[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 82 (Thursday, May 14, 2026)]
[House]
[Pages H3480-H3486]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MONITOR ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1275,
I call up the bill (H.R. 8365) to provide for conditions on the
appointment of monitors by courts, and for other purposes, and ask for
its immediate consideration in the House.
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, modified by the amendment printed
in part A of House Report 119-648, is adopted and the bill, as amended,
is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 8365
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 ``Monitor Accountability
Act''.
SEC. 2. CONDITIONS ON THE APPOINTMENT OF MONITORS BY COURTS.
(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the
effective date of this section, the Judicial Conference of
the United States shall by rule establish conditions on the
appointment by a district court of the United States of any
person charged, pursuant to a court order, with monitoring
the conduct of a State or unit of local government. Such
conditions shall include the following:
(1) Fees.--Such person--
(A) may not assess a fee in excess of such maximum rates as
the Judicial Conference of the United States may establish;
and
(B) shall be authorized to employ the use of pro bono time
or reduced rates.
(2) Exclusivity and term.--Such person may not be--
(A) appointed to more than one such monitorship at a time;
(B) appointed for a term greater than 5 years; or
(C) reappointed after the expiration of such term pursuant
to the same court order.
(3) Subsequent monitors.--A monitor who is appointed to a
monitorship after the expiration of the term of a monitor who
served pursuant to the same court order may not be employed
by the same employer as the previous monitor.
(4) Public comment.--Prior to the appointment of a monitor,
the court shall provide notice of the person to be appointed
and afford the public an opportunity for comment thereon.
(5) Termination.--
(A) Revision.--In the case that a court, a party, or a
monitor seeks to revise a monitorship imposed by a court
order, the court shall conduct a hearing.
(B) Scope of monitorship.--The court may only revise a
requirement of a monitorship with respect to which the
subject of the monitorship has not attained substantial and
sustained compliance.
(b) Transfer.--On the date that is 6 years after the court
order imposing a monitorship, if such monitorship is in
effect on such date, the case shall be transferred to another
judge in the district in which the case is pending.
(c) Accounting.--
(1) In general.--On an annual basis, a monitor shall submit
to the court imposing the monitorship an accounting, which
shall include--
(A) information on the services provided and the fee
charged for such services; and
(B) whether any such services were provided pro bono or at
a reduced rate.
(2) Publication.--The court shall make available to the
public any accounting submitted to the court under paragraph
(1).
(d) Retroactivity.--In the case of a monitorship that is in
effect on the date of enactment of this Act and has been in
effect for 6 years--
(1) a new monitor shall be appointed not later than 180
days after such date of enactment in accordance with the
limitations under this section; and
(2) the case shall be transferred not later than 1 year
after such date of enactment in accordance with this section.
(e) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
monitoring is a public service and monitorships should be
structured to encourage the use of pro bono time or reduced
rates.
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 Arizona (Mr. Biggs) and the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Raskin) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
General Leave
Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 8365.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Arizona?
There was no objection.
Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 8365 is the result of a field hearing that the
Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance held in
February in Phoenix, Arizona.
While that hearing focused on the special monitor in Maricopa County,
it has implications for residents across the Nation who also find their
law enforcement agencies held hostage by a special monitor or consent
decree.
Since December 2013, the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, MCSO, has
been under a Federal judicial oversight following a DOJ intervention
into the 2008 case of Ortega Melendres v. Arpaio.
In 2007, Latino motorists and passengers, aided by the ACLU, filed a
lawsuit against then-Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. The lawsuit
alleged that MCSO violated the Fourth and 14th Amendments by engaging
in a systematic practice of unconstitutional racial profiling,
including stopping, detaining, and arresting Latino individuals during
traffic stops and patrol operations based on race or perceived
immigration status.
Following a bench trial in December 2011, U.S. District Judge Murray
Snow ruled in 2013 that MCSO had violated constitutional protections
and imposed permanent injunctions that required MCSO to implement
sweeping reforms to policies, training, operations, and internal
investigations.
Unlike a consent decree, which is a negotiated settlement agreed to
by the parties, the court imposed these injunctions after findings of
liability.
DOJ consent decrees are typically entered into voluntarily by State
or local governments to resolve a civil rights investigation without a
trial, even though they can result in similarly extensive Federal
oversight and court-appointed monitoring.
In January 2014, Judge Snow appointed Federal court monitor Robert
Warshaw to oversee MCSO's compliance with the court's permanent
injunctions, including reforms intended to address racial
discrimination during traffic stops and deficiencies in policy
development and oversight.
Following that, in July 2015, the court mandated additional remedial
measures, including further policy revisions to further strengthen
oversight mechanisms.
The Federal court monitoring was intended to last only until MCSO
achieved full and effective compliance with the court's injunctions,
yet oversight has continued for more than a decade without a fixed end
date.
This extended judicial supervision has placed significant financial
burdens on Maricopa County taxpayers, with costs reportedly reaching
nearly $350 million.
{time} 1340
Most of these expenses include the administrative efforts needed to
demonstrate compliance with court orders.
[[Page H3481]]
For example, despite remote work and meetings in 2021, the county was
responsible for funding a 3,200-square-foot office suite for the
monitor, which cost taxpayers $97,000 for a year.
This persistent Federal judicial intervention has created operational
challenges for MCSO, including difficulties in recruiting and retaining
qualified deputies. All of these things, by the way, are consistent
with monitoring that is going on in most of the country.
The increased administrative workload and ongoing scrutiny have led
to a decline in staff retention and discouraged potential recruits from
pursuing careers within the department, which is ultimately impacting
the office's ability to serve and protect the community, one of the
largest counties in the country, with over 5\1/2\ million people.
The Federal court monitor typically issues quarterly reports tracking
MCSO's compliance with the court-ordered reforms and provides the court
with independent assessments of policy implementation. Over the course
of more than 40 reports, MCSO's compliance rate increased from below 30
percent in 2014 to over 94 percent by 2025, which meets the standard
that requires the agency to demonstrate adherence in more than 94
percent of instances under review.
According to Warshaw, the MCSO's compliance framework has become
self-sustaining and institutionalized. Warshaw also labeled the MCSO's
compliance with policies, training, and supervisory review as solid,
noting that the compliance measures were fully built into the agency's
daily work, showing full, independent accountability.
Earlier this year, the Department of Justice, which originally
intervened in this case in 2011, filed a brief supporting Maricopa
County's request to end Federal oversight, noting that the litigation
has been successful in reforming the agency.
By the way, we are on the fourth elected sheriff since this original
complaint was filed.
The Department argued that the extensive reforms imposed through the
court-appointed monitoring regime have been successful in correcting
the unconstitutional practices identified in the original case, which
you will recall was the racial profiling of Latino motorists.
DOJ cited multiple recent monitor reports, which document
consistently high compliance rates, institutionalized policy adherence,
effective training programs, and durable accountability mechanisms. The
Department indicated that continued Federal supervision is no longer
necessary to ensure constitutional policing, supporting termination of
the court-appointed monitoring regime.
Maricopa County is not the only jurisdiction monitored by Robert
Warshaw and his associates. Warshaw has been accused of taking
exorbitant payments without producing results in monitoring law
enforcement agencies in New York, California, Michigan, and Louisiana.
For example, Warshaw faced criticism for the duration, high cost, and
evolving compliance benchmarks. In other words, he was moving the
goalpost of Federal oversight in Oakland, California. Despite
reportedly spending little time in Oakland, Warshaw is currently paid
more than $1 million annually by the city, a structure that
incentivizes prolonging the monitorship, just like we see in Maricopa
County.
Compared to monitors who operate under narrowly defined mandates and
fixed timelines, Warshaw's role continuously blurs the line between
oversight and management. Questions about judgment incentives also
follow Warshaw from Niagara Falls, New York, for example.
Together, episodes in New York and various jurisdictions that have
had Warshaw, the critics have cited this systemic pattern in which
Warshaw's work unfolds with limited transparency. In fact, when he
bills Maricopa County, he won't tell them what he did, and the court
won't make him. There were minimal cost controls and little external
checks on the expansion or duration of his authority.
While I agreed with very little that former AG Merrick Garland did
while in office, he actually had pretty good ideas on how to deal with
these issues involving monitors.
In April 2021, he asked then-Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta
to conduct a 4-month review of how the Justice Department appoints and
oversees Federal monitors in settlement agreements and consent decrees.
In August 2021, Associate AG Gupta responded with 19 recommendations
stemming from five core principles. The principles included minimizing
costs and conflicts of interest, ensuring monitors' accountability,
compliance assessment, community engagement, and efficient reform.
A notable reform included in the memorandum was imposing term limits
for Federal monitors. The significance of these recommendations sets
clear expectations for time-limited oversight, ensuring that Federal
monitorships are not indefinite.
Mr. Speaker, I want everyone to realize that this applies to
monitorships not just in Maricopa County; not just in Niagara Falls,
New York; not just in Oakland, California; or in Baltimore, Maryland,
where Warshaw was a monitor, or anyplace involving Warshaw. It was so
spread out, and the concern was so great, that former Attorney General
Merrick Garland asked for the study because even he understood that the
monitorships had been abused.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, Federal monitorships are a critical tool for Federal
courts and Federal judges. Monitors ensure compliance with court
orders, settlement agreements, and consent decrees, all to remedy
entrenched, systemic violations of Federal law in matters of school
desegregation, prison conditions, civil rights, policing, detention,
disability rights in education, the environment, and antitrust law.
This bill appears to have been written as part of an attempt to
undermine Federal monitorships, but, indeed, focused on one very
special monitorship in particular.
The bill targets the ongoing Federal monitorship of the Maricopa
County Sheriff's Office in Arizona, which, as the gentleman just
discussed, was put in place after a Federal judge determined that the
office, under the notorious tenure of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, had displayed
a pattern and practice of using race and ethnicity, rather than
objective evidence of criminality, to target people for criminal
investigation and detention and for a profusion of illegal stops,
seizures, and frisks, in violation of fundamental rights protected by
the U.S. Constitution. One expert called it the worst pattern of racial
profiling by a law enforcement agency in the history of the United
States.
Following this ruling, the Federal district judge placed the Maricopa
County Sheriff's Office under supervision by a court-appointed monitor
to ensure that it would take the steps necessary to correct its
structural violations of the law and violations of the rights of the
people.
For years after the initial court order, Sheriff Arpaio proudly and
gleefully violated a succession of court orders, refusing to end his
office's practice of rampant, unlawful racial and ethnic profiling,
which eventually led Federal judges to find him in civil contempt, in
criminal contempt, and then, finally, in need of a Presidential pardon,
which, of course, he got from the king of pardons when he took the
White House.
As a result of all of this defiance and contempt, the court had to
issue subsequent orders each time to more specifically articulate and
delineate the steps that the sheriff's office needed to take to come
into compliance with the law.
Recently, our colleagues held a field hearing in Phoenix, the
gentleman's hometown, where they took issue with the fact that the
sheriff's office is still under a Federal monitorship more than 10
years later in his home State. They did not take issue with the fact
that the office has gone for more than 10 years without fully and
meaningfully complying with the court order.
The monitor is in place only because the sheriff's office has failed
to remedy its egregious and systemic violations of the law, despite
multiple court orders directing them to do so. More than a decade
later, and even under a new
[[Page H3482]]
sheriff, data reveal that racial disparities in the sheriff's office's
arrest rates persist to this day.
Mr. Speaker, Democrats are open to having a serious, nationwide
policy discussion about ways to strengthen and improve the Federal
monitorship process. Democrats are always up for that, but the bill
before us today is focused on one case, one monitor, and, therefore,
ignores the entire dynamics of monitorship nationwide. They haven't
even pretended to claim that whatever is taking place in that district
that they don't like is reflective of what is going on in the rest of
the country.
I heard the gentleman say that this is some kind of codification of
recommendations made by Attorney General Merrick Garland and Associate
Attorney General Vanita Gupta in a 2021 DOJ memo on monitors, which
they like, but that is not the full story.
The bill, as opposed to the memo, scoops up the points that they like
within the memo, like a kid scooping up Easter eggs in the backyard,
but then discards the rest. The bill includes some of the
recommendations, changes others, and simply excludes others.
{time} 1350
Critically, Attorney General Garland said that at the end of a 5-year
period there should be an analysis of how well the monitorship is
going, should it be terminated, or should it be continued based on the
facts.
Well, the gentleman's bill takes that 5-year number but says we are
just going to cut it off after 5 years. We are not going to do an
analysis of it. We are not going to assess the situation. We are not
going to see whether the monitor is needed to go forward. We are just
going to take the 5-year number and say it is over. So that person is
gone, and if you need a new one, bring somebody else in. All of that
institutional knowledge, everything they understand, is out the window.
Now, I understand that would accomplish the gentleman's objective,
which is they want to terminate the monitor out in Maricopa County.
They don't like that monitor. That is not really how we should be
legislating Department of Justice policy for the entire country. Far
from making this a more efficient process, the various requirements put
in would delay, prolong, and confuse as a new monitor and a new judge
would have to attempt to get up to speed on the complicated history of
the case and the progress completed by the party prior to this new
abrupt appointment.
They would have to review years' worth of briefs, orders, reports,
motions, replies, pleadings, and so on. Together, these provisions
could incentivize a reluctant party to simply run out the clock until a
more indulgent monitor and judge are appointed to the case.
The retroactive application of the bill is, of course, curious. The
Garland memo warned against retroactivity, noting that because existing
consent decrees and monitorships are the product of extensive
negotiations with approval by the Federal court, the specific
recommendations should apply only to consent decrees and monitorships
used in future cases.
But the whole trick here is to make this apply retroactively to get
at the guy that Republicans don't like, and of course, that is not up
to us. Congress doesn't go out and decide specific cases. If
Republicans have got a problem with what the monitor is doing, bring it
to the judge in that case, but don't change Federal law and make a
Federal case out of it.
Look, if the majority is serious about improving the appointment and
use of Federal monitors, and I am sure they are, then I urge them to
work with us to do a nationwide study. Let's craft a bill fully
reflecting the recommendations of the Attorney General. Let's invite
Attorney General Garland to come in and testify about it. He is a
constituent of mine. I am happy to write him and have him come in and
testify about what should be done, rather than rushing through this
last-minute, case-specific, makeshift legislation.
I urge all my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I appreciate the gentleman's willingness to work with us. That is why
we had a field hearing. That is why Democrats were extended the
invitation to come; give us the name of someone you want to testify.
Do you know how many people across the aisle came to that hearing?
Zero, zip, nada came. Democrats didn't come. They were uninterested.
They didn't want to hear from Merrick Garland. They didn't want to
come.
So the Democrats said, oh, well, okay, we are not going to do that.
And then they are going to stand up and say some rather wild things
about that this only applies to Maricopa County and that the
monitorship ends at the end of 5 years. That is not true. That is not
what this bill does.
The bill says the monitor, the current monitor, is done after 5
years. And why is that? It is because regardless, not just this monitor
but how about the monitor that has been in Oakland, California, for 20-
some-odd years or other monitors around the country? What happens is,
as Merrick Garland said, and as Associate Attorney General Gupta said,
they build up incentives. All of a sudden, they had incentives because
it is a monetary incentive, and they need to avoid the conflict of
interest.
That was the first principle--that was within the first principle
that Merrick Garland put together, avoid the conflict of interest.
Guess what. If the Court were to say we are going to continue the
monitorship, you get a new monitor. And, quite frankly, the AG also
said these things should be simple. These things should be simple. They
should be focused. I don't think that someone who is capable of
becoming a court monitor is not going to be able to get up to speed
pretty doggone quickly. That is the argument that they are making over
there.
Let's see who supports this: The National Association of Police,
Arizona Sheriffs' Association, Major County Sheriffs of America,
Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, and also the California police
associations. They all support this because all their departments have
been taken over.
How about this one? I think this is a kick in the pants. They
basically roll the monitor. This is the fourth sheriff. The DOJ has
said they are in substantial compliance, and guess what, this monitor
has taken to micromanaging even the uniforms, the stripes for officers.
Oh, no, you can't put them up here. You want them down on the front
part of the sleeve. That is what the Maricopa County monitor has done.
That is not unique to Maricopa County. The monitors get in, and they
micromanage even the most absurd things that have nothing to do with
the issue that brought this forward, which was this: the racial
profiling in traffic stops. The monitor himself has said in his reports
they are in substantial compliance. There is no statistical
significance in any difference between any racial demographic in
Arizona.
The monitorship has a monetary incentive, and that is what you are
seeing. That is why you see these monitorships run amuck around the
country.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentleman asks why Members of the minority didn't come to his
hearing in Arizona, and because he asked, I am afraid I am going to
have to tell you the truth. We don't think it was a serious hearing. It
was about one monitor in one case to target one guy in the context of
the gentleman's exciting campaign for Governor of Arizona. I understand
the gentleman prefers to be in Arizona. Well, we prefer to be in our
districts, too. I will happily leave my district for a serious
substantive hearing, but I am not going to be part of a witch hunt or
attack against one particular monitor.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs.
McBath).
Mrs. McBATH. Mr. Speaker, I do rise today in opposition to H.R. 8365,
the Monitor Accountability Act.
This bill addresses the work of Federal monitors who are appointed by
a court to oversee the progress a State or a unit of local government
is making after violating Federal law.
[[Page H3483]]
Often monitors are put in place after there is a finding of serious
misconduct, including violations of constitutional rights or actions
that jeopardize people's public health, safety, and well-being.
For example, last January, the Department of Justice and Fulton
County, Georgia, which I represent, they entered into an agreement that
included the appointment of a monitor to oversee changes to address
what we have found to be very dangerous, unhealthy, and
unconstitutional conditions at our Fulton County jail.
So this bill proposes restrictions on monitors which ultimately could
result in consequences that really actually don't serve the public
interest. By requiring unnecessary turnover of both the Federal
monitors and the judges overseeing these cases, this bill would waste
our time and hard-earned taxpayer dollars instead of actually focusing
monitors and the local officials to actually kind of come together and
truly work to solve the problem and find some solutions.
The stakes are incredibly high in these kinds of cases. A delay could
leave more people incarcerated in unconstitutionally dangerous
conditions. A delay could also force employees like the prison guards
to continue to work in very, very dangerous conditions that make it
impossible for them to actually do their jobs effectively and safely.
{time} 1400
I have had the chance to work with the newly appointed director of
the Board of Prisons hearing about what is happening all over the
Nation, and so I, too, am very concerned about making sure that our
employees are working in safer environments within these institutions.
Ultimately, this legislation could result in more waste and more time
and more delays while worsening the public services that are meant to
be improved under the watchful eye of our Federal monitors.
I stand to say that as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on
Crime and Federal Government Surveillance, I oppose H.R. 8365, and I
will be urging all my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee to do the
same.
Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Merrick Garland's memo says this: ``Principle: Monitorships should be
designed to minimize the cost to jurisdictions''--the one in Maricopa
County is $350 million; the one in Oakland is who knows how many
millions of dollars--``and to avoid any appearance of a conflict of
interest.''
It goes on to be a little bit more specific: ``Monitorships must
nonetheless be designed and administered with awareness that every
dollar spent on a monitorship is a dollar that cannot be spent on other
policy priorities.''
In other words, don't divert the taxpayers' money so they can't
fulfill all of their responsibilities.
Here is another quote: ``Monitorships should be designed to avoid
even the appearance that a monitor is primarily motivated by profit.''
We have a monitor in Maricopa County, for instance, who gets $3
million a year on average over the term of his monitorship and who
seems to be moving the goalposts, just like he did in Oakland. These
seem to be saying: Hey, maybe he does have a profit motivation.
Specifically, this is what they recommend: Cap the monitor fees, an
annual cap on monitor fees; encourage use of pro bono time, reduced
rates, and nonprofits; explore alternative fee arrangements; and
restrict lead monitor participation in multiple monitorships.
We have tried to get at all those things in the current bill.
They go on to say this: ``Future consent decrees should limit the
ability of the individual who serves as the lead monitor to serve on
more than one monitoring team at a time. . . . But the person serving
as the lead monitor should be solely committed to the jurisdiction they
are serving and should not be simultaneously supporting multiple
monitorships at the same time.''
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Just to restate for everybody where we are. The monitor serves at the
discretion and the pleasure of the judge. If the judge thinks the
monitor is doing a bad job or feathering his nest or taking money, the
judge would get rid of the monitor immediately. That is up to the
judge.
If you have got a problem with a particular monitor, bring a motion
before the judge to change the situation. Instead, the gentleman wants
to make a Federal law out of it. I appreciate it is his last few months
in Congress, and he wants to try to accomplish something in that
particular case, but it really doesn't relate to the rest of the
country.
There has been no study done of monitorships generally, except for
what Attorney General Garland did, and his bill departs radically from
what Attorney General Garland was talking about.
Just take, for example, this 5-year idea. The idea is, look, the
judge can review the monitor at any point in the course of the
monitorship. But there should be, Attorney General Garland said, a 5-
year review where they look and see how it is going and is the
jurisdiction complying or not.
If they are not complying, as is taking place in Maricopa County, why
not? What needs to be done? Is the monitor actually showing up at work
and being a zealous individual about it or not? That can happen right
now.
But in any event, Attorney General Garland says, have a 5-year
review. Their bill says terminate the monitor, regardless of whether or
not that person is doing a good job, after 5 years. They could be doing
the best job in the world, but no, they want to start all over again
and take all of the time and energy required in getting somebody else
up to date on the case.
It is just not serious legislation, which is perhaps why there is not
a counterpart over on the Senate side; there is no companion.
So good luck to the gentleman about actually getting this done before
the election in November. Perhaps people will be impressed by
catalyzing all of this attention to one case, but it tells us nothing
about what is happening in the rest of the country.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Landsman).
Mr. LANDSMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Raskin for yielding.
This morning, in our newspaper in Cincinnati, there was a story about
how we are spending $25 million on police overtime because we don't
have enough cops. Our community, like communities across the country,
is struggling to hire police officers. I don't understand why we are
messing with monitors or one monitor. All of these issues that
communities across the country are facing with public safety, crime,
gun violence--cities, towns, counties, they all have this one thing in
common: What they need is more cops.
In the middle of Police Week, we have got four bills, including this
one. As Mr. Raskin said, I don't think any of them are going to become
law. They don't have a companion bill in the Senate. I don't know what
we are doing during Police Week except we are not funding cops.
In fact, since the Republicans took the majority, the cop funding has
gone down. Byrne has gone down. The COPS grant funding has gone down. I
have tried to get my bill on the floor, which would just allow folks
who have the COPS grant to use that money to retain and recruit police
officers, just the flexibility, but I can't get a hearing and can't get
a vote.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fine). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. LANDSMAN. Mr. Speaker, if y'all want to help police officers and
communities, especially during Police Week, hire more cops, help
communities pay for police officers.
Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The gentleman was just arguing essentially for monitors, which
continues to hamstring police agencies around the country. I guess he
wasn't here when I started reading off how agencies around the country
support this bill because they are impacted negatively by rogue
monitors.
I will just go back to my colleague saying, hey, we didn't--nobody
came.
[[Page H3484]]
Nobody went to Phoenix because we thought this was an unserious
endeavor.
They could have come. They could have tried to make it serious by
bringing their witness, the witness he said he would like to have come
in now. He could have brought that witness in then. He chose not to.
I think maybe the unseriousness is on your side not taking this issue
serious because it does impact the entire country.
We know it does. Because why? Because former Attorney General Merrick
Garland said: Hey, I am so concerned about it, I am going to commission
somebody to spend several months to research this and give us some
recommendations.
My bill is attempting to implement those recommendations, and I
encourage their support of it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentleman says that if we had come, it would have been serious. I
applaud the implicit concession it wasn't serious. But in any event, it
would not have been relevant because studying what goes on in one
office is not relevant.
Now, if you want to take the Attorney General's handiwork and turn it
into law, we could do it, but that is not what the gentleman is
proposing to do. He has changed it and contorted it in a lot of
different ways in order to fit his particular case.
In any event, I don't think we should rely exclusively on the
executive branch. I think we should have our own serious hearings with
the whole committee. Only two Republicans joined that trip to Phoenix,
Arizona, although there was another Republican Member who I think was a
key witness there. I think Mrs. Lesko testified before the committee,
increasing the sense of the closed circle that they have there.
In any event, why don't we look at this as a serious national
problem? In any event, of the top 25 things Americans are thinking
about, I can guarantee you that is not one of them. One of them,
though, is the billion dollars that the administration is asking for,
for the big, wretched ballroom that they want to build over at the
White House since they bulldozed the East Wing of the White House.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Boyle), the ranking member on the Budget Committee.
Mr. BOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, right now, costs are going
through the roof thanks to President Trump's tariff taxes and his
reckless war in Iran.
Families are paying more for gas, paying more for groceries, paying
more for housing, and paying more for healthcare. The list goes on and
on.
Fifteen million Americans are about to lose their healthcare coverage
because of that so-called Big Beautiful Bill Act that Republicans
passed and the President signed into law last summer, which just
happens to be one of the most unpopular pieces of legislation in modern
legislative history.
{time} 1410
Millions are losing food assistance because of that disastrous law.
Working families are stretching every dollar every day.
While all of this is happening, Mr. Speaker, what is your President
focused on? A ballroom.
Mr. Speaker, this tells you everything you need to know about this
President's priorities. The American people are asking for lower costs.
Donald Trump is asking for a taxpayer-funded vanity project at the
White House. Maybe we should start calling Republican reconciliation
2.0 what it really is: the billion dollar ballroom act. That is because
this Republican agenda can somehow find money for Donald Trump's
ballroom and his billionaire donors, but it can never seem to find a
dime to lower costs for the American people.
There is not enough money to protect healthcare, not enough money to
protect food assistance, not enough money to lower the cost of gas,
groceries, housing, or healthcare, but, somehow, there is more money
for Donald Trump's big, beautiful ballroom.
That is the problem with this entire agenda. It asks working families
to pay more and get less, all while Donald Trump gets exactly what he
wants. They can find money for tax breaks for billionaires. They can
find money for giveaways to the well-connected, and they can find money
for Donald Trump's ballroom. However, when it comes to helping families
afford a gallon of gas, a bag of groceries, a doctor's visit, or a safe
place to live, suddenly Republicans say: We have no money.
Americans have been loud and clear. They want costs to go down, and
they want it now. They do not want their taxpayer dollars spent on a
ballroom so this President can host lavish events with his billionaire
friends. If the President cared as much as about lowering costs for the
American people as he does his precious ballroom, maybe 1 pound of beef
would not cost more than 1 hour of work at the Federal minimum wage.
For this reason, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to
recommit this bill back to committee.
If House rules permitted, I would have offered the motion with an
important amendment to this bill. My amendment would simply prohibit
taxpayer funding for Donald Trump's White House ballroom. It is simple.
Not one taxpayer dollar, not one dime, should be spent on a vanity
ballroom while Americans are losing healthcare, losing food assistance,
and struggling to make ends meet.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. BOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I hope and, indeed, urge my
colleagues to join me in voting for this simple motion to recommit.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the President has repeatedly claimed that the ballroom
would actually be entirely funded by private sources. Leaving aside the
legality of that proposition, now they are asking the American
taxpayers for $1 billion for the ballroom when the cost of it would
have been zero had he not gone ahead and bulldozed the White House
without the permission or consent of Congress which has control over
all Federal buildings and property.
It is up to us, not the President, and yet he thinks that the White
House is like a personal vacation home. He bulldozed it, and now they
are asking us for $1 billion.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member of the Budget
Committee for coming here to talk about this very serious issue. I am
very glad he is moving to recommit so we can have some serious
legislative investigation into that outrageous proposal. I want to link
it to the bill from the gentleman from Arizona. That is because if you
think about it, Mr. Speaker, neither of the agendas being proposed have
anything to do with the national common good. The ballroom, the gilded
ballroom for Donald Trump and his family and friends, has nothing to do
with what is going to advance the well-being of the American people.
Similarly, this bill is all about picking a fight with or retaliating
against one monitor they are upset with about one case. They might be
right or they might be wrong. It sounds to me like they are wrong, but,
in any event, those merits have nothing to do with the rest of the
country and what the rest of us are dealing with.
However, on the Republican side of the aisle, now it is all about I
want my thing; I want to get my thing before the whole ship goes down.
We know Donald Trump's numbers are sinking like a stone across the
country making him the most unpopular President in American history, so
everybody wants to get a little piece of the action for whatever they
can. No one is thinking about the public interest.
Who is thinking about getting healthcare to all the American people?
Who is thinking about lowering the cost of groceries for the American
people?
Who is thinking about getting housing to the American people so young
people can afford a place to go live?
[[Page H3485]]
None of it. The President said he was going to lower inflation on day
one. Inflation is soaring. Now the cost of gasoline is up $1.50 across
the country because of his illegal, unconstitutional war he has waged
against us.
They want us to be spending our time talking about one Federal
monitor under the supervision of one Federal judge in Maricopa County,
Arizona.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, this bill actually would help save money by holding
monitors responsible, making sure that they are responsible. That is
important.
When they start talking about $1 billion, remember that just
compliance costs and the cost of this particular monitor that they are
very focused on has cost the taxpayers there over $350 million, over
one-third of a billion dollars.
The monitor in Baltimore right now submitted their bill recently for
$1.5 million. That is just a fee, mind you, Mr. Speaker, of the
monitor, $1.5 million. That doesn't include whatever compliance costs
there may be.
The second principle that came out of Attorney General Merrick
Garland's position was this: When consent decrees involve State and
local entities, monitors hold the position of public trust, not only as
agents of the court, but as drivers of significant change of public
institutions that are central to the communities that they serve, and,
thus, they must be structured to ensure that monitors are accountable--
are accountable--for their work.
That is what my bill does. It creates accountability because there is
no accountability there.
If it was all resting in the judge, Merrick Garland could have just
said: We will just leave it up to the judge, because that is what the
Democrats want.
However, they say you must have an opportunity for public input.
This is interesting: Consent decrees should include term limits for
monitors that could be renewed, but they should have term limits.
Those term limits need to be reviewed after 2 to 3 years to determine
whether they are performing properly, are cost-effective, and are
providing technical assistance. That is what the memo said, and we are
trying to get that codified.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland has 8 minutes
remaining.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman really wants to save the taxpayers
money, then why not encourage the Maricopa County Sheriff's Department
actually to implement the reforms that have been required by the court
for more than one decade and finally redeem itself from the shameful
legacy of entrenched racial and ethnic discrimination conducted by
Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
I have not heard one word in utterance of criticism of Sheriff Arpaio
by the distinguished gentleman from Arizona.
Is he here to say that Sheriff Arpaio did nothing wrong and that all
of those court judgments are wrong and the court orders are wrong, that
there never should have been a monitor in the first place?
Or is he saying: Oh, well, yes, he made some egregious systemic
structural errors, but actually the process was completed and
everything is fine now, but the monitor doesn't see it and the court
doesn't see it.
In any event, why are we litigating this case from Phoenix, Arizona?
That just makes no sense. Congress is not allowed to adjudicate
cases. We govern the interests of the whole country.
The gentleman keeps going back to the Attorney General's statement.
This is the first time I ever heard him refer in any kind of positive
way to Attorney General Merrick Garland. Great. Terrific.
Does Attorney General Garland support this legislation?
He hasn't mentioned it to me. I haven't heard anything from him about
it.
Did the Deputy Attorney General who worked on their report endorse
this legislation?
I haven't heard anything about it. Ms. Gupta didn't get in touch with
me.
Did they go and testify out in Arizona?
Or did they just want to use that as a fig leaf for this effort to go
and get this monitor that they don't like?
Mr. Speaker, that is not serious legislative policy.
{time} 1420
That is kind of like a drive-by hit on Congress on your way out,
like: Oh, I am going to go after this one guy. We can't govern on that
basis.
How come there is no U.S. Senator who is introducing this legislation
targeted at Maricopa County?
If it is all about that one case, why don't we tell the people we
know there--and I don't know anybody there--but why don't we tell the
people we know there to comply with the law?
I think that the average is around 5 years for a court monitor. Some
of them have gone 15 or 20 when you have a real case of obstructionism,
defiance, and intransigence. This one has gone on for more than a
decade, which doesn't speak well for what is happening in that office.
In any event, most of the monitors are gone within several years
because compliance is accomplished. The gentleman doesn't seem to
recognize that the whole purpose of having a monitor is to see that the
government will comply with the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and
the rights of the people. That is what is at stake here.
Are we going to just stampede in there and squash one monitor at the
behest of one Congressman and one hearing taking place in one city
without any serious legislative analysis of what is going on? I doubt
very seriously the House of Representatives will do that. I know the
Senate will not do that.
This seems to me to be a completely hopeless exercise in vain and a
complete distraction from the real issues of the country, like the
illegal, unconstitutional war Donald Trump has unleashed in the world,
costing us more than a billion dollars a day; like the billion dollars
they want from us now for the gilded ballroom of his dreams and
visions; like the ruinous effects of their illegal, unconstitutional
tariffs on American businesses, small businesses, and consumers across
the country; and their continuing coverup of the Epstein files and
their refusal to deal seriously with that situation.
They want us to talk about Maricopa County. No, thanks, Mr. Speaker.
No, I am not interested in that. I don't think there is going to be
anybody voting for this silly legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time
I have remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 13\1/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman thinks this is a silly effort, and he
doesn't know if Merrick Garland or Associate Attorney General Gupta
supports it. Did he care enough to call them? Did he ask? One wonders.
He is saying, oh, they didn't call me. That is what he said, that they
didn't call him.
Here is the deal. In the pleadings in the case, the record shows that
MCSO has implemented the key reforms required by the court orders,
including policies, training, supervision, data collection analysis,
and accountability systems related to bias-free policing and traffic
enforcement. That is in the pleadings in the court.
In that context, MCSO has achieved substantial compliance with the
court's orders, which, by the way, is what Associate Attorney General
Gupta said is the measure for ending a monitorship, substantial
compliance.
Let's talk about the bill. The reality is, this is not just for
Maricopa County. There are monitors throughout this country. Let's just
go through the bill a little bit. They didn't want to do that because
they want to talk about all kinds of things tangential to this, because
when you read the bill, you realize it is not about Maricopa County. It
is about monitors. It is about monitors and making sure that they have
guideposts and guidelines.
[[Page H3486]]
Fees: They ``may not assess a fee in excess of such maximum rates as
the administrator may establish.'' There is nothing about Maricopa
County there. That is the director of the Administrative Office of the
United States Courts. They ``shall be authorized to employ the use of
pro bono time or reduced rates.''
``Such person may not be appointed to more than one such monitorship
at a time,'' consistent with what was in the Garland memo, or
``appointed for a term greater than 5 years.'' They can't be. They also
can't be ``reappointed after the expiration of such term pursuant to
the same court order,'' if it is the same court order.
A subsequent monitor ``who is appointed to a monitorship after the
expiration of the term of a monitor who served pursuant to the same
court order may not be employed by the same employer as the previous
monitor.'' Why? Because Merrick Garland said you can't have a conflict
of interest. You also cannot basically have someone without a term
limit because that puts somebody there with a financial incentive to
keep the monitorship going, regardless of compliance.
Termination: ``In the case that a court, a party, or a monitor seeks
to revise a monitorship imposed by a court order, the court shall
conduct a hearing.''
``The court may only revise a requirement of a monitorship with
respect to which the subject of the monitorship has not attained
substantial and sustained compliance.'' I just read to you that they
have. The monitor found that in Arizona. This applies nationwide.
``On the date that is 6 years after the court order,'' the case gets
transferred from one judge to another.
Accounting: ``On an annual basis, a monitor shall submit to the Court
imposing the monitorship an accounting,'' including ``information on
the services provided.'' Why don't they want that? I wonder why they
don't want that amongst all the monitors around the country? Why don't
you want them to provide an accounting?
Right now, we have places in this country where the monitor just
simply gives a bill to the county and says: For services rendered,
$200,000 this month. It does become retroactive.
``It is the sense of Congress that monitoring is a public service and
monitorships should be structured to encourage the use of pro bono time
or reduced rates.''
That is the simplicity of this bill. It gets at the heart of the nub
of the Garland memo. This doesn't focus on one monitor. It doesn't
focus on one location. It says every monitorship will be subject to
this.
It doesn't say monitorships are bad or unconstitutional. It says they
have to be performing without conflict of interest and without
incentives to make sure that they keep going because they want
compliance. We need them to ensure compliance, not to make sure that
they are lining their own pockets, that it doesn't become a grift, that
you don't get $30 million over 10 years coming in as your fee when you
are also monitoring multiple jurisdictions. That is what is at the
heart of the Gupta memo, and that is what is at the heart of this bill.
Contrary to what one of my colleagues says, that it is not unusual
not to have a bill with a Senator sponsor, not every bill has a Senator
sponsor. It is not required.
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that this bill gets to the very
heart of making sure that a monitorship does not become abusive,
overbearing, and negate what they are supposed to be doing, which is to
make sure that there is compliance with a court order, to make sure we
have a constitutional performance.
That is what is said in Maricopa County, but it applies nationwide.
Nothing in the bill limits this to one county. It applies nationwide.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage everyone to support this bill, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Alford). 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.
motion to recommit
Mr. BOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit
at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Boyle of Pennsylvania moves to recommit the bill H.R.
8365 to the Committee on the Judiciary.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Boyle of Pennsylvania is
as follows:
Mr. Boyle of Pennsylvania moves to recommit the bill H.R.
8365 to the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to
report the same back to the House forthwith, with the
following amendment:
Strike all that follows after the enacting clause and
insert the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``No Taxpayer Funds for a
Billionaire Ballroom Bailout Act''.
SEC. 2. NO FEDERAL FUNDS FOR THE WHITE HOUSE BALLROOM.
No Federal funds may be used for planning the construction
of, or constructing, the White House Ballroom.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX, the
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. BOYLE of Pennsylvania. 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.
____________________