn't.
▶ 1:31:31And yet it does because it is the prototype, especially since the court monitor in this case has basically ripped off multiple jurisdictions and has been court monitor in multiple jurisdictions, in some cases for two decades. And he's and he's making bank. And the the thing that is so intriguing to me about this is, is, uh, this notion that we're not trying to codify some of, of merrick garland's conclusions here.
▶ 1:31:59So, uh, so he goes through and he says, we're going to, we want to, we need to provide guidance on this because there's, there's been some problems. So he asked, he asked, uh, um. >> Mr. bates, I'm over the five minutes, so I want to. Okay. If you can just finish it in 40s. I'd appreciate it. That'll keep us below six. >> almost impossible, but I'll just be quick.
▶ 1:32:24I'll just do this one part, uh, that my my colleague here said that, um, that 5 or 6 years that that the attorney general didn't, uh, specify how long a monitor should be. And yet the, the, the letter itself says in most cases, in most cases, you didn't say in all cases, but in most cases, the monitor must be replaced at an appropriate interval, usually of no more than 2 or 3 years.
▶ 1:32:53The case has been going on. It's gone through four sheriffs, four elected sheriffs from different parties, both parties. >> four year terms. >> uh, yeah. So so when they're talking about joe arpaio, he was out of office. Um, by, I believe it's 2016 is when his successor, paul penzone, a democrat, was elected who served. And he got so fed up with what was going on.
▶ 1:33:20He left early after he served almost two, two terms. And then he had another appointment come in. And then and now we're on the fourth. Sheriff. This isn't about joe arpaio. This is about Mr. mister, the the court monitor being paid millions of dollars. And the audit was conducted by his relative. It wasn't conducted by some independent auditor. >> I'm over my time. >> uh, thank. >> you for letting me.
▶ 1:33:49I appreciate both of you, madam chair. I yield the time that I don't have left. >> thank you, Mr. scott. Mr. neguse, you're recognized, and I think you have a birthday tomorrow, so we'll wish you happy birthday today. For tomorrow. >> well, I want to say thank you first and foremost, madam chair. You're the first person since I arrived in washington earlier today to note my impending birthday tomorrow. So I want to say I'm grateful to you. You're welcome. Uh, well, I'll be spending it here in the house, doing the people's work.
▶ 1:34:18So no better way to spend my birthday. Uh. That's right, that's right. Um, my two year old and my seven year old gave me a great send off yesterday in advance. So, uh, Mr. biggs, Mr. raskin, thank you both for being here. I want to start with h con res 96. This is the resolution expressing support for law enforcement officers. Mr.
▶ 1:34:38Biggs, as you know, the house typically passes a concurrent resolution during police week every year to recognize the contributions of law enforcement officers to our communities. Is that a fair statement? >> it is generally, yeah. >> last year, a resolution was put on the floor. I think you noted it passed with about 400 votes, give or take somewhere on there, 410, 411 votes. And it was done on suspension.
▶ 1:35:05This year. This resolution is being considered in the rules committee. Why is that? >> you are asking someone who doesn't know. I just. >> what was that? >> I, I repeat, that decision was made by someone other than myself, so I would be uncomfortable imputing motives to somebody else. >> I mean, you've been in congress quite a while. You have no theories about why this resolution is being considered in the rules committee and not on suspension. Tonight.
▶ 1:35:34>> I've got a lot of theories about why a lot of crap happens in in washington, dc. And and I could be happy to expound on those sometimes, but I really, truly don't know why this is. This or any of these other bills are coming to rules except for maybe wanted to they wanted to say, let's put all these police. >> why are. >> bills typically considered through the rules committee and not suspension? >> I don't know, it's a mysterious box to us all. >> Mr. you have no idea. Mr. biggs. You've served in congress for quite a committee.
▶ 1:36:05>> I told you, I told you I've got lots of ideas. So if you want me to give some ideas on on other things as well, I'm. I'm more than willing to opine. >> I will opine on this. I will state the obvious, which everyone on this committee, of course, would attest to.
▶ 1:36:20I think you would too, which is that typically bills are considered in the rules committee and not on the suspension calendar because it is presumed that that particular bill or resolution does not have two thirds support sufficient to garner sufficient support on the floor to pass on the suspension calendar. And so, in this case, this resolution. And I'm going to give you an opportunity. We're going to we're going to move forward.
▶ 1:36:44Um, because I had hoped for a colloquy on that particular point, but I, I, I could not get you to concede to, to, uh, the blunt reality, which is that in this case, this resolution is, I think the ranking member noted there are a variety of. Whereas clauses that were inserted into this resolution that did not exist in the resolution last year, which are deeply partizan. And you and I have a disagreement about those particular provisions. We're going to go through some of them together here shortly.
▶ 1:37:10That's why we're considering this resolution in the rules committee, not on the floor. I mean, that's the that's that's obvious. But in any event, let's go through some of these provisions. You can help me better understand them. One, the resolution notes quoting here, it says violent crimes have declined significantly in major cities as a result of the trump administration policies. Do you agree with that? >> which clause are you reading from? >> I'm reading from, uh.
▶ 1:37:40>> sorry, which page? >> let me pull it up. It's not, uh. >> real quick. >> two five, page. >> two. >> page two. I think it's. >> the second from the bottom. Is that what you're referring to? Correct. Whereas violent crime rates have declined significantly in major cities across the united states, would you would you disagree with a violent crime? Has has gone down in washington, D.C. >> what? >> no. >> disagree with that? >> I have no idea.
▶ 1:38:08I'm asking you this is your resolution or your you're here presenting this resolution. I'm saying is that whereas clause accurate or not accurate. >> I think it's accurate. >> okay. That's it. That's all I'm asking. So. >> and you think it's inaccurate? >> I'm not suggesting that to you. I'm sure. >> you're suggesting. >> I'm not. I'm asking you whether it's active. >> you suggest that. >> okay, well, let's walk. >> through you. >> impute. >> you impute. >> you imputed certain thoughts of mine. You read my mind. Let me assure you. >> let me assure you, Mr. biggs. Okay, okay.
▶ 1:38:36We ain't even gotten to the controversial questions yet. Okay. This is the resolution says violent crime. You disagree? Okay. The violent crime has gone down in major cities, right? So, yeah. In arizona. >> yeah. >> mesa is a major city. Phoenix is a major city. Tucson is a major city. Flagstaff is a major city. Gilbert, I would venture to suggest, is a major city. You agree that violent crime has gone down in those cities?
▶ 1:39:04>> um, I think that in a couple of cities that's actually probably been held stable or gone up actually in a couple of cities, but, you know. >> so. >> it hasn't gone. >> this, this actually didn't say in every major. >> oh, sure. >> it just so happens that in every major city in arizona, crime is going the other way. >> I didn't say in every major city. I said in a couple of my. >> in a couple of them. >> and I'm not really sure because I haven't I haven't gone through.
▶ 1:39:31But I can tell you, I can tell you where those two major cities that we do believe that craig goldman I it isn't it isn't the party of the. >> sounds like major crime. I've been to arizona in a while, but under governor hobbs it feels like it's going pretty well. I mean, according to this resolution, if. >> I just say that. >> broad brush. >> I wouldn't say that. >> okay, let's go to another clause. This is the eighth whereas clause. So this is on the second page. And you'll see that the first part, the prefatory phrase there is, quote, the trump administration's focus on restoring law and order.
▶ 1:40:01You see that. >> I do. >> okay. How many convicted felons has donald trump pardoned? >> uh, I don't think as many as joe biden pardoned. >> okay. And how many is that? >> I don't. >> know, you don't know. Okay. So. >> uh, and also. >> uh, you answered the question. I thank you for answering the question, Mr. biggs. Let me help provide some context. Right? >> so I'd love that.
▶ 1:40:26>> donald trump pardoned, as you know, on the first day of his second term, over 1500 defendants who were convicted of crimes connected to the events of january 6th that included a number of convicted felons who had been convicted by the way of crimes, including assaulting police officers.
▶ 1:40:47That does not sound like restoring law and order to me, and I'm sure, as you are aware, many of those individuals, or certainly some of those individuals who were pardoned for violent offenses by president trump, as you heard earlier today during the course of this committee proceeding, were then convicted of committing crimes after they were pardoned by president trump.
▶ 1:41:10So you could understand why I would be very skeptical of a resolution that says the trump administration's focus on restoring law and order when the very first action he took as president was to pardon violent felons. Seems like that is not restoring law and order to me. I take it you disagree. >> I do disagree, and I'll explain why if you give me a chance.
▶ 1:41:37So, um, I, I love how you want to deflect and move into pardons as if joe biden or somebody using an auto pen, um, didn't pardon. Over 3200 individuals, including some of the biggest fraudsters in american history. >> so say you decided that. >> those in with the trump I don't I don't understand what you and, and. >> and, and, and thank you for letting me finish my thought. Sure.
▶ 1:42:03And and also the, the very notion that president trump, who has brought the one city that, um, the feds actually have more influence on than any other city that's this one in which we are in. If you think that we haven't seen a reduction in violent crime in this city since the the president actually brought in federal folks to help help manage the police situation.
▶ 1:42:32If you don't think that the police union is not happy with what was happened, then you need to go. >> to the police union is is unhappy or happy or. >> and if you. >> and if you think if you think that. >> that other. >> of the sort. >> if you. Well, I've been saying things sort. And I imputed my madness and read my mind somehow I don't know how about that? But then I move on. And so did he offer that to other cities that were having problems? Yes.
▶ 1:43:02>> okay. >> and then they said, no, we are not that. We don't want to. >> come to the opportunity to answer that question. I will just say. >> you didn't like the answer. >> I, I mean, you're certainly right. I disagree with your answer, but in any event, I will just simply say that I don't think that one could argue with a straight face. Obviously, you disagree that the trump administration is restoring law and order while they're simultaneously pardoning violent felons who assaulted police officers.
▶ 1:43:27Are you familiar with the edward byrne memorial justice assistance grant program? I okay, that's a grant program that funds state and local law enforcement, right? >> that's correct. >> okay. President trump just proposed his fiscal year 2027 budget. I can represent to you because I suspect you don't have it in front of you. You're not on the appropriations committee that his budget proposes cutting those grants by $538 million.
▶ 1:43:55That's a 55% cut. Okay. I'm not asking you to verify that, but I'm just. >> I guess I want to trust you on that. I appreciate that I'm going to. I've known you a long time. I'm going. >> to ask you to do the same with respect to, uh, the cops program. So you're familiar with the community oriented policing service. Okay. Yeah. Uh, that program has been described by the department of justice as, quote, the cornerstone of the nation's crime fighting strategy.
▶ 1:44:23And president trump has proposed a more than 60% cut from what congress appropriated last year in the last fiscal year. So cops program, 60% cut proposed by president trump. The edward byrne memorial justice assistant grant programs for local police departments 53%, excuse me, 55% cut. That sounds like defunding the police to me.
▶ 1:44:54What do you think? >> I think, uh, thanks for thanks for asking me that question. Uh, you're I think you're asking me to answer something in a vacuum. I don't know what else surrounds that. I don't know what else. Um, goes into the funding that the this administration may or may not have of, uh, proposed.
▶ 1:45:12I do know that, uh, that I'm looking at a sheet now where, uh, municipalities, uh, underneath the blue mayors, um, actually reduced at one point, $1.7 billion in funding to local law enforcement. >> see, and I can say, and I want to say first, thank you for your answer. Second, um, I figured you'd indulge me. Given my birthday, I might be able to just ask that the representative from arizona, a few. We're having a great colloquy here. I promise you'll be very brief.
▶ 1:45:42>> I'm glad you think it was great. >> I will say, uh, because I'm. I can say that I disagree with those cities with respect to the, the statistics that you just made. >> good. >> for you. So but in any event, I would hope that my republican colleagues would join me in rejecting the proposed budget cuts to the cops program, which is very important for rural police departments in my district and in my state. I want to ask just one question about the cash bail reporting bill. So this is h.r. 5625, directs the attorney general to publish a website.
▶ 1:46:08Uh, that excuse me, this directs the attorney general to publish a list on the department of justice's website of the jurisdictions that permit cashless bail. Correct. >> uh, hold on one. Sure. Yes. I just want to make sure I got the. Yeah, yeah. >> so this h.r. 5625.
▶ 1:46:29The only thing the bill does is essentially tells the attorney general publish on your website this list of jurisdictions that permit cashless bail. >> for offenses. >> for cover offenses. Correct? Yeah. My understanding is the department of justice has done this in response to an executive order that president trump issued last year. Are you familiar with that? >> I believe that's that's correct. Okay. And so this is codifying it. >> have you seen the list? >> uh, I don't know that I have.
▶ 1:46:58>> have you tried calling the attorney general to get the list? >> no, I've been unable to do that. I haven't done that. >> it just feels like and this is my last point, madam chair. It just feels like this bill could be replaced with a quick phone call. So if someone just called the attorney general and said, attorney general, acting attorney general, can you put on your website this list that you've been directed to produce instead of going through like this bill was introduced seven months ago.
▶ 1:47:25So we're going to go through this whole process and enact a new federal law just to get them to put something on their website. That just seems like a lot. >> I respond, I'm happy to respond. Yeah. You know, a lot of executive orders are issued by presidents, right? And when the next president comes in, they repeal those executive orders. And I think both sides, I, I think you shouldn't be cherry picking on both sides.
▶ 1:47:54I, um, we really need to codify what our, what our president has done. I, I think that that's what you guys were trying to do a little bit with what president biden's administration did. And I think this is a reasonable codification. And in fact, it's probably the easiest codification. So I would expect your vote on it. >> we shall see. >> thank you. Thank you, Mr. neguse. Uh, lost a little bit of, um, my, um, order here.
▶ 1:48:20Um, Mr. jack, are you next or Mr. griffith, Mr. jack? >> thank you, madam chair. And I want to thank Mr. biggs for testifying today and to, uh, to follow up on what Mr. goose was saying. You know, one of the reasons why violent crime has decreased across major cities is we both know, as president trump had to step up where others did not step up. And to use a word he loves to use, would you mind opining, Mr.
▶ 1:48:49Biggs, as to why, uh, in some instances in arizona, democrat leadership has failed the state and the cities. Uh, it was elected to serve. >> so we do have sometimes problems with cashless bail. Um, in a couple of jurisdictions, we have jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate with federal law enforcement. And as you know, right now, the lion's share of anybody illegally entering the country comes through arizona.
▶ 1:49:16And so we we still have, for instance, drop houses all over maricopa county, one of the biggest counties in the country, 5.5 million people and big geographically bigger than some states. And the reality is, the biggest cities, phoenix and tucson, their leadership have said, we're not going to cooperate with federal law enforcement.
▶ 1:49:42They they release people out on the streets, and they are the places that we see crime still very high, whereas places like mesa, um, that enforce the law or are they my town, uh, where they enforce the law? Uh, and, and the county attorney in phoenix is trying to keep people in what they're fighting. Um, the, the policies of those big cities.
▶ 1:50:11>> well, it's one of the reasons why I think you need to lead the state, but that's not a question for here or this hearing. I do want to point out on h.r. 6260, the keeping violent offenders off our streets act. Um, I just want to point for the record, in july 22nd, 2022, indiana passed a law prohibiting charitable bail funds from bailing out felony offenders with a previous conviction for a violent crime.
▶ 1:50:34And I just want to note for the record that this is, according to cnn, at least nine individuals who were released by bail charity were subsequently arrested for murder. Cnn found that if the indiana law had been applied nationally, it likely would have drastically reduced that number. Any thoughts and comments? I mean, again, talking broadly about bail here, but it seems like these it seems like indiana stepped up and something we can learn by passing this legislation. >> yeah. Indiana is really the model, uh, on the legislation on how to deal with this.
▶ 1:51:02And it made a huge difference. And, um, and I, I, I think this is again, is just one more, um, reason we need to do this is because, uh, I, I read some of the statements from the director of one of these agencies, they don't care what the crime is because they don't like the system. And I think that's the fundamental difference between my colleague and. >> well, I appreciate your testimony today.
▶ 1:51:29It's obvious why the judiciary committee picked you to testify on these issues. You testified well, and with that, madam chair, I will yield back. >> thank you very much, Mr. jack. Mr. langworthy, do you have any questions? Okay. Thank you. Mr. norman, do you have any questions? >> no. I just want to thank both of you for coming here. You know, you acquit Mr. biggs. You were quizzed about why this was why what? Your opinion? Why this was a rule. Uh, does it really need an explanation?
▶ 1:52:01This is a this has been saluting policemen. Started in 1962, 68 years. So really, you don't need a reason to highlight our law enforcement. And you live in arizona. You see who's coming across the border. Who was the. When did this the border open up? In your opinion? >> so the history was, um, we had about an eight month record spree in 2019.
▶ 1:52:29And then president trump enforced the border and it shut it down. And then when joe biden came in, literally from the time he was determined to be the the winner declared the winner before he was even inaugurated. I could go down to the border, which I do often, and I could see people wearing let me in biden or biden's my president or whatever they they wanted to come in. And that was the rush.
▶ 1:53:00And literally I had stood there on that border with hundreds and even maybe even a thousand people walking across while I'm standing there and with cbp standing there and told they couldn't do anything and couldn't act, that was it. And I believe the numbers are correct. Somewhere around 20 million came in both, uh, known and unknown. >> and, uh, would you, as Mr. goose mentioned, you've been here a while.
▶ 1:53:25What's your reasoning for him letting these people in of from every country, every background, every. Why was that happening? Because no. Has any other president done that? >> and there's been no other president that has done that. In fact, president obama had a remarkable, uh, deportation record himself.
▶ 1:53:44And, um, I don't know why I can, I can just tell you that the odd oddities in, in my own home state where, uh, we had an election integrity bill that was vetoed at the same time that the governor was, uh, uh, disbanding the border security task force. So I don't know that they seem to be related. I mean, there's, there's comments all the time, but I don't want to impute, uh, motive that I don't know for certain. >> well, I'll close on this.
▶ 1:54:11Is there ever been a time when police have been put more to the test and have lost their lives based on the actions of one man, joe biden, by opening this country up to anyone and everyone, he. >> not only did he put the police at risk, he put the community and the nation at risk. Correct. >> thank you for both. Both appeal. I yield back. >> uh, thank you, Mr. norman.
▶ 1:54:38Um, I believe that, um, uh, takes care of the panel. I had a question, uh, that Mr. jack, uh, um, on my behalf. He didn't know that, but I appreciate that, so I have no question. Showman. >> can I can I put some. >> documents into the record? Would that be permissible? >> yes, sir. Thank you. Without objection. Whatever you have, if you will, um, give them to us, we will make sure they are entered into the record. All right. We don't have to go over.
▶ 1:55:09>> here's the whole stack of. >> the whole stack of them. If you give them to the gentleman right there. Thank you. Thank you very much. >> thank you. Members. >> thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. >> thank you. Mr. >> always good to see you. What do you want? This. This? Okay. This. Okay. >> so.
▶ 1:55:43>> is there anyone else seeking to testify on today's agenda? Seeing none. This closes the hearing portion of our meeting. The chair will be in receipt of a motion from the gentlewoman from minnesota, missus fischbach. >> madam chair, I move the committee grant a rule which provides that section 11 of house resolution 1224 shall have no force or effect.
▶ 1:56:13>> um, thank you very much. Um, you've now heard the motion. Is there any discussion or amendment to the rule. >> madam chair? >> Mr. mcgovern. >> I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee, add a section providing for immediate consideration of a resolution directing the clerk to strike section 12006 in the engrossment of h.r. Seven, five, six, seven, and the resolution shall be debatable for ten minutes.
▶ 1:56:40Equally divided and controlled by representative luna of florida, or her designee, and an opponent and the clerk shall not transmit h.r. Seven, five, six, seven to the senate until this resolution is disposed of. Madam chair, this is a settled issue. States are allowed to pass laws to establish basic humane standards for farm animals, like proposition 12 in california, or question three in massachusetts. And even the supreme court agrees.
▶ 1:57:06But republicans only support states rights when it is convenient for them. In this case, republican leadership, despite bipartisan opposition, wants to abuse the power of the federal government to nullify these state laws at the behest of their large agribusiness donors. During consideration of the farm bill, representative luna submitted a bipartisan amendment that had 22 co-sponsors from across the political spectrum.
▶ 1:57:32Republicans on this committee blocked it from even coming up to the house floor for a vote. So I'm giving my republican colleagues another chance to fix this. A yes vote on my motion will give the house the opportunity to strip this rotten provision that the republican farm in the republican farm bill before it goes to the senate. A no vote would shut down debate and ensure this federal ban moves forward.
▶ 1:57:58And I hope we can get a strong bipartisan vote for representative luna's amendment. >> is there any further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none. The question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> those opposed say no, no, no. In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to. >> for roll call, please. >> Mr. mcgovern, request a roll call.
▶ 1:58:26The the clerk will call the roll. >> Mrs. fischbach no. Mrs. fischbach. No. Mr. norman. Mr. norman. No. Mr. roy, Mrs. horton, Mr. langworthy, Mr. langworthy. No. Mr. scott. Mr. scott. No. Mr. griffin. Mr. griffin. No. Mr. jack. Mr. jack. No. Mr. mcgovern. Mr. mcgovern. I miss. Scanlon, miss scanlon, I. Mr. negus, miss leger. Fernandez. Madam chair. No. Madam chair. No. >> the clerk will report the total. >> to seven days. >> the nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to.
▶ 1:58:56As a further discussion on the amendment, further discussion on the motion. Hearing none. The question is on the motion from the gentlewoman from minnesota. All those in favor signify by saying I, I all those opposed say no, no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. Mr. mcgovern, request a roll call. The clerk will call the roll.
▶ 1:59:27>> Mrs. fischbach. Yes, Mrs. fischbach, I miss norman, Mr. norman, I, Mr. roy, Mrs. horton, Mrs. houchin I, Mr. langworthy, Mr. langworthy, I Mr. scott, Mr. scott I Mr. griffin. Mr. griffin I Mr. jack, Mr. jack I Mr. mcgovern. No. Mr. mcgovern. No. Miss. Scanlon, miss. Scanlon. No. Mr. joe neguse. Miss. Leger. Fernandez. Madam chair, I madam chair, I. >> the clerk will report the total. >> eight yays two nays. >> and the ayes have it.
▶ 1:59:56The motion to report is agreed to. Representative fischbach will be managing this rule for the majority. >> and I will for the democrats. >> thank you, Mr. mcgovern. The chair will be in receipt of a motion from the gentleman from virginia. Mr. griffin. >> thank you, madam chair. Madam chair, I move the committee. Grant h.r. 5625. The cashless bail reporting act, a closed rule. The rule waves all points of order against consideration of the bill.
▶ 2:00:21The rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on the judiciary, now printed in the bill, shall be considered as adopted, and the bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. The rule waves all points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended. The rule provides one hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on judiciary or their respective designees. The rule provides one motion to recommit. The rule further provides for consideration of h.r.
▶ 2:00:486260, the keeping violent offenders off our streets act of 2025. Under a closed rule, the rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides for that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on judiciary, now printed in the bill, should be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended.
▶ 2:01:12The rule provides one hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary or their respective designees. The rule provides one motion to recommit. The rule further provides for consideration of h.r. 8365, the monitor accountability act. Under a closed rule, the rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill.
▶ 2:01:34The rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on the judiciary, now printed in the bill modified by the amendment printed in part a of the rules committee report shall be considered as adopted in. The bill, as amended, shall be considered >> is read. >> the rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended. The rule provides one hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary or their respective designees. The rule provides one motion to recommit.
▶ 2:02:03The rule further provides for consideration of h. Res 96. Expressing support for law enforcement officers under a closed rule. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the concurrent resolution. The rule provides that the concurrent resolution shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the concurrent resolution. The rule provides one hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary or their respective designees. The rule further provides for consideration of h.r. 8469.
▶ 2:02:32The military, construction, veterans affairs and related agencies appropriations act, 2027. Under a structured rule, the rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides one hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations or their respective designees. The rule provides that the bill should be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause two of rule 21.
▶ 2:02:59The rule makes an order only those amendments printed in part b of the rules committee. Amendments in block described in section seven and pro forma amendments described in section eight. Each amendment shall be considered only in the order printed in the report may be offered only by a member designated in the report shall be considered as read. Shall be debatable for the time specified in the report.
▶ 2:03:22Equally divided and controlled by the proponent and opponent shall not be subject to amendment except as provided by section eight of the rule, and shall not be subject to demand for division of the question. The rule waives all points of order against the amendment printed in part b of the rules committee report or amendments in block described in section seven of the rule.
▶ 2:03:41The rule provides that the chair of the committee on appropriations or his designee may offer amendments in block consistent, consisting of amendments printed in part b of the rules committee report not earlier disposed of. Amendments in block shall be considered as read.
▶ 2:03:57Shall be debated for 20 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations or their respective designees, shall not be subject to amendment except as provided by section eight of the rule, and shall not be subject to demand for division of the question. The rule provides that the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations, with respect or their respective designees, may offer up to ten pro forma amendments each at any point for the purpose of debate. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit.
▶ 2:04:30>> thank you, Mr. griffith. Is there further discussion here on the motion? >> yeah. >> an amendment. >> yeah. Mr. mcgovern. >> have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee. Make an order. Amendment number 54 to h.r. 8469, offered by representative escobar, which would strike section 413 of the bill and thereby remove the policy rider. That would limit the va's ability to report to the national instant criminal background check system.
▶ 2:04:56Madam chair, as I said earlier, I'm very bothered that this bill blocks the va from helping keep guns out of the hands of people who are already prohibited under federal law from purchasing or possessing firearms. Nearly 5000 veterans die from suicide with a gun every year. We all should be ashamed that this bill undermines an effective tool that can help keep veterans safe. A yes vote on my motion would allow an up or down vote on the floor to remove this harmful policy from the bill.
▶ 2:05:26Let's have the debate and let's have the vote, and I yield back. >> thank you. Mr. mcgovern. Is there further discussion on Mr. mcgovern's amendment? Hearing none. The question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> all those opposed say no. >> no. >> in the opinion chair, the nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to. >> I ask for a roll call. >> Mr. mcgovern. >> on behalf of our veterans. >> request a roll call. Vote. The clerk will call the roll.
▶ 2:05:58>> Mrs. fischbach, Mrs. fischbach. Mr. norman. Mr. norman. No. Mr. roy. Mrs. horton. Mrs. hopkins. Mr. langworthy, Mr. langworthy. No. Mr. scott. Mr. scott. No. Mr. griffin. Mr. griffin. No. Mr. jack. No. Mr. jack. No. Mr. mcgovern. Aye. Mr. mcgovern. Mr. mcgovern. I miss scanlon, miss scanlon, I Mr. joe neguse, miss leger fernandez. Madam chair. >> uh, no. >> madam chair, no. >> clerk will report the total. >> two yeas, eight nays. >> noes have it. The amendment is not agreed to.
▶ 2:06:25Is there further discussion on the motion, miss scanlon? On the motion. >> I have an amendment. >> you're recognized, miss scanlon. >> thank you. I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee. Make an order.
▶ 2:06:38Amendment number five to hr 8469, offered by representative brownlee, which would prohibit funds in the bill from being used to implement, carry out or enforce the memorandum issued by under secretary of veterans affairs for health dated december 22nd, 2025, entitled provision of abortion counseling and services, or two.
▶ 2:06:59The final rule, published by the department of veterans affairs on december 31st, 2025 regarding reproductive health services under the trump administration, the va has stopped providing abortion care and counseling even in instances of rape, incest and health emergencies.
▶ 2:07:16Trump's va will now only provide abortion care in very narrow, life saving circumstances, which forces veterans who who are experiencing pregnancy complications to essentially wait until they're about to die before the va will provide the care that they need. This is insane. It has no place in the united states of america, and this is not how we should be treating our veterans. I urge a yes vote on my motion, and I yield back. >> thank you. Miss scanlon.
▶ 2:07:45Is there further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none. The question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed say no, no, no. In the opinion of the nos. >> have it. >> request rick allen. Request a recorded vote. The clerk will call the roll. >> Mrs. fischbach. Mrs. fischbach. Mr. norman. Mr. norman. No. Mr. roy. Mrs. houchin. Mrs. hutchinson. Mr. langworthy, Mr. langworthy. No. Mr. scott. Mr. scott. No. Mr. griffin. Mr. griffin. No. Mr. jack. No. Mr. jack. No. Mr.
▶ 2:08:17Mcgovern. Mr. mcgovern, I miss scanlon, I miss scanlon, I Mr. neguse, miss leger. Fernandez. Madam chair. No. Madam chair. No. >> the clerk will report the total. >> two yeas, eight nays. >> the nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Further discussion on the motion from the gentleman from virginia, Mr. mcgovern.
▶ 2:08:37>> yeah, I just I want to request unanimous consent to insert into the record written testimony from representative walkinshaw and supportive amendments, number six, eight, 29, 33, 39, 41 and 46 to hr 84, 69. >> without objection. So ordered. >> we have no further amendments. >> thank you, Mr. mcgovern. So hearing no further discussion, the questions on the motion from the gentleman from virginia. All those in favor signify by saying I, I those opposed say no, no.
▶ 2:09:06In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. >> as for. >> roll call, Mr. mcgovern, request a roll a roll call vote. The clerk will call the roll. >> Mrs. fischbach. Yes, Mrs. fischbach, Mr. norman. Mr. norman, I. Mr. roy, Mrs. horton. Mrs. horton I. Mr. langworthy, Mr. langworthy, I. Mr. scott, Mr. scott. I. Mr. griffin. Mr. griffin I. Mr. jack. Mr. jack I. Mr. mcgovern. No. Mr. mcgovern. No. Miss. Scanlon, miss. Scanlon. No. Mr. miss. Leger fernandez. Madam chair, madam chair, I.
▶ 2:09:39>> the clerk will report the total. >> aye. Ayes. Two nays. >> and the ayes have it. The motion to report is agreed to. Mr. griffiths will be managing the rule for the majority. >> and I will. >> and Mr. mcgovern will for the minority. Further discussion? Without objection. The committee is adjourned.