Floor Statements

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do agree with the ranking member that all U.S. States and territories already criminalize misuse of less-than-lethal devices through existing assault and battery laws.

Mr. Speaker, 42 States have explicit statutory definitions for less- than-lethal devices. Of those 42 States, 34 already prohibit possession by violent felons and domestic abusers, they impose age restrictions, and impose criminal penalties for misuse. Several States even require permits, licenses, or a background check to purchase or possess these devices.

This is not something that the State legislatures aren't aware of. As a matter of fact, I have said before, I think that there may be some State legislatures that will react to the legislation before us today and possibly come up with other items that States have already put in place that probably will support law enforcement in this area.

I think suggestions that the bill will put these devices in the hands of violent felons or the general public are blown way out of proportion and that H.R. 2189 preserves State regulations on these devices. It does not weaken existing safeguards against misuse.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I will just remind the Members we have 22 Democrat cosponsors on this bill. I am sure that those Members are hearing from their own local law enforcement. I am sure they are hearing from their chiefs of police. I am sure they are hearing from their sheriffs.

I am sure that they are hearing from some private security firms that want to be able to access this technology that has been there for some time and has been proven to be a de-escalator in these very tense situations that law enforcement officers find themselves in.

Mr. Speaker, I will say Wisconsin, my State, defines deadly force in its use-of-force policy as: The intentional use of a firearm or other instrument that creates a high probability of death or great bodily harm.

That is what we are trying to overcome, is this definition that does not fit this new technology.

Wisconsin already regulates the use of tasers and stun guns at the State level. You must be over 18 to own a stun gun or a taser, and you must be 21 and possess a valid concealed carry permit to carry in the public.

This is not going to be unchecked. There are absolutely going to be legislatures that will revisit this. It is currently a felony to carry a stun gun or a taser in public without a valid permit. It is illegal to possess stun guns or tasers for those who had prior felony convictions.

Mr. Speaker, a lot of this has already been thought out. It is law enforcement members who think about these items each and every day. It is those in leadership positions who think about these items, and we are responding to that. That is simply what we are doing here.

Once again, I think it is a great bill. I hope that Members support it. It sounds like it is going to be what I would expect to be a solid, bipartisan vote today.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the CBO score for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I will spend the time I have remaining responding to a few points made by my colleagues.

First of all, the U.S. States and territories already criminalize the misuse of less-lethal devices through existing assault and battery laws, and 34 States also restrict possession by violent felons and domestic abusers.

Let me repeat that. It is illegal for violent felons and domestic abusers to own or misuse less-lethal devices.

Mr. Speaker, our bill does not change that. H.R. 2189 preserves State regulation and, in fact, may invite State legislatures to adjust their statutes to harmonize with Federal law.

Second, the bill will not create ghost guns or other unregulated firearms. The five-part test in this bill would sufficiently protect against deregulation, and any product submitted to ATF for classification will be scrutinized under the ATF's existing classification process.

There is no loophole. This fear-mongering by colleagues on the other side of the aisle this morning is nothing more than that.

Finally, police do, in fact, have difficulty obtaining these devices. State and local police departments in States like California, New York, and Texas will not buy the newest taser models due to the increased liability.

This is not some hypothetical. Unless we make this change, State and local police departments will have to settle for weaker, less-accurate taser models due to this misclassification.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution and in 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 a 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.

For police departments, law enforcement officers could 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 those 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 is no longer classified as a firearm. It was never intended to apply to them in the first place. 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.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues, Congressman Correa, Congressman Schweikert, and Congressman Stanton, for their leadership on this issue over the last two Congresses.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the lives that were lost 4 years ago during the devastating attack on the Waukesha Christmas parade.

On November 21, 2021, Waukesha was enjoying its 58th annual Christmas parade, a time where the community joyfully comes together in celebration of the Christmas season.

Tragically, the parade was halted when an individual committed a senseless act of violence that took the lives of six people: Wilhelm Hospel, Virginia Sorenson, LeAnna Owen, Tamara Durand, Jane Kulich, and Jackson Sparks. He also injured over 60 others.

Today, I introduced a resolution honoring the memory of those who lost their lives on that fateful day and recognizing Waukesha's strength after the tragedy. Since the attack, I have been heartened by the resilience demonstrated by the community of Waukesha through a mural, statue, and soon-to-be-unveiled sculpture.

Waukesha has not only preserved the legacy of those who are no longer with us but also given the community hope as they recover.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in welcoming His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew to our Nation's Capital. As the Head of the second largest Christian Church in the world, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew leads a Church of 300 million people, including a large community in Southeastern Wisconsin.

His work towards the cause of peace should be commended, and on behalf of Wisconsin's 5th Congressional District, I congratulate Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew ahead of receiving the Templeton Prize.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the bipartisan CLARITY Act, commonsense legislation that finally gives digital asset markets the regulatory certainty they need to grow responsibly right here in the United States.

For too long, innovators have been stuck in a regulatory gray zone caught between agencies and overlapping authority and subject to enforcement instead of clear rules.

The uncertainty has driven jobs, investment, and innovation offshore while leaving American consumers exposed.

The CLARITY Act fixes this. It establishes clear, functional rules for digital assets, drawing a bright line between the SEC and the CFTC and creating strong, enforceable protections for consumers.

It ensures the digital assets developers and consumer-facing firms play by the rules, disclosing who owns what, segregating customer funds, and avoiding conflicts of interest.

It is long overdue, and I commend the chairmen for bringing this bill to the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Guthrie and Congressman Griffith for their leadership on this issue.

This is a historic moment, Mr. Speaker. House Republicans are delivering on a promise to stop the flow of deadly fentanyl that, for years, has been flooding our communities and, tragically, tearing families apart.

Today, drug overdose is the leading cause of accidental death across the country, and fentanyl-driven overdoses are the leading cause of death for American adults between 18 and 45 years of age. That is because it is cheap to make, easy to transport, and so potent. Just a few milligrams can be lethal.

Addressing the spread of illicit and illegal fentanyl-related substances has been a top priority not only for myself but for many other colleagues in this House. It is hard for me to believe what I am hearing from the minority right now.

One of the first pieces of legislation that we introduced in the 117th Congress was the Stopping Overdoses of Fentanyl Analogues Act. SOFA is the same acronym as an organization started by Lauri Badura of Oconomowoc, Wisconsin, Saving Others For Archie. Archie was her son.

Lauri has worked to raise awareness of the dangers of drug addiction

throughout Wisconsin following the loss of her son Archie to a fentanyl overdose.

Mr. Speaker, I personally recognize the work of Lauri, as well as Dr. Timothy Westlake of Waukesha, Wisconsin, for spearheading legislation in the Wisconsin State Legislature that culminated in the bill being debated before us today.

Since 2017, they have been working on a permanent solution, and that is scheduling fentanyl as a schedule I item. It is the most important thing that this House of Representatives will do in this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, due to unforeseen circumstances, I was unable to cast a vote on Roll Call No. 163. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating several remarkable Girl Scouts from Wisconsin's 5th Congressional District for demonstrating leadership, creativity, and a commitment to making a lasting impact by earning the most prestigious award in Girl Scouting, the Gold Award.

Gold Award Girl Scouts help their communities and the world by identifying a community need, investigating it, devising a plan, and leading a team of experts and community members to implement a project that produces lasting change. Over the course of 1 to 2 years, Gold Award Girl Scouts demonstrate significant initiative, commitment, and leadership, distinguishing them from their peers. Through their resourcefulness and perseverance, they embody the Girl Scout Law to make the world a better place.

Mr. Speaker, I offer my congratulations to the following outstanding young women:

Ayla Abraham, Troop 6249

Sophia Ayer, Troop 8017

Angela Brandes, Troop 4796

Mia Bremner, Individually Registered Member

Madeline Bruss, Troop 8329

Abigail Connett, Troop 4801

Anissa Griffith, Troop 4633

Alexandra Higbee, Troop 4569

Jenna Jegl, Troop 6239

Rayna Jellish, Troop 9300

Katelyn Kosfeld, Troop 8093

Gracie Lochowicz, Troop 4801

Tatiana Mamalakis, Troop 8004

Sarah Marcheske, Troop 8329

Lauren Munson, Troop 4796

Zoe Peterson, Troop 8017

Kylie Rich, Troop 4801

Megan Schatz, Troop 4679

Skylar Smith, Troop 4333

Samantha Sroka, Troop 8093

Sydney Vande Hei, Troop 4582

Sydney Zarske, Troop 8004

Eleanor Zgonc, Troop 8004

Mr. Speaker, I commend these Girl Scouts on their incredible accomplishment, and thank them for all the work they have done in service of communities across Wisconsin's 5th Congressional District.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Chairman Hill's resolution to overturn the CFPB's misguided overdraft rule.

In Wisconsin, community banks and credit unions are the backbone of our local economies. They know their customers. They serve their neighbors. They provide trusted financial tools like overdraft protection to help families manage their emergencies.

Overdraft protection is a critical tool that helps families avoid declined transactions, bounced checks, and costly disruptions. It does so transparently with clear disclosure.

A 2023 study from the Financial Health Network found consumers want overdraft services and the flexibilities that they provide.

The CFPB rule amounts to government price controls that will limit access to a lawful, contractually agreed-upon product. The rule will not help working families. It will hurt them.

By capping fees below the costs of providing the service, many banks and credit unions will be forced to reduce or eliminate overdraft programs altogether.

Because of the CFPB's rule on overdrafts, consumers will lose options. The resolution will repeal the CFPB's rule and protect consumers.

Mr. Speaker, many people will face declined payments, higher minimum balance requirements or, worse, be pushed toward riskier unregulated products.

This resolution will repeal the CFPB's rule and protect consumers' access to financial products.

I urge my colleagues to support this CRA resolution, defend consumer choice, and restore regulatory certainty to our financial system.

Mr. Speaker, due to unforeseen travel delays, I was unable to cast a vote on H.R. 517, Roll Call No. 84, and H.R. 997, Roll Call No. 85. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on both roll call no. 84 and roll call no. 85.

personal explanation

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 27, the HALT Fentanyl Act.

I will share two stories of constituents from Wisconsin's Fifth District. Lauri Badura of Oconomowoc lost her eldest son, Archie, in 2014 due to an accidental overdose.

Since then, she has dedicated herself to advocate on behalf of those struggling with mental health and substance abuse and started a grassroots organization called Saving Others for Archie to help fight the opioid epidemic on the local, State, and national level.

Erin and Rick Rachwal of Pewaukee lost their son, Logan, to an overdose in 2021. The results of that toxicology report indicated three different forms of fentanyl were present.

In response, Erin and Rick started the Love, Logan Foundation to end the stigma surrounding mental health and substance abuse disorders.

Mr. Speaker, we need strong congressional action on fentanyl, and we need the permanent designation of fentanyl-related substances to schedule I.

One of the first pieces of legislation I introduced in Congress was Stopping Overdoses of Fentanyl Analogues Act to address the very issue we are considering today.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1486, I call up the bill (H.R. 8205) to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to provide that Byrne grant funds may be used for public safety report systems, 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 to insert extraneous material on H.R. 8205.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand before you today in support of my bill, H.R. 8205, the Keeping Violent Offenders Off Our Streets Act.

This 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.

My district, unfortunately, knows the painful consequences of some of the leftwing bail policies after a repeat offender drove his car through the Waukesha Christmas parade nearly 3 years ago. The Waukesha community continues to heal from this violence that was unleashed that day, but our community is resilient.

While we must take time to remember those whom we lost, we should also turn an eye toward preventing a similar attack from ever happening again. That starts through regulating the use of charitable bail funds, which have been abused time and again to release violent criminals back onto our streets with no consequences.

Charitable bail funds generally flew under the radar until 2020 when the George Floyd riots caused revenues to balloon in many of these funds. The solicitations were done, for the most part, from celebrities and politicians.

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

For example, the Minnesota Freedom Fund saw revenues increase by 18,000 percent between 2019 and 2020, no doubt benefiting from then- Senator Kamala Harris' tweet encouraging her supporters to help fundraise for the group. A snap of that is just to my right.

Perhaps most 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 to no oversight.

In 2021, for example, the Minnesota Freedom Fund released a domestic abuser back onto the street. Two weeks later, that 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 again for murder.

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

Mr. Speaker, the list goes on and on.

According to an investigation conducted 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.

Moreover, because these funds are often anonymous, or at least unrelated to the defendant, there is no incentive to show up for their court dates. It makes no sense. Many of them don't.

According to CNN, which took a look at this issue, nearly 42 percent of the 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 during that same period of time. This is why many States have begun regulating the use of charitable bail funds. Unfortunately, a State-by-State patchwork has now developed, and it will not solve this problem.

That is why we introduced the Keeping Violent Offenders Off Our Streets Act. The bill makes a small but important change to our criminal code to define bail bonds as an insurance product--it doesn't seem that significant; it is very simple--thereby subjecting them to the same Federal background check and regulatory requirements as those for 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 the funds. There is no mandate on any of the State insurance regulations.

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 a not-for-profit with the purpose of posting cash bail, then you should be subjected to the same regulation and oversight requirements as those operating as for-profit entities.

This will bring needed oversight to organizations that for years have gone unregulated--$42 million in the Minnesota Freedom Fund--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. We now will have some oversight.

It is a critical step toward reversing steps by the Democrats, like Vice President Harris, to remove bail safeguards and let violent criminals back into our communities to cause further damage.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ohio, Chairman Jordan, for his leadership on this important issue, as well as Congressman Troy Nehls, Congressman Bryan Steil, Congressman Tom Tiffany, Congressman Clay Higgins, and Congressman Ken Calvert from California for their support of H.R. 8205.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage a ``yes'' vote on the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle mentioned that many of these bail funds operate locally and, therefore, do not affect interstate commerce. I think it is important to describe the current landscape of the charitable bail funds, and we are not trying to eliminate them.

According to the National Bail Fund Network, there are over 90 charitable bail funds operating across the country. Perhaps the largest fund by revenue, The Bail Project, operates in at least 19 States. That is according to a 2023 annual report.

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, The Bail Project saw revenues triple after the George Floyd riots to a whopping $42 million in 2020. That is $42 million. There is zero oversight.

Thanks to solicitations from Vice President Harris and thanks to those generous donations, The Bail Project ended calendar year 2023 with an astonishing $71 million. I think an important part that has flown under the radar is that these donations are also tax deductible.

That is right. A lot of Americans are surprised by that. The bail for a violent felony offender could be paid and written off on a tax return, the same as if it were a donation to any charitable cause.

That is an incredibly important point in the context of regulating the payment of cash bail. The donors to these funds have no skin in the game, which makes it incredibly difficult to secure a defendant's appearance in court. They likely care more about their tax deduction than about who actually receives the bail money.

In other words, there is no disincentive to commit a new crime and have a bond forfeited because the source of funds are not tied to the defendant.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment to the title of H.R. 8205 at the desk.