Monitor Accountability Act

Floor Speech

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 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.

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. RASKIN.

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.

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.

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, 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?

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, 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.

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source