[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 81 (Wednesday, May 13, 2026)]
[House]
[Pages H3404-H3410]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5625, CASHLESS BAIL REPORTING ACT;
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6260, KEEPING VIOLENT OFFENDERS OFF
OUR STREETS ACT OF 2025; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 8365,
MONITOR ACCOUNTABILITY ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. CON. RES.
96, EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS; AND PROVIDING FOR
CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 8469, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS AFFAIRS,
AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2027
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 1275 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1275
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5625) to
direct the Attorney General to make publicly available a list
of each State and unit of local government that permits
cashless bail, and for other purposes. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment
in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
the Judiciary now printed in the bill shall be considered as
adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read.
All points of order against provisions in the bill, as
amended, are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any
further amendment thereto, to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective
designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6260) to amend
title 18, United States Code, to prohibit fraud in connection
with posting bail. All points of order against consideration
of the bill are waived. The amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now
printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. The bill,
as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill,
as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or
their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 3. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 8365) to
provide for conditions on the appointment of monitors by
courts, and for other purposes. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the
Judiciary now printed in the bill, modified by the amendment
printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted.
The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points
of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are
waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment
thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except:
(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Judiciary or their respective designees; and (2) one motion
to recommit.
Sec. 4. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the concurrent resolution (H.
Con. Res. 96) expressing support for law enforcement
officers. All points of order against consideration of the
concurrent resolution are waived. The concurrent resolution
shall be considered as read. All points of order against
provisions in the concurrent resolution are waived. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
concurrent resolution and preamble to adoption without
intervening motion or demand for division of the question
except one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Judiciary or their respective designees.
Sec. 5. At any time after adoption of this resolution the
Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
8469) making appropriations for military construction, the
Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2027, and for other
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations or their respective designees. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read.
Points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to
comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived.
Sec. 6. (a) No amendment to H.R. 8469 shall be in order
except those printed in part B of the report of the Committee
on Rules accompanying this resolution, amendments en bloc
described in section 7 of this resolution, and pro forma
amendments described in section 8 of this resolution.
(b) Each amendment printed in part B of the report of the
Committee on Rules shall be considered only in the order
printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment except as provided by
section 8 of this resolution, and shall not be subject to a
demand for division of the question in the House or in the
Committee of the Whole.
(c) All points of order against amendments printed in part
B of the report of the Committee on Rules or against
amendments en bloc described in section 7 of this resolution
are waived.
Sec. 7. It shall be in order at any time for the chair of
the Committee on Appropriations or his designee to offer
amendments en
[[Page H3405]]
bloc consisting of amendments printed in part B of the report
of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution not
earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc offered pursuant to
this section shall be considered as read, shall be debatable
for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations or their respective designees, shall not be
subject to amendment except as provided by section 8 of this
resolution, and shall not be subject to a demand for division
of the question in the House or in the Committee of the
Whole.
Sec. 8. During consideration of H.R. 8469 for amendment,
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations or their respective designees may offer up to
10 pro forma amendments each at any point for the purpose of
debate.
Sec. 9. At the conclusion of consideration of H.R. 8469
for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to
the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett). The gentleman from Virginia is
recognized for 1 hour.
{time} 1220
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The Rules Committee met yesterday and reported out a rule providing
for consideration of five measures: H.R. 5626, the Cashless Bail
Reporting Act; H.R. 6260, the Keeping Violent Offenders Off Our Streets
Act of 2025; H.R. 8365, the Monitor Accountability Act; H. Con. Res.
96, Expressing Support For Law Enforcement Officers; and H.R. 8469, the
Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act of 2027.
House Resolution 1275 provides for consideration of H.R. 5625, H.R.
6260, and H.R. 8365, each under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour
of general debate for each bill, equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or
their respective designees, and provides for each bill one motion to
recommitment.
The rule further provides for consideration of H. Con. Res. 96,
Expressing Support For Law Enforcement Officers, under a closed rule
with 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or
their respective designees.
Finally, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 8469, the
Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act of 2027, under a structured rule. The rule provides
1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their
respective designees. The rule provides 1 motion to recommit and makes
51 amendments in order.
This rule will provide for consideration of several important bills,
Mr. Speaker, that I believe will improve the safety of our local
communities and the law enforcement officers that serve them. It will
also bring the first appropriations bill for fiscal year 2027 to the
floor so we can begin the process of passing the bills before the
September 30 end of the fiscal year.
First, I would like to start by saying thank you to our law
enforcement officers, particularly since this week is Police Week. We
honor our law enforcement officers and the men and women who gave their
lives in the line of duty.
I am glad we are bringing bills to the floor this week to do
Congress' part in helping and honoring law enforcement officers. Among
those is H.R. 6260, the Keeping Violent Offenders Off Our Streets Act.
This bill provides commonsense accountability measures for charitable
bail funds. These are organizations that use money given as donations
to bail out defendants, many of whom have been charged with violent
felonies or whom are repeat offenders.
Charitable bail funds have consistently helped release violent
criminals back onto our streets where they have committed robbery,
assault, kidnapping, and even murder in some cases.
H.R. 6260 closes loopholes that have allowed for potential fraudulent
practices and include charitable bail funds as entities ``engaged in
the business of insurance,'' thereby ensuring that charitable bail
funds will be subject to the criminal provisions under Federal law that
apply thereto.
Another bill in this rule is H.R. 5625, the Cashless Bail Reporting
Act. This legislation requires the Department of Justice to publish an
annual report listing the State and local governments that allow
cashless bail for criminals who pose a clear threat to public safety.
Recently, destructive policies in some States and cities are allowed
for the gradual elimination of monetary bail systems and, as a result,
has led to increased crime. According to a March 2023 study conducted
by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, the percentage of violent
felony offenders who were rearrested increased from 62 to 72 percent.
The correlation is clear: Cashless bail policy leads to increased
crime in our communities, and the American people should know if their
local governments are participating in these ill-advised programs.
Additionally, this rule brings to the floor H.R. 8365, the Monitor
Accountability Act. This bill provides for needed reforms for court
monitors, which are independent officials whose job it is to conduct
oversight during court proceedings. While many court monitors have
performed their duties well, others have initiated unnecessarily long
agreements and have charged government agencies with the expensive
fees.
H.R. 8365 curbs the excesses of court monitors by imposing a maximum
term of service, regulates the fee amount a monitor may charge, and
sets general expectations for the court monitor industry. This bill
codifies many of the recommendations that then-Attorney General Garland
put into place after the Biden administration reviewed the Federal
monitoring program.
This rule also brings up H. Con. Res. 96, a resolution that supports
National Police Week by honoring the courageous law enforcement
officers across our Nation who put their lives on the line every day to
keep our communities safe.
This resolution expresses Congress' immense gratitude for the service
and sacrifice of law enforcement officers at every level. At a time
when officers are facing growing dangers in carrying out their duties,
it is important that the House stand in unison to honor these brave men
and women.
Lastly, the rule provides for consideration of the first
appropriations bill for fiscal year 2027, H.R. 8469, the Military
Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act. The bill provides robust funding for military housing, services
for children and military members, and maintenance projects for
military base facilities.
This legislation also takes care of our veterans by fully funding
veterans' healthcare program benefits, and investing over $2 billion in
capital improvements for VA medical facilities and national cemeteries.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 8469 also bolsters our national security through
continued investments for military bases and infrastructure for
advanced weapons systems in places like the Indo-Pacific, where it is
imperative that we strengthen our capabilities vis-a-vis China. As we
heard in the Rules Committee last night, this appropriations bill, the
MILCON-VA bill, passed unanimously, 58-0, out of the Appropriations
Committee.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I urge my colleagues to support this rule
and the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1230
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Griffith) for yielding me the customary time, and I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for his remarks. I
honor
[[Page H3406]]
our law enforcement officers, as does everybody on the Democratic side.
Yet, as I look at the list of bills that Republicans are bringing to
the floor this week, I have to say that the American people deserve
way, way better than this.
I mean, Republicans love to talk about supporting the police, but
talk is cheap. Look at what they do. There is not a single penny of
public safety funding in any of these bills--not one.
I mean, these guys are more interested in passing press releases than
they are in passing meaningful legislation that will make a real
difference in our communities.
At the same time, Donald Trump's own budget--get this--calls for
massive cuts to programs that support law enforcement.
Mr. Speaker, go read it yourself. The President's budget cuts 55
percent from Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants. It cuts
more than 60 percent from the COPS program, a program that Trump's own
Justice Department calls the cornerstone of our Nation's crime-fighting
strategy. I mean, how is this possible?
Let's not forget that mere hours after he was sworn in, on his very
first day in office, President Trump pardoned the violent criminals who
attacked police officers on January 6. Let me say that again in case
anyone forgot. Donald Trump, on his first day in office, pardoned
felons who viciously beat police officers at the Capitol Building.
Mr. Speaker, some of the people he pardoned have since gone on to do
even more terrible things, including in my district, where one of them
was just rearrested on child pornography charges.
Don't come down to this Chamber and lecture people on law and order.
The leader of the Republican Party wants to cut funding for public
safety after he pardoned his own supporters who violently attacked
police.
Talk is cheap around here. Look at what the radical, far-right people
in charge of this government are doing. Look at how they vote. Look at
their agenda for this week. Look at their priorities. This is another
week without a single bill to make life more affordable and without a
single bill to address the cost of living.
Why not? Well, the answer is simple: Republicans are not focused on
your grocery bill. They are not focused on how much you pay at the
pump. They are not focused on your rent, your healthcare, your utility
bills, or your paycheck. They aren't focused on you.
They are focused on their obedience and obsession with Donald Trump,
on his tariffs, his war, his billion-dollar ballroom, his arch, his
reflecting pool paint job, and his golf course on the Potomac. Whatever
he wants, they just say yes, and the rest of us pay the price for their
radical MAGA extremism.
They ripped healthcare from millions of people in this country. They
cut food assistance for kids, veterans, seniors, and Americans with
disabilities. They raised the price of everything from utilities to
groceries. They did it all to give tax breaks to their billionaire
donors and rubberstamp every dumb idea that President Trump comes up
with.
Yesterday, the President said the quiet part out loud. He finally
told the truth about something. When asked a simple question of whether
he thinks about the terrible economic situation that he has put
American families into, thanks to his illegal war, do you know what he
said? ``Not even a little bit.''
Now, let that sink in. The President of the United States of America
was asked if he cares how badly he screwed up your family's finances
with his stupid, illegal war, and his answer was: ``Not even a little
bit.''
Your gas is $4.50 a gallon. He doesn't care, not even a little bit.
Your pay isn't keeping up with inflation. He doesn't care, not even a
little bit. Your health insurance is way up. He doesn't care, not even
a little bit. Your fridge is empty until payday. He doesn't care, not
even a little bit.
That is what he said. That is what he believes. That is how this
radical, far-right majority in Congress is governing.
Those at the top are doing better than ever. The Epstein-class
billionaires and special interests who write the campaign checks are
doing great. They can't thank my Republican friends enough. Yet, the
rest of us--for my constituents and for everyday people in this
country--Donald Trump's economy sucks, and Republicans don't care, not
even a little bit.
They tell themselves over and over again that everything is going
well. Well, it is time for them to listen, to listen to the American
people, who have had it up to here with these failed economic policies
and who are sick and tired of a government that bends over backward to
help those who are well-off and well-connected and turns a blind eye to
the struggles of the working people in this country.
We have to do better. We have to do better.
Mr. Speaker, as we come together this week to honor our law
enforcement officials, those who serve our communities and protect our
communities, the least we could have done is brought a bill to the
floor that would actually provide real help to our local
police departments to be able to hire people and to be able to obtain
the equipment that is necessary to protect our police officers.
Instead, we got a press release. We got a press release.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague with some interest. It sounds
like he doesn't like the current occupant of the White House and has
serious concerns about that, but it doesn't sound like he dislikes any
of the bills that much because he didn't spend much time talking about
them.
That is what this rule is about--bringing those bills to the floor.
In the MILCON-VA appropriations bill that passed out of the
Appropriations Committee unanimously, I grant you, there were things in
there that Democrats didn't like and things in there that Republicans
didn't like. Yet, as we heard last night in the Rules Committee, the
Appropriations Committee came together. They all had to compromise on
certain things, but they got the bill done, and they felt like it was,
overall, a good bill. There were certain disagreements, but overall,
they felt like it was a good bill.
Then, we are doing some things, and they may want to do more, but we
are doing some things that are very positive for law enforcement and
for our local communities that will help communities be able to better
figure out what is going on, whether it be bail or the monitoring
system, et cetera.
That is what we are discussing here today. There is lots of time in
the leadership hours and in the morning hour to give 1 minutes, 5
minutes, or an hourlong speech. Yet, today, we are supposed to be
discussing during this time period the rule that brings to the floor
four bills that are good bills and an appropriations bill.
I am glad to hear that there is not a whole lot of consternation
about the bills that we are presenting this rule on. While there may be
disagreement on other items, I am glad that we are moving forward on
that.
It is always tempting when you are here presenting a rule to get
dragged into the cesspool or the thoughts that the other side wants to
talk about, but that is what I am here to talk about: the bills that
are in the rule that we are presenting today.
Apparently, they are pretty good. I know they don't like them 100
percent, but they must be pretty good, or they would have spent more
time talking about them in the opening salvo of this debate on the
rule. So, I think that should encourage all Members, both Democrats and
Republicans, to vote for the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1240
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just say to the gentleman there will be at least 5 hours of
debate to talk about these less than impressive bills that he is
bringing to the floor today. There will be even more debate on a
handful of amendments that have been offered.
We are talking about the rule today, and the rule basically is
Republicans' agenda for the week. It is not about lowering the price of
groceries. It is not about dealing with the high price of gas. It is
not about dealing with the rising costs of healthcare. Republicans'
[[Page H3407]]
agenda is to avoid talking about the real problems that Americans are
facing as we gather here on the House floor.
I want to talk about your agenda, and your agenda sucks. I mean, I
don't know how else to put it more plainly. It is a disgrace that my
Republican friends spend more and more time trying to avoid dealing
with the real issues that are hurting their constituents, but that is
what their agenda is all about.
I get it. Everybody over there is afraid of the guy in the White
House. Maybe you should be more afraid of your constituents.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge that we defeat the previous question,
and if we defeat the previous question I will offer an amendment to the
rule to bring up H.R. 7711, which would prohibit the use of Federal
funds to compensate individuals who were prosecuted for their
involvement in the attack on the United States Capitol on January 6,
2021.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, it is Police Week, and Republicans will
come to the floor, as we have just heard, and talk about how much they
support and honor our law enforcement officers. We all support law
enforcement officers who keep us safe and protect our communities. But
what most, if not all, of these Republicans will fail to do, and have
failed to do repeatedly, is condemn the pardons that Donald Trump
issued to over 1,500 individuals that attacked this building and
attacked our democracy on January 6. Many of them were convicted of
violent felonies.
For those who weren't here that day, go back and look at the videos,
and you will see exactly what I am talking about. Over 140 brave
Capitol Police, the ones in this Chamber now, the ones protecting all
of us every single day were injured. Some tragically died.
What did this President do on his first day in office? He pardoned
every last one of those violent offenders.
Now, these rioters outrageously are seeking tens of millions of
dollars in damages, claiming that the indiscriminate use of force by
police officers repelling the attack caused them physical and emotional
injuries. Are you kidding me? I mean, where is the outrage on the
Republican side over this? It is a disgrace.
If my Republican colleagues cannot denounce the actions of the
President's supporters that day or condemn the pardons maybe--maybe, at
least they will vote to ensure that these convicted felons aren't
awarded millions of taxpayer dollars by the Trump administration as a
reward for attacking police officers. I will give them a chance to do
that with the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include the text of my
amendment in the Record, along with any extraneous material,
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from North Carolina (Ms. Ross) to discuss our proposal.
Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member McGovern for yielding
time to me.
If we defeat the previous question, we will offer a bill, my bill,
that will truly honor police officers: H.R. 7711, my No Rewards for
January 6 Rioters Act.
On January 6, as we all know, violent rioters assaulted Capitol
Police, beating them with flag poles, dragging them through crowds, and
pepper spraying them in the face at point-blank range.
President Trump has not only called these criminals patriots, he
decided January 6 insurrectionists deserved a blanket pardon for their
attacks on police officers. It is shameful.
Now, the Trump administration is considering millions of dollars in
payouts to these insurrectionists, which is a giant slap in the face to
all the brave officers who fought to protect us--us, and our democracy
on January 6.
My bill would prohibit the use of Federal funds to compensate any
convicted January 6 rioter.
Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were
serious about honoring police officers, they would take up my bill to
prevent President Trump from paying off his favorite cop beaters.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) said something last
night about not having heard voices on our side of the aisle talking
about the pardons, and Mr. Scott said: I did. I had a problem with it.
That was Mr. Austin Scott from Georgia.
I would remind the gentleman that he and I had a colloquy in the
Rules Committee on February 4, 2025, on that same subject where I
indicated that I had significant concerns about pardoning folks who had
assaulted police officers.
It is not fair. That was something they pulled up because I am a
member of the Rules Committee, and they brought it up in the Rules
Committee meeting because I made a comment to the media in my home
district. I am sure there are lots of other Republicans who have done
the same, raised some concerns, raised some issues, and as a result,
the White House came out with some explanations. People can choose to
accept or not accept those explanations. It is what it is. But a number
of us did raise concerns about that at the time.
Now, that being said, we have some bills before us today that are
good bills. That is what we are supposed to be talking about.
We have got bills that deal with monitoring of courts. We have got
bail bills that we are dealing with. There are a number of things. We
have got a resolution that expresses Congress' support for our law
enforcement, which I think we are all in agreement on, and the
gentleman said as much that we all support our local law enforcement
and our law enforcement folks out there.
I would say, Mr. Speaker, let's look at these bills. That is what we
are debating now is whether or not to bring these bills to the floor. I
think all the bills that we presented should be brought to the floor.
We can talk about other bills on another day, but these bills are
appropriately before the House.
Then let's talk about the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs,
and Related Agencies funding bill from Appropriations, which passed
unanimously out of committee.
My colleague has indicated that we are offering a handful of
amendments. Now, I have managed a couple of these rules before, and
some of them have been closed. He consistently says: You haven't
allowed any amendments, and now he depicts the amendments that we are
allowing as a ``handful.'' A majority of those--in fact, it is a
supermajority of those that were theoretically in order, and it is 51.
Now, by my count, Mr. Speaker, that is 10 handfuls and a little bit
more. It is not a handful of amendments. It is 10 handfuls. I would
have to get a whole line of people here to hold on to all these
amendments. We are going to hear debate on them, and we are going to
have discussion about it.
So it gives you some idea of the hyperbole that my friends on the
other side of the aisle are using when you take 51 amendments and
depict them as a mere handful.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
You have got to love these guys. I remind everybody, especially those
who may be watching this on TV, that four out of the five bills that we
are considering today are under completely closed rules, number one.
Number two, I appreciate the gentleman expressing some concern about
what happened on January 6. He said that some of them, you know,
expressed their concern about the President's pardon publicly, so I
just kind of Googled what my colleague from Virginia said to his local
newspaper. He said that he has mixed feelings about President Trump
pardoning those who were charged in connection with the January 6
attack on the Capitol.
I don't know what ``mixed feelings'' means, but if my friend were
genuinely outraged by what happened that day and by the pardoning of
these people who violently attacked the police officers that were
defending us that day, then I guess my question to the gentleman would
be: Then why did you vote consistently against hanging a plaque
honoring those police officers who protected our lives that day?
{time} 1250
Again, I find the silence on the other side of the aisle not only in
regard to
[[Page H3408]]
what happened in this Chamber on January 6--I find it particularly
disturbing--but the silence in the aftermath of Donald Trump pardoning
all of these criminals.
Again, we have police officers who were severely wounded. Some ended
up losing their lives. I mean, if you have objections and you have
concerns, and even if you have mixed feelings, whatever that means,
about the President pardoning all of these people, then does that mean
that the gentleman will support our amendment that we are bringing up
here that would prohibit the use of Federal funds to compensate
individuals who were prosecuted for their involvement in the attack on
the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021?
I mean, I am not going to hold my breath, but I am willing to bet
that virtually every Republican, if not every Republican, will vote
against this amendment.
Again, we get a lot of lectures about law and order from Republicans.
Let's not forget, again, the leader of their party, the President of
the United States, pardoned over 1,500 of his own supporters who
violently attacked this building, including pardons for hundreds of
convicted felons who violently and viciously beat law enforcement
officers on January 6, sending many of them to the hospital with
serious injuries.
Donald Trump pardoned every single one of them. Many are repeat
offenders who are now back in our communities because of the radical,
far-right policies of this President and because of the acquiescence
and the silence of the party that controls this Chamber.
I mean, Matthew Huttle, a man with 12 prior criminal convictions,
including a shocking case where he pled guilty to brutally hitting his
3-year-old son, leaving bruises all over his child's backside and neck,
after he was pardoned by Donald Trump for the crimes he committed on
January 6, went back to Indiana, where he was killed during a violent
confrontation with law enforcement. He was a child abuser with a
history of violence, who put law enforcement in danger again after he
was pardoned by Donald Trump.
Theodore Middendorf, accused of sexually assaulting a 7-year-old
child--this guy pled guilty to this horrific crime in 2024, and he was
sentenced to 19 years in prison. That wasn't all. He also pled guilty
to destroying government property and using an American flagpole as a
weapon during the Capitol riot. He was pardoned by Donald Trump.
Peter Schwartz, a man with 30 prior criminal convictions, including
abusing and assaulting his wife, biting her and repeatedly punching
her, was convicted of attacking police officers on January 6 with
pepper spray. He is another repeat offender pardoned by Donald Trump.
Andrew Taake was arrested in 2016 for soliciting a minor online for
sex, but his criminal history didn't stop there. He assaulted police
officers with bear spray and a metal whip on January 6. He is another
repeat offender pardoned by Donald Trump.
Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress are complicit in these
crimes. I mean, thanks to these pardons, we have child sex predators
and violent criminals back on our streets. We even have January 6
perpetrators who have been rearrested on new charges after being
pardoned.
Daniel Ball, a convicted felon because of his involvement in the
Capitol insurrection, was pardoned by Trump on January 20, only to be
rearrested 2 days later on gun charges.
How dare you guys come down here and talk about law and order when
you are complicit in these crimes? How dare you come down here and talk
about supporting the police after you let out violent criminals who
attacked law enforcement officers on January 6?
I mean, I get it. We have different opinions on a lot of issues, but
the one thing that should unite us is our praise and our respect for
those who defended not only all of us who were here on January 6 but
also defended our democracy.
Because the guy in the White House doesn't want anybody to
acknowledge that that was a terrible day, everybody just caved.
Everybody caves on the other side.
I don't have any mixed feelings about what Trump did. I think it was
outrageous. I think most Americans that I talk to, and I think most
Americans across this country, don't have mixed feelings. They think
what happened that day was outrageous. These guys should not have been
pardoned. Some of them should still be in jail.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
If I am to be pilloried on the floor of the United States House, let us
get the facts correct.
First, I am sure that WJHL, a television station, would not
appreciate being called a newspaper. Second, let me read you the first
quote.
Griffith: ``I have mixed feelings. I personally think that some of
those folks who assaulted police officers deserve some of the time they
got.'' If I am to be pilloried, there is what I said.
The following week, in the Rules Committee, in response to questions
from my colleague, I responded that I did not have every case in front
of me, speaking of pardons. It is a difficult decision, and I would
have had a hard time pardoning people who assaulted police officers on
any occasion.
If I am to be pilloried, let's get the record straight, and I think
the same would be true for many of my colleagues on this side of the
aisle.
Let's talk about violent criminals because we have a bill in front of
us today that will deal with that. We have the charitable--the
phraseology is the ``charitable bail funds.'' We have a bill in front
of us that will treat them as insurance.
Now, people may think at home, if they are watching this, what in the
world do bail bonds have to do with insurance? Well, having been a
criminal defense attorney, I can assure you that the insurance is to
ensure that people show up for their court dates, and that is what
bonds are for.
If you put up a bond, an insurance company usually writes that. If it
is a corporate surety bond, that is usually what you have. Sometimes,
you have property bonds, and there are other ways of doing it. If you
have a corporate surety bond or a group comes forward and puts the
money up for you, that group ensures that you will be present in court,
or you forfeit the amount that you have put forward.
That is all fine and good. We have charitable groups out there, and
they are looking at cases where you have people who can't afford it,
but it is not a violent crime or something where there is a danger to
the public. I understand that. That is what the bill does. It says we
are going to treat them like they are insurance companies because they
are, in fact, stepping into the shoes of an insurance company.
It is not grandma who is putting up her house, which many of my
clients had their grandmas put up their houses to guarantee they would
be present in court when they were supposed to be there to be tried for
their offenses. They are acting like those corporate surety bonds. They
are stepping into those shoes, and they ought to be treated accordingly
under the law.
Then, we heard a whole litany--and I really didn't want to get into
it--a whole litany of things that people did who were doing bad things
on January 6 and did some bad things afterward, as well. I point out
also that that is not before us at this very minute. What is before us
is a bill on these charity bonds and cashless bonds.
When people are released on cashless bonds or artificially low bail,
they have a greater propensity to reoffend, as I said in my opening.
Because I feel compelled, for example, in Wisconsin, Darrell Brooks was
released on a $1,000 bond after running over a woman with a vehicle,
despite a lengthy criminal history and an additional outstanding
warrant.
Brooks was previously charged with aggravated battery and had an
outstanding warrant in Nevada after skipping bail for a sex-related
crime. Then, on November 21, 2021, Brooks drove through a Christmas
parade, injuring over 50 individuals, killing 6, 1 of whom was an 8-
year-old child.
A March 2023 study, which I mentioned before, by researchers at the
John Jay College of Criminal Justice, found that approximately 72
percent of violent felony offenders who were released without bail were
rearrested.
We could stand here and go through hours of this, but, Mr. Speaker,
we have before us a good number of bills
[[Page H3409]]
that deal with trying to make our communities a little bit safer,
giving people more information, and trying to make sure we are getting
it right, trying to help our police officers and our local communities
be safer.
These are all good bills. They may not do everything that everybody
wants, but these bills before us and this rule that we are presenting
are good bills. Then, we have the MILCON-VA bill, which passed out of
the Appropriations Committee unanimously, 58-0.
{time} 1300
I believe that we should pass these bills. The first step in doing
that is passing the rule so we can bring the bills to the floor with
set time for debate. There will be plenty of time for debate. There
will be time on the MILCON-VA bill to go over amendments and to then
consider as a House, as the House for the United States, whether or not
we want to pass them. I think we should.
The first step is we have got to pass this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to all vote ``yes'' to bring these
bills to the floor. My colleagues on the other side can debate whatever
deficiencies they may see in the bills and have their time to tell the
American people about those bills.
I really wish they would focus, when we are talking about a rule, on
the rule to bring the bills to the floor and not all these other
matters. I understand they want to talk about other things. I get it.
That is the role of the minority. However, Mr. Speaker, as the
majority, we need to pass this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I advise that whenever my colleagues are ready, I am
prepared to close. I urge my colleagues to pass this rule, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me apologize to the TV station that I
called a newspaper. What a terrible sin. I appreciate the gentleman's
clarity in reading that I have mixed feelings because some of the
people deserve some of the time. Boy, that is really a strongly worded
condemnation.
I want to disagree with the gentleman on one thing he said, and that
is somehow this is not on the agenda today. The gentleman just read off
what the Republican agenda was and the votes that the Republicans want
us to consider on the floor today.
Mr. Speaker, I urge that we defeat the previous question.
Our staff handed my friend's team the amendment that we want to vote
on. The next vote that we have, by the way, will be on whether we would
prohibit the use of Federal funds to compensate individuals who were
prosecuted for their involvement in the attack on the United States
Capitol on January 6, 2021. I guess that is the next vote. So people
are going to have to vote ``yes'' or ``no'' on that, and it is in front
of us.
I don't really understand why the gentleman would say that it is not
in front of us. If he wants to support what we are trying to do here
and make sure that the people who viciously attacked Capitol Police
officers on that day on January 6 that threatened the lives of those
who work here and who destroyed all of this property, that is well-
documented, all of this is on video, I am happy to yield to the
gentleman if he would like to endorse what we are trying to do so maybe
we can agree on something.
Okay, well, I guess I am not going to get that support.
Again, Mr. Speaker, the next vote, again, I remind people, will be on
whether or not we want to prohibit the use of Federal funds to
compensate individuals who were prosecuted for their involvement in the
attack on the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.
The President is hinting that maybe he would be favorable to
compensating some of these people who are responsible for the terrible
crimes on that day. I find that sickening, quite frankly. He wants to
give money to criminals, the people who attacked our democracy, who
beat up our police officers, and yet he doesn't want to give money to
our police officers, as I pointed out in the beginning. There is not a
penny contained in any of these bills that actually help support our
local police officers.
Let me also bring us back to what I think this debate is all about.
It is about priorities. This is another wasted week, and the debate is
really about what Republicans are not doing and what they refuse to do.
It is about their wasted time in the majority and their total failure
to bring up legislation to help everyday people.
People are begging us. They are begging us to do something about
inflation. They are pleading with us to bring grocery prices down, to
lower gas prices, to make life more affordable, and to stop the war and
reverse the tariffs that are eating into their paychecks and killing
their finances.
What do Republicans prioritize week after week after week after week?
It is billionaire tax breaks, loopholes for the rich and powerful,
giveaways to the giant corporations, the price gougers, and the big
donors who line their pockets with campaign cash.
Listen to me, America: These guys promised to lower your prices on
day one. It is year two for God's sake, and who are you going to
believe, them or your empty wallet?
Republicans have done nothing--nothing--to lower your costs. Their
agenda does nothing to help everyday people. Their bills do nothing for
working families. Their leader said so on TV yesterday.
He doesn't even think about how his reckless, illegal, vanity war
hurts your pocketbook. He thinks about his arch. He thinks about
painting the reflecting pool. He thinks about his golf course on the
Potomac River. He thinks about bailouts for foreign governments and
corrupt, shady deals that enrich his inner circle.
He thinks about his ballroom. Boy, does he bring that up every day.
He wants $1 billion of your money for his tacky ballroom.
However, when it comes to helping you, when it comes to helping your
family, when it comes to the medical bills piling up on your kitchen
table, and when it comes to figuring out how to keep your fridge full
until your next paycheck, he told us the answer himself: He doesn't
care, not even a little bit.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Smith of Nebraska). Members are reminded
to direct their remarks to the Chair and not to a perceived viewing
audience.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, we have before us the MILCON-VA bill. For folks watching
at home, I will translate: military construction at our bases and
Veterans Affairs, which is our VA hospitals, et cetera. That is what
this rule has in it. It also has a number of bills related to law
enforcement making things better: the monitoring systems, the bail
systems, cashless bonds, et cetera.
These are good bills, and the rule ought to be passed, as I said
before.
I would be remiss if I didn't speak about the fact that this is
Police Week. It is one of the reasons why we have these bills and
others in front of us.
This year, unfortunately, and it has happened before since I have
been in office, an officer was killed in the Ninth Congressional
District. Officer Hall was killed in an inmate attack at the River
North Correctional Center in Independence, Virginia, which is in
Grayson County in November of last year.
Two additional officers were attacked at that time. Both are
physically doing okay, but, Mr. Speaker, I don't know how you ever get
over an act of violence where you witnessed a colleague, a friend, a
brother in law enforcement, being murdered.
That is really what we are about this week, and this rule promotes
four bills that will help. It doesn't solve everything. It doesn't
resolve everything. Jeremy Hall will be remembered in another
resolution coming up this week that we will be voting on to honor
fallen law enforcement officers.
We can also honor them all by taking these steps forward in trying to
make our system better and recognizing that we probably ought not let
violent felons, people who have already committed crimes, out on either
no bond or low bond. We probably ought to make sure that the folks
posting the bonds are capable and available to actually ensure the
presence of the defendant at trial.
[[Page H3410]]
{time} 1310
Mr. Speaker, I left this out earlier, and I apologize. It is a big
part of the bail system. It is also to ensure their good behavior while
out on bond. It is both presence on the court date and good behavior
between the time the bond is posted and the time of that court date.
What the data shows us is that without one of these bills, there is
an increase from 62 percent to 72 percent of recidivism. That helps our
police officers and honors those who have been wounded, physically or
psychologically, while serving in law enforcement, and those who
answered the last call, like Officer Hall.
Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will vote to put this rule forward.
I urge the passage of the rule and the underlying legislation.
The text of the material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as
follows:
An Amendment To H. Res. 1275 Offered By Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 10. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the
House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the
bill (H.R. 7711) to prohibit the use of Federal funds to
compensate individuals who were prosecuted for their
involvement in the attack on the United States Capitol on
January 6, 2021, and for other purposes. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall
be considered as read. All points of order against provisions
in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except:
(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Judiciary or their respective designees; and (2) one motion
to recommit.
Sec. 11. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX and clause 8 of rule XX
shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 7711.
Sec. 12. The Clerk shall transmit to the Senate a message
that the House has passed H.R. 7711 no later than three
calendar days after passage.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________