▶ 0:07:49Committee will come to order without objection the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time pursuant to committee rule two and House Rule 11 clause two the chairman may postpone further proceedings today on the question of approving any measure or matter or adopting an amendment for which a recorded vote is ordered. I now recognize the gentleman from Missouri Mr. Ander to lead us in the pledge of
▶ 0:08:14I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
▶ 0:08:27That's about the fastest we've ever said it. Today that was at a record pace. The first order of business today is adopting an updated subcommittee roster. This roster was distributed to members along with the text of the bills we will consider today. This roster returned Mr. Kelly to the same subcommittees that he previously served on the crime and the courts IP subcommittee. Is there any discussion before we vote on approving the roster? The gen- the ranking member is
▶ 0:08:52I just like to welcome Mr. Kelly back to the committee.
▶ 0:08:54And so would I. First time we've ever had an independent I think on at least on the Republican side as part of the committee. The question is on approving the updated
▶ 0:09:04know independents were on the Republican
▶ 0:09:06We got lots of inde- [laughter] independent thinkers on our side Mr. Mr. Mr. Ranking member. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed no. The eyes have it and the subcommittee roster is approved pursuant to notice I call up HR 8352 the Criminal History Access Act for purposes of markup and move that the committee reported favorably to the house. The clerk will report the bill.
▶ 0:09:27Hr 8352
▶ 0:09:28Without objection the bill be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Kansas Mr. Schmidt for an opening statement.
▶ 0:09:36Thank you Mr. Chairman and colleagues. It is my honor to introduce H.R. 8352, the Criminal History Access Act. Uh this bill is a common sense measure to ensure that state level agencies that license and certify law enforcement officers have access to the FBI's criminal history database so that they can do their jobs. Uh just a little over a week ago, I was out at the Kansas Law Enforcement Training Center addressing their most recent uh basic uh class graduates.
▶ 0:10:04And I was reminded then, as I always am when I visit, uh the auditorium at the training center where the graduation ceremony is held is appropriately named Integrity Auditorium. And each graduate is presented with a challenge coin that bears the phrase, "Integrity is the basis for community trust." More than 50,000 individuals apply each year for law enforcement positions across the United States, and it's our expectation that each of those men and women would be a person of integrity, capable of upholding the position of public trust.
▶ 0:10:34But we can't just take the applicant's word for it. All 50 states now have some form of a peace officer standards and training agency, commonly called a POST, which is charged with that task. It is essentially a licensing agency for law enforcement. And while the precise functions of POST agencies vary from state to state, they generally serve as certification entities that set standards for eligibility for employment as a law enforcement officer and enforce those standards.
▶ 0:11:02Under current law, the POST agencies cannot directly access the FBI's criminal history records database, potentially allowing individuals who should be disqualified from serving in law enforcement positions to slip through the cracks. In my own state of Kansas, for example, uh they are currently dealing with an issue with an officer who has a disqualifying conviction who has nonetheless uh slipped through the cracks, was hired by an agency.
▶ 0:11:30Uh and because Kansas CPOST, our POST agency, does not have the authority to run criminal histories, it has to rely on a separate agency's verification that the applicant met all of the minimum requirements. Uh, this particular officer has been working for more than 18 months with a disqualifying So, this simple bill that we have before us today would add POST agencies to the list of state-level entities that are granted access to the FBI's criminal history database.
▶ 0:11:57I want to thank the International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement Standards and Training for bringing this issue to our attention, and also thank our colleague Ms. Ross of North Carolina for joining with me in introducing this important bipartisan bill. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back.
▶ 0:12:17Chair, I'll recognize the ranking member, Mr. Raskin, for an opening
▶ 0:12:31Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm pleased to support this, uh, excellent bipartisan legislation. I want to commend, uh, Representative Schmidt and Ross for their strong leadership on this bill, which would allow peace officer standards and training agencies to access criminal history records for official use, such as for vetting people who are applying to become law enforcement officers. Every state has its own standards and requirements for determining who may serve as a state or local officer.
▶ 0:12:57Ultimately, hiring decisions are made by individual agencies, but every state also uses a board or agency to help set the standards and training requirements. These agencies, known as peace officer standards and training agencies, or POST agencies, may also certify who may be hired as a law enforcement officer, train officers, or assist with vetting.
▶ 0:13:18Despite being tasked with making these certifications, POST agencies are currently excluded from the federal law that allows limited access to the records of those seeking to become law enforcement officers. This means that post agencies must rely on the local hiring agency to provide relevant information and records.
▶ 0:13:35The International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement Standards and Training, which supports the development of professional standards in public safety, reports that the inability of the post agencies to obtain full and complete access to criminal history record information has resulted in individuals with otherwise disqualifying criminal histories attaining employment and volunteer status as law enforcement officers when such disqualification is not reported or is concealed by the hiring law enforcement agency.
▶ 0:14:02This inability to access information that's essential to determining whether someone's fit to serve their community could pose a serious safety risk. HR 8352 would fix this dangerous information gap by allowing post agencies to access the criminal history records of people applying to be law enforcement officers. By giving them access to these records when someone applies, this bill would give law enforcement one more tool to protect public safety and promote public trust.
▶ 0:14:29Again, want to thank Congressman Schmidt, Congressman Ross for working together to bring this issue to the committee's attention and to propose a very fine common sense solution. And I thank the International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement Standards and Training for their expertise and work on this legislation, which is also supported supported by the Major County Sheriffs' Association, the International Associations of Chiefs of Police, and Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies. I'm pleased to support this bill and I urge everyone to do the same. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 0:14:59Gentleman yields back. Without objection, all of the opening statements will be included in the record. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Kansas to offer an amendment in the nature of a
▶ 0:15:08Uh, Mr. Chairman, I believe I have an amendment at the desk.
▶ 0:15:10Clerk report.
▶ 0:15:11Amendment in the nature of a substitute.
▶ 0:15:13the amendment in the nature of a substitute will be considered as read and shall be considered as base text for the purpose of amendment. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Kansas to explain the amendment.
▶ 0:15:21Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is uh, a mere clerical amendment and does not change the substance of the bill.
▶ 0:15:26Gentleman yields back. The gentlelady from North Carolina is recognized.
▶ 0:15:29Um, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very much to um Congressman Schmidt for this excellent bill. It's an honor to work with you. Our offices are right next to each other and just fun fact, both of us represent um districts that manufacture Cheez-Its. Uh, when I came by your office yesterday, I saw that you too had Cheez-Its. So, just
▶ 0:15:56Um, I don't know where the cheese comes from, but the Cheez-Its come from our districts. Just letting you know, if you want Cheez-Its, we have we'll whatever kind you want between our two districts, you can get your Cheez-Its.
▶ 0:16:12Cheez-Its. We need snacks.
▶ 0:16:14So, okay. Um, so in addition to that the these two things that we have bonded on, um I I just want to reiterate that the post agencies are essen- essentially I this Cheez-It thing has gone crazy over there. Uh, they're essentially the gatekeepers to the law enforcement professionals and their job is to keep bad actors out and we want them to do their job.
▶ 0:16:41Over 50,000 people apply for law enforcement positions across the country every year and applicants already sign off on disclosure of their criminal history records as part of that process. The problem, as you've heard, is that current federal law actually blocks most post agencies from accessing these records. So, they end up relying on whatever the hiring department shares with them.
▶ 0:17:10When disqualifying information gets left out, post agencies never see it and somebody who shouldn't be certified ends up working in local law enforcement. This bill fixes this problem by amending 28 USC 534 to add post agencies to the list of entities authorized to receive federal criminal history records. The same access that law enforcement agencies already have.
▶ 0:17:40It's narrow, low to no cost, it's a technical fix, and I urge my colleagues to support it, and of course thank Congressman Schmidt for leading on this very important issue. Um and I yield
▶ 0:17:57General Leeds yields back. Who seeks Look at that. Look at that, Mr. Schmidt. You're This is just sailing through. Okay. Um The question is on adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. This will be followed immediately by a vote on favorably reporting the bill. All those in favor say I.
▶ 0:18:16Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it, and the amendment in the nature of substitute is adopted. The question is now on favorably reporting the bill as amended. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed, no. The [snorts] eyes have it, and the bill is ordered to be reported favorably to the house. Members will have 2 days to submit views. Without objection, the bill will be reported as a single amendment in the nature of a substitute incorporating all adopted amendments, and staff is authorized to make and conforming changes.
▶ 0:18:46Uh the committee will just stand in recess while we uh round up the sponsor of our second agenda item.
▶ 0:27:32Committee will come to order. Pursuant to notice, I call up HR 8365, the Monitor Accountability Act of 2026, for purpose of markup and move that the committee reported favorably to the house. The clerk will report the bill.
▶ 0:27:48Hr 8365
▶ 0:27:50the bill be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Biggs, for an opening
▶ 0:27:57Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you also hearing this bill today. Uh, we're considering HR 8365, the Monitor Accountability Act of 2026. This legislation is a result of a field hearing that the Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance held in February in Maricopa County, Arizona. While that hearing focused on the special monitor in Maricopa County, it also has implications for residents across this nation who also find their law enforcement agencies held hostage by a special monitor or consent decree.
▶ 0:28:26Since December 2013, the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office has been under federal judicial oversight following a Department of Justice investigation into a case that started in 2008, Ortega Melendres versus Arpaio. In 2007, Latino Motors and passengers, aided by the ACLU, filed a lawsuit against Maricopa County and the county sheriff.
▶ 0:28:48The lawsuit alleged that MCSO violated the Fourth and 14th Amendments by engaging in a systematic practice of unconstitutional racial profiling, including stopping, detaining, and arresting Latino individuals during traffic stops and patrol operations based on race or perceived immigration status. Unlike other agencies that have been placed under court monitors, there were no allegations nor findings that anyone was ever physically assaulted, shot, or killed.
▶ 0:29:17Following a bench trial in December of 2011, US District Judge G. Murray Snow ruled in 2013 that MCSO had violated constitutional protections and imposed permanent injunctions that required MCSO to implement sweeping reforms to policies, training, operations, and internal investigations. Unlike a consent decree, which is a negotiated settlement agreed to by their part by the parties, the court imposed these injunctions.
▶ 0:29:44DOJ consent decrees are typically entered into voluntarily by state or local governments to resolve a civil rights investigation without a trial, even though they can result in similarly similarly extensive federal oversight and court-appointed monitoring.
▶ 0:30:00In January 2014, Judge Snow appointed federal court monitor Robert Warshaw to oversee MCSO's compliance with the court's permanent injunctions, including reforms intended to address racial discrimination during traffic stops and deficiencies in policy development and Following that, in July 2015, the court mandated additional remedial measures, including further policy revisions to further strengthen oversight mechanisms.
▶ 0:30:26The federal court monitoring was intended to last only until MCSO achieved full and effective compliance with the court's injunctions. Yet oversight has continued for more than a decade without a fixed end date. This extended judicial supervision has placed significant financial burdens on Maricopa County taxpayers with costs reportedly reaching nearly $350 million since 2013.
▶ 0:30:50Most of these expenses include the administrative efforts needed to demonstrate compliance with court For example, despite remote work and meetings in 2021, the county was responsible for funding a 3,200 square foot office suite for the monitor costing taxpayers more than $97,000 for 1 year. This persistent federal judicial intervention has created operational challenges for MCSO including difficulties in recruiting and retaining qualified deputies.
▶ 0:31:20The increased administrative workload and ongoing scrutiny have led to a decline in staff retention and discouraged potential recruits from pursuing careers within the department, ultimately impacting on the office's ability to serve and protect the The federal court monitor typically issues quarterly reports which track the MCSO's compliance with the court-ordered reforms and provided the court with independent assessments of policy implementation, operational practices, and overall progress.
▶ 0:31:48Over the course of more than 40 reports, the MCSO's compliance rate increased from below 30% in 2014 to more than 94% by 2025, meeting the standard that requires the agency to demonstrate adherence in more than 94% of instances under review. According to Warshaw, the monitor, MCSO's compliance framework has become, {quote} "self-sustaining and institutionalized", {close quote.
▶ 0:32:13Warshaw also labeled MCSO's compliance with policies, training, and supervisory review as solid, noting that the compliance measures were fully built into the agency's daily work, showing full independent accountability. Earlier this year, DOJ filed a brief supporting Maricopa County's request to end federal oversight, noting that the litigation has been successful in reforming the agency.
▶ 0:32:34The department argued that the extensive reforms imposed through the court-appointed monitoring regime have been successful in correcting the unconstitutional practices identified in the original case that MCSO has demonstrated sustained systemic The department cited multiple recent monitor reports documenting consistently high compliance rates, institutionalized policy adherence, effective training programs, and durable accountability The department indicated that continued federal supervision is no longer necessary to ensure constitutional policing
▶ 0:33:05supporting termination of the court-appointed monitoring regime. Maricopa County is not the only jurisdiction being monitored by Robert Warshaw and his associates. Warshaw has been accused of taking exorbitant payment without producing results in monitoring law enforcement agencies in New York, California, Michigan, and For example, Warshaw faced criticism for the duration, high cost, and evolving compliance benchmarks of federal oversight in California.
▶ 0:33:32In other words, Warshaw made a bunch of money while continuing to move the goal posts. Despite reportedly spending little time in Oakland, Warshaw is paid currently more than a million dollars annually by the city. A structure that incentivizes prolonged monitorship monitorship. What incentive does Warshaw have to ever make a finding of compliance and completion of the when to do so would mean he would lose a big million-dollar payment?
▶ 0:33:59It turns out that the court monitor is incentivized to grift on his appointment. Compared to monitors who operate under narrowly defined mandates and fixed timelines, Warshaw's role continuously blurs the line between oversight and Questions about judgment and incentives have also followed Warshaw's consulting contracts elsewhere.
▶ 0:34:20In Niagara Falls, New York, for example, Warshaw was retained at a rate of $200 an hour, ultimately costing taxpayers more than $200,000 over 2 years, despite the mayor's initial public estimate that the contract would total just $57,000.
▶ 0:34:35Together, these episodes have been cited by critics critics as emblematic of a pattern in which Warsaws work unfolds with limited transparency, minimal cost controls, and little external check on the expansion or duration of his And while I agreed very little with former Attorney General Merrick Garland uh when he was in office, I actually uh believe he had pretty good ideas with how to deal with these issues involving monitors, not just Warshaw, but all court monitors.
▶ 0:35:03In April 2021, Garland asked then Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta to conduct a 4-month review of how the Justice Department appoints and oversees federal monitors in settlement agreements and consent decrees with state and local On August 13, 2021, Associate Attorney General Gupta's memorandum to Attorney General Garland proposed 19 recommendations stemming from five core principles.
▶ 0:35:25These principles include minimizing costs and conflicts of interest, ensuring monitors accountability, compliance assessment, community engagement, and efficient One notable reform included in the memorandum was imposing term limits for federal monitors. The significance of these recommendations set clear expectations for time-limited oversight, ensuring that federal monitorships are not indefinite. The Monitors Accountability Act before today codifies those necessary reforms formulated by former Attorney General Garland.
▶ 0:35:56This bill requires the Administrative Office of the United States Courts to establish conditions on the appointment by a district court of a monitor of a state or unit of local government. These conditions include a cap on fees, a term limit on the monitors and judges overseeing monitor cases, allowing for public comment on the selection of the monitor, and providing a public accounting of the activities of the monitor. It does not eliminate eliminate monitors or limit the scope of their work. Let me repeat that.
▶ 0:36:24It does not eliminate monitors, nor does it limit the scope of their work. What this bill does, however, is disincentivizes monitors from taking uh from turning into grifters while trying to fix problems that need uh correction in their community. I urge my colleagues to support this common-sense bill, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
▶ 0:36:47Uh gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes his ranking member for an opening statement.
▶ 0:36:50Thank you very much, uh Chairman Jordan. Uh alas, this one is not a finely tuned Derek Schmidt compromise bill. this one appears to be a roundabout way of undermining existing federal monitorships, including the one in Maricopa County that uh our distinguished colleague from Arizona speaks of in great detail, uh and I must alas oppose it.
▶ 0:37:15In May of 2013, a federal court found that the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, under the infamous leadership of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, racially profiled and illegally detained Latina motorists, violating the 4th and the 14th Amendments, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of '64, and the Arizona State Constitution, too.
▶ 0:37:35One expert called it, quote, "The worst pattern of racial profiling by a law law enforcement agency in US history." Following this ruling, the federal district judge placed the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office under supervision by a court-appointed monitor to ensure it was taking the necessary steps to correct violations of the law.
▶ 0:37:57For years after the initial court order, Sheriff Arpaio gleefully violated a succession of court orders, refusing to end his office's practice of rampant unlawful racial profiling, which eventually led to courts finding him in civil contempt, finding him guilty of criminal contempt, and then finally in need of a presidential pardon.
▶ 0:38:17As a result, the court has had to issue subsequent orders, each time trying to more clearly articulate the steps the Sheriff's Office must take to come into compliance with the order and the law. Recently, our colleagues held a field hearing in Phoenix, where they apparently took issue with the fact that the Sheriff's Office is still under federal monitorship decree more than 10 years later. It's not a grift, as they alleged, that a monitor is still in place.
▶ 0:38:43The monitor is still in place because the Sheriff's Office has failed to remedy its egregious violations of the law pursuant court orders. In fact, more than a decade later, and even under a new sheriff, data reveals that racial disparities in the Sheriff's Office arrest rates persist. The real grift is contained in the bill before us today. While I'm certainly open to having a serious policy discussion about ways to strengthen and improve the federal monitorship process, the bill before us today is flawed in a number of ways.
▶ 0:39:13We've heard that the Monitor Accountability Act is simply a codification of recommendations made by Attorney General Merrick Garland and Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta in a 2021 DOJ memo on the use of such monitors in settlement agreements and consent decrees, but that is not the full story. There's a lot more to the picture than meets the eye.
▶ 0:39:33The Monitor Accountability Act is a cherry-picked, chopped-up creation that would make inevitable the demise of the Maricopa County monitor and would make all other federal monitorships less effective and less efficient. It would exacerbate existing problems in accomplishing the goals of consent decrees and settlement agreements, which are to provide legal and equitable relief to remedy serious violations of federal law, particularly for entities that engage in a pattern or a practice of misconduct.
▶ 0:40:03The bill would also have sweeping consequences for the enforcement of federal law around the country, including consent decrees and settlements that have been entered into with other government agencies, including those outside our jurisdiction here on Judiciary, undermining one of the most important tools we've got to address persistent violations of federal law in matters ranging from civil rights to policing to detention to disability rights to the environment, education, and antitrust.
▶ 0:40:28While this bill certainly encompasses some of the Garland memo's recommendations, many other key recommendations contained in the memo are not included, such as requiring a hearing after 5 years to assess the progress made under the agreement and evaluate whether a monitor monitorship should be terminated. Additionally, many of the provisions of this bill are far more prescriptive than the recommendations made in the Garland memo, and in other cases, the legislative language in the bill expressly contradicts the Garland memo recommendations.
▶ 0:40:58For example, the bill would impose mandatory 5-year term limits on federal monitorships. While the Garland memo supports term limits for monitors, it does not prescribe a specific time limit and counsels against automatic termination as would be the case under this bill. Instead, the Garland memo recommends judicial evaluation of monitorships at the end of their term and allows for the possibility of reappointment.
▶ 0:41:22The Garland memo also recommends that consent decrees and settlement agreements explicitly include a mutually agreed-upon process for assessing the monitor before reappointment. This bill also imposes a new mandate that requires appointment of a new judge after 6 years, which means this bill fails even to align the term limits for monitors and judges. Where is the efficiency there?
▶ 0:41:44Far from making this a more efficient process, these requirements will delay, prolong, and confuse monitorships as a new monitor and a new judge will have to get up to speed on the complicated history of the case and the progress completed by the party prior to their appointment. They will have to review years worth of briefs, orders, reports, motions, replies, pleadings, and other case documents.
▶ 0:42:06Together, these provisions could certainly incentivize a reluctant party to simply run out the clock until a more favorable monitor and judge is appointed to their case. The retroactive application of this bill is also curious.
▶ 0:42:20The Garland memo explicitly warns against retroactivity, noting that quote because existing consent decrees and monitorships are the product of extensive negotiations with approval by the federal court, the specific recommendations should apply only to consent decrees and monitorships used in future cases. In inexplicably, the Monitor Accountability Act does the exact opposite of this advice.
▶ 0:42:43The bill would apply retroactively, meaning that both the monitor and judge in the Maricopa County Sheriff's case would be terminated shortly after the bill becomes law. And that, I suspect, may be why this bill is being offered and rushed through here today. I'll also note that this bill suffers from other technical deficiencies. See, sorry.
▶ 0:43:09From other technical deficiencies, we've brought some of them to the attention of the majority, including the timeline for implementation. That has been changed, and I appreciate that, but I think the fact that there are these last-minute changes taking place to make the bill at all remotely sensible demonstrates we've not done any kind of thorough vetting and analysis of the recommendations that are contained in here.
▶ 0:43:30Um If the majority is serious about improving the appointment and use of federal monitors, and I'm sure it is, and making the AG 2021 recommendations law, uh then please work with us and the AO to craft a new bill rather than rushing through uh this last-minute makeshift legislation. I urge all my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I yield back.
▶ 0:43:52Without objection, all other opening will be included [clears throat] in the The chair recognizes gentleman from Arizona for a pro forma amendment to the nature of a substitute. Have an amendment at at the desk.
▶ 0:44:04a report the amendment.
▶ 0:44:06Hr 8365
▶ 0:44:07the amendment will considered as read and shall be considered as the base text for purposes of amendment. The chair will now recognize the gentleman from Arizona to explain the amendment.
▶ 0:44:16Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment to the ANS Excuse me. That's the That's the other That's the amendment to the ANS. Uh it simply removes the year from the short title. And I yield back.
▶ 0:44:27The gentleman yields back. Who seeks The gentlewoman from Georgia is
▶ 0:44:34Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh thank you so much. This bill addresses the work of federal monitors who are appointed by a court to oversee the progress a state or a unit of local government is making after violating federal law. Monitors can be put in place to address a large number of issues, and often their role is to make sure charge changes are made to right wrongs inflicted on the public.
▶ 0:44:59Often monitors are put in place after there is a finding of serious misconduct, including violations of constitutional rights, or actions that jeopardize people's health, safety, and For example, last January, to avoid prolonged litigation, the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, Fulton County of Georgia, where I reside, and the Fulton County Sheriff's Office entered into an agreement that included the appointment of a monitor
▶ 0:45:29to oversee changes to address dangerous and unhealthy conditions at Fulton County Jail. Conditions that DOJ found violate the constitutional and civil rights of those held in that jail. Court-appointed monitors have also been used to address violations of the constitutional rights of children in foster care in Georgia.
▶ 0:45:52And these are just two examples from within Georgia of the ways that monitors can provide independent oversight to improve public institutions and protect Americans' rights. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle will say that this bill follows guidance from former AG Merrick Garland's memo regarding monitors, but in many ways it does not.
▶ 0:46:15The bill would require monitors to serve for no more than 5 years, even if the monitor has been effectively overseeing the changes needed to better serve the even if the parties agree that is the The bill would require the parties to find a new monitor with the right knowledge and expertise needed to understand and address the problem, then inform the new monitor of all the work that has occurred prior to their appointment and all the work that lies ahead.
▶ 0:46:45Instead of actually addressing the problem that the parties and the monitor are all working to resolve, time and taxpayer dollars will be wasted on turnover and procedure. The bill doubles down on this obstacle by also requiring the appointment of a new judge after 6 years. This applies even if the judge is diligent, efficient, and fair, and even if the parties all agree this is the case.
▶ 0:47:12That's just what could happen when the parties are operating in good faith. But what about a local official who isn't trying to make a change? This bill creates an incentive for reluctant public officials to stall and hope that they get a lenient monitor or indifferent judge next time.
▶ 0:47:30The public will again hear the burden of They'll bear the burden of waste and delay while someone tries to run out the clock rather than working with the monitor, the judge, or the parties to truly solve the problem. As these examples illustrate, the stakes can be incredibly high. A delay could leave more people incarcerated in unconstitutionally dangerous conditions or more foster children facing inadequate care.
▶ 0:48:00A delay could also force employees like police officers, prison guards, and foster care caseworkers to continue working under conditions that make it impossible for them to do their job safely and effectively. I would be happy to work with Chairman Biggs to make the reforms of the Department of Justice carefully outlined in the Garland memo permanent so that we can improve efficiency and accountability in federal monitorships.
▶ 0:48:30But I must oppose this bill at this moment. Um, this bill that could result in more waste, I believe, and delays while worsening the public services that are meant to be improved under the watchful eye of federal monitors. And I yield.
▶ 0:48:51Gentlelady yields back. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized.
▶ 0:48:56Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I haven't been at the desk. Clerk,
▶ 0:49:05Amendment to the amendment in the
▶ 0:49:06Without objection, the amendment be considered as read. The gentleman is recognized. Gentleman from Arizona is recognized to explain.
▶ 0:49:10Mr. Chairman, can I reserve the point of
▶ 0:49:11Point of order reserved by the gentleman
▶ 0:49:15Yes, this is the this is the ANS. It does two things. It extends the implementation 180 days from 90, and it replaces the term administrator with director, which is the correct title of the head of the administrative office of the US courts. We made these changes after conversations with the administrative office. I urge my colleagues to support this ANS, and I'll yield back.
▶ 0:49:35Gentleman yields back. Is it fair to say this is basically technical with other I guess a longer date, but
▶ 0:49:41Yeah, yeah, otherwise it's technical. I mean, including that. Uh, questions on the amendment? Without objection, then the amendment
▶ 0:49:53No, does the gentleman insist on his Oh, that's right. Gentleman insists on his point of order?
▶ 0:49:59No, withdraw that.
▶ 0:50:00Point of order withdrawn. The question then occurs on the amendment offered to the amendment in the nature of a substitute. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed, no.
▶ 0:50:09Opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute is adopted. Gentleman from Who seeks recognition? Well, maybe it's time. Question is on adoption of the amendment, the amended amendment in the nature of a substitute. This will be followed immediately by a vote on reporting the bill. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the amendment the amended amendment in the nature of a substitute is adopted.
▶ 0:50:37The question is on favorably reporting the bill as amended. All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed, no. The eyes have it and the bill is ordered to be reported favorably to the house.
▶ 0:50:48I'd like to seek a recorded vote, Mr.
▶ 0:50:49Recorded vote being requested, the clerk will call the roll.
▶ 0:50:52Mr. Jordan.
▶ 0:50:53Mr. Jordan votes yes. Mr. Issa. Mr. Biggs. Mr. Biggs votes I. Mr. McClintock. Mr. McClintock votes I. Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Massie. Mr. Roy. Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Cline. Mr. Gooden. Mr. Gooden votes I. Mr. Van Mr. Nehls. Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore votes I. Ms. Hageman. Ms. Lee.
▶ 0:51:24Ms. Lee votes I. Mr. Hunt. Mr. Fry. Mr. Kelly. Mr. Kelly votes I. Mr. Grothman. Mr. Knott. Mr. Harris. Mr. Harris votes I. Mr. Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith votes I. Mr. Kelly. Mr. Baumgartner. Mr. Raskin.
▶ 0:51:46Mr. Raskin votes no. Mr. Nadler,
▶ 0:51:48No. Mr. Nadler votes no. Ms. Lofgren, Ms. Lofgren votes no. Mr. Cohen, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Lieu, Ms. Jayapal, Mr. Correa, Mr. Correa votes no. Ms. Scanlon, Ms. Scanlon votes no. Mr. Neguse, Ms. McBath, Ms. McBath votes no. Ms. Ross, Ms. Balint, Ms.
▶ 0:52:18Balint votes no. Mr. Mr. Garcia votes no. Ms. Kamlager-Dove, Ms. Kamlager-Dove votes no. Mr. Mr. Goldman, Ms. Crockett,
▶ 0:52:32The lady from Washington.
▶ 0:52:36Ms. Jayapal votes no.
▶ 0:52:38Gentleman from Wisconsin.
▶ 0:52:40Mr. Fitzgerald, you're not recorded. Mr. Fitzgerald votes aye.
▶ 0:53:17Gentleman from Georgia.
▶ 0:53:20Mr. Johnson, you're not recorded. Mr. Johnson votes no.
▶ 0:53:50Thanks for waiting for me, gentlemen. Gentleman from Virginia.
▶ 0:53:56Gentleman from Virginia.
▶ 0:53:59Mr. Cline votes aye.
▶ 0:54:01Gentleman from Missouri.
▶ 0:54:03Gentleman from Missouri.
▶ 0:54:06Mr. Anderberg votes yes.
▶ 0:54:17I just I just heard the door open. Where we at? Gentleman from Wisconsin.
▶ 0:54:45Mr. Grothman votes yes.
▶ 0:54:48You voted yes three times, but only one of them counts, right? Clerk will report.
▶ 0:54:56Mr. Chairman, there are 13 ayes and 11
▶ 0:54:59The ayes have it. The bill's ordered to be reported favorably to the House. Members will have two days to submit views. Without objection, the bill will be reported as a single amendment in the nature of a substitute incorporating all adopted amendments.
▶ 0:55:09Committee is and staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes.
▶ 0:55:14And staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes.
▶ 0:55:16Gentleman from Arizona is
▶ 0:55:18Gentleman from Arizona is recognized.
▶ 0:55:19Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. For the record, I have uh some submissions.
▶ 0:55:23You names consent?
▶ 0:55:25Gentleman is recognized.
▶ 0:55:27What are we doing on the letter from National Association of Police organizations, uh
▶ 0:55:35Without objection, without objection.
▶ 0:55:36Individual uh citizens uh from an article from Arizonafamily.com, another one from AZfamily.com, another one from AZfamily.com.
▶ 0:55:46Without objection.
▶ 0:55:47One from Latino Supervisor Thomas
▶ 0:55:51Without objection.
▶ 0:55:52Um and uh basically some uh bills and receipts regarding to Mr.
▶ 0:56:00Elkins and Taxpayers.
▶ 0:56:02That's the one.
▶ 0:56:03Without objection.
▶ 0:56:03That is the one.
▶ 0:56:04Gentleman uh gentleman from uh ranking member is recognized.
▶ 0:56:07Mr. Chairman, thank you. Uh unanimous consent request. This is the um Attorney General Memorandum of September 13th,
▶ 0:56:14Without objection.
▶ 0:56:16A I've got um an article from um Sheriff Joe Arpaio's office commits worst racial profiling in US history, concludes DOJ investigation.
▶ 0:56:30Without objection.
▶ 0:56:30Uh and finally, new report reveals Maricopa County Sheriff's Office misled public by massively inflating the costs of court-ordered reforms.
▶ 0:56:38Without objection. That concludes the committee's business for this meeting. The meeting is adjourned.