Bills on Violent Offenders, Cashless Bail, Medal of Sacrifice, Online Predators

Very good. Committee will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recess at any time pursuant to committee rule two, House rule 11, clause two. The chairman May postpone further proceedings today on the question of approving any measure or matter or adopting an amendment for which a recorded vote is ordered. Recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin to lead us in the pledge. To the flag of the United States.

Of America and to the Republic for.

Which stands one nation under God, indivisible.

With liberty and justice for all.

Senator To notice I call up HR 6719, the Combating Online Predators Act of 2025 for purpose of markup move that the committee reported favorably to the house. The clerk will report the bill. HR 67. Without objection, the bill be considered as read and open to open for an amendment at any point that the Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from the great state of Florida, Ms. Lee, for her opening statement.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to begin by thanking you for this committee's strong and consistent focus on protecting children from online exploitation and for including this bill in today's markup. Last Congress, the Crime Subcommittee held multiple hearings focused on human trafficking, child protection, and identifying victims. Through this committee, we also advanced the Report Act, which strengthened requirements for online service providers to report crimes involving child sex abuse material to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, legislation that was ultimately signed into law. That work matters, and it has made a real difference, but our work is not finished. Today, I'm bringing before the committee HR 6719, the Combating Online Predators Act, because.

We are seeing a disturbing and rapidly.

Growing form of exploitation directed at children, sextortion. Sextortion occurs when a predator threatens to distribute sexually explicit images, often images a child has already been coerced into producing, unless the child complies with further demands. These demands may include additional explicit images, sexual acts, or money.

The threat itself is the leverage, and.

It is devastatingly effective.

The scope of this problem is alarming. Reports of sextortion have increased dramatically in recent years, and children, particularly teenage boys, are disproportionately targeted. The harm is not theoretical, it is real, and in some cases, it is fatal. Just last month, a 15-year-old boy from West Virginia died by suicide after being targeted in a sextortion scheme. His story is tragically not alone. From a legal standpoint, this bill addresses a very specific and very real gap in federal law. Under current statutes, the act of threatening to distribute child sex abuse material in order to coerce a child is not always clearly captured within existing CSAM provisions. As a result, prosecutors are often forced to rely on a patchwork of other statutes, leading to inconsistent charging decisions and sentences that do not adequately reflect the seriousness of the conduct. That is not because prosecutors lack commitment or creativity. It is because the statute was not written with this modern form of exploitation in mind. The Combating Online Predators Act fixes that. This bill amends section 2252 and 2252A of Title 18 to explicitly criminalize the knowing threat to distribute child sex abuse material when that threat is used to coerce a minor to produce or transmit sexually explicit It is a targeted common sense update that aligns the law with the realities our children face online today. This legislation ensures that predators who use these threats as a weapon against children can be charged appropriately and sentenced accordingly. No child should ever be placed in a position where they feel trapped, ashamed, or hopeless because of an online predator's threat. And no child should ever believe the only way out is to harm themselves. Congress has a responsibility to ensure that our laws keep pace with evolving forms of exploitation and that law enforcement has the tools it needs to protect victims and hold predators accountable. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support HR 6719. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.

The gentlelady yields back. The ranking member is recognized for an opening statement.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I salute the gentlelady on her legislation. This is one of a host of bills we're looking at today, Mr. Chairman. That emerged magically almost from the legislative push and pull over the NDAA. A lot of them we have not had hearings on. We've not had an extended period of time to do any real legislative analysis on them. I've done my best to try to study up on them. And my response on this one will be similar to my response on some others. I plan to support this bill today because it raises a very serious issue. It's got a very important objective. Room for improvement in this legislation in several different ways. It, of course, addresses the growing threat of the sextortion of minors, which occurs when a person gets a hold of an explicit image involving a minor and then uses it to blackmail them. It's a deadly serious problem. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children reports that it's been just spiraling in recent years. They received 33,000 reports of this crime last year alone. The victims face extreme harassment and often feel they've got nowhere to turn. Nick Mick reports that there are at least 36 teenagers who've taken their own lives after being targeted in such criminal schemes. So if you're willing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to get together to improve the legislation to ensure certain deficiencies are corrected. For example, the financial component that accompanies these crimes is not addressed here, but I think there there are ways we can work together to improve it, but I plan to vote for it and I do support the underlying bill and I yield back.

The gentleman yields back without objection. All of their opening statements will be included in the record. Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Florida to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Clerk will report the amendment.

Amendment in the nature of a substitute.

That objection, amendment in the nature of a substitute, will be considered as read and shall be considered as the base text for the purposes of amendment.

The gentlelady from Florida is recognized to explain the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment simply makes a small change to the short title that does nothing to alter the substance of the bill. I yield back.

Gentlelady yields back. Anyone seek recognition? Gentlelady from Vermont is recognized.

Just briefly, Mr. Chair, I just like my ranking member I'm grateful to Ms. Lee for bringing.

This forward and like the ranking member.

I look forward to working together to improve this as a mom of two teens. This is something I know all of us who are parents think about a lot. So I yield back.

Gentlelady yields back. Question is on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of substitute. This will be followed immediately by a vote on favorably reporting the bill. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. Opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it and the amendment nature of a substitute is adopted. The question now is unfavourably reporting the bill as amended. All those in favour say aye, aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it and the bill is ordered to be reported favourably to the House. Members will have two days to submit views. Without objection, the bill will be reported as a single amendment in the nature of a substitute incorporating all adopted amendments and staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes Pursuant to notice, I call up HR 6732, the Coercion and Sexual Abuse Free Environment Act of 2025 for purposes of markup and move that the house, excuse me, move that the committee reported favorably to the house. The clerk will report the bill. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Biggs.

For an opening statement.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And I, I thank all the members of the committee. And I want to point out that the crime subcommittee has had multiple hearings addressing CSAM issues. So, so we've actually tried to get this and discuss these types of bills and this issue. Mr. Chairman, as was stated earlier, the horror of child exploitation online continues to remain an issue across the country.

The Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government.

Surveillance made combating child exploitation a top priority in the 118th Congress, and we continue to do so in this Congress. Unfortunately, we've only just scratched the surface of the true evil that criminals are finding new ways to force minors to commit sexual or violent acts. Violent online networks are methodically targeting vulnerable, underage populations across the United States. These violent groups, often known as gore groups, are going further to target children and force them into unthinkable acts of violence against themselves, against others, and even against animals. These groups use social media or other popular platforms such as Roblox or Discord to elicit private information or sexual images from minors and then use that material to blackmail victims into mutilating themselves or taking other violent action against other children or even animals. Many of these networks rapidly emerge, create alliances, and dissolve, making it difficult to determine leadership structures with many criminal actors located overseas. Many of these offenders are also minors themselves. The most prominent group example is the online extremist network known as 764. 764 is a decentralized online network glorifying violence and encouraging participation in criminal activities such as sextortion and doxxing.

A disturbed young man who has since.

Been arrested and jailed started the 764 network in 2020. While decentralized, it has grown into a vast array of online predators seemingly in a dark competition of who can get children to commit the most violent acts. In 2024, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, NCMEC, CyberTipline, the nation's centralized reporting system.

For the online abuse.

And exploitation of minors received more than 1,300 reports of exploitation with a connection to a violent online group. By August of this year, they had already received more than 1,000. In response to combating these groups, a law enforcement officer made the grim remark, quote, if you can get someone to self-harm, you're doing quite well in that group. If you can get them to kill themselves, you're reaching the pinnacle Close quote. That is their objective of these evil people. These stories, these examples are incredibly disturbing. Children are carving phrases unto themselves and live streaming the torture of pets. Some are encouraged to commit suicide and live stream that act of suicide for the world to see. This rising threat should alarm everyone listening regardless of party affiliation. I applaud the FBI for taking crucial steps to both raise awareness on this issue and hold predators accountable and working with us in the drafting of this legislation. In April, the FBI Richmond field office shared a video warning about a new threat to kids' safety. According to Deputy Director Bongino, the FBI has more than 300 active investigations into these groups, and that number continues to grow. However, more is needed from Congress to assure these heinous individuals are prosecuted. The conduct of groups such as the 7-6-4 network do not always fit neatly into existing criminal statutes, potentially jeopardizing prosecutions. My legislation, the Coercion and Sexual Abuse Free Environment Act, criminalizes compelling or enticing a minor to engage in self-harm resulting in death, engage in animal crushing, or to commit acts of self-mutilation or self-branding. We can all find common ground with this common-sense legislation. These are grotesque crimes that must be prosecuted to the fullest extent. And to any young people listening who have been impacted by this crime and do not know where to turn, know it is not your fault. Do not listen to this evil online.

Know you are loved and anything can be made right.

Your life is worth living. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

The Chair recognizes the Ranking Member for an opening statement.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And again, I want to thank the sponsor for introducing this legislation. Coercing kids online to hurt themselves or other people is a massive and brutal harm. And a serious social problem that's increasing. Violent online groups have emerged on popular platforms geared towards children and teenagers. These groups and individuals acting alone encourage children to commit horrifying acts, including cutting themselves, creating child sex abuse material, sexually exploiting other children, harming animals, swatting, doxxing, and in the most extreme instances taking their own lives.

This happened to Jay Taylor, a 13-year-old.

Who was struggling with an eating disorder, gender identity, and a sense of isolation. He found a connection on the online platform Discord, members of 764, an online network which methodically targets and exploits young people, got its grasp on him, and devastatingly coerced Jay to take his own life while live streaming. The FBI agents who worked on his case repeatedly encountered roadblocks while attempting to get prosecutors simply to file charges in the case with one U.S. Attorney telling them it simply wasn't possible. So the bill before us now, the Coercion and Sexual Abuse Free Environment Act of 2025, SE SAFE, tries to address the shortcomings in existing federal criminal law when it comes to investigating cases like this. So I am prepared to support this legislation. I am concerned again, because everything is being rushed so much, Mr. Chairman, that there may be some deficiencies in this legislation which would make it vulnerable to constitutional invalidation. I noted that one of the other bills we're looking at today is an attempt to respond to a circuit court ruling against another piece of legislation in this field. And so we should take good care to try to define the terms here. For example, if you look at Section 2C1, it criminalizes the act of compelling a minor to, quote, engage in abuse or degrading non-sexual conduct. But there's no definition in the law of what degrading non-sexual conduct is. And so you can imagine applications that everybody would agree to, but you could also imagine a number of marginal ones or ones that would cross the line. And you don't want the whole statute to be struck down as void for vagueness under due process because it's got overly broad spongy terms like that. So again, I'm happy to support the legislation, but I would like to work with you and the sponsor in order to elucidate some of the terms which which to me seemed to be overly vague and I return to you, Mr. Chairman.

Gentleman yields back and I'm sure we can take a look at that. Without objection, all of the opening statements will be included in the record. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Arizona to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Clerk will report the amendment.

An amendment in the nature of a substitute.

That objection, the amendment in the nature of a substitute will be considered as read and shall be considered as base text for the purpose of the amendment.

Gentleman from Arizona is recognized to explain the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment simply makes a small change to the short title that does nothing to alter the substance of the bill.

I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Who seeks recognition? The question occurs on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. This will be followed immediately by a vote on reporting the bill. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. The chair of the eyes have it. And the amendment in the nature of a substitute is adopted, the question is.

Unfavourably reporting the bill as amended.

All those in favour say aye.

Aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it and the bill is ordered to be reported favourably to the House. Members will have two days to submit views. Without objection, the bill will be reported as a single amendment. In the nature of a substitute incorporating all adopted amendments, and staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes. Pursuant to notice, we call up 6715, the Child Predators Accountability Act of 2025, for purposes of markup and move that the committee report it favorably to the house. The clerk will report the bill. HR 6715. On objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Harris, is recognized for an opening statement.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Protecting the vulnerable is one of the.

Most sacred responsibilities of government.

Curbing the prevalence of child sexual abuse material or CSAM is an issue that I believe must be confronted head on. Offenders who commit these despicable sexual crimes against children must be fully punished by the law. Unfortunately, there is a decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit that has weakened the law allowing some offenders to avoid justice. In this case, a defendant's conviction was overturned because a child was merely present in a sexually explicit video made by the defendant, but not an active participant. Predators who include minors in their sex tapes should not go free, regardless of the context. A child is harmed the moment that his or her image is used in sexual context, whether or not they were a direct participant. We cannot allow one rogue case to lead to a domino effect of more bad case law and less protection for these vulnerable children. My bill, the Child Predators Accountability Act, amends the law to ensure that the term engaged in child sexual abuse material, or CSAM, encompasses passive activity when a child is portrayed in explicit images and videos. Under this new definition, the depiction of the minor would qualify as sexually explicit conduct, regardless of whether the minor participated in such conduct, so long as the defendant intentionally included the minor in the visual depiction. While a small change in the law, it is incredibly important and necessary in strengthening the ability for prosecutors to hold these despicable actors accountable. I urge my colleagues to support the Child Predators Accountabilities Act and encourage its swift passage in the House. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

The whole nine yards.

Gentleman yields back the ranking member, the gentlelady from.

Thank you, Chairman Jordan.

I support this legislation. At a time when we have seen a dramatic increase in the volume of federal prosecutions for offenses involving the production of child sexual abuse material, a decision out of the Seventh Circuit, United States v. Howard, threatens to significantly limit prosecutors' ability to hold some of the worst child predators to account. The legal question is technical, but the human consequences are brutally simple. Title 18 of the U.S. Code, Section 2251A, criminalizes the production of sexual, excuse me, child sexual abuse material. For decades, prosecutors have used this law to target predators who prey on children to produce ghastly images of child sexual abuse. But the Seventh Circuit's ruling in the Howard case in 2020 jeopardized prosecutors' ability to go after these dangerous people until.

They actually abused a child and created.

An image of that abuse. The Howard decision narrowed the scope of Section 2251A, holding that the mere presence of a minor in a visual depiction of sexual explicit conduct does not automatically violate the statute. To obtain a conviction for production of CSAM in the Seventh Circuit, the child in the photo, video, or image must.

Themselves engage in sexually explicit content.

This is an absurd reading.

The Howard ruling undermines the ability to prosecute common scenarios involving the surreptitious recording of children. For example, when criminals plant concealed cameras in bathrooms, locker rooms, and bedrooms to record sexually explicit images of children who are unaware that they are being filmed. And criminals who record themselves sexually violating.

Very young children such as infants and.

Toddlers who are too young to understand that they are being filmed in sexually explicit scenarios could conceivably avoid prosecution under the reasoning of Howard and this is absurd. HR 6715 would make clear that even the passive use of a child in the production of CSAM is crime. a And eliminate any confusion caused by the.

Seventh circuit's ruling in Howard.

I support this legislation and yield back.

That objection, all other opening statements will be included in the record. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment simply makes a small change.

Just hang on one second. You got an amendment at the desk.

Yes, clerk will report.

Amendment in the nature of a substitute.

That objection, the amendment in the nature of a substitute will be considered as read and shall be considered as base text for the purpose of the amendment. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina to explain the amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment simply makes a small change to the short title that does nothing to alter the substance of the bill. And with that, I yield back.

Gentlemen yields back who seeks recognition. The question occurs on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. This will be followed immediately by a vote on favorably reporting the bill. All those in favor say aye. Aye, those opposed, no. The Chair of the I's have it and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is adopted. The question is unfavorably reporting the bill as amended. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. The I's have it and the bill is ordered to be reported favorably to the House. Members will have two days to submit views. Without objection, the bill will be reported as a single amendment in the nature of a substitute incorporating all adopted amendments and staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes. Pursuant to notice, call up HR 3497, the Medal of Sacrifice Act for purposes of markup and move that the committee reported favorably to the House. The clerk will report the bill. H.R. 3497, out of objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. The chair is now recognized for an opening statement. The Medal of Sacrifice Act authorizes the President to award a medal to law enforcement officers and first responders.

Killed in the line of duty.

Law enforcement officers and other first responders are known for their courage in facing danger to protect their communities. While others may flee, law enforcement and first responders run toward danger. Law enforcement officers uphold public safety by enforcing laws and maintaining order. First responders save lives during emergencies despite the risk to their own safety. These brave men and women provide essential help in times of need, embodying service, Commitment to the greater good. Unfortunately, law enforcement first responders often make the ultimate sacrifice while serving their communities. In 2024, the FBI reported that 64 law enforcement officers were murdered while on duty. That same year, another 56 law enforcement officers died in traffic-related incidents. The National Fire Protection Association reported that there were 62 fatalities from injuries to firefighters in the United States in 2024. The Medal of Sacrifice will honor the.

Brave men and women who made the.

Ultimate sacrifice while serving their communities. I want to thank Representative Mast, Chair of the Homeland Security Committee, or excuse me, the Foreign Affairs Committee, for his good work on this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and I yield now to the ranking member for his opening statement.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you say, more than 100 sworn law enforcement officers, more than 100 firefighters die. Each year while on duty. And there are a number of different memorials for them. There is no memorial or medal that honors all public safety officers who die in the line of duty. Over the last nine years, the leading causes of death for law enforcement officers were COVID-19, job-related illness, shootings, and car accidents. These causes are responsible for 94%. Of line of duty law enforcement deaths. So in addition to honoring people with a medal, we should be investing in public health, combating gun violence and the ready availability of guns for people who shouldn't have them, and making our roads safer. So let's also try to get together on a bipartisan basis to make bipartisan policy progress. But I support this bill to award medals of sacrifice to the public safety officers who have lost their lives in service to their countries and their communities. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Gentlemen yield back. Chair Roffler, amendment in the nature of a substitute. The clerk will report the amendment.

Amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Out of objection, the amendment in the nature of a substitute will be considered as read and shall be considered as base text for the purposes of amendment. The amendment in the nature of chairs recognized to explain the amendment. The amendment in the nature of a substitute simply adds the years to the short title and makes a technical correction in the text. I urge my colleagues to support it and yield back. I want to recognize Ms. Lee then I know we have a set rule on both sides here so we'll go to Ms. Lee and then I think Mr. Nellis. Gentlelady from Florida is recognized.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I strongly support H.R. 3497, the Medal of Sacrifice Act, which I am proud to co-sponsor. I thank my good friend from the great state of Florida, Congressman Mast, for his leadership in championing this meaningful legislation, as well as Chairman Jordan for including it in today's markup. Every day, law enforcement officers and first responders willingly place themselves in harm's way to protect our community and our country. These are firefighters who run toward danger, law enforcement officers who confront violence to keep their neighborhoods safe, and emergency medical personnel who respond to crises knowing that each call carries risk. Their courage, selflessness, and devotion to duty represent the very best of public service. The Medal of Sacrifice Act is about.

Ensuring that the bravery and selflessness of.

These first responders is formally recognized and never forgotten. It would authorize the President to present the Medal of Sacrifice to any law enforcement officer or first responder who is killed in the line of duty while ensuring the award reflects service performed honorably and in the line of duty. We also owe a profound debt of gratitude to the families of these fallen heroes. Behind every first responder is a family who shared in the sacrifice. Families who endured long hours, constant uncertainty, and ultimately an irreplaceable loss. This legislation affirms that the nation remembers their sacrifice. Supporting this bill would help express our respect, our gratitude, and our commitment to honoring those who gave their lives to keep our communities safe. I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Medal of Sacrifice Act. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.

Lady yields back the gentleman from Florida's recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to associate my comments with the ranking member. 3497, I'm the Medal of Sacrifice Act filed by my fellow Floridian who I share Palm Beach County with.

I want to thank him for filing.

It and I also am a co-sponsor. Introduced by Chairman Mass, this legislation authorizes the President to present an official medal to local state and federal law enforcement officials and first responders who are killed in the line of duty. The bill establishes a commission of 12 law enforcement officers who would be in charge of determining eligibility for the medal. Earlier this year, President Trump awarded this medal to three Palm Beach County deputies who were killed when an SUV struck them on the side of the road. While such a medal cannot bring back Deputy Ralph Butch Waller, Deputy Inacio Dan Diaz, and Deputy Luis Paez, it can honor their commitment to their communities and mark our gratitude for their sacrifice. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation that would codify this medal. I yield back the balance of my time.

The gentleman yields back. The good sheriff from Texas is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm proud to also support the Medal of Sacrifice Act. This bipartisan bill creates a prestigious medal presented by the President to honor our brave law enforcement officers. And first responders who made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty, ensuring that their heroism and the pain felt by their families are recognized forever at the highest level. And as a former Sheriff, served nearly 30 years in law enforcement, I know all too well the dangers that these men and women in blue face each and every single day to keep our communities safe. That's why since coming to Congress, we've displayed photos of every law enforcement officer who has died in the line of duty on the wall outside my office. It's a constant reminder, constant reminder to never forget their sacrifice. Supporting this bill is part of my unwavering commitment to backing the blue and I look forward to seeing it advance. Thank you, sir. Thank you.

Thank you for your service. The gentleman from California's recognition.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, I think this is a worthy bill, an honorable bill and we should be doing all we can to protect and keep safe the honorable men and women who get up every every single day and put their lives at risk to protect the rest of us. You know, I have family members that have served in many of these jobs and so I do understand the terror that families feel when their loved ones are getting up each and every day to go to work. I do want to say specific to law enforcement officers, you know, many of them also succumb to suicide because of.

The stresses of the job.

And about 20% of them are killed in the line of duty when they are responding to domestic violence calls. And I want to share those two statistics and data points because we should also remember that these are our friends and family members and neighbors who are getting up and doing this very difficult work.

And so I would hope that as.

We support this bill, we also reconsider the cuts to the 988 hotline, a hotline that is designed for folks to call in when they are having a mental health crisis so that they can involve 988 counselors on the line rather than calling 911 and potentially putting law enforcement officers lives at risk.

I also hope we would reconsider the.

375 public safety grants that have gone to our law enforcement officers that have now that were administered by the DOJ that have now been cut because it is funding, it is resources, and it is bills like this that show our solidarity with the men and women that are getting up every single day to protect us and the rest of this country.

And with that, I yield back.

General Lee yields back.

The gentleman from Kansas is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank you for scheduling this markup today. I'm a strong supporter of the Medal of Sacrifice Act of 2025. I'm a co-sponsor of it. In my prior roles, I've had the opportunity to work very closely for well over a decade with our state of Kansas law enforcement memorial that is on the state house grounds in Topeka. This permanently honors each law enforcement officer.

Killed in the line of duty in.

The state of Kansas.

And it has been a tremendous privilege to work with the men and women who serve and who make that memorial a reality each and every day. I am sad to say that we have had a particularly deadly year in Kansas law enforcement this year. We've lost four officers in the line of duty. Deputy Brandon Gatie of the Phillips County Sheriff's Office, Deputy Elijah Ming of the.

Wyandotte County Sheriff's Office, that is in.

My House District, Officer Hunter Simonsick of the Kansas City, Kansas Police Department, that is in my House District, and Sergeant Scott Hyman of the Hays Police Department. And it is my hope and expectation that once this bill becomes law, the President will award to each of them and their survivors the appropriate Medal of Sacrifice. Mr. Chairman, I think it's very appropriate that the President of the United States would be given this formal authority, not only now, but for all future presidents and look forward to getting this bill passed. I will say that upon reviewing the technical parts of the bill, we came up, we identified two issues in it that I think could use some strengthening to ensure that it operates the way intended. We have consulted with the bill's sponsor, Representative Mast. He is agreeable. And so, Mr. Chairman, if this is the appropriate time, I do have an amendment at the desk.

The clerk will report the amendment. Amendment to the amendment and the nature of the bill.

Our objection to the amendment will be considered as read.

Clerk will distribute the amendment and the.

Gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I won't call this a technical amendment because it is substantive, but I do think it is almost in the nature of a technical amendment. The first, the scope of the bill as introduced applies to local, state or federal law enforcement officers. First portion of this amendment would expand that to include tribal or territorial law enforcement officers. I don't think there was any intent to exclude them. It was simply the way the bill was drafted. The second change, the commission that is created by the bill is statutorily tasked with several duties, but it's not explicitly tasked with what I think most of us presume is its principal intended duty, which is advising the president on eligibility for who is to receive the medal. And I will tell you from the years of working with our state memorial, sometimes the facts are very clear and there's no doubt when somebody has been killed in the line of duty, sometimes the facts are more subject to judgment and I'm aware of cases where, for example, an individual law enforcement officer has been adjudged to have been killed in the line of duty under state law, but not under federal law, and his or her name may appear on the state memorial, but not the federal memorial, or vice versa. This would just clarify that it is a responsibility of the commission to advise the President on making those determinations. With that, Mr. Chairman, that is the amendment.

The gentleman yields back. I appreciate the gentleman's work on, first.

His statement on the law enforcement officers.

In his state, in his district who.

Have given the ultimate sacrifice for their community. And for this amendment, the gentleman has both talked with Chairman Mast and has talked with folks on our committee. I think this is fine and I hope the committee will adopt the gentleman's amendment. Who seeks recognition? The question is on the adoption of the amendment offered by the gentleman from.

Kansas, General Lady from Vermont is recognized first.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I strongly support the Medal of Sacrifice Act. We all have police officers and first responders in our district that may be the ultimate sacrifice. But I want to just remind all of us that there was a law passed in 2022 to hang up a plaque to honor the men and women who bravely.

Protected our Capitol.

And the inscription reads, On behalf of a grateful Congress, this plaque honors the extraordinary individuals who bravely protected and defended this symbol of democracy on January 6, 2021. Their heroism will never be forgotten. I would encourage my members on the other side to pressure the Speaker of the House to honor the law, hang up the plaque, and give these men and women the honor that they deserve. I yield back.

Will the gentlelady yield for just a moment?

I will yield.

I want to thank the gentlelady from Vermont. If I could just add my voice to that, these kinds of measures should not be partisan in nature, which is why we're strongly supporting this legislation. I've heard several of my GOP colleagues say that they will unwaveringly stand with people in blue. We really have to do that with respect to the people who guard us every single day against the multifarious threats that now bear down on members of Congress. And all we're talking about is enforcing a law that's already been passed. Congress passed this. This was supposed to have gone up in 2023. So the Speaker of the House, alas, is running afoul of the law. And it's a simple matter of hanging up a plaque that Congress overwhelmingly voted for. So, you know, we don't want to politicize it by saying this shouldn't move forward or introducing an amendment to say that this bill can only go through if that goes up. It's already the law. But we do ask our colleagues to act in corollary good faith to the way we're acting today. Please, these are our officers of all different political persuasions who come from a lot of different police departments and it really means a lot to them, especially when, you know, some of the people who violently attacked them were pardoned by the president and were relieved of any fines or restitution that they were forced to pay. So this is the least we can do and I yield back to the.

Gentlelady and I thank you for your.

And I yield back to the Chair.

Gentlelady yields back.

We got an amendment pending, if we can maybe take a vote on the amendment, and if we have any other comments on the bill. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. The amendment from the gentleman from Kansas is adopted and will now be part of the bill. Who seeks recognition? Okay, the question now occurs on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. The, I guess, the amended amendment in.

The nature of a substitute.

This will be followed by a media by a vote on reporting the bill. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed say no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. And the amendment in the nature of a substitute is adopted. The question is on favorably reporting the bill as amended. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed say no. The ayes have it. And the bill is ordered to be reported favorably to the House. Members will have two days to submit views. Without objection, the bill will be reported as a single amendment in the nature of a substitute incorporating all adopted amendments and staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes. Pursuant to notice, I call up HR 5625, Cashless Bail Reporting Act for purposes of markup and move that the committee reported favorably to the House. The clerk will report the bill.

H.R.

5625. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Harris, for an opening.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Over the past several years, rogue prosecutors and Democrat-run jurisdictions have downgraded serious crimes, refused to prosecute the laws on the books, and put criminals ahead of communities. I've seen this happen in Charlotte, where I represent the eastern part. This past August, the nation stood shocked as we all saw the brutal murder of Irina Zarytska by a man who had previously been arrested 14 times. Far left district attorneys and Democrat run jurisdictions seek to fundamentally change the criminal justice system to favor dangerous criminals resulting in rising crime in their jurisdictions. These prosecutors refuse to prosecute entire categories of crime, systematically downgrade felonies to misdemeanors, and refuse to request bail for criminals with a violent criminal history. These pro-criminal policies are causing significant harm to people who the prosecutors swore to protect. Democrat-run state legislatures and city councils have implemented far-left bail reform laws and other policies that have exacerbated the crime crisis echoing across our nation. Eliminating cash bail, preventing judges from imposing constraints on dangerous criminals, and immediately releasing criminals back onto the streets doesn't make Americans safer. It's putting criminals above victims. Thankfully, the North Carolina General Assembly passed Irina's Law in response to Ms. Zeroutska's murder to remedy some of the soft on crime policies. However, we should not wait until there is a further tragedy to highlight the shortcomings of cashless bail policies. And that's why this bill is necessary. It's inspired by an executive order issued by President Trump. This legislation requires the Attorney General to publish a public and accessible list of each state and local jurisdiction that allows the pretrial release of a person charged with a violent crime. These crimes include murder, rape, sexual assault, and crimes that disrupt the public order like looting, vandalism, and fleeing from law enforcement. Americans should be able to see which jurisdictions have enacted dangerous and irresponsible policies related to bail when making decisions about where to live, where to work, to travel, or hopefully advocate for change within their own communities. In order to address a problem, we must first highlight the extent of the problem. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Chairman Yields back. Ranking Member is recognized for an opening statement.

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I will vote for this bill as a a relatively straightforward and minor transparency measure. Its terms simply direct the Attorney General to publish a list of state and local jurisdictions that permit cashless bail. So I'll commend the sponsor on introducing it. I do have to take exception to some of the rhetoric we just heard, which seemed determined to turn this into some kind of partisan affair, I will remark and I will stand corrected if anybody dares to contradict me, that the single largest release of violent felons on a single day in American history was Donald Trump's pardon of the January 6 insurrectionists. He pardoned 1,600 people and included in that group were hundreds of people who violently assaulted police officers with baseball bats, steel pipes, broken furniture, bear mace, tear gas, you name it. And we were there for it. So nobody's ever going to convince me it didn't happen. We saw it. We were there for it. And so, you know, I would like to see our tough on crime, law and order politics apply to all crime, even the criminals who happen to be on our side politically or acting in advance of our own political agenda. That doesn't seem like a very tough proposition to advance to a group of some of the most distinguished lawyers in the country. In any event, I want to make another comment about bail, given some of the rhetoric we just heard. Bail is not a mechanism of punishment. In America, you are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. As to every element of an offense. As we heard yesterday in people discussing publicly Jack Smith and the prosecution he brought against Donald Trump. People are right to say that the prosecution must sustain its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt as to every element of an offense. Guilt, responsibility. Okay, that's legit. Now until then, you're a free person because we have innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And Donald Trump, who's been both a civil and criminal defendant many, many times, has availed himself of every element of due process that we've got in the country. And people have a right to their freedom when they're prepared to stand trial, when they're getting ready to stand trial, unless they're a flight risk, or unless they're a danger to themselves or to other people. That's basically the rule. We've got some very distinguished prosecutors on the other side, Mr. Nott, and I would love him to weigh in if he's got any theory about this. But that's my understanding what bail is. I was not a prosecutor for remotely as long as Mr. Nott was, but that's what bail does. It's got one purpose. It's to ensure that the accused comes back to court for their trial and shows up full stop. That's what it is. So there, you know how.

We have.

Cashless bail all over the country in federal court. The federal courts operate on a cashless bail system. The judges make a determination whether or not the person's a flight risk or they're a danger. Again, I would love to yield to Mr. Nott if he wants to weigh in on it, but that's my recollection of how bail works in the federal system. So cash bail, which is a billion dollar for-profit industry.

And you know that the bail bondsmen.

Are a pretty big political force in a lot of places because that is a very lucrative business. That's an extremely lucrative business. Cash bail changes the premise here. A cash bail system asks a different question. How much money can this person cobble together to pay for their freedom as they await trial? Introduces a for-profit business into the whole thing. So I don't know why we are demonizing jurisdictions simply because they prefer to use a policy that mirrors the federal policy, the federal law. Now, I can see competing arguments on either side, but to say that a jurisdiction which adopts the same system that we use in federal courts is somehow soft on crime or weak on crime strikes me as ridiculous. So in any event, this bill just asked the DOJ to compile information. It's information that is already publicly available, but it will help to coordinate it. Fine. Let's do that. We could be doing a lot better. We could actually, if we wanted to advance the public dialogue on this, we could conduct a real assessment of the different pre-trial policies relating to bail. We could actually look at it. We could analyze it and see what works, how well does the federal system compared to states that use a cash bill system? How about comparing the cash systems in certain states with those that don't? We could do that. But in any event, I'm not opposed to this measure. This just collects some basic information. I do hope that we will change the rhetoric so it doesn't make it seem as if bail is an illegitimate part of the process when it's necessary to vindicate essential constitutional values. Yield back to you, Mr. Chairman.

Gentleman from North Carolina is recognized, Mr. Chairman.

Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Knott.

I was going to recommend Mr. Knott from North Carolina.

Excuse me.

Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Raskin, I always appreciate inquiry.

Love the discussion.

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. The good gentleman from North Carolina was right. Was that.

I'm sorry.

I want to make sure I'll come to you next. Without objection. All of the opening statements will be included in the record. Chair now recognizes the gentleman, Mr. Harris from North Carolina to offer an amendment in the nature of a senior substitute.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. Clerk, report. Amendment in the nature of a substitute be considered as read and shall be considered base text for the purposes of amendment. Gentleman from North Carolina's record, Mr. Harris, to explain the amendment.

This amendment makes changes to the base text. The amendment narrows the focus to jurisdictions that have cashless bail policies related to serious violent crime offenses and other crimes that promote public disorder. The changes are not intended in any way to alter the important purpose of this bill. And I heard support for my amendment.

And I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Now I'm going to recognize the other gentleman from the great state of North Carolina, Mr. Knight.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to briefly respond, I largely echo many of what Mr. Raskin just mentioned about the Federal Bail Reform Act. And as you well know or probably know, whenever someone was arrested in the federal system, you have a detention hearing where the state can argue that you are a flight risk or you are a danger.

And I think what this particular bill.

Represents is trying to at least bring.

Some consideration back to the criminal history of the individualized cases, of the individualized people. And my analysis when I was a prosecutor was what was the crime committed and what was the criminal history. And that was largely the two considerations for whether or not they were likely going to inflict more harm. And obviously you can get into how strong the case was.

But if you arrested somebody with a.

Low level drug amount or zero criminal history, there's a case to be made they should be released pending trial. But if you arrested somebody that had 15 different felonies, a million dollars cash, three different passports, high weaponry and so forth, you could make the case that person is a guaranteed risk to the community. And I don't want to speak for my good friend Mr. Harris, but what we've seen in some parts of North Carolina and certainly around the country, is sort of a rope or a rubber stamping of cashless bail releases regardless of criminal history. And obviously it's difficult to speak in broad terms when you deal with individual cases, but in North Carolina especially there's some pretty glaring examples of recidivist violent felons who have been released even after they had been repeatedly arrested pending trial. And again, I yield to Mr. Harris if there's any point of clarity here, but I believe that's sort of the motivation of the bill that we're discussing today.

Indeed. Thank you, sir.

Gentlemen yield back. I yield back. Does the ranking member seek recognition? Gentlemen from Cal, I'll go whichever one. Gentlemen from California.

Yes, I thank you for recognizing me. I'd like to yield my time to my ranking member.

Thank you kindly and I appreciate that, Ms. Kamalak.

I actually think you have time.

Oh, okay. But in any event, But I agree completely with what I understand Mr. Knott's explanation to be. And I think we can kind of converge around the hypothesis that money's kind of irrelevant to it. You could have an extremely rich person, you could have a billionaire who could easily pay cash bail who might be a flight risk or who might be a danger. And you might have a very poor person who would qualify according to those two criteria but wouldn't be able to pay the money. So the money just seems to introduce which is why some jurisdictions have chosen to follow the federal courts. In any event, the bill's fine with me because it will get us some basic information, but it would be interesting to do a real study of how it works in different places and what the effect is on public safety. And I thank the gentlelady for yielding you back to you.

Thank you. And I would just like to add that I agree with a lot of what my colleague on the other side just said, I would like to respectfully disagree with one portion, which is that we're seeing rampant rubber stamping on these cashless bail cases, because oftentimes those determinations are really dependent on the office of the DA and the politics coming out of that office. And if you have a, you know, amped up office that is not interested in, well, I'm trying to be as nice as I can, because this is our last day, but I will just say, that it is oftentimes dependent on the politics and the vision of the D.A. So with that, I'll yield back.

Gentlelady yields. I'm sorry. I was being distracted by the ranking. No, no, no. I'm kidding. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized.

So this really isn't a problem in Kentucky.

And I have a few questions. Number one, isn't this a state issue?

Number two, what are you going to.

Do with the list?

And number three, can't ChatGPT or Grok.

Do what this bill does in like five seconds? Like, why are we wasting time on this?

And does anybody want to answer those questions? Isn't this a state issue?

Because we solved it in Kentucky.

Number two, what are you going to.

Do with this list when you get it?

Because it.

A is state issue.

And number three, in less than the.

Five minutes you've yielded to me, ChatGPT.

Or Grok can do what this bill.

Asks the DOJ to do. Anybody want to address that?

Well, I'll address it.

Please.

Yield to me. I would just say that the fact that what we're doing with this bill is acting on codifying, if you will, an executive order that instructed the Department of Justice to develop this, maintain a list that would be available so that folks in their own community would know if indeed cashless bail policies were there and also for those that would be traveling to a particular area. Certainly you make the point of ChatGPT and a person could search in that, but again, this would be maintained so that folks from across the country would have access to that and would be able to see that.

Well, I appreciate that, but now I've got another question.

If it's already done by executive order, why are we wasting time on it here again? Well, again, it's just codifying it. I yield back.

All right. I appreciate the gentleman, and those are.

My questions, and I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Who seeks recognition?

Gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd move to strike the last question.

I do have several concerns, and I share the gentleman from Kentucky's concern that this is a state issue. The Constitution reserves to the states in the 10th Amendment general criminal justice powers, police powers for public health and safety. And it is a very valuable part of our federal system that we have.

57:00Have this great laboratory of ideas across.

57:00The country where we have seen state and local governments making reforms to their bail systems in response to the growing body of research which has highlighted the inequities in bail systems which disproportionately burden racial minorities, women, and overwhelmingly the poor. So I do have concerns about some.

Of these bills which are expressing a.

Preference for a return to sort of the Dickensian debtor prison model when none of these bail reform statutes or ordinances or whatever disregard public safety or disregard flight risk. I mean that's always part of the equation here. So given the level of interest by the committee and given.

And the questions.

That are being raised, it seems like it would be more productive for this committee to hold hearings on bail reform and allow a full exploration of the ideas and the actual evidence as opposed to the rhetorical pugilistics that we are hearing just by marking up these bills. I remain concerned, as I always have been, by the fact that we do.

Have a two-tier system of justice in.

This country, where access to lawyers or access to bail very often determines the outcome of your case. You know, we shouldn't have a criminal justice system that just caters to the wealthy and the well-connected and those who can afford bail or pardons or anything else. So with that, I would yield back.

Gentlelady yields back, Mr. Chairman. Gentleman from New York, move to strike the last word. Gentlemen's recognized.

I think my colleague from Kentucky brings up some good points and the one thing I would say is that this should not be an onerous task for the Department of Justice to use ChatGPT to conduct this study. But I think generally the more data we have the better.

And I think it is, it could.

Be helpful if it's done in a.

In an objective manner, which I highly question this Department of Justice to do, to generate some more data on, bail and the success of bail, because I think the data to date shows that cash bail is, who is really ineffective at achieving the objectives of bail. That as my colleague from North Carolina, Mr. Knotts said, if you want to make a determination about dangerousness, and I think that is a very worthwhile hearing for us to have, whether someone is dangerous or not, there are no there's.

No degrees of dangerousness to say, oh.

If you can make $10,000 of bail, then all of a sudden you're no longer dangerous. And so the idea here is if you are found to be dangerous in jurisdictions that have dangerousness as a consideration, then it's binary. And you should either be released, or.

You should be remanded.

And the idea of cash bail is.

Simply the result of cash bail is simply to discriminate based on poverty levels, which is not what the intention of our bail laws should be. You also have to add, of course, risk of flight, which provides a different element. And I think in that way, the federal system makes a lot more sense.

Where you often will have bonds that.

Have to be guaranteed by others, family members, friends, close, you know, close associates, close, you know, colleagues or whomever it may be that show that they have enough money to pay them. So if that defendant decides to flee.

He.

Is creating a tremendous financial burden.

For those people who vouched on his behalf.

But the idea that you say 5,000, 10,000, $20,000 based on either the risk of flight or the severity of the risk of inflicting harm again makes no sense. And that is ultimately the problem with cash bail.

Now, it may result in some cases.

That the more people are remanded initially, but the net effect, because so many people cannot pay their cash bail, is that there will be fewer people remanded and much more narrowly targeted to people who are either serious risks of flight or potentially dangerous. So I think that we ought to add to this bill a further study of the different bail systems around the country, more than just a list. And the list is a good start. Obviously, the department can do this on its own. We can also require this, but this should be a first step, not a last step, and I'll yield back.

Back. Chair recognizes the gentlelady from. I think it was Mr. Johnson. Then I'll come to come to you if I think that was the order I was given, Mr. Johnson.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong opposition to this bill that requires the attorney general to compile a list of each state. We have 50 states and each unit of local government that permits the release pending trial that permits the release pending trial of a person charged with a covered offense on personal recognizance or upon execution of an unsecured appearance bond. And so do you guys realize we have 18,000 local and state jurisdictions that would have to provide this data? To the Attorney General. And then as far as covered offenses, I mean, you want to know whether or not a local government allows cash bond for an offense that promotes public disorder, such as looting, vandalism, rioting, inciting to riot, or fleeing from a law enforcement officer. So these are misdemeanor offenses, but you want to know which states allow and which counties and cities and their courts allow cashless bond for individuals accused of those relatively minor offenses. It sounds like you're trying to You know, this is Antifa related. There's something nefarious about this legislation and what it is seeking. It's like a Trojan horse, and it's busy work also. Doesn't the Attorney General have better things to do than to be compiling lists so that this committee can target and get back at folks that are from so-called democratic cities. The public is not concerned about that. They're concerned about affordability. They're concerned about what is government doing to make life better for them. Not, you know, insisting that government undertake a chase running behind its own tail trying to capture it, just running in circles. This legislation, I just don't understand it other than the fact that it's trying to put together a hit list so that this committee can spend its time going after those jurisdictions. I think that we have better things to do on this committee and I would ask that.

We start looking at.

Some of the things like why would.

We not speak up when a guy who is responsible for importing 400 tons of cocaine into this country and this committee doesn't have a question, no oversight, no, I mean it's okay.

The abuse of the pardon.

That's not the first major drug dealer.

To be freed by a pardon. Yeah, I mean, this president has pardoned more criminals. I mean, Bitcoin billionaires. I mean, you know, and these are people that are doing business because, of course, this is a pay-to-play environment that this president has created. You don't get anything unless you pay. And this committee has so much work to do, so many things to look at in its oversight capacity, but instead it's trying to compile a list of jurisdictions that allow judges in their discretion to.

Release people on cashless bail.

This is, I mean the American people are watching this and wondering, what did we vote for? Who did we vote for? And why did I make the mistake of voting in these folks? Well, you're getting what you paid for. You're getting what you voted for. But there's time.

We have 2026 coming up.

And I'm glad that the citizens, I hope that we'll have an opportunity to vote because this president might even try to take that away. He's talking about running for a third term. He's got Alan Dershowitz coming to the office and laying out strategies to be able to get A third term in office, just ridiculous. And this committee could be looking at that. I'd prefer that we look at that as opposed to this kind of nonsense that is the Cashless Bail Reporting Act. I rise in opposition to it, and with that, I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Gentleman from North Carolina, and then the gentlelady from North Carolina.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield to my colleague from North Carolina, Mr. Harris.

Thank you, Mr. Knott.

I just want to point out that.

Again, many of us that participated or a number of us that participated in the field hearing in Charlotte understood not only Irina Zorutska's situation that took us there, but we also heard a very impassioned father that was there named Stephen Federuca who talked about his daughter Logan, who again, we were there just astounded by the fact that a man that had committed 14 crimes was still out on the street. Led to the senseless murder of Irina Zarutska. But there we learned from a father whose daughter Logan was killed by a man that if I recall it was 54 times he had been arrested and was still in the streets of Columbia, South Carolina. She lived in North Carolina, lived in my district, but actually was visiting friends in Columbia when she was murdered. By someone that again was out on the streets.

I appreciate those on the other side.

That have spoken to the fact that this would give us the opportunity to look as a first step and I agree that we can go deeper in studies that we could do at some point, but this is a way of making the general public and having available to them the jurisdictions across our country that are utilizing this type of cashless bail and these kind of more liberal.

Approaches in our justice.

And with that, I yield back.

I yield.

A gentleman from Carolina yields back.

A.

Lady from Washington.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, I've been convinced after listening to this conversation that I agree with Mr. Massey. I mean, I agreed with Mr. Massey before I wondered why this was on our docket. And I guess I was thinking, oh.

You know, we'll just fight the fire.

Where it really is.

But I really don't understand why we're doing this, because when you look at this whole system, we're getting involved in something that is left to it is a state issue. There are 41 state constitutions that have affirmative right to bail provisions.

And nine states that don't have an.

Affirmative constitutional right to bail but do mirror the federal language. And I guess I just think that this is sort of the precursor to the other bills that were on the docket for today, creating the hit list so we can make this a partisan thing and call out certain states that we don't like. Presumably they're going to be all democratic states. I mean, I heard the.

The reference.

Just now to liberal bail policies.

So the bias is showing through and I do think that listening to this whole conversation, I agree with Mr. Massey that this is not something we should be spending our time on. If we wanted to have a real honest conversation about bail reform, have some hearings, listen to testimony, make sure we're addressing state federal issues, I think that would be one thing.

I don't think we should be wasting.

Our time on this and I think.

I'm inclined to vote no.

Yield back. Okay, who seeks recognition? Question then is, Mr. Chairman. Ranking member, can I?

Yeah.

I mean, the gentleman from Washington, the gentleman from Kentucky both raised, you know, serious questions about how necessary this legislation is, given that it's information that's already available. You know, I don't wanna oppose it simply because I'm always for more information, and I support legislation that advances information. I do think that the good sponsor presented his bill in such a way as to alienate some people who are otherwise ready to vote for it. But be that as it may, I still want to vote for a bill that's going to get us more information. I hope it would begin to open everybody's mind about getting more information because there are powerful arguments to be made that systems that get rid of cash bail, like the federal system, work just as well or better in terms of promoting justice than those that include that financial motive component. But I've got nothing to be afraid of in terms of more information. So I will resist every effort to make this an ideological partisan issue. And I yield back to you, Mr. Chairman.

The gentleman yields back. The question occurs on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. This will be followed immediately by a vote on reporting the bill. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. And the amendment in the nature of a substitute is adopted. The question is on favorably reporting the bill as amended. All those in favor say aye. Aye, aye, those opposed, no.

No.

The ayes have it and the bill is ordered to be reported favorably to the House. Members will have two days to submit views. Without objection, the bill will be reported as a single amendment in the nature of a substitute, incorporating all adopted amendments and staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes. I want to wish everyone a Merry Christmas and happy holidays. This will, I hope you have a wonderful time home with your family, but this will conclude the committee business for today's meeting. And the committee is adjourned.

Thank you.