Bills: Cashless Bail, Violent Offenders, Monitor Acct, Police Support, MilCon-VA

Good afternoon. The committee will come to order without objection the chairs authorized to declare recess at any time. Today the Rules Committee is convening to consider five separate measures, H congres ninety-six, H R fifty-six, twenty-five, H R sixty-two, sixty, H R eighty-three, sixty-five and H R eighty-four, sixty-nine. First, we'll turn to HCON Res ninety-six, a concurrent resolution expressing cons- support for law enforcement. This week marks National Police Week, a week dedicated to honoring law enforcement officers who made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty, as well as to recognize those who continue to serve. This resolution honors the hard work, personal sacrifice, and often unacknowledged work carried out by law enforcement officers. It recognizes the undeniable reduction in crime that comes when law enforcement departments are respected and fully funded. Today and every day we should honor the brave men and women who work around the clock to keep our community safe. H. R. fifty-six twenty-five, the cashless bail reporting act would bring necessary and timely transparency for the American people by requiring publication of the jurisdictions that have cashless bail policies and laws. So Americans are aware of policies that affect their communities. Americans have the right to know if they're living in or near a community that permits people accused of certain violent crimes to be released, pending trial, on personal recognizance or non-secure appearance bomb. H. R. twenty s- H. R. sixty-two sixty But keeping violent offenders off our streets act reins in the Democrat soft-on-crime cashless bail policy by requiring bail bondsmen, including so-called, quote, charitable bail bonds, end quote, to adhere to common-sense accountability measures. Charitable bail bonds are organizations that use money from donations to help pay cash bail for defendants. Charitable bail bonds regularly post bail for individuals charged with violent felonies and previous convictions. This legislation amends the federal criminal statute dealing with insurance-related crimes to include the posting of bail by a corporate entity, non-profit entity, or for-profit entity as being, quote, "engaged in the business of insurance". Therefore, if a charitable bail bond is posting bail, it will be subject to the state licensing requirements and oversight by state insurance commissions to insure accountability for charitable bail bonds that break the law. H. R. eighty-three sixty-five, the Monitor Accountability Act, would set a series of defined terms and expectations for federal court monitors. Court monitors are independent oversight officials appointed through agreements between a government agency and a public or private entity, often in response to concerns involving civil rights violations, fraud allegations, misconduct or regulatory violations. Although court monitors are intended to operate independently from both the government and the monitored entity, this independence has raised concerns in practice, particularly regarding cost, duration and accountability, in long-running consent decree regimes. In some cases, monitorships have remained in place for more than a decade, prompting debate over whether their role is to ensure compliance or to sustain managerial control of agency operations. The reforms contained within this legislation set clear expectations for time-limited oversight, ensuring that federal monitorships are not indefinite. Finally, H R eighty-four sixty-nine, the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of twenty twenty-seven provides a total discretionary allocation of one hundred and fifty-seven billion, which is nearly four billion above the FY twenty-six enacted level. In addition, the bill provides three hundred and twenty-three point nine billion for mandatory programs, for a total of four hundred and sixty-nine point four nine billion in overall funding. This package allocates ninety million in additional funding for design of barracks and child development centers, vital for the quality of life for service members and their families, to address barrack deficiencies identified by the Government Accountability Office. Further, it provides four hundred and fifty point two nine billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs, which is eighty-three point six billion above the FYE enacted level, to fully fund veterans' medical care and to fully fund veterans' benefits and toxic exposure related needs. We can and should pass this legislation on a bipartisan basis to support the nation's veterans and their families. With that, I now yield to the ranking member, Mister McGovern, for any comments he wishes

Well, thank you, Madam Chair. Um, today we are considering the military construction of Veterans Affairs funding bill as well as a package of bills that Republicans are advancing that pays lip service to law enforcement but does nothing to address their actual concerns. These bills are simply a half-assed attempt to paint Democrats as soft on crime while advancing lousy legislation that will not make our cities and our towns safer. now here's how you know uh that this is all political theater there is a resolution on the floor right now to honor law enforcement officers and commemorate those killed in the line of duty it has broad bipartisan support from both democrats and republicans but that is not the resolution we're considering here in the rules committee tonight because apparently for the radical right it wasn't good enough to honor the police in a bipartisan way So now we also have to advance a separate partisan resolution filled with lies attacking Democrats. That's the resolution that's before the Rules Committee right now. And I think that just says so much about what this place has turned into. Partisanship for the sake of partisanship. It's pathetic. And I would just say to my friends on the other side, people don't like it when you use them. And that is exactly what Republicans have turned police weak into. you drag out support for law enforcement once a year you use the police like props and then you discard them once you're you're done with all the photo ops and the press conferences nothing in these bills not a thing will actually address the public safety concerns that i hear about back home like more funding for cities and towns to hire more cops you guys wanna spend a billion dollars on a ballroom and you come up here talking about supporting the police and you come up with a bunch of bills that do nothing to actually support the police no additional funding uh to hire police or to provide uh communities with the funding to be able to get uh state of the art equipment let me tell you something talk is cheap and nothing in these bills deals with the number one thing i hear about back home and that is the issue of affordability Just this morning the Wall Street Journal reported that inflation is rising, thanks to Trump's policies, the highest rate in three years, because of the tariffs and because of the war. I had a town hall meeting this weekend, and people are pissed off about inflation. They come up to me uh at event after event to talk about it. And I tell them to call the White House and call Speaker Mike Johnson's office to complain. Because that's who's to blame for gas and food prices going up because of the tariffs and because of this illegal war now it doesn't take a genius to figure out what's going on here the economy is great for billionaires the price gougers and giant corporations they're all doing great but it's not working for the people who actually keep this country running it's not working for families struggling to make ends meet or the parents who have to pick between gas and groceries before the next paycheck comes in and instead of trying to bring down the cost of living instead of fighting inflation? Republicans are doing the opposite. They're making it worse. They ripped health care for millions, cut food assistance for kids, veterans and seniors, and raised the price of everything from utilities to groceries, all to give tax breaks to their billionaire donors and rubber-stamp every one of Trump's stupid ideas, including his tariffs, his war, and now his billion-dollar ballroom. one other thing that i would like to point out madam chair we are apparently also going to consider a rule today to detach an e fifteen provision from the farm bill a provision that would cost billions because it handed over a taxpayer dollars to you guessed it the oil industry but just remember speaker johnson told one group of republicans that e fifteen would get its own vote and he added and he and and be added to the farm bill And then he told another group the exact opposite. What a great strategy. The problem with making multiple shady backroom deals is that sometimes the people in the different shady backrooms actually talk to each other. So now, after all the all that time wasted coming up with a rule that combined E fifteen with the farm bill we are now going to waste more time on a new rule to separate it out again and I'm surprised quite frankly that midwestern republicans this new strategy from the speaker because it really is just a way to ensure that the senate never ever ever takes it up but that's your problem now uh but that's how this place works thanks to republicans promises made promises broken republicans break promises to their own members they break promises to the american people they cannot govern they cannot keep their word and while they stumble from one internal meltdown to the next The rest of us keep paying the price. And with that, I yield back.

Thank you, Mister McGovern. Without objection, any prepared statements that our witnesses may have will be included in the record. I now welcome our first panel, Chairman Carter and Representative Washerman-Schultz, from the Committee on Appropriations. Your full statement will be submitted for the record. We ask that you summarize your statement in five minutes. And Representative Schultz, let me assure you, you didn't miss anything. We just went ahead with our opening statements so as to save time, but I assure you, we you didn't miss anything. Chairman Carter, I welcome your testimony.

Uh, thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you, Madam Chairman Fox and thank you, Member McGovern and the members of the committee for the opportunity to be here for you today. to discuss the final year twenty twenty seven military construction veterans affairs and related agencies appropriations bill i wanna thank appropriations chairman cole for his leadership in getting this bill to the committee also want to recognize ranking member and full committee members miss delario and ranking member of the subcommittee wasselman schultz for their help in getting us to this point i value my relationship with mrs. wasselman schultz as i have said before while i know we don't agree on everything in the bill we do agree on the importance of taking care of those who sacrifice so much for each of us while it's not perfect the legislation before us today receives you receive unanimous support out of our committee i greatly appreciate the bipartisan efforts of all those involved the efforts show bipartisanship is not only possible but yields legislative success i acknowledge the we can agree the on the importance of supporting our troops their families and the nation's veterans. For fiscal year twenty twenty seven, the military construction, veterans affairs and related agency bill discretionary allocation is one hundred and fifty-seven billion. I want to briefly highlight some of the priority priorities of this bill. First, and most importantly, we fully fund veterans' health care. We provide in advance for toxic explosion fund include we include nine hundred million for medical and prosthetic research we address long-standing concerns of mental health homelessness and among our veteran population this bill includes over nineteen million for military construction invests in barracks deficiencies boosters investment in dod laboratories assists in demolishing absolute infrastructure provides nearly two billion for milit in military housing in closing this bill supports those of us who have sacrificed for our country and served us well and maintain our commitment to them as well as being for both service members and for veterans. I look forward to working with all of you as this bill moves forward. Again, I want to thank you for considering amendments to the bill for members of both sides. I appreciate your time and opportunity to testify today. i yield back

gentleman yields back and now recognize representative wasserman schultz for five minutes

thank you mr. chairman and i wanna also thank chairwoman fox ranking member govern and i'm really pleased to be able to be here to testify as ranking member of the milcon va appropriation subcommittee on the fiscal year twenty twenty seven military construction veterans affairs and related agencies appropriations bill the past few years the milcon va bill strayed from our usual tradition of being one of the few appropriations bills that had bipartisan support. Our committee has a shared goal of supporting our service members, veterans and their families, no matter who holds the majority. We are very proud to report that as the bill currently stands, this is a bipartisan bill, one we reported out of full committee fifty eight to zero. I wanna share with you how rare that is these days, and the effort that was made on both sides of the aisle to make sure that that vote was possible. Each side made compromises. Each side swallowed things that perhaps they didn't like or left things out that perhaps they would have preferred be in the bill. But making sure that we can come together and be unified in standing up for our service members and our veterans and their families is absolutely critical. And I really want to thank Chair Carter for his partnership in writing this bill and doing his best to keep the bill clear of controversial, unrelated policy writers that in the past have kept us from supporting this bill. I hope that as this committee considers amendments to this bill, that members of the Rules Committee uphold the bipartisan commitment that we both made, Chair Carter and I, and that if any controversial provisions are added, I want to make it clear that we will not be able to support this bill going forward. Overall, the bill is a good one. It fully funds health care for veterans at a time when health care costs are on the rise, and demand for VA services continues to increase. As PACT Act claims increase, we must do all that we can to keep our promise to provide health care to our toxic exposure veterans. This is why it is critical that we advanced fund the Toxic Exposures Fund, or the TEF. I appreciate Chair Carter's willingness to work with me at the full committee mark-up to ensure that this bill includes fifty-three point seven billion dollars in advance funding for the TEF. The bill also provides sufficient funding for barracks, child development centers, and PFAS remediation, which is critical in ensuring readiness and troop morale. Most importantly, as I mentioned eal- earlier, it does not carry offensive culture war riders, riders that were total non-starters in years past. The bill also maintains certain provisions that reclaim Congress's power of the purse, provisions that we believe, uh, we all can support, as this administration continues to bypass our exclusive constitutional role in appropriations. However, however, I do want to be clear that this is not the bill that I would have written, and it contains some funding and language decisions that I would not have made. But, in spite of that, I voted yes anyway, and I encouraged my colleagues to do the same. The most problematic provision is section four thirteen, the next writer. Long-standing federal law requires that VA report a benefic- reported beneficiary that has been deemed mentally incompetent based on medical evidence and therefore is assigned a fiduciary to protect them in handling their finances to the National Instant Criminal Background Check system. This provision prevents this reporting, and it is in violation of the law. In addition to this provision, I oppose the funding level for the NATO security investment program. This bill keeps the funding equal to last year, but it is a hundred and twenty-two million dollars below the request level. Now more than ever we should be reinforcing deterrence with the help of our European allies who disproportionately fund this program, especially as the war in Ukraine continues. But there are instances in which we have to vote against our preference. One should never vote against your principle. But someth- sometimes we cast a vote against our preference to achieve a greater good. And I believe that this bill accomplishes that, which is why I support it, and I wanna thank the members of this committee for your consideration of our bill, thank Terry Carter for his friendship, and for for really being a remarkable colleague to work with. We each endeavor, no matter who is in the roles that we hold now, to work together closely to make sure that we can have as much consensus as possible. And as it stands now, this bill is a bipartisan one, and I am hopeful that we can keep it that way. What a message we could send about our ability to work together if the House votes unanimously for this MilKom VA bill which I am hopeful that we will be able to. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you very much. I now recognize the gentle lady, uh, Miss Fischbach, for her um questioning um

well i just wanna say thank you so much for bringing the bill forward bi-personally i appreciate that and i especially appreciate the full funding for the va medical um medical care and um and so i just wanna say thank you thank you for bringing it forward we're excited that uh

thanks

um excited we can say we have a bipartisan bill and when you when you said that it was fifty four zero i had a chuckle fifty eight excuse me

fifty eight

and you said that's unusual and i kinda uh yeah so i i really appreciate the hard work that it came forward but i think this is a topic that we really can come together on because we all do care that our v uh that our veterans are taken care of and that our our military has the proper housing so thank you and i plan on supporting it and i yield back

Kennedy yields back now recognizes the ranking remember Mister McGovern for his time of questioning and comment

well thank you i thank you for both being here and uh and although i appreciate that this bill does not have many of the culture war policy writers that have plagued the process uh they plagued the process last year uh i'm very bothered that this bill continues to prevent the v a from reporting a beneficiary to the national instant uh criminal background check system this policy blocks the v a from helping keep guns out of the hands of people who are already prohibited under federal law for purchasing or possessing firearms and nearly five thousand veterans die from suicide with a gun every year uh we all should be ashamed that this bill undermines an an effective tool that can keep uh veterans safe and so miss wasterman schultz i i know that you share my concern about this provision can you talk about whether any progress has been made to remove this provision from the bill or other policy ideas uh that uh that you have to ensure that we protect at-risk veterans from harming themselves or others

and i thank the ranking member for your question and i definitely share your concern um uh congresswoman escobar of texas did offer an amendment to strike this provision in during our full appropriations mark-up and it was not successful um in in spite of that and and she is offering an amendment here in the rules committee as well um in spite of that as i said in my opening remarks it was important for us to try to come together and make compromise this bill doesn't look like it would if i if i were the chair but

right

it it was important to send a very strong message that because there was an effort made to make sure that we could have as much consensus as possible um that we have an opportunity to really demonstrate the example of trying to come together

yes

uh and i'm i'm also concerned that the bill does not sufficiently fund our commitments to nato um Uh, can you, Mr. Walsher-Michels, can you, you know, explain why why is this NATO funding important and what funding level would you like to see as the process moves forward?

So the bill does drastically underfund the NATO security investment program. It's actually funded at a hundred and twenty-two million dollars below the President's request. And I know this was not the fault of the Chairman. Uh, he was working under diffi- difficult circumstances with a very low allocation. and an incredibly late budget request that really resulted in the funding levels that we have in this bill. I know we would have all per- preferred to have a much more robust allocation. I supported the bill at a full committee because I knew we would be able to work together on a bipartisan basis to fully fund this program in conference the current funding level of the bill is insufficient um so we should certainly not be cutting the program even further uh cuts to this program would renege on our commitment to our allies and would undermine our own troops in Europe. A very significant portion of the projects funded by the NSIP either directly or indirectly support American troops stationed in or traveling through Europe. Cutting funding for NSIP would be fiscally irresponsible. The US only pays for around fifteen percent of these projects, many of which directly replace what would otherwise be a US military construction bur- construction burden directly replace what would otherwise be a US military construction burden. These requirements wouldn't simply go away just because some members see any Instead, without joint joint NSIP funding, our commanders in Europe would have to consider other ways of meeting these requirements at a greater expense to US taxpayers since the NSIP program is disproportionately funded by our allies abroad. In fact, even this administration has recognized the value of the program and the return on investment each American dollar provides. The administration has once again requested to fully fund the program and meet US commitments for NATO infrastructure. So, uh i would urge our colleagues to oppose any amendment which would cut funding further from ncip and i would expect that this would be a a topic of discussion when we reach the conference process

thank you very much thank you both i yield back

thank you

gentleman yields back now recognize myself for my five minutes of questioning and comment and uh judge carter i'm uh i'm happy to work with you you may have seen the same thing i did on the next language here's my problem with it. I practiced for nearly thirty years, uh, in a small town practice of law. And I've represented a lot of people who came in to do things. And a lot of times what happens, because there's not a court that's made a decision when we're dealing with the VA, uh, benefits, a lot of times what happens is you've got somebody who is older and decides they just don't want to deal with their finances anymore, they may be living with a child. Or it could be somebody like me, and I'm not a veteran, but if I were, I've turned over all our finances, cuz I'm running up and down the road all the time, to my wife. And what happens with the VA's form is I could very willingly have signed over my rights, you know, hey, you take care of it, son, or you take care of it, honey. Here, I'll sign the form at the VA so you can do all my financial stuff. And the next thing I know, I'm not able to go turkey hunting. Because they've, they've told me I can't buy a gun, I can't get a gun, I'm not supposed to be. And and that's the disconnect. I'm very concerned about the the uh military suicides. I think that's a serious concern. And while the system's not perfect, as you know, you know, former judge, there can be a finding that somebody is a danger to themselves or to others. And then in that case, absolutely it needs to go to the next system. But if it's just somebody who for because they're very busy with lots of other things, whether it be their business concerns, or something else or they're just you know living with a family member and decide it's just you know they wanna be able to do their day-to-day stuff and not have to deal with the finances that shouldn't automatically keep you from being able to purchase a weapon would you agree with me

yes sir i agree with you

and and ms.

yeah

Wasserman-Schultz i appreciate your your whole attitude on this and i'm happy to work with people to try to come up with language if there's if there is a need to work with the va and work with others to come up with a language that's somewhere in between because i don't want the folks who who are just doing it for financial reasons because it's easier for them uh they travel a lot or whatever but also recognize that some of these folks may be slipping through the cracks and maybe they do need a determination of uh being a danger to themselves or to others so that's that's the fine line we have to get and that's why we get

right

the language that we have in in the bill and just striking that out doesn't solve the problem but over the course of the next year i'm happy to work with anybody to try to come up correct language to try to protect our veterans if they are in fact having some kind of mental health issues.

Right.

But if it's just finances, we can't be taking away their right to, uh, go hunting, uh, for deer or squirrel or turkey or whatever.

Uh, I would look forward to working with you. The problem here is that this is a straightforward comprehensive prohibition from referring a veteran to the NICS system. And I wanna just be clear, if the veteran believes that the determination is wrong, they have a right to apply. if a veteran veteran believes that they were wrongly reported to next, they can have their rights restored through the court system. That is part of the process. So,

But here's the, here's the flip side of that.

uh, uh, blanket provision.

What you do is you, you take somebody who, uh, unaware of this law, signs over their financial rights.

Mm-hmm.

They haven't gone to court at all. And the next thing is to get their gun rights back, then they have to spend the money to get an attorney to go to court to declare that they're not a danger to themselves when it was only financial to begin with. So we've got to figure out a way to work it out and and I I recognize your concern uh but I also know that unfortunately what because the VA just blanket did it with everybody who turned over their finances to somebody else it was just a form you fill out, basically.

No, m- that's true.

Sometimes the VA will step in and say we want you to do it, but sometimes it's just you've done it as a matter of of of a

If

if you wouldn't

of a um a matter of uh of convenience

if you wouldn't mind my just correcting the record this is this is

yeah sure yeah absolutely

actually and and i appreciate your openness to working on this there's an extensive bureaucratic process in place to protect veterans especially those who have been deemed incapacitated or mentally incompetent to determine when a fiduciary is needed it it's not just i mean there's a very it's not a determination that's made lightly it's not just a form that gets filled out and you know

and and maybe that's changed and you can show that to me but i know that i practiced with

sure

with people who just turned it all over because it was just easier to do and they they was not i mean maybe somebody handed them a form but they weren't uh in a position to either they didn't pay attention or they didn't feel like paying attention to all the forms and they just signed it over and away it goes is that am i wrong

no i i i agree with what you say but in in addition to that i i represent fort hood and when we started having these folks coming back all the problems that they were having we we tried to get them professionals that understood them and they would tell they think those professionals they respected their opinion but the the the shrink or whatever you wanna call them they didn't have any experience with the military we that's what we had to get in there because they're just not that many people that had that kind of experience, and they didn't trust anything, those people did. And they were very, very vocal about they don't understand us, they don't understand what we went through, they can't make a judgment on us. And and remembering all that that I went through twenty, fifteen years ago, and and then all the work I did trying to get, you know, people with this kind of experience they did which were very very few i realized that it could someone who didn't understand the soldier wouldn't understand his competency and it's not a it's not a fully informed uh professional that doesn't understand the military and i thought all this together with the things you said i just don't think it's fair for that that person to be able to deprive someone of their constitutional right

yeah and and uh now you know if i'm if i've got it all wrong you feel free to tell me but we'll try to work on it over the course of the next

and if we could get better psychological people they could talk to them and we're working on that i'm telling you we are the military is but

and hopefully and i'll uh

it's very difficult

i'm will yield back but hopefully we'll uh be able to use uh telemedicine for that too i'm a big proponent of that and that

you

yeah that's true that can get us the right people in a lot of different places without having to have them travel all over the country

that's right absolutely

i appreciate it very much thank you both and i yield back and now recognize gentlelady from pennsylvania miss scanlon for her five minutes or thereabouts

thank you so much

thereabouts thank you chairman um ranking member wasterman schultz and and our chair i greatly appreciate the efforts you've made to make this a bipartisan bill I mean obviously we all strive towards that goal um and I do understand representative Wasserman Schultz that you were able to mitigate some of the more outrageous nonsense that some folks uh wanted to include in the MilKom VA bill uh I am concerned that the package still falls way short of what's needed to adequately fund our military bases NATO and veterans healthcare very concerned about this ban on the NICS reporting because um we have a lot of veterans in Pennsylvania we have a lot of concerns about uh veteran suicide and this has been an important tool in preventing veteran suicide um so at any rate glad you were able to make bipartisan progress here um although it may not be the bill that that many of us would prefer um but as this bill kicks off the twenty twes twenty-seven appropriations process. Um, we once again see that there is a split in the party's priorities, if our budgets reflect those priorities, and concerned that as we're heading towards the introduction of a one point five trillion, I believe, trillion with a T, bill for the Department of Defense, that our colleagues are prepared to light hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars on fire for wasteful defense spending and unlawful ICE activities. and then wanna use that wasteful spending and the national deficit that exploded as a result of their big ugly bill last summer as an excuse to cut funding for vital programs that americans rely upon like funding for healthcare and medical research and education and housing i mean we are seeing that in their spending bills our republican colleagues would rather build massive ice detention uh camps and ballrooms uh rather than new homes And we're seeing they'd rather put more masked and armed federal agents on American streets without meaningful protections for citizens than making the necessary investments for our troops and veterans and their families. So I I wish that we could get um the bipartisan uh buy-in across a broader spectrum of bills, but um obviously want to uh recognize the effort that went into this one.

Thank you.

So thank you, I yield back.

Thank you. gentleman yields back now recognize the gentleman from georgia minister scott for his five minutes question

thank you mr. chairman and um jerry and i can remember i wanna go back to uh what you said the vote was what was what was the vote counting committee

fifty eight to zero

fifty eight to zero and i assume there were multitude of amendments and other things and um i just i just wanna reiterate the the need for the committee process and the use of the committee process to get things done around here and i appreciate the fact that you used the process the process was successful and and you know this is this is what happens in the right when when when you do that and so members get to have their votes on their amendments and i intend to vote for this rule and this legislation and uh this is where these discussions need to be pad not the rules committee but in your committee where people bring the amendments and so i appreciate the way the committee has been run um and the fact that you are able to get to a unanimous vote among the members it shows that you as the chair and the ranking member respect those chairs and the process works under your leadership uh i also wanna affiliate myself with uh mister griffiths remarks about um when a veteran would be put into into that system i mean they shouldn't be put in the system and then have fight to get their rights back and so um i mean i i just i just again wanna urge caution as we as we push forward there i i don't want them to have to fight to get their rights back their rights that uh they have earned uh with that said i'll yield back to the chair but i have a few

before before you yield back do you mind if i i'm not gonna respond on the next thing i just wanna know

ok

go ahead

i i i really thank you for the kind words i agree think we both agree that the committee process is the best place for those of us that serve on the committee that have the expertise in these in the subject matter of the committee

more importantly for the citizens of the united states

yes absolutely

because it's where the expertise is

yes and so you will hear uh in that spirit you will have a lot of amendments that are proposed today um that i would implore you to carefully consider and not upset the apple cart with by adding culture war writers and controversial items that we considered that the chairman considered you know when when crafting the bill and that we carefully considered and were able to come together to ensure that a bipartisan result was possible

well i have i have heard the chair call been Carefully, I've heard you called a lot of things, the Liberals never been one of them.

Nope.

So I'm I'm assuming that whatever it came out of the committee with is probably pretty good.

Definitely not calling him a liberal, I can assure you.

So I I appreciate both of you. Uh, Chairman, I especially appreciate your long tenure here in your service, and with that I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Now recognize the other gentleman from Georgia, Mister Jack, for his time.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, and I echo uh my colleague, the Dean of our Delegations. uh thoughts and and fifty eight to zero is um an incredible number and uh one that uh that makes me wonder why we're not doing this on suspension but none the less here we are um but i just uh judge i wanna thank you uh for your leadership and i just wanna note too you know with respect to my district i i do not represent a um a formal um military installation or base but i do represent armies across my national guard armories and um in some cases they have housing associated and because of that i'm sure funds from this are gonna flow to that so it's just it's a healthy reminder that on the mil con side many of us can touch it and of course on the veterans side veterans affairs um we all have uh va service centers and clinics across our district so you are your leadership both of you are helping make um my constituents um receive the benefits that they earn and uh receive the honor of the service that they carried for this country so um grateful for your leadership and uh appreciate uh you being here on a a flying day and with that i will yield back to our chairman mr. griffith thank you very much uh gentleman yields back that concludes the members uh questions and comments and so we will release the first panel and i believe we're gonna have take just a few seconds so you all can leave them and then we'll start with the second panel sounds good

i'll leave it with one comment when we had the uh vote i wasn't expecting it to be unanimous and i was shocked and uh very proud of the fact we were able to put together a unanimous bill thank you

thank you right yes

I now welcome our second panel, representative Biggs and ranking member Raskin. from the committee on judiciary. I know I saw um Representative Raskin stick his head in a minute ago, so I know he's close by. And uh

Here he is.

Your full statement will be submitted for the record and we ask that you summarize your statement in five minutes. Welcome. And Representative Biggs, you are now recognized for your testimony.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, and as you know, this week is National Police Week, so it's fitting that we're considering these four measures that support law enforcement and promote public safety. Legislation like this is increasingly important because we need to show the men and women in law enforcement that this body supports their mission and appreciates their service. Sixty-four years ago, President John F. Kennedy signed a proclamation which designated May fifteenth as Peace Officer's Memorial Day. And the week in which that date falls as Police Week. Thousands of law enforcement officers are visiting Washington, D. C. D. C. this week to honor their colleagues who have made the ultimate sacrifice while bravely and selflessly serving their communities. Among those is Apache Junction Police Officer Gabriel Fascio, who was killed in the line of duty just a little over a year ago, May sixth, twenty twenty five. The first measure I'll discuss is House Concurrent Resolution ninety-six which expresses support which is Expressing support for law enforcement officers. This is a resolution I think everyone in this body can can and should support. It expresses support for law enforcement officers and recognizes the risks and sacrifices they make to keep American communities safe. It criticizes efforts to defund police departments and anti-police rhetoric from radical activists and some politicians even. Finally, this resolution commends the Trump administration for restoring law and order which has contributed to the lowest homicide rate, in over a century and the lowest overdose deaths since twenty nineteen. I think these are all easy facts and ideas to support and I hope that there will be a bipartisan vote supporting this measure. Second is H R fifty-six twenty-five the cashless bail reporting act. Again, this is another piece of legislation that should receive bipartisan support. It was approved by a voice vote ad committee mark-up, and I don't recall hearing any major reservations about it. Americans should know which jurisdictions have enacted dangerous and irresponsible cashless bail policies when deciding where to live, work, or travel. The Cashless Bail Reporting Act requires the Attorney General to list publicly those jurisdictions that permit cashless bail for individuals accused of certain crimes. These crimes include those involving a violent or sexual act such as murder, rape, sexual assault, carjacking, robbery, burglary, and assault, as well as public disorder offenses such as looting, vandalism, destruction of property, rioting or inciting to riot, or fleeing from a law enforcement officer. We know violent criminals released on cashless or artificially low bail have reoffended. For example, in Waukesha, Wisc- Wisconsin, Darrell Brooks was released on a thousand dollar bond after running over a woman with a vehicle despite a lengthy criminal history and an outstanding warrant. Brooks was previously charged with aggravated battery and had an outstanding warrant in Nevada after skipping bail for a sex-related crime. On November twenty-one twenty-twenty-one, Brooks drove through a Christmas parade injuring more than fifty individuals and killing six, one of whom was an eight year old child. Further, a March twenty twenty third study by researchers at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice found that approximately seventy-two percent of violent felony offenders who were released without bail were re-arrested. Informing Americans which jurisdictions have implemented these irrational and irresponsible policies is just common sense. The third measure is H. R. sixty-two sixty, to keeping violent offenders off our Streets Act of twenty twenty five. H. R. sixty two sixty defines bail bonds as insurance products, which subjects them to federal insurance fraud laws and allows states to enact licensing requirements for corporate for-profit and non-profit entities, that post bail on behalf of defendants. This bill also prohibits charitable bail funds from making materially false statements in any financial reports or documents sent to an insurance, regulatory official or agency. Charitable bail funds regularly post bail for individuals charged with violent felonies and previous convictions. For example, a CNN investigation in twenty twenty-three found that in Indiana, from twenty nineteen to twenty twenty-one, twenty-four percent of the roughly one thousand defendants cut loose by the bail project among the largest charitable charitable bail groups in the United States, had been charged with a crime of violence. Thirty-five percent were facing felony charges and had a previous charge of at least one crime of violence. H. R. sixty-two sixty will insure accountability for charitable bail funds that break the law. For example, charitable bail funds and their agents could more easily be prosecuted for embezzling or misappropriating the fund's money. The criminal penalties associated with the violation of this section vary by the specific offense, but generally include both a fine and a prison term not exceeding fifteen years. Additionally, as charitable bail funds would be " engaged in the business of insurance", under federal law, this bill would subject them to state licensing requirements and regulation and oversight by State insurance commissions. The final bill is HR th- eighty-three sixty-five, the Monitor Accountability Act. As you may know, monitors oversee compliance with consent decrees and settlements. When the federal government enters into a consent decree or other settlement with a state or local government, a monitor is appointed by the court to implement and monitor compliance with the terms of the consent decree or court order. Courts p- courts appoint monitors on a case-by-case basis under individual consent decrees and enforcement agrees- agreements resulting in a variable number of active monitors at any given time. H. R. eighty-three sixty-five would place conditions on a district court's appointment of a monitor of a state or unit of local government. These conditions include a cap on fees, a term limit on the monitors and judges overseeing monitor cases, public comment on the selection of the monitor, and providing a public accounting of the activities of the monitor. In several cases, monitorships have remained in place for a decade or longer. The tenure of some monitors has prompted debate over whether this oversight remains narrowly focused on ensuring compliance with the consent decree, or if it expands into sustained managerial control of agency operations. The tenure of longer-serving monitors has also raised concerns regarding cost, duration, and accountability of monitors. Some court monitors have amassed a great deal of wealth at the taxpayers' expense and have no incentive to con- to conclude their monitorships. For example, Maricopa County, Arizona, the monitorship of the County Sheriff offices cost the taxpayers almost three hundred and fifty million dollars since twenty thirteen. Since it began, about thirty-two million dollars has been paid directly to the monitor's firm. The same monitor has been accused of charging exorbitant fees without producing results in similar monitoring duties in New York, California, Michigan, and Louisiana. To be clear, this bill does not end monitors. It only requires that a fresh set of eyes is placed on jurisdictions subject to a monitor. And let me give credit where credit is due, and I I'm not going to go through the entire letter, but uh I agreed with very little of the Biden-Harris administration, but this Biden, uh, excuse me, this bill attempts to codify reforms based on five core principles, first proposed by the Biden-Harris administration under the um stewardship of former U. S. Attorney General Merrick Garland and and uh I would like to include that record uh that letter is part of the record. In twenty