Monitor Accountability Act

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1275 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The Rules Committee met yesterday and reported out a rule providing for consideration of five measures: H.R. 5626, the Cashless Bail Reporting Act; H.R. 6260, the Keeping Violent Offenders Off Our Streets Act of 2025; H.R. 8365, the Monitor Accountability Act; H. Con. Res. 96, Expressing Support For Law Enforcement Officers; and H.R. 8469, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2027.

House Resolution 1275 provides for consideration of H.R. 5625, H.R. 6260, and H.R. 8365, each under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate for each bill, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees, and provides for each bill one motion to recommitment.

The rule further provides for consideration of H. Con. Res. 96, Expressing Support For Law Enforcement Officers, under a closed rule with 1 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.

Finally, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 8469, the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2027, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 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 1 motion to recommit and makes 51 amendments in order.

This rule will provide for consideration of several important bills, Mr. Speaker, that I believe will improve the safety of our local communities and the law enforcement officers that serve them. It will also bring the first appropriations bill for fiscal year 2027 to the floor so we can begin the process of passing the bills before the September 30 end of the fiscal year.

First, I would like to start by saying thank you to our law enforcement officers, particularly since this week is Police Week. We honor our law enforcement officers and the men and women who gave their lives in the line of duty.

I am glad we are bringing bills to the floor this week to do Congress' part in helping and honoring law enforcement officers. Among those is H.R. 6260, the Keeping Violent Offenders Off Our Streets Act. This bill provides commonsense accountability measures for charitable bail funds. These are organizations that use money given as donations to bail out defendants, many of whom have been charged with violent felonies or whom are repeat offenders.

Charitable bail funds have consistently helped release violent criminals back onto our streets where they have committed robbery, assault, kidnapping, and even murder in some cases.

H.R. 6260 closes loopholes that have allowed for potential fraudulent practices and include charitable bail funds as entities ``engaged in the business of insurance,'' thereby ensuring that charitable bail funds will be subject to the criminal provisions under Federal law that apply thereto.

Another bill in this rule is H.R. 5625, the Cashless Bail Reporting Act. This legislation requires the Department of Justice to publish an annual report listing the State and local governments that allow cashless bail for criminals who pose a clear threat to public safety.

Recently, destructive policies in some States and cities are allowed for the gradual elimination of monetary bail systems and, as a result, has led to increased crime. According to a March 2023 study conducted by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, the percentage of violent felony offenders who were rearrested increased from 62 to 72 percent.

The correlation is clear: Cashless bail policy leads to increased crime in our communities, and the American people should know if their local governments are participating in these ill-advised programs.

Additionally, this rule brings to the floor H.R. 8365, the Monitor Accountability Act. This bill provides for needed reforms for court monitors, which are independent officials whose job it is to conduct oversight during court proceedings. While many court monitors have performed their duties well, others have initiated unnecessarily long agreements and have charged government agencies with the expensive fees.

H.R. 8365 curbs the excesses of court monitors by imposing a maximum term of service, regulates the fee amount a monitor may charge, and sets general expectations for the court monitor industry. This bill codifies many of the recommendations that then-Attorney General Garland put into place after the Biden administration reviewed the Federal monitoring program.

This rule also brings up H. Con. Res. 96, a resolution that supports National Police Week by honoring the courageous law enforcement officers across our Nation who put their lives on the line every day to keep our communities safe.

This resolution expresses Congress' immense gratitude for the service and sacrifice of law enforcement officers at every level. At a time when officers are facing growing dangers in carrying out their duties, it is important that the House stand in unison to honor these brave men and women.

Lastly, the rule provides for consideration of the first appropriations bill for fiscal year 2027, H.R. 8469, the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. The bill provides robust funding for military housing, services for children and military members, and maintenance projects for military base facilities.

This legislation also takes care of our veterans by fully funding veterans' healthcare program benefits, and investing over $2 billion in capital improvements for VA medical facilities and national cemeteries.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 8469 also bolsters our national security through continued investments for military bases and infrastructure for advanced weapons systems in places like the Indo-Pacific, where it is imperative that we strengthen our capabilities vis-a-vis China. As we heard in the Rules Committee last night, this appropriations bill, the MILCON-VA bill, passed unanimously, 58-0, out of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague with some interest. It sounds like he doesn't like the current occupant of the White House and has serious concerns about that, but it doesn't sound like he dislikes any of the bills that much because he didn't spend much time talking about them.

That is what this rule is about--bringing those bills to the floor. In the MILCON-VA appropriations bill that passed out of the Appropriations Committee unanimously, I grant you, there were things in there that Democrats didn't like and things in there that Republicans didn't like. Yet, as we heard last night in the Rules Committee, the Appropriations Committee came together. They all had to compromise on certain things, but they got the bill done, and they felt like it was, overall, a good bill. There were certain disagreements, but overall, they felt like it was a good bill.

Then, we are doing some things, and they may want to do more, but we are doing some things that are very positive for law enforcement and for our local communities that will help communities be able to better figure out what is going on, whether it be bail or the monitoring system, et cetera.

That is what we are discussing here today. There is lots of time in the leadership hours and in the morning hour to give 1 minutes, 5 minutes, or an hourlong speech. Yet, today, we are supposed to be discussing during this time period the rule that brings to the floor four bills that are good bills and an appropriations bill.

I am glad to hear that there is not a whole lot of consternation about the bills that we are presenting this rule on. While there may be disagreement on other items, I am glad that we are moving forward on that.

It is always tempting when you are here presenting a rule to get dragged into the cesspool or the thoughts that the other side wants to talk about, but that is what I am here to talk about: the bills that are in the rule that we are presenting today.

Apparently, they are pretty good. I know they don't like them 100 percent, but they must be pretty good, or they would have spent more time talking about them in the opening salvo of this debate on the rule. So, I think that should encourage all Members, both Democrats and Republicans, to vote for the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) said something last night about not having heard voices on our side of the aisle talking about the pardons, and Mr. Scott said: I did. I had a problem with it. That was Mr. Austin Scott from Georgia.

I would remind the gentleman that he and I had a colloquy in the Rules Committee on February 4, 2025, on that same subject where I indicated that I had significant concerns about pardoning folks who had assaulted police officers.

It is not fair. That was something they pulled up because I am a member of the Rules Committee, and they brought it up in the Rules Committee meeting because I made a comment to the media in my home district. I am sure there are lots of other Republicans who have done the same, raised some concerns, raised some issues, and as a result, the White House came out with some explanations. People can choose to accept or not accept those explanations. It is what it is. But a number of us did raise concerns about that at the time.

Now, that being said, we have some bills before us today that are good bills. That is what we are supposed to be talking about.

We have got bills that deal with monitoring of courts. We have got bail bills that we are dealing with. There are a number of things. We have got a resolution that expresses Congress' support for our law enforcement, which I think we are all in agreement on, and the gentleman said as much that we all support our local law enforcement and our law enforcement folks out there.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, let's look at these bills. That is what we are debating now is whether or not to bring these bills to the floor. I think all the bills that we presented should be brought to the floor. We can talk about other bills on another day, but these bills are appropriately before the House.

Then let's talk about the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies funding bill from Appropriations, which passed unanimously out of committee.

My colleague has indicated that we are offering a handful of amendments. Now, I have managed a couple of these rules before, and some of them have been closed. He consistently says: You haven't allowed any amendments, and now he depicts the amendments that we are allowing as a ``handful.'' A majority of those--in fact, it is a supermajority of those that were theoretically in order, and it is 51.

Now, by my count, Mr. Speaker, that is 10 handfuls and a little bit more. It is not a handful of amendments. It is 10 handfuls. I would have to get a whole line of people here to hold on to all these amendments. We are going to hear debate on them, and we are going to have discussion about it.

So it gives you some idea of the hyperbole that my friends on the other side of the aisle are using when you take 51 amendments and depict them as a mere handful.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. If I am to be pilloried on the floor of the United States House, let us get the facts correct.

First, I am sure that WJHL, a television station, would not appreciate being called a newspaper. Second, let me read you the first quote.

Griffith: ``I have mixed feelings. I personally think that some of those folks who assaulted police officers deserve some of the time they got.'' If I am to be pilloried, there is what I said.

The following week, in the Rules Committee, in response to questions from my colleague, I responded that I did not have every case in front of me, speaking of pardons. It is a difficult decision, and I would have had a hard time pardoning people who assaulted police officers on any occasion.

If I am to be pilloried, let's get the record straight, and I think the same would be true for many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle.

Let's talk about violent criminals because we have a bill in front of us today that will deal with that. We have the charitable--the phraseology is the ``charitable bail funds.'' We have a bill in front of us that will treat them as insurance.

Now, people may think at home, if they are watching this, what in the world do bail bonds have to do with insurance? Well, having been a criminal defense attorney, I can assure you that the insurance is to ensure that people show up for their court dates, and that is what bonds are for.

If you put up a bond, an insurance company usually writes that. If it is a corporate surety bond, that is usually what you have. Sometimes, you have property bonds, and there are other ways of doing it. If you have a corporate surety bond or a group comes forward and puts the money up for you, that group ensures that you will be present in court, or you forfeit the amount that you have put forward.

That is all fine and good. We have charitable groups out there, and they are looking at cases where you have people who can't afford it, but it is not a violent crime or something where there is a danger to the public. I understand that. That is what the bill does. It says we are going to treat them like they are insurance companies because they are, in fact, stepping into the shoes of an insurance company.

It is not grandma who is putting up her house, which many of my clients had their grandmas put up their houses to guarantee they would be present in court when they were supposed to be there to be tried for their offenses. They are acting like those corporate surety bonds. They are stepping into those shoes, and they ought to be treated accordingly under the law.

Then, we heard a whole litany--and I really didn't want to get into it--a whole litany of things that people did who were doing bad things on January 6 and did some bad things afterward, as well. I point out also that that is not before us at this very minute. What is before us is a bill on these charity bonds and cashless bonds.

When people are released on cashless bonds or artificially low bail, they have a greater propensity to reoffend, as I said in my opening. Because I feel compelled, for example, in Wisconsin, Darrell Brooks was released on a $1,000 bond after running over a woman with a vehicle, despite a lengthy criminal history and an additional outstanding warrant.

Brooks was previously charged with aggravated battery and had an outstanding warrant in Nevada after skipping bail for a sex-related crime. Then, on November 21, 2021, Brooks drove through a Christmas parade, injuring over 50 individuals, killing 6, 1 of whom was an 8- year-old child.

A March 2023 study, which I mentioned before, by researchers at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, found that approximately 72 percent of violent felony offenders who were released without bail were rearrested.

We could stand here and go through hours of this, but, Mr. Speaker, we have before us a good number of bills

that deal with trying to make our communities a little bit safer, giving people more information, and trying to make sure we are getting it right, trying to help our police officers and our local communities be safer.

These are all good bills. They may not do everything that everybody wants, but these bills before us and this rule that we are presenting are good bills. Then, we have the MILCON-VA bill, which passed out of the Appropriations Committee unanimously, 58-0.

I believe that we should pass these bills. The first step in doing that is passing the rule so we can bring the bills to the floor with set time for debate. There will be plenty of time for debate. There will be time on the MILCON-VA bill to go over amendments and to then consider as a House, as the House for the United States, whether or not we want to pass them. I think we should.

The first step is we have got to pass this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to all vote ``yes'' to bring these bills to the floor. My colleagues on the other side can debate whatever deficiencies they may see in the bills and have their time to tell the American people about those bills.

I really wish they would focus, when we are talking about a rule, on the rule to bring the bills to the floor and not all these other matters. I understand they want to talk about other things. I get it. That is the role of the minority. However, Mr. Speaker, as the majority, we need to pass this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I advise that whenever my colleagues are ready, I am prepared to close. I urge my colleagues to pass this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we have before us the MILCON-VA bill. For folks watching at home, I will translate: military construction at our bases and Veterans Affairs, which is our VA hospitals, et cetera. That is what this rule has in it. It also has a number of bills related to law enforcement making things better: the monitoring systems, the bail systems, cashless bonds, et cetera.

These are good bills, and the rule ought to be passed, as I said before.

I would be remiss if I didn't speak about the fact that this is Police Week. It is one of the reasons why we have these bills and others in front of us.

This year, unfortunately, and it has happened before since I have been in office, an officer was killed in the Ninth Congressional District. Officer Hall was killed in an inmate attack at the River North Correctional Center in Independence, Virginia, which is in Grayson County in November of last year.

Two additional officers were attacked at that time. Both are physically doing okay, but, Mr. Speaker, I don't know how you ever get over an act of violence where you witnessed a colleague, a friend, a brother in law enforcement, being murdered.

That is really what we are about this week, and this rule promotes four bills that will help. It doesn't solve everything. It doesn't resolve everything. Jeremy Hall will be remembered in another resolution coming up this week that we will be voting on to honor fallen law enforcement officers.

We can also honor them all by taking these steps forward in trying to make our system better and recognizing that we probably ought not let violent felons, people who have already committed crimes, out on either no bond or low bond. We probably ought to make sure that the folks posting the bonds are capable and available to actually ensure the presence of the defendant at trial.

Mr. Speaker, I left this out earlier, and I apologize. It is a big part of the bail system. It is also to ensure their good behavior while out on bond. It is both presence on the court date and good behavior between the time the bond is posted and the time of that court date.

What the data shows us is that without one of these bills, there is an increase from 62 percent to 72 percent of recidivism. That helps our police officers and honors those who have been wounded, physically or psychologically, while serving in law enforcement, and those who answered the last call, like Officer Hall.

Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will vote to put this rule forward. I urge the passage of the rule and the underlying legislation.

The text of the material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

An Amendment To H. Res. 1275 Offered By Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 10. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the

House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the

bill (H.R. 7711) to prohibit the use of Federal funds to

compensate individuals who were prosecuted for their

involvement in the attack on the United States Capitol on

January 6, 2021, and for other purposes. All points of order

against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall

be considered as read. All points of order against provisions

in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be

considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment

thereto to final passage without intervening motion except:

(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the

chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the

Judiciary or their respective designees; and (2) one motion

to recommit.

Sec. 11. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX and clause 8 of rule XX

shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 7711.

Sec. 12. The Clerk shall transmit to the Senate a message

that the House has passed H.R. 7711 no later than three

calendar days after passage.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1275, I call up the bill (H.R. 8365) to provide for conditions on the appointment of monitors by courts, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 8365.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 8365 is the result of a field hearing that the Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance held in February in Phoenix, Arizona.

While that hearing focused on the special monitor in Maricopa County, it has implications for residents across the Nation who also find their law enforcement agencies held hostage by a special monitor or consent decree.

Since December 2013, the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, MCSO, has been under a Federal judicial oversight following a DOJ intervention into the 2008 case of Ortega Melendres v. Arpaio.

In 2007, Latino motorists and passengers, aided by the ACLU, filed a lawsuit against then-Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. The 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.

Following a bench trial in December 2011, U.S. District Judge 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 the parties, the court imposed these injunctions after findings of liability.

DOJ 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 extensive Federal oversight and court-appointed monitoring.

In 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 oversight.

Following that, in July 2015, the court mandated additional remedial measures, including further policy revisions to further strengthen oversight mechanisms.

The 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.

Most of these expenses include the administrative efforts needed to demonstrate compliance with court orders.

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, which cost taxpayers $97,000 for a year.

This persistent Federal judicial intervention has created operational challenges for MCSO, including difficulties in recruiting and retaining qualified deputies. All of these things, by the way, are consistent with monitoring that is going on in most of the country.

The increased administrative workload and ongoing scrutiny have led to a decline in staff retention and discouraged potential recruits from pursuing careers within the department, which is ultimately impacting the office's ability to serve and protect the community, one of the largest counties in the country, with over 5\1/2\ million people.

The Federal court monitor typically issues quarterly reports tracking MCSO's compliance with the court-ordered reforms and provides the court with independent assessments of policy implementation. Over the course of more than 40 reports, MCSO's compliance rate increased from below 30 percent in 2014 to over 94 percent by 2025, which meets the standard that requires the agency to demonstrate adherence in more than 94 percent of instances under review.

According to Warshaw, the MCSO's compliance framework has become self-sustaining and institutionalized. Warshaw also labeled the 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, the Department of Justice, which originally intervened in this case in 2011, filed a brief supporting Maricopa County's request to end Federal oversight, noting that the litigation has been successful in reforming the agency.

By the way, we are on the fourth elected sheriff since this original complaint was filed.

The 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, which you will recall was the racial profiling of Latino motorists.

DOJ cited multiple recent monitor reports, which document consistently high compliance rates, institutionalized policy adherence, effective training programs, and durable accountability mechanisms. The Department indicated that continued Federal supervision is no longer necessary to ensure constitutional policing, supporting termination of the court-appointed monitoring regime.

Maricopa County is not the only jurisdiction monitored by Robert Warshaw and his associates. Warshaw has been accused of taking exorbitant payments without producing results in monitoring law enforcement agencies in New York, California, Michigan, and Louisiana.

For example, Warshaw faced criticism for the duration, high cost, and evolving compliance benchmarks. In other words, he was moving the goalpost of Federal oversight in Oakland, California. Despite reportedly spending little time in Oakland, Warshaw is currently paid more than $1 million annually by the city, a structure that incentivizes prolonging the monitorship, just like we see in Maricopa County.

Compared to monitors who operate under narrowly defined mandates and fixed timelines, Warshaw's role continuously blurs the line between oversight and management. Questions about judgment incentives also follow Warshaw from Niagara Falls, New York, for example.

Together, episodes in New York and various jurisdictions that have had Warshaw, the critics have cited this systemic pattern in which Warshaw's work unfolds with limited transparency. In fact, when he bills Maricopa County, he won't tell them what he did, and the court won't make him. There were minimal cost controls and little external checks on the expansion or duration of his authority.

While I agreed with very little that former AG Merrick Garland did while in office, he actually had pretty good ideas on how to deal with these issues involving monitors.

In April 2021, he 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. In August 2021, Associate AG Gupta responded with 19 recommendations stemming from five core principles. The principles included minimizing costs and conflicts of interest, ensuring monitors' accountability, compliance assessment, community engagement, and efficient reform.

A notable reform included in the memorandum was imposing term limits for Federal monitors. The significance of these recommendations sets clear expectations for time-limited oversight, ensuring that Federal monitorships are not indefinite.

Mr. Speaker, I want everyone to realize that this applies to monitorships not just in Maricopa County; not just in Niagara Falls, New York; not just in Oakland, California; or in Baltimore, Maryland, where Warshaw was a monitor, or anyplace involving Warshaw. It was so spread out, and the concern was so great, that former Attorney General Merrick Garland asked for the study because even he understood that the monitorships had been abused.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I appreciate the gentleman's willingness to work with us. That is why we had a field hearing. That is why Democrats were extended the invitation to come; give us the name of someone you want to testify.

Do you know how many people across the aisle came to that hearing? Zero, zip, nada came. Democrats didn't come. They were uninterested. They didn't want to hear from Merrick Garland. They didn't want to come.

So the Democrats said, oh, well, okay, we are not going to do that. And then they are going to stand up and say some rather wild things about that this only applies to Maricopa County and that the monitorship ends at the end of 5 years. That is not true. That is not what this bill does.

The bill says the monitor, the current monitor, is done after 5 years. And why is that? It is because regardless, not just this monitor but how about the monitor that has been in Oakland, California, for 20- some-odd years or other monitors around the country? What happens is, as Merrick Garland said, and as Associate Attorney General Gupta said, they build up incentives. All of a sudden, they had incentives because it is a monetary incentive, and they need to avoid the conflict of interest.

That was the first principle--that was within the first principle that Merrick Garland put together, avoid the conflict of interest.

Guess what. If the Court were to say we are going to continue the monitorship, you get a new monitor. And, quite frankly, the AG also said these things should be simple. These things should be simple. They should be focused. I don't think that someone who is capable of becoming a court monitor is not going to be able to get up to speed pretty doggone quickly. That is the argument that they are making over there.

Let's see who supports this: The National Association of Police, Arizona Sheriffs' Association, Major County Sheriffs of America, Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, and also the California police associations. They all support this because all their departments have been taken over.

How about this one? I think this is a kick in the pants. They basically roll the monitor. This is the fourth sheriff. The DOJ has said they are in substantial compliance, and guess what, this monitor has taken to micromanaging even the uniforms, the stripes for officers. Oh, no, you can't put them up here. You want them down on the front part of the sleeve. That is what the Maricopa County monitor has done.

That is not unique to Maricopa County. The monitors get in, and they micromanage even the most absurd things that have nothing to do with the issue that brought this forward, which was this: the racial profiling in traffic stops. The monitor himself has said in his reports they are in substantial compliance. There is no statistical significance in any difference between any racial demographic in Arizona.

The monitorship has a monetary incentive, and that is what you are seeing. That is why you see these monitorships run amuck around the country.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Merrick Garland's memo says this: ``Principle: Monitorships should be designed to minimize the cost to jurisdictions''--the one in Maricopa County is $350 million; the one in Oakland is who knows how many millions of dollars--``and to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest.''

It goes on to be a little bit more specific: ``Monitorships must nonetheless be designed and administered with awareness that every dollar spent on a monitorship is a dollar that cannot be spent on other policy priorities.''

In other words, don't divert the taxpayers' money so they can't fulfill all of their responsibilities.

Here is another quote: ``Monitorships should be designed to avoid even the appearance that a monitor is primarily motivated by profit.''

We have a monitor in Maricopa County, for instance, who gets $3 million a year on average over the term of his monitorship and who seems to be moving the goalposts, just like he did in Oakland. These seem to be saying: Hey, maybe he does have a profit motivation.

Specifically, this is what they recommend: Cap the monitor fees, an annual cap on monitor fees; encourage use of pro bono time, reduced rates, and nonprofits; explore alternative fee arrangements; and restrict lead monitor participation in multiple monitorships.

We have tried to get at all those things in the current bill.

They go on to say this: ``Future consent decrees should limit the ability of the individual who serves as the lead monitor to serve on more than one monitoring team at a time. . . . But the person serving as the lead monitor should be solely committed to the jurisdiction they are serving and should not be simultaneously supporting multiple monitorships at the same time.''

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The gentleman was just arguing essentially for monitors, which continues to hamstring police agencies around the country. I guess he wasn't here when I started reading off how agencies around the country support this bill because they are impacted negatively by rogue monitors.

I will just go back to my colleague saying, hey, we didn't--nobody came.

Nobody went to Phoenix because we thought this was an unserious endeavor.

They could have come. They could have tried to make it serious by bringing their witness, the witness he said he would like to have come in now. He could have brought that witness in then. He chose not to.

I think maybe the unseriousness is on your side not taking this issue serious because it does impact the entire country.

We know it does. Because why? Because former Attorney General Merrick Garland said: Hey, I am so concerned about it, I am going to commission somebody to spend several months to research this and give us some recommendations.

My bill is attempting to implement those recommendations, and I encourage their support of it.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this bill actually would help save money by holding monitors responsible, making sure that they are responsible. That is important.

When they start talking about $1 billion, remember that just compliance costs and the cost of this particular monitor that they are very focused on has cost the taxpayers there over $350 million, over one-third of a billion dollars.

The monitor in Baltimore right now submitted their bill recently for $1.5 million. That is just a fee, mind you, Mr. Speaker, of the monitor, $1.5 million. That doesn't include whatever compliance costs there may be.

The second principle that came out of Attorney General Merrick Garland's position was this: When consent decrees involve State and local entities, monitors hold the position of public trust, not only as agents of the court, but as drivers of significant change of public institutions that are central to the communities that they serve, and, thus, they must be structured to ensure that monitors are accountable-- are accountable--for their work.

That is what my bill does. It creates accountability because there is no accountability there.

If it was all resting in the judge, Merrick Garland could have just said: We will just leave it up to the judge, because that is what the Democrats want.

However, they say you must have an opportunity for public input.

This is interesting: Consent decrees should include term limits for monitors that could be renewed, but they should have term limits.

Those term limits need to be reviewed after 2 to 3 years to determine whether they are performing properly, are cost-effective, and are providing technical assistance. That is what the memo said, and we are trying to get that codified.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman thinks this is a silly effort, and he doesn't know if Merrick Garland or Associate Attorney General Gupta supports it. Did he care enough to call them? Did he ask? One wonders. He is saying, oh, they didn't call me. That is what he said, that they didn't call him.

Here is the deal. In the pleadings in the case, the record shows that MCSO has implemented the key reforms required by the court orders, including policies, training, supervision, data collection analysis, and accountability systems related to bias-free policing and traffic enforcement. That is in the pleadings in the court.

In that context, MCSO has achieved substantial compliance with the court's orders, which, by the way, is what Associate Attorney General Gupta said is the measure for ending a monitorship, substantial compliance.

Let's talk about the bill. The reality is, this is not just for Maricopa County. There are monitors throughout this country. Let's just go through the bill a little bit. They didn't want to do that because they want to talk about all kinds of things tangential to this, because when you read the bill, you realize it is not about Maricopa County. It is about monitors. It is about monitors and making sure that they have guideposts and guidelines.

Fees: They ``may not assess a fee in excess of such maximum rates as the administrator may establish.'' There is nothing about Maricopa County there. That is the director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. They ``shall be authorized to employ the use of pro bono time or reduced rates.''

``Such person may not be appointed to more than one such monitorship at a time,'' consistent with what was in the Garland memo, or ``appointed for a term greater than 5 years.'' They can't be. They also can't be ``reappointed after the expiration of such term pursuant to the same court order,'' if it is the same court order.

A subsequent monitor ``who is appointed to a monitorship after the expiration of the term of a monitor who served pursuant to the same court order may not be employed by the same employer as the previous monitor.'' Why? Because Merrick Garland said you can't have a conflict of interest. You also cannot basically have someone without a term limit because that puts somebody there with a financial incentive to keep the monitorship going, regardless of compliance.

Termination: ``In the case that a court, a party, or a monitor seeks to revise a monitorship imposed by a court order, the court shall conduct a hearing.''

``The court may only revise a requirement of a monitorship with respect to which the subject of the monitorship has not attained substantial and sustained compliance.'' I just read to you that they have. The monitor found that in Arizona. This applies nationwide.

``On the date that is 6 years after the court order,'' the case gets transferred from one judge to another.

Accounting: ``On an annual basis, a monitor shall submit to the Court imposing the monitorship an accounting,'' including ``information on the services provided.'' Why don't they want that? I wonder why they don't want that amongst all the monitors around the country? Why don't you want them to provide an accounting?

Right now, we have places in this country where the monitor just simply gives a bill to the county and says: For services rendered, $200,000 this month. It does become retroactive.

``It is the sense of Congress that monitoring is a public service and monitorships should be structured to encourage the use of pro bono time or reduced rates.''

That is the simplicity of this bill. It gets at the heart of the nub of the Garland memo. This doesn't focus on one monitor. It doesn't focus on one location. It says every monitorship will be subject to this.

It doesn't say monitorships are bad or unconstitutional. It says they have to be performing without conflict of interest and without incentives to make sure that they keep going because they want compliance. We need them to ensure compliance, not to make sure that they are lining their own pockets, that it doesn't become a grift, that you don't get $30 million over 10 years coming in as your fee when you are also monitoring multiple jurisdictions. That is what is at the heart of the Gupta memo, and that is what is at the heart of this bill.

Contrary to what one of my colleagues says, that it is not unusual not to have a bill with a Senator sponsor, not every bill has a Senator sponsor. It is not required.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that this bill gets to the very heart of making sure that a monitorship does not become abusive, overbearing, and negate what they are supposed to be doing, which is to make sure that there is compliance with a court order, to make sure we have a constitutional performance.

That is what is said in Maricopa County, but it applies nationwide. Nothing in the bill limits this to one county. It applies nationwide.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage everyone to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith) for yielding me the customary time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for his remarks. I honor

our law enforcement officers, as does everybody on the Democratic side. Yet, as I look at the list of bills that Republicans are bringing to the floor this week, I have to say that the American people deserve way, way better than this.

I mean, Republicans love to talk about supporting the police, but talk is cheap. Look at what they do. There is not a single penny of public safety funding in any of these bills--not one.

I mean, these guys are more interested in passing press releases than they are in passing meaningful legislation that will make a real difference in our communities.

At the same time, Donald Trump's own budget--get this--calls for massive cuts to programs that support law enforcement.

Mr. Speaker, go read it yourself. The President's budget cuts 55 percent from Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants. It cuts more than 60 percent from the COPS program, a program that Trump's own Justice Department calls the cornerstone of our Nation's crime-fighting strategy. I mean, how is this possible?

Let's not forget that mere hours after he was sworn in, on his very first day in office, President Trump pardoned the violent criminals who attacked police officers on January 6. Let me say that again in case anyone forgot. Donald Trump, on his first day in office, pardoned felons who viciously beat police officers at the Capitol Building.

Mr. Speaker, some of the people he pardoned have since gone on to do even more terrible things, including in my district, where one of them was just rearrested on child pornography charges.

Don't come down to this Chamber and lecture people on law and order. The leader of the Republican Party wants to cut funding for public safety after he pardoned his own supporters who violently attacked police.

Talk is cheap around here. Look at what the radical, far-right people in charge of this government are doing. Look at how they vote. Look at their agenda for this week. Look at their priorities. This is another week without a single bill to make life more affordable and without a single bill to address the cost of living.

Why not? Well, the answer is simple: Republicans are not focused on your grocery bill. They are not focused on how much you pay at the pump. They are not focused on your rent, your healthcare, your utility bills, or your paycheck. They aren't focused on you.

They are focused on their obedience and obsession with Donald Trump, on his tariffs, his war, his billion-dollar ballroom, his arch, his reflecting pool paint job, and his golf course on the Potomac. Whatever he wants, they just say yes, and the rest of us pay the price for their radical MAGA extremism.

They ripped healthcare from millions of people in this country. They cut food assistance for kids, veterans, seniors, and Americans with disabilities. They raised the price of everything from utilities to groceries. They did it all to give tax breaks to their billionaire donors and rubberstamp every dumb idea that President Trump comes up with.

Yesterday, the President said the quiet part out loud. He finally told the truth about something. When asked a simple question of whether he thinks about the terrible economic situation that he has put American families into, thanks to his illegal war, do you know what he said? ``Not even a little bit.''

Now, let that sink in. The President of the United States of America was asked if he cares how badly he screwed up your family's finances with his stupid, illegal war, and his answer was: ``Not even a little bit.''

Your gas is $4.50 a gallon. He doesn't care, not even a little bit. Your pay isn't keeping up with inflation. He doesn't care, not even a little bit. Your health insurance is way up. He doesn't care, not even a little bit. Your fridge is empty until payday. He doesn't care, not even a little bit.

That is what he said. That is what he believes. That is how this radical, far-right majority in Congress is governing.

Those at the top are doing better than ever. The Epstein-class billionaires and special interests who write the campaign checks are doing great. They can't thank my Republican friends enough. Yet, the rest of us--for my constituents and for everyday people in this country--Donald Trump's economy sucks, and Republicans don't care, not even a little bit.

They tell themselves over and over again that everything is going well. Well, it is time for them to listen, to listen to the American people, who have had it up to here with these failed economic policies and who are sick and tired of a government that bends over backward to help those who are well-off and well-connected and turns a blind eye to the struggles of the working people in this country.

We have to do better. We have to do better.

Mr. Speaker, as we come together this week to honor our law enforcement officials, those who serve our communities and protect our communities, the least we could have done is brought a bill to the floor that would actually provide real help to our local police departments to be able to hire people and to be able to obtain the equipment that is necessary to protect our police officers.

Instead, we got a press release. We got a press release.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would just say to the gentleman there will be at least 5 hours of debate to talk about these less than impressive bills that he is bringing to the floor today. There will be even more debate on a handful of amendments that have been offered.

We are talking about the rule today, and the rule basically is Republicans' agenda for the week. It is not about lowering the price of groceries. It is not about dealing with the high price of gas. It is not about dealing with the rising costs of healthcare. Republicans'

agenda is to avoid talking about the real problems that Americans are facing as we gather here on the House floor.

I want to talk about your agenda, and your agenda sucks. I mean, I don't know how else to put it more plainly. It is a disgrace that my Republican friends spend more and more time trying to avoid dealing with the real issues that are hurting their constituents, but that is what their agenda is all about.

I get it. Everybody over there is afraid of the guy in the White House. Maybe you should be more afraid of your constituents.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge that we defeat the previous question, and if we defeat the previous question I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 7711, which would prohibit the use of Federal funds to compensate individuals who were prosecuted for their involvement in the attack on the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, it is Police Week, and Republicans will come to the floor, as we have just heard, and talk about how much they support and honor our law enforcement officers. We all support law enforcement officers who keep us safe and protect our communities. But what most, if not all, of these Republicans will fail to do, and have failed to do repeatedly, is condemn the pardons that Donald Trump issued to over 1,500 individuals that attacked this building and attacked our democracy on January 6. Many of them were convicted of violent felonies.

For those who weren't here that day, go back and look at the videos, and you will see exactly what I am talking about. Over 140 brave Capitol Police, the ones in this Chamber now, the ones protecting all of us every single day were injured. Some tragically died.

What did this President do on his first day in office? He pardoned every last one of those violent offenders.

Now, these rioters outrageously are seeking tens of millions of dollars in damages, claiming that the indiscriminate use of force by police officers repelling the attack caused them physical and emotional injuries. Are you kidding me? I mean, where is the outrage on the Republican side over this? It is a disgrace.

If my Republican colleagues cannot denounce the actions of the President's supporters that day or condemn the pardons maybe--maybe, at least they will vote to ensure that these convicted felons aren't awarded millions of taxpayer dollars by the Trump administration as a reward for attacking police officers. I will give them a chance to do that with the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include the text of my amendment in the Record, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Ross) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

You have got to love these guys. I remind everybody, especially those who may be watching this on TV, that four out of the five bills that we are considering today are under completely closed rules, number one.

Number two, I appreciate the gentleman expressing some concern about what happened on January 6. He said that some of them, you know, expressed their concern about the President's pardon publicly, so I just kind of Googled what my colleague from Virginia said to his local newspaper. He said that he has mixed feelings about President Trump pardoning those who were charged in connection with the January 6 attack on the Capitol.

I don't know what ``mixed feelings'' means, but if my friend were genuinely outraged by what happened that day and by the pardoning of these people who violently attacked the police officers that were defending us that day, then I guess my question to the gentleman would be: Then why did you vote consistently against hanging a plaque honoring those police officers who protected our lives that day?

Again, I find the silence on the other side of the aisle not only in regard to

what happened in this Chamber on January 6--I find it particularly disturbing--but the silence in the aftermath of Donald Trump pardoning all of these criminals.

Again, we have police officers who were severely wounded. Some ended up losing their lives. I mean, if you have objections and you have concerns, and even if you have mixed feelings, whatever that means, about the President pardoning all of these people, then does that mean that the gentleman will support our amendment that we are bringing up here that would prohibit the use of Federal funds to compensate individuals who were prosecuted for their involvement in the attack on the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021?

I mean, I am not going to hold my breath, but I am willing to bet that virtually every Republican, if not every Republican, will vote against this amendment.

Again, we get a lot of lectures about law and order from Republicans. Let's not forget, again, the leader of their party, the President of the United States, pardoned over 1,500 of his own supporters who violently attacked this building, including pardons for hundreds of convicted felons who violently and viciously beat law enforcement officers on January 6, sending many of them to the hospital with serious injuries.

Donald Trump pardoned every single one of them. Many are repeat offenders who are now back in our communities because of the radical, far-right policies of this President and because of the acquiescence and the silence of the party that controls this Chamber.

I mean, Matthew Huttle, a man with 12 prior criminal convictions, including a shocking case where he pled guilty to brutally hitting his 3-year-old son, leaving bruises all over his child's backside and neck, after he was pardoned by Donald Trump for the crimes he committed on January 6, went back to Indiana, where he was killed during a violent confrontation with law enforcement. He was a child abuser with a history of violence, who put law enforcement in danger again after he was pardoned by Donald Trump.

Theodore Middendorf, accused of sexually assaulting a 7-year-old child--this guy pled guilty to this horrific crime in 2024, and he was sentenced to 19 years in prison. That wasn't all. He also pled guilty to destroying government property and using an American flagpole as a weapon during the Capitol riot. He was pardoned by Donald Trump.

Peter Schwartz, a man with 30 prior criminal convictions, including abusing and assaulting his wife, biting her and repeatedly punching her, was convicted of attacking police officers on January 6 with pepper spray. He is another repeat offender pardoned by Donald Trump.

Andrew Taake was arrested in 2016 for soliciting a minor online for sex, but his criminal history didn't stop there. He assaulted police officers with bear spray and a metal whip on January 6. He is another repeat offender pardoned by Donald Trump.

Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress are complicit in these crimes. I mean, thanks to these pardons, we have child sex predators and violent criminals back on our streets. We even have January 6 perpetrators who have been rearrested on new charges after being pardoned.

Daniel Ball, a convicted felon because of his involvement in the Capitol insurrection, was pardoned by Trump on January 20, only to be rearrested 2 days later on gun charges.

How dare you guys come down here and talk about law and order when you are complicit in these crimes? How dare you come down here and talk about supporting the police after you let out violent criminals who attacked law enforcement officers on January 6?

I mean, I get it. We have different opinions on a lot of issues, but the one thing that should unite us is our praise and our respect for those who defended not only all of us who were here on January 6 but also defended our democracy.

Because the guy in the White House doesn't want anybody to acknowledge that that was a terrible day, everybody just caved. Everybody caves on the other side.

I don't have any mixed feelings about what Trump did. I think it was outrageous. I think most Americans that I talk to, and I think most Americans across this country, don't have mixed feelings. They think what happened that day was outrageous. These guys should not have been pardoned. Some of them should still be in jail.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me apologize to the TV station that I called a newspaper. What a terrible sin. I appreciate the gentleman's clarity in reading that I have mixed feelings because some of the people deserve some of the time. Boy, that is really a strongly worded condemnation.

I want to disagree with the gentleman on one thing he said, and that is somehow this is not on the agenda today. The gentleman just read off what the Republican agenda was and the votes that the Republicans want us to consider on the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, I urge that we defeat the previous question.

Our staff handed my friend's team the amendment that we want to vote on. The next vote that we have, by the way, will be on whether we would prohibit the use of Federal funds to compensate individuals who were prosecuted for their involvement in the attack on the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021. I guess that is the next vote. So people are going to have to vote ``yes'' or ``no'' on that, and it is in front of us.

I don't really understand why the gentleman would say that it is not in front of us. If he wants to support what we are trying to do here and make sure that the people who viciously attacked Capitol Police officers on that day on January 6 that threatened the lives of those who work here and who destroyed all of this property, that is well- documented, all of this is on video, I am happy to yield to the gentleman if he would like to endorse what we are trying to do so maybe we can agree on something.

Okay, well, I guess I am not going to get that support.

Again, Mr. Speaker, the next vote, again, I remind people, will be on whether or not we want to prohibit the use of Federal funds to compensate individuals who were prosecuted for their involvement in the attack on the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.

The President is hinting that maybe he would be favorable to compensating some of these people who are responsible for the terrible crimes on that day. I find that sickening, quite frankly. He wants to give money to criminals, the people who attacked our democracy, who beat up our police officers, and yet he doesn't want to give money to our police officers, as I pointed out in the beginning. There is not a penny contained in any of these bills that actually help support our local police officers.

Let me also bring us back to what I think this debate is all about. It is about priorities. This is another wasted week, and the debate is really about what Republicans are not doing and what they refuse to do. It is about their wasted time in the majority and their total failure to bring up legislation to help everyday people.

People are begging us. They are begging us to do something about inflation. They are pleading with us to bring grocery prices down, to lower gas prices, to make life more affordable, and to stop the war and reverse the tariffs that are eating into their paychecks and killing their finances.

What do Republicans prioritize week after week after week after week?

It is billionaire tax breaks, loopholes for the rich and powerful, giveaways to the giant corporations, the price gougers, and the big donors who line their pockets with campaign cash.

Listen to me, America: These guys promised to lower your prices on day one. It is year two for God's sake, and who are you going to believe, them or your empty wallet?

Republicans have done nothing--nothing--to lower your costs. Their agenda does nothing to help everyday people. Their bills do nothing for working families. Their leader said so on TV yesterday.

He doesn't even think about how his reckless, illegal, vanity war hurts your pocketbook. He thinks about his arch. He thinks about painting the reflecting pool. He thinks about his golf course on the Potomac River. He thinks about bailouts for foreign governments and corrupt, shady deals that enrich his inner circle.

He thinks about his ballroom. Boy, does he bring that up every day. He wants $1 billion of your money for his tacky ballroom.

However, when it comes to helping you, when it comes to helping your family, when it comes to the medical bills piling up on your kitchen table, and when it comes to figuring out how to keep your fridge full until your next paycheck, he told us the answer himself: He doesn't care, not even a little bit.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, Federal monitorships are a critical tool for Federal courts and Federal judges. Monitors ensure compliance with court orders, settlement agreements, and consent decrees, all to remedy entrenched, systemic violations of Federal law in matters of school desegregation, prison conditions, civil rights, policing, detention, disability rights in education, the environment, and antitrust law.

This bill appears to have been written as part of an attempt to undermine Federal monitorships, but, indeed, focused on one very special monitorship in particular.

The bill targets the ongoing Federal monitorship of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office in Arizona, which, as the gentleman just discussed, was put in place after a Federal judge determined that the office, under the notorious tenure of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, had displayed a pattern and practice of using race and ethnicity, rather than objective evidence of criminality, to target people for criminal investigation and detention and for a profusion of illegal stops, seizures, and frisks, in violation of fundamental rights protected by the U.S. Constitution. One expert called it the worst pattern of racial profiling by a law enforcement agency in the history of the United States.

Following this ruling, the Federal district judge placed the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office under supervision by a court-appointed monitor to ensure that it would take the steps necessary to correct its structural violations of the law and violations of the rights of the people.

For years after the initial court order, Sheriff Arpaio proudly and gleefully violated a succession of court orders, refusing to end his office's practice of rampant, unlawful racial and ethnic profiling, which eventually led Federal judges to find him in civil contempt, in criminal contempt, and then, finally, in need of a Presidential pardon, which, of course, he got from the king of pardons when he took the White House.

As a result of all of this defiance and contempt, the court had to issue subsequent orders each time to more specifically articulate and delineate the steps that the sheriff's office needed to take to come into compliance with the law.

Recently, our colleagues held a field hearing in Phoenix, the gentleman's hometown, where they took issue with the fact that the sheriff's office is still under a Federal monitorship more than 10 years later in his home State. They did not take issue with the fact that the office has gone for more than 10 years without fully and meaningfully complying with the court order.

The monitor is in place only because the sheriff's office has failed to remedy its egregious and systemic violations of the law, despite multiple court orders directing them to do so. More than a decade later, and even under a new

sheriff, data reveal that racial disparities in the sheriff's office's arrest rates persist to this day.

Mr. Speaker, Democrats are open to having a serious, nationwide policy discussion about ways to strengthen and improve the Federal monitorship process. Democrats are always up for that, but the bill before us today is focused on one case, one monitor, and, therefore, ignores the entire dynamics of monitorship nationwide. They haven't even pretended to claim that whatever is taking place in that district that they don't like is reflective of what is going on in the rest of the country.

I heard the gentleman say that this is some kind of codification of recommendations made by Attorney General Merrick Garland and Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta in a 2021 DOJ memo on monitors, which they like, but that is not the full story.

The bill, as opposed to the memo, scoops up the points that they like within the memo, like a kid scooping up Easter eggs in the backyard, but then discards the rest. The bill includes some of the recommendations, changes others, and simply excludes others.

Critically, Attorney General Garland said that at the end of a 5-year period there should be an analysis of how well the monitorship is going, should it be terminated, or should it be continued based on the facts.

Well, the gentleman's bill takes that 5-year number but says we are just going to cut it off after 5 years. We are not going to do an analysis of it. We are not going to assess the situation. We are not going to see whether the monitor is needed to go forward. We are just going to take the 5-year number and say it is over. So that person is gone, and if you need a new one, bring somebody else in. All of that institutional knowledge, everything they understand, is out the window.

Now, I understand that would accomplish the gentleman's objective, which is they want to terminate the monitor out in Maricopa County. They don't like that monitor. That is not really how we should be legislating Department of Justice policy for the entire country. Far from making this a more efficient process, the various requirements put in would delay, prolong, and confuse as a new monitor and a new judge would have to attempt to get up to speed on the complicated history of the case and the progress completed by the party prior to this new abrupt appointment.

They would have to review years' worth of briefs, orders, reports, motions, replies, pleadings, and so on. Together, these provisions could incentivize a reluctant party to simply run out the clock until a more indulgent monitor and judge are appointed to the case.

The retroactive application of the bill is, of course, curious. The Garland memo warned against retroactivity, noting that 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.

But the whole trick here is to make this apply retroactively to get at the guy that Republicans don't like, and of course, that is not up to us. Congress doesn't go out and decide specific cases. If Republicans have got a problem with what the monitor is doing, bring it to the judge in that case, but don't change Federal law and make a Federal case out of it.

Look, if the majority is serious about improving the appointment and use of Federal monitors, and I am sure they are, then I urge them to work with us to do a nationwide study. Let's craft a bill fully reflecting the recommendations of the Attorney General. Let's invite Attorney General Garland to come in and testify about it. He is a constituent of mine. I am happy to write him and have him come in and testify about what should be done, rather than rushing through this last-minute, case-specific, makeshift legislation.

I urge all my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The gentleman asks why Members of the minority didn't come to his hearing in Arizona, and because he asked, I am afraid I am going to have to tell you the truth. We don't think it was a serious hearing. It was about one monitor in one case to target one guy in the context of the gentleman's exciting campaign for Governor of Arizona. I understand the gentleman prefers to be in Arizona. Well, we prefer to be in our districts, too. I will happily leave my district for a serious substantive hearing, but I am not going to be part of a witch hunt or attack against one particular monitor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Just to restate for everybody where we are. The monitor serves at the discretion and the pleasure of the judge. If the judge thinks the monitor is doing a bad job or feathering his nest or taking money, the judge would get rid of the monitor immediately. That is up to the judge.

If you have got a problem with a particular monitor, bring a motion before the judge to change the situation. Instead, the gentleman wants to make a Federal law out of it. I appreciate it is his last few months in Congress, and he wants to try to accomplish something in that particular case, but it really doesn't relate to the rest of the country.

There has been no study done of monitorships generally, except for what Attorney General Garland did, and his bill departs radically from what Attorney General Garland was talking about.

Just take, for example, this 5-year idea. The idea is, look, the judge can review the monitor at any point in the course of the monitorship. But there should be, Attorney General Garland said, a 5- year review where they look and see how it is going and is the jurisdiction complying or not.

If they are not complying, as is taking place in Maricopa County, why not? What needs to be done? Is the monitor actually showing up at work and being a zealous individual about it or not? That can happen right now.

But in any event, Attorney General Garland says, have a 5-year review. Their bill says terminate the monitor, regardless of whether or not that person is doing a good job, after 5 years. They could be doing the best job in the world, but no, they want to start all over again and take all of the time and energy required in getting somebody else up to date on the case.

It is just not serious legislation, which is perhaps why there is not a counterpart over on the Senate side; there is no companion.

So good luck to the gentleman about actually getting this done before the election in November. Perhaps people will be impressed by catalyzing all of this attention to one case, but it tells us nothing about what is happening in the rest of the country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Landsman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The gentleman says that if we had come, it would have been serious. I applaud the implicit concession it wasn't serious. But in any event, it would not have been relevant because studying what goes on in one office is not relevant.

Now, if you want to take the Attorney General's handiwork and turn it into law, we could do it, but that is not what the gentleman is proposing to do. He has changed it and contorted it in a lot of different ways in order to fit his particular case.

In any event, I don't think we should rely exclusively on the executive branch. I think we should have our own serious hearings with the whole committee. Only two Republicans joined that trip to Phoenix, Arizona, although there was another Republican Member who I think was a key witness there. I think Mrs. Lesko testified before the committee, increasing the sense of the closed circle that they have there.

In any event, why don't we look at this as a serious national problem? In any event, of the top 25 things Americans are thinking about, I can guarantee you that is not one of them. One of them, though, is the billion dollars that the administration is asking for, for the big, wretched ballroom that they want to build over at the White House since they bulldozed the East Wing of the White House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Boyle), the ranking member on the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the President has repeatedly claimed that the ballroom would actually be entirely funded by private sources. Leaving aside the legality of that proposition, now they are asking the American taxpayers for $1 billion for the ballroom when the cost of it would have been zero had he not gone ahead and bulldozed the White House without the permission or consent of Congress which has control over all Federal buildings and property.

It is up to us, not the President, and yet he thinks that the White House is like a personal vacation home. He bulldozed it, and now they are asking us for $1 billion.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member of the Budget Committee for coming here to talk about this very serious issue. I am very glad he is moving to recommit so we can have some serious legislative investigation into that outrageous proposal. I want to link it to the bill from the gentleman from Arizona. That is because if you think about it, Mr. Speaker, neither of the agendas being proposed have anything to do with the national common good. The ballroom, the gilded ballroom for Donald Trump and his family and friends, has nothing to do with what is going to advance the well-being of the American people.

Similarly, this bill is all about picking a fight with or retaliating against one monitor they are upset with about one case. They might be right or they might be wrong. It sounds to me like they are wrong, but, in any event, those merits have nothing to do with the rest of the country and what the rest of us are dealing with.

However, on the Republican side of the aisle, now it is all about I want my thing; I want to get my thing before the whole ship goes down.

We know Donald Trump's numbers are sinking like a stone across the country making him the most unpopular President in American history, so everybody wants to get a little piece of the action for whatever they can. No one is thinking about the public interest.

Who is thinking about getting healthcare to all the American people?

Who is thinking about lowering the cost of groceries for the American people?

Who is thinking about getting housing to the American people so young people can afford a place to go live?

None of it. The President said he was going to lower inflation on day one. Inflation is soaring. Now the cost of gasoline is up $1.50 across the country because of his illegal, unconstitutional war he has waged against us.

They want us to be spending our time talking about one Federal monitor under the supervision of one Federal judge in Maricopa County, Arizona.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman really wants to save the taxpayers money, then why not encourage the Maricopa County Sheriff's Department actually to implement the reforms that have been required by the court for more than one decade and finally redeem itself from the shameful legacy of entrenched racial and ethnic discrimination conducted by Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

I have not heard one word in utterance of criticism of Sheriff Arpaio by the distinguished gentleman from Arizona.

Is he here to say that Sheriff Arpaio did nothing wrong and that all of those court judgments are wrong and the court orders are wrong, that there never should have been a monitor in the first place?

Or is he saying: Oh, well, yes, he made some egregious systemic structural errors, but actually the process was completed and everything is fine now, but the monitor doesn't see it and the court doesn't see it.

In any event, why are we litigating this case from Phoenix, Arizona?

That just makes no sense. Congress is not allowed to adjudicate cases. We govern the interests of the whole country.

The gentleman keeps going back to the Attorney General's statement. This is the first time I ever heard him refer in any kind of positive way to Attorney General Merrick Garland. Great. Terrific.

Does Attorney General Garland support this legislation?

He hasn't mentioned it to me. I haven't heard anything from him about it.

Did the Deputy Attorney General who worked on their report endorse this legislation?

I haven't heard anything about it. Ms. Gupta didn't get in touch with me.

Did they go and testify out in Arizona?

Or did they just want to use that as a fig leaf for this effort to go and get this monitor that they don't like?

Mr. Speaker, that is not serious legislative policy.

That is kind of like a drive-by hit on Congress on your way out, like: Oh, I am going to go after this one guy. We can't govern on that basis.

How come there is no U.S. Senator who is introducing this legislation targeted at Maricopa County?

If it is all about that one case, why don't we tell the people we know there--and I don't know anybody there--but why don't we tell the people we know there to comply with the law?

I think that the average is around 5 years for a court monitor. Some of them have gone 15 or 20 when you have a real case of obstructionism, defiance, and intransigence. This one has gone on for more than a decade, which doesn't speak well for what is happening in that office.

In any event, most of the monitors are gone within several years because compliance is accomplished. The gentleman doesn't seem to recognize that the whole purpose of having a monitor is to see that the government will comply with the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the rights of the people. That is what is at stake here.

Are we going to just stampede in there and squash one monitor at the behest of one Congressman and one hearing taking place in one city without any serious legislative analysis of what is going on? I doubt very seriously the House of Representatives will do that. I know the Senate will not do that.

This seems to me to be a completely hopeless exercise in vain and a complete distraction from the real issues of the country, like the illegal, unconstitutional war Donald Trump has unleashed in the world, costing us more than a billion dollars a day; like the billion dollars they want from us now for the gilded ballroom of his dreams and visions; like the ruinous effects of their illegal, unconstitutional tariffs on American businesses, small businesses, and consumers across the country; and their continuing coverup of the Epstein files and their refusal to deal seriously with that situation.

They want us to talk about Maricopa County. No, thanks, Mr. Speaker. No, I am not interested in that. I don't think there is going to be anybody voting for this silly legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in tentative support of H.R. 8469, the fiscal year 2027 Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies bill.

The past few years, the MILCON-VA bill strayed from our tradition of being one of the few appropriations bills that traditionally had bipartisan support.

Our committee has a shared goal of supporting our servicemembers, veterans, and their families no matter who holds the majority. We are proud to report that as the bill stands, this is a bipartisan bill--one that we reported out of full committee 58-0. However, it saddens me to see that the majority has made in order amendments that stray from the bipartisan commitment that both Chair Carter and I have maintained.

To be clear, if any of the controversial amendments made in order are adopted, we will not be able to support this bill, and all the bipartisan work that we did to get this bill to this stage will all have been for naught. What a message we could send about our ability to work together if the House rejects these controversial amendments and votes to support the MILCON-VA bill--controversial amendments that really have nothing to do with protecting and preserving the quality of life of our servicemembers on Active Duty or our veterans--for a critical bill that supports our servicemembers and those who served our country honorably.

To be clear, we have already made compromises on this bill. This is not the bill that I would have written. The bill includes a policy rider that prohibits the VA from reporting a beneficiary--for example, that has been deemed mentally incompetent based on medical evidence and, therefore, is assigned a fiduciary to handle their finances--to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Not only is this a violation of current law, but it will only put more veterans in harm's way.

Additionally, I opposed the funding level for the NATO Security Investment Program, which 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.

I was able to put these concerns aside, as were my Democratic colleagues on the subcommittee and the full committee, and support this bill because that is what bipartisanship requires.

As I told the Committee on Rules, Mr. Chairman, sometimes we have to compromise on what our preferences might be. You never compromise on principle; but to achieve a greater good, which this bill absolutely represents, sometimes you swallow hard and you look past some things not being exactly the way you would have preferred.

So today we will consider an amendment that bans funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion at the VA as well because there are problematic amendments that have been made in order beyond just the language in the current underlying bill. We are worried that we will tip the scales from bipartisanship into partisanship.

The Supreme Court's decision to overturn the Voting Rights Act and swift action taken in southern States to disenfranchise Black voters proves that we have always needed to lean in on ensuring there is diversity, equity, and inclusion. We will not allow this attack on communities of color to continue, and we will strongly oppose this amendment if it is offered. The amendment does nothing to help veterans and is divisive, partisan, and unnecessary.

Along these same lines, there is an amendment that attacks Filipino World War II veterans, veterans that fought for us and with us, resulting in one of the greatest victories in our history.

I want to be clear here. The Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund exists to correct what was a racist decision made in 1946 that banned Filipino veterans from receiving compensation for their service in World War II. That is why the word ``equity'' exists in the title of this account.

There is also a messaging amendment on gender-affirming care for veterans. I hope that is not offered, but regardless of how you feel about the LGBT community, it is ridiculous to block a veteran from receiving the healthcare that they have earned.

It is disappointing that we are at this point, and I hope that throughout the rest of this process we can come together to defeat these amendments.

I do want to underscore that Judge Carter and I could not possibly have a better working relationship, and we have worked hand in glove to reach this point, and I think I can safely speak for both of us that we hope we can achieve the same outcome we were able to achieve in the full Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Levin), a distinguished member of the Appropriations Committee and the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Escobar), who represents Fort Bliss and is a member of the Appropriations Committee and the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close, as well, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I am very proud that we were able to pass this bill out of the full Appropriations Committee 58-0. I know Judge Carter and I are equally proud of that. This is legislation that, as you have heard, does fully fund healthcare for our Nation's veterans. It ensures--and we worked together on this--that veterans who get healthcare services through the PACT Act are able to have advanced funding to ensure continuity, regardless of the actions here in this body, for continued funding for their healthcare as a result of toxic exposure during their service, and now we have advanced funding for the Toxic Exposures Fund as well.

We added $15 million in prevention to make sure that we could have resiliency for our servicemembers because they are consistently now subject to the impacts of natural disasters, and it provides additional investments in child development centers and barracks, which are both areas of bipartisan concern. We are looking forward to the amendment process in which we can hopefully continue the bipartisan cooperation.

I want to thank Ranking Member DeLauro and Chairman Cole for their leadership. They are true leaders that we are fortunate to be able to work under. I also thank the team of professionals that I rely on: Farouk Ophaso, Tyler Coe, and Steven Goodall.

I support this bill in its current form, but I have serious concerns, again, about the controversial amendments that we will be considering later today and tomorrow.

I want to repeat, if any of those controversial amendments are added to this bill, it risks losing support from our side of the aisle. I hope we can come together. We already are together. I hope we can remain together in the name of bipartisanship and in service to our veterans and servicemembers to pass this bill with overwhelming support. We can only do that by keeping divisive, unnecessary, unrelated provisions out of the bill.

I, again, thank Judge Carter for his partnership and his friendship, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of these amendments en bloc. This en bloc contains noncontroversial amendments that raise awareness on the programs that we all care about. It includes the need to address a variety of medical care issues at the VA, addresses the VA construction backlog, constructs more State extended-care facilities, expedites claims processing, and draws attention to our defense infrastructure, specifically at public shipyards.

I encourage my colleagues to support these amendments en bloc, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Randall).

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Washington.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Elfreth).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Goodlander).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Walkinshaw).

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.