[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 82 (Thursday, May 14, 2026)]
[House]
[Pages H3471-H3474]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CASHLESS BAIL REPORTING ACT
Mr. HARRIS of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House
Resolution 1275, I call up 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,
and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1275, the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
the Judiciary, printed in the bill, is adopted and the bill, as
amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 5625
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Cashless Bail Reporting
Act''.
SEC. 2. PUBLICATION OF CASHLESS BAIL JURISDICTIONS.
(a) In General.--Not later than one year after the date of
enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Attorney
General shall make publicly available a list of each State
and unit of local government that permits the release pending
trial of a person charged with a covered offense on personal
recognizance or upon execution of an unsecured appearance
bond.
(b) Covered Offense Defined.--In this section, the term
``covered offense'' means a criminal offense that the
Attorney General determines poses a clear threat to public
safety and order, including--
(1) an offense involving a violent or sexual act, such as
murder, rape, sexual assault, carjacking, robbery, burglary,
and assault; and
(2) an offense that promotes public disorder, such as
looting, vandalism, destruction of property, rioting or
inciting to riot, or fleeing from a law enforcement officer.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for
1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees.
The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Harris) and the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Raskin) will each control 30 minutes.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
General Leave
Mr. HARRIS of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and
extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 5625.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Mr. HARRIS of North Carolina. I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in support of my bill, H.R. 5625, the
Cashless Bail Reporting Act.
In August of 2025, the whole Nation watched in horror as we witnessed
the brutal murder of Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska on a Charlotte
light rail.
This murder took place right outside my district in a city I have
called home for many years. This tragic incident cannot be described as
anything other than a cold-blooded murder carried out by a dangerous
individual who should not have been out on the streets to begin with.
Iryna Zarutska's alleged killer, Decarlos Brown, Jr., had 14 prior
arrests and had previously served a 5-year sentence for robbery with a
dangerous weapon. Decarlos Brown, Jr., was out on a written promise to
appear in court when he murdered Iryna Zarutska.
Decarlos Brown, Jr., should not have been released on a simple
written promise to appear in court given his extensive history of crime
and violence.
There are many aspects of public safety that must be addressed to
keep our streets safer. One of the most pressing issues is bail reform.
As we celebrate National Police Week and welcome many brave members
of our law enforcement to the Hill, I can't help but think about how
some States and local governments choose to make law enforcement
officers' jobs harder and more dangerous through the laws and policies
they enact.
State legislatures, city councils, and rogue prosecutors have
implemented radical bail laws and other policies that have worsened
violent crime. These laws and policies have eliminated cash bail,
restricted judges from imposing constraints on dangerous criminals, and
even mandated the immediate release of criminals back into the
community.
Now more than ever it is important that we prioritize American
citizens and support our law enforcement officers.
States like Illinois, California, Maryland, New Jersey, New York have
modified their bail practices to eliminate or de-emphasize the use of
monetary bail systems, which has resulted in increased property and
violent crimes.
A March 2023 study 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 later re-arrested.
State and local jurisdictions must take steps to address the problems
that arise with irresponsible cashless bail policies.
I applaud my home State of North Carolina for passing Iryna's Law,
which dealt with cashless bail, among other things. However, we cannot
and should not sit and wait for more jurisdictions to experience
tragedy to do something about these reckless bail policies.
To be clear, bail is not a criminal fine or a punishment. It is not a
reflection of a defendant's guilt or innocence. It exists to ensure the
defendant will appear at all required proceedings during their criminal
case. Bail is imposed after an assessment of risk, the risk that a
defendant may flee from a jurisdiction, and the risk that a defendant
may harm witnesses or other members of the community if they are
released before trial.
My bill, the Cashless Bail Reporting Act, will empower Americans with
the information they need to advocate for much-needed changes. This
bill simply requires the Attorney General to publish a list of each
State and local jurisdiction that allows individuals charged with
certain serious offenses to be released before trial either on personal
recognizance or unsecured appearance bonds. This list will be made
public and updated periodically to ensure Americans have accurate data
on the extent of cashless bail across our country.
Americans should be able to see which jurisdictions have enacted
dangerous and irresponsible policies related to bail when making
decisions about where to live, to work, or to travel. It also shows
Americans where change is needed most. The American people deserve
transparency and accountability when it comes to policies that affect
public safety.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
{time} 1230
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
[[Page H3472]]
Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Harris for his thoughtful remarks.
I rise to support and will vote for H.R. 5625, the Cashless Bail
Reporting Act, because it would simply direct the Attorney General to
publish a list of State and local jurisdictions that permit cashless
bail.
This is already publicly available information. I just googled it.
The answer seemed to come up, but it would be good to have some,
perhaps, professional refinement and certification that these are
actually the numbers.
Mr. Speaker, National Police Week is typically an opportunity for us
to bring meaningful legislation forward that will support law
enforcement and help them to perform their critical, lifesaving duties
because Congress wants to support and honor their work. I am not quite
sure that we are living up to this high calling in this National Police
Week.
This bill, for example, is unobjectionable, but it doesn't do much
work at all. It is hard to see how issuing a report advances community
safety or justice.
Given the strangely hostile rhetoric that we are hearing from our
colleagues about cashless bail, I thought I would take a moment to talk
about what bail is and what it is not.
As the gentleman correctly states, bail is not a mechanism for
punishment. In America, everybody is innocent until proven guilty.
Whether you are the President, the Pope, or a pauper, you are
considered to be innocent and presumed to be innocent until you have
been proven guilty in a court of law, observing due process, by a jury
of your peers, beyond a reasonable doubt, and with the prosecution
satisfying every element of the burden of proof.
People have a right to their freedom while they are preparing to
stand trial, among other reasons, to get ready for trial, unless they
are a flight risk or unless they pose a danger to themselves or to
other people.
That is basically the rule, as I understand it. In fact, that is the
rule we have been using in the Federal system for more than 60 years.
We have a cashless bail system under Congress in the Federal courts.
There are 94 Federal district courts all across America, operating in
red States, blue States, purple States, and everything in between. They
all use a cashless bail system.
Mr. Speaker, when a person is brought forward on an arraignment
before the court, those of us who have practiced law or have been
prosecutors know this process in a very familiar way. The court asks
one simple question, which is: Is this person a flight risk, or do they
pose a danger to themselves?
They could be the richest person in the world, but if they are a
flight risk, as, for example, some of the Epstein defendants clearly
are--these are globetrotting criminal defendants--it shouldn't make any
difference how much money you have to pay for bail. The money should be
irrelevant to it.
Conversely, if you are not a flight risk, if you are not a danger to
the community, but you are a pauper and have no money, you should not
be held simply because you can't pay $5,000, or whatever the bail is.
Somebody might be able to put up $1 million or $1 billion, but if
they are going to abscond, if they are going to run away, they should
be held. That is the Federal system. Money doesn't enter into it.
To my knowledge, I don't think there are any bills out there--my
staff will correct me--that seek to overthrow the Federal bail system,
which is a cashless system.
I don't know of a single candidate in America who is running for
Congress on the premise that we need to overthrow the cashless Federal
bail system, which is working great everywhere.
Mr. Speaker, cash bail is a billion-dollar, for-profit industry. Who
makes money off of that? The bail bondsmen make money off of it, and
they are very politically active. They don't want to see any change.
They don't want to see the Federal system being adopted by States and
jurisdictions around the country.
A cash bail system asks a different question. It doesn't focus on:
Are you dangerous or a flight risk? It focuses on: Can you pay? Can you
pay?
From the standpoint of the Federal system, that is an irrational,
arbitrary issue that just confuses the question of why a person, who is
presumed to be innocent but is now facing serious criminal charges,
should be held in jail during the pendency of their trial or waiting
for their trial to take place.
Mr. Speaker, I don't know why I am surprised that there are Members
of Congress who are demonizing jurisdictions simply because they prefer
to employ a policy that exactly mirrors Federal law. To say that that
is somehow soft on crime strikes me as just bizarre, unless the entire
Federal system is soft on crime because of the system that we have
used.
I am not, in any way, afraid of or intolerant of this debate. I think
we should have the debate. To the extent that this bill is just asking
DOJ to compile information that is already publicly available, it is
fine with me. I am going to vote for it.
Nothing currently prevents the Attorney General from compiling and
publishing this information right now. Due to the miracles of
artificial intelligence, it seems to be pretty quickly readily
available. I think I got it in less than 1 second.
This bill could help to officially coordinate the collection of this
information and ensure that it is reported accurately, so I plan to
vote for it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HARRIS of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the support
of this bill by the ranking member of our committee and what he has
shared.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Edwards).
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Harris for bringing this
important legislation forward.
Mr. Speaker, public safety should never take a back seat to politics.
That is why I rise today in support of the Cashless Bail Reporting Act.
This legislation brings transparency and accountability to
jurisdictions that release individuals who are charged with serious
violent crimes without requiring bail.
The American people deserve to know where dangerous offenders who are
accused of crimes like murder, rape, robbery, carjacking, rioting, and
assault are being released back into communities before trial on
unsecured bond or personal recognizance.
We have seen the devastating consequences of these failed policies.
In Charlotte, Iryna Zarutska was tragically murdered by an individual
who had been released on a cashless bail despite a violent criminal
history.
I joined my colleagues for a hearing in Charlotte to meet with
families who have lost loved ones at the hands of repeat offenders.
Their stories are truly heartbreaking, and their message was clear:
Enough is enough.
We must stand with victims, support law enforcement, and put public
safety first.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Georgia (Mrs. McBath), the very distinguished ranking member of the
House Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance under
the Judiciary Committee.
Mrs. McBATH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the Judiciary
Committee for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5625, the Cashless Bail
Reporting Act. This bill directs the Attorney General to put together a
public list of every State and local court that allows cashless bail.
While I think that this bill doesn't actually do very much, I hope
that its passage will help to at least cut through some of the red
tape, the partisan rhetoric, and the fear-mongering that we keep
hearing about cashless bail, the system of bail that is used in our
Federal courts and that this body actually has the jurisdiction over.
I want to reiterate over and over again that public safety is not a
red or a blue issue. We need to stop making it that way. It is an
American issue that affects everyone here.
We have to remember that the United States Constitution leaves it
directly to the States. We talk all the time about States' rights. My
colleagues across the aisle, Republican colleagues, talk about giving
more responsibility to the States to make the decisions for their
constituents. If we are talking about States' rights, the Constitution
does leave it to the States to decide issues of public safety,
including how the courts should operate.
[[Page H3473]]
States are grappling with these issues every single day. In my home
State of Georgia, Republican politicians just reversed course on a
whole slate of reforms that they ushered in by Republicans in the State
legislature just a few years ago.
They didn't need Congress here. They didn't need our flip-flopping on
that. They very well did it on their own.
{time} 1240
Since this bill does nothing more than just tell the Attorney General
to publish a list of information that already has been publicly made
and available, I will support it. I just hope that the final product
will be put to good use.
Mr. HARRIS of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Moore).
Mr. MOORE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, this week is Police Week,
and I think our law enforcement officers would agree that public safety
should not be a partisan issue.
What we have seen around the country are leftist judges and DAs who
are pushing policies that put criminals back on the streets and take
tools away from law enforcement. One of the ways that happens is
through cashless bail.
I was an attorney for 30 years, and I practiced all levels of court,
including criminal practice. I have seen, particularly in certain areas
in my home State and other areas around the country, where violent
criminals are released on either very low bail or sometimes cashless
bail.
As Mr. Harris pointed out, you had the tragic situation of Iryna
Zarutska who was brutally murdered on the light rail in Charlotte. She
would be alive today had that criminal been in jail. He had been
released over and over and over again.
The Cashless Bail Reporting Act that we are debating today at least
creates a list of jurisdictions that release individuals accused of
serious offenses like murder, rape, and carjacking without requiring
cash bail.
Now, I do think that the ranking member's assessment of bail--I would
not disagree with the gentleman's assertion of how bail is set up. I
would submit, and perhaps the gentleman would agree with me, that there
are instances where the courts simply are getting it wrong. Someone
with common sense should look and say: Why was this guy released on the
street?
Look at the seriousness of the underlying crime, the criminal record.
When you see someone who has been through the courts over and over
again, and when the crimes get more serious every time, it starts off
with maybe just stealing, then it goes to robbery, then it goes to
assault, then it involves a weapon. Why in the world would that person
be released on a cashless bail? Let alone, why would they not be held
in jail awaiting trial?
Here is what happens. When you look at the statistics of the folks
who commit crimes in my State and your State and other States, a lot of
the crimes are committed by the same folks over and over again. The
statistics are out there showing the folks who go out and commit crimes
while they are awaiting trial on other charges. We have to rein this
in, and we have seen situations around the country where that hasn't
happened.
Look, I will tell you, in my home State of North Carolina, former
Governor Roy Cooper actually released over 3,500 convicts, people who
had already been convicted, he released them early from prison with
lengthy criminal records, and the stats are showing of those folks
released, most of them have reoffended since then.
The reality is there are some people who are dangerous. They are
criminals. They are going to rob. They are going to murder. They are
going to commit crimes, and they should be incarcerated. What this bill
does at least, is this is going to shine a light--and I appreciate you
doing this, Mr. Harris--this is going to shine a light on those
jurisdictions where the judges are just letting these violent criminals
back out again.
I hope a day will come when even folks who are on the left where some
of this stuff is happening in these districts will realize it is not
about left or right because when these criminals offend, they don't
pick and choose who their victims are. They often terrorize those
communities that can least afford to have that done to them.
So I appreciate this work, and we have other steps. There is a bill I
am supporting that would actually create liability in the case of gross
negligence when folks are released out on cashless bail.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this bill, and I hope we pass it.
Mr. HARRIS of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I have no further
speakers, and I am prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I thank the gentleman for his thoughtful remarks there. We certainly
don't want to see anybody being released without regard to whether or
not they pose a danger to the community or whether they will abscond
and disappear.
A good example of that happening recently was when President Trump en
masse pardoned more than 1,500 convicted felons who were Proud Boys,
Oath Keepers, rioters, and insurrectionists who assaulted 150 police
officers right here on the Capitol campus. Departing from the
traditional process of examining each case individually, which is what
the Department of Justice has done in the pardon office, he just
pardoned all of them. So he didn't look to see which ones had been
convicted before of domestic violence, armed robbery, or other forms of
felony crimes.
Some of them had no criminal record. Some of them had serious,
violent criminal records. All of them were released. And what do you
know, dozens of them have since reoffended since that terrible process
took place.
One guy recently, Andrew Paul Johnson in Georgia, was released by
Donald Trump, pardoned by him. He got out of jail and went and sexually
assaulted two 12-year-olds. When they and their families were about to
go to the police to report the crimes, he said: Well, I am about to get
millions of dollars from Donald Trump because I am a J6er. I will split
the money with you if you don't go in. Thankfully, they went and
reported him to the police. He was prosecuted, and he was just
sentenced to life in prison. Those two kids' lives are irrevocably
altered because of the process that took place, which was no process,
which is I am just going to go ahead and release everybody.
We have had other J6ers who were pardoned by Donald Trump who have
since been convicted of offenses including domestic violence, violent
assault, home invasion, and so on.
So I could not agree more with the point that people should not be
getting out of jail or prison without any regard to the danger that
they pose to the community.
Now, how does this all relate to bail? Well, I hope we agree that
nobody should be getting out of jail without regard or without the
court taking an analysis of whether they are a flight risk or whether
they pose a danger to the community. That is what the focus should be.
So certain jurisdictions have said, including the Federal system,
that is all we need to know. You could be the richest person in the
world. You could be worth a billion dollars. It doesn't make any
difference. If you are a flight risk, if you are a community danger, we
are not going to let you out.
Conversely, you might be the poorest person in the world, but if you
pose no flight risk, if you pose no danger, then you should be allowed
to be released because that is the constitutional presumption, the
presumption of innocence.
So the injection of a financial payment into the process just
confuses the issue.
Now, I am not saying every State has to follow what the Federal
courts do and what we have done for more than 60 years. That is up to
them. That is a question of federalism.
That is why I am trying to prefigure where this whole inquiry leads.
It looks like it is leading to an attack on the States who want to do
it the way the Federal system has done it for more than a half century.
I am just raising the point that I think we should look very carefully
before we go down that road and we impose a different view on the
States in some kind of straitjacket as to their criminal justice
policies that we don't accept for ourselves because the current system
is working great here.
[[Page H3474]]
So I agree with the prior speaker. We don't want people getting out
of jail for any reason, whether it is bail or parole or a pardon from
the President, without due consideration of what the effects are going
to be on the community.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would say I want to thank the gentleman
for his bill. I am going to vote for his bill. More information always
better. I have got no problem with that.
The only thing I reject is the insinuation that the States that do it
differently from the Federal system are somehow better than the States
that do it in accord with the Federal system. We have had cashless bail
at the Federal level for many decades, and our system zeros in on the
critical criteria of whether or not this criminally charged suspect
poses a flight risk or a danger to the community.
I hope that we can continue the conversation about what we can really
do to advance and enhance community safety.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HARRIS of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
I do thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin) for his support
of this bill and for his statements and I do hope that we will be able
to continue conversations.
I would say in closing, Mr. Speaker, how many more victims must there
be before we act? Cashless bail policies have proven to be a disaster.
Soft-on-crime jurisdictions have released criminals on mere promises to
reappear in court without adequately considering the flight or safety
risk they pose to those around them.
{time} 1250
I believe the American people believe enough is enough. The American
people deserve to live in safety. The American people deserve safe
public transportation. The American people should not have to live with
the consequences of reckless bail policies, and it should not take
brutal murders for these reforms to happen.
We must stop prioritizing ideology over safety. We must stop playing
politics with bail policy. We must fight for a safer America,
regardless of State or locality.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to stand for public safety and to
support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1275, the previous question is ordered
on the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. RASKIN. 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.
____________________