Scott Fitzgerald

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6048) to amend title 18, United States Code, to modify delayed notice requirements, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 6048.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of my legislation H.R. 6048, the NDO Fairness Act of 2025, and urge its passage.

This bill makes much-needed changes to the way law enforcement obtains and utilizes nondisclosure orders, also known as secrecy orders.

Before modern advancements in cloud computing, when a law enforcement officer wanted to search someone's office, they would be required to obtain a search warrant based on probable cause.

When the officer executed the search, they would notify the individual, who would then have an opportunity to challenge the search in court. However, the era of cloud computing has ushered in a new method of storing sensitive information, whereby individuals are replacing file cabinets with digital file folders.

Unbeknownst to them, by surrendering the physical office in favor of the digital one, individuals are also surrendering their expectation of privacy. That is because a provision within the Electronic Communications Privacy Act allows law enforcement to access an individual's data by subpoenaing the third-party service provider, such as Microsoft, Google, or Apple, rather than the individual.

The law enforcement officer then imposes a secrecy order on the company, preventing them from notifying the individual of the search. The secrecy order is often boilerplate and without a time limit, leading to abuse or overuse.

According to Microsoft, between July and December 2024, Federal authorities requested U.S. citizen data from more than 5,500 accounts, an average of 15 requests per day.

Over the same period, Google received more than 24,000 subpoenas for nearly 54,000 accounts. In nearly all these cases, a secrecy order was imposed on the company to prevent the disclosure of the search.

Look no further than the recent revelations by the House Judiciary Committee that Special Counsel Jack Smith sought and obtained nondisclosure orders to prevent phone carriers from notifying Members of Congress that their phone records were searched.

For nearly 2 years, Members of Congress were unable to be notified that their information was searched, all because a Federal judge accepted the government's boilerplate secrecy order, suggesting disclosure would seriously jeopardize an ongoing investigation.

Regardless of your politics, this should alarm every sitting Member of Congress. The NDO Fairness Act of 2025 would stop this abuse, which has allowed the circumvention of the Fourth Amendment protections in favor of convenience.

This legislation ends indefinite secrecy orders. Instead, it requires the court to certify that disclosing the search is likely to jeopardize an investigation, result in the destruction of evidence, or endanger the life of an individual.

This legislation also imposes a 90-day limit on secrecy orders, with an extension available if, and only if, the need for secrecy is justified based on arguable facts and approval by a judge.

Finally, this legislation gives the individual subject to the search a chance to be heard and a chance to request a copy of the information that was disclosed.

Today's legislation, while not a major overhaul of the ECPA, provides us with an opportunity to address the threat to our constitutional freedoms, not just for elected officials, but for all Americans.

These changes, I believe, will bring searches of the cloud more closely in line with the Fourth Amendment searches.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New York (Mr. Nadler) for co- leading this bill. I also thank the chairman of the committee, Chairman Jordan, for his leadership on the issue.

Mr. Speaker, I urge swift passage of this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I reiterate my strong support for this bipartisan bill, H.R. 6048, which will provide much-needed safeguards on the secrecy order process. This bill passed the House nearly unanimously last Congress, and it is my hope it does so again today.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to again vote ``aye'' on this, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1275, I call up the bill (H.R. 6260) to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit fraud in connection with posting bail, 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 to insert extraneous material on H.R. 6260.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6260, the Keeping Violent Offenders Off Our Streets Act of 2025.

The bill defines the posting of cash bail by a corporate, nonprofit, or for-profit entity as engaged in the business of insurance, subjecting them to Federal insurance laws and our criminal fraud statutes.

The use of crowdsourcing for posting bail has long been scrutinized by the courts, now as a way to disguise the true source of the funds. That is because if there is little or no relationship between the defendant and those supplying the money, the bail money provides no incentive to prevent the defendant from simply fleeing the jurisdiction. This is especially true if the money does not have to be paid back.

While crowdsourcing funds is generally illegal, the use of charitable bail funds remains legal in most States. Charitable bail funds generally flew under the radar until 2020, when the George Floyd riots caused revenues to balloon, thanks to solicitations from celebrities and some politicians.

What used to be a small, community-based organization that helped post bail for nonviolent misdemeanors has grown into a multimillion- dollar industry.

For example, the Minnesota Freedom Fund saw revenues increase by 18,000 percent between 2019 and 2020. In a similar situation, The Bail Project saw its contributions triple in 2020 to nearly $42 million.

Perhaps more alarming, what was intended to help bail out low-level, nonviolent protesters has instead been used to release violent felony offenders back into the streets with little or no oversight.

In 2021, for example, the Minnesota Freedom Fund released a domestic abuser back onto the street. Two weeks later, the man, George Howard, was charged with second-degree murder for a road rage incident.

Michael Dewitt of Louisville, Kentucky, was bailed out by The Bail Project in February 2021 after being arrested on multiple charges. Two months later, he was arrested for murder.

Shawn Michael Tillman, 3 weeks after having bail paid by the Minnesota Freedom Fund, murdered a man at a light rail station in Saint Paul and is now serving a life sentence for that crime.

Mr. Speaker, the list continues to go on and on. According to an investigation conducted by CNN, in Hennepin County, Minnesota, the Minnesota Freedom Fund has bailed out at least 65 defendants who were awaiting trial on felony charges involving violence, physical threats, or sex crimes.

Similarly, in Indiana, of the roughly 1,000 defendants released on bail supplied by The Bail Project between 2019 and 2021, 24 percent had previously been charged with a crime of violence, and 35 percent were accused of felony charges and had a previous charge of at least one crime of violence.

Because these funds are crowdsourced, there is no incentive for the defendants to show up for their court date. Guess what. Many of them don't.

Again according to the network CNN, nearly 42 percent of roughly 500 defendants bailed out by the Minnesota Freedom Fund later failed to appear at one or more court hearings between 2021 and 2022.

Commercial bail companies, by comparison, had a failure to appear rate of only 22 percent, so it is working in the private sector. During that same period, there are new numbers that demonstrate that this trend will continue. This is why many States have begun regulating the use of charitable bail funds.

Georgia, for example, limits the amount of cash bonds a charitable bail fund can pay in a given year. Indiana prohibits the use of charitable bail funds for posting bail for violent felony offenders. Unfortunately, a State-by-State patchwork is now developing, and that will obviously not solve this problem.

That is why we introduced the Keeping Violent Offenders Off Our Streets Act of 2025. This bill makes a very small but important change to our criminal code to define bail bonds as an insurance product--that is it--thereby subjecting it to the same Federal background check and regulatory requirements as those of for-profit bail agencies under the Federal Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1994.

This change would also bring charitable bail funds under State insurance regulation, giving States the ability to better scrutinize the use of these funds.

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. This bill does not outlaw the use of charitable bail funds, nor does it regulate the posting of cash bail by family and friends of the accused. This bill merely says that if you are operating as a not-for-profit with the purpose of posting cash bail, you should be subjected to the same regulation and oversight requirements as those operating as a for-profit entity.

This will bring needed oversight to organizations that for years have gone unregulated while ensuring accountability of these funds by subjecting them to Federal insurance fraud statutes if they misappropriate funds or misrepresent the use of these funds in any financial reports.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to vote ``yes'' on the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will just say that a number of the issues that were raised by the ranking member are issues that I thought we addressed in the committee. We talked to a number of Members and some district attorneys, certainly prosecutors and public defenders. Again, this is a situation where these sites are created, donations pour in nationwide to fund some of these, not only the crowdsourced funds but also additional dollars that, quite honestly, are very difficult to track.

We thought this would be a simple solution to it. I think there is enough support for it.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no idea what the gentlewoman is speaking about. This would have no effect on any of the charitable situations that she just described.

As for judges, I think if my colleagues wanted to debate jurisdictions, prosecutors, and judges setting weak bail policies, we can certainly have that discussion. I think that is a separate discussion from what would be appropriate for the bill before us.

Just this morning, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on a Fairfax County Commonwealth's attorney who seems to care far less about what crime a defendant may have committed than whether they are in the country illegally. The prosecutors apparently have a history of offering these sweetheart deals, which we are all very aware of.

You can go across the country--New York, California, Illinois, Maryland, it doesn't matter. All these policies that restrict judges and prosecutors from imposing constraints on criminals are what we should be talking about.

This all came about and I got involved in it because of what happened in my own State and in my own district when a judge released a known violent offender, and the individual proceeded to drive through the Waukesha Christmas Parade and killed six innocent bystanders.

The best thing we can do is try to check the system to make sure that it is working properly, and that is what this bill aims to do.

I find it hard to believe that people donate to these funds knowing that

funds will go specifically to bail out somebody who is a violent criminal. Quite honestly, that is another issue, I believe, that people oftentimes are misled or don't even know what they are donating to actually fund at this point.

I would hope that this would be given a little bit further consideration on its face, rather than trying to judge it based on many different situations that, quite honestly, I don't believe exist. They are the same types of red herrings that we have been hearing since the day that we introduced the bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, again, I think the gentleman from Texas' comments are not specifically directed at this legislation. There is a larger frustration maybe with the bail bond industry, but certainly that is not something that we need to be concerned with here.

The criticism about bail funds and how low-income individuals and individuals of color are handled, the bill in no way prohibits the use of charitable bail organizations or limits their use. The bill merely subjects them to the same level of scrutiny we apply to for-profit bail companies.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers at this time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close and reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill before us will ensure accountability for charitable bail funds that break the law. It is that simple. We are not trying to eliminate any crowdsourcing. We are just trying to make sure that there is some monitoring going on here. We know these funds have bailed out violent felony offenders in the past and we have a responsibility, or these organizations that claim a tax-exempt status, to ensure funds are being spent appropriately.

H.R. 6260 will allow States to enact licensing requirements for entities that post bail on behalf of defendants which will bring needed scrutiny.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Jordan for his leadership on this issue and again urge passage of H.R. 6260.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1057, I call up the bill (H.R. 2189) to modernize Federal firearms laws to account for advancements in technology and less-than-lethal weapons, 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 insert extraneous material on H.R. 2189.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2189, the Law- Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act.

This bill will put lifesaving, less-lethal technology in the hands of more law enforcement and public safety officers.

When the Gun Control Act of 1968 was enacted more than 50 years ago, it was not written with the intent to regulate less-lethal projectile devices such as tasers.

Unfortunately, if a taser or other device uses an explosive propellant to discharge the projectile, the ATF classifies it as a firearm. This makes it more difficult for law enforcement and public safety officers to obtain and use these devices.

For starters, many States prohibit public safety officers from using firearms. In at least 12 States, correctional officers are unable to carry firearms in the course of their official duties. Many State laws also prohibit or restrict the use of firearms in schools and hospitals, meaning security officers would be unable to purchase these devices if they are needed.

For police departments, law enforcement officers can be unfairly subjected to higher levels of liability exposure for discharging a firearm than a less-lethal device. This includes my own State of Wisconsin, which includes in its definition of deadly force the discharge of a firearm.

Mr. Speaker, that is why the Law-Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act is both necessary and important. H.R. 2189 makes a small but important change to the Gun Control Act's definition of a firearm to appropriately define a less-lethal projectile device.

It does so by instituting a five-part test, ensuring only devices that are truly less lethal will pass ATF scrutiny. It also exempts these devices from the firearm excise tax, the simple logic being that police departments and manufacturers should no longer be paying a firearm tax on a device that no longer is classified as a firearm. It was never intended to apply to them in the first place, and it should not apply to them now.

By making these simple changes, we are equipping our law enforcement and public safety officers with the best tools to keep our communities safe and our first responders out of harm's way.

Innovation should be rewarded, not stifled, and this bill does just that. I thank my colleagues--Congressman Correa, Congressman Schweikert, Congressman Stanton, and all the others who have been supportive of this--for their leadership on this issue over the last two Congresses.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I remind Members that the bill itself has a ton of support, to include the Fraternal Order of Police, Major County Sheriffs, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, NOBLE, Hispanic American Police Command Officers and their associations, Peace Officers Research Association of California, and the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association.

Again, I think there is a ton of support out there, and there is actually a real need and a number of requests for this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Correa), my colleague on the Judiciary Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I remind Members, again, that a lot of the accusations that this will create other avenues for individuals to get firearms is just not true. To be classified as a less-than-lethal device under this bill, the device may not accept firearm ammunition. I don't know how much clearer that can be.

There are no firearm magazines involved with these weapons at all, and they do not have high-velocity projectiles.

There are a lot of scare tactics being used to try to paint this as if it is being extended to other firearms. It is not.

This would also prevent these ideas from taking hold amongst discussions about ghost guns, which is something that is out there on the street. For any weapon that also has kits that can be converted to a firearm, it doesn't apply to them.

This bill also requires ATF to deny classification to any device that could be readily modified into a firearm.

I know there is a lot of hearsay, a lot of thoughts about where this could go in the future, but, quite honestly, that is not the way this bill was drafted. It is not going to lend itself to being used that way.

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