“The Monitoring Racket: The Grift that Keeps on Giving”

1[House Hearing, 119 Congress]2[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]34                         THE MONITORING RACKET:5                     THE GRIFT THAT KEEPS ON GIVING67=======================================================================89                                HEARING1011                               BEFORE THE1213       SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SURVEILLANCE1415                                 OF THE1617                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY1819                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES2021                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS2223                             SECOND SESSION24                               __________2526                       FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 202627                               __________2829                           Serial No. 119-5730                               __________3132         Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary3334                [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]3536               Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov3738                               ______3940                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE414262-913                    WASHINGTON : 20264344                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY4546                        JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair4748DARRELL ISSA, California             JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland, Ranking49ANDY BIGGS, Arizona                      Member50TOM McCLINTOCK, California           JERROLD NADLER, New York51THOMAS P. TIFFANY, Wisconsin         ZOE LOFGREN, California52THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              STEVE COHEN, Tennessee53CHIP ROY, Texas                      HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,54SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin              Georgia55BEN CLINE, Virginia                  ERIC SWALWELL, California56LANCE GOODEN, Texas                  TED LIEU, California57JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey       PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington58TROY E. NEHLS, Texas                 J. LUIS CORREA, California59BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania60KEVIN KILEY, California              JOE NEGUSE, Colorado61HARRIET M. HAGEMAN, Wyoming          LUCY McBATH, Georgia62LAUREL M. LEE, Florida               DEBORAH K. ROSS, North Carolina63WESLEY HUNT, Texas                   BECCA BALINT, Vermont64RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina          JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois65GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin            SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California66BRAD KNOTT, North Carolina           JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida67MARK HARRIS, North Carolina          DANIEL S. GOLDMAN, New York68ROBERT F. ONDER, Jr., Missouri       JASMINE CROCKETT, Texas69DEREK SCHMIDT, Kansas70BRANDON GILL, Texas71MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington7273                                 ------7475                   SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME AND FEDERAL76                        GOVERNMENT SURVEILLANCE7778                       ANDY BIGGS, Arizona, Chair7980TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin               LUCY McBATH, Georgia, Ranking81TROY NEHLS, Texas                        Member82BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida83KEVIN KILEY, California              DAN GOLDMAN, New York84LAUREL LEE, Florida                  STEVE COHEN, Tennessee85BRAD KNOTT, North Carolina           ERIC SWALWELL, California8687               CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director88                ARTHUR EWENCZYK, Minority Staff Director8990                            C O N T E N T S9192                              ----------9394                       Friday, February 13, 20269596                           OPENING STATEMENTS9798                                                                   Page99The Honorable Andy Biggs, Chair of the Subcommittee on Crime and100  Federal Government Surveillance from the State of Arizona......     2101102                               WITNESSES103104Felix Garcia, President, CEO, Zoe Foundation, Inc.105  Oral Testimony.................................................     5106  Prepared Testimony.............................................     6107Jon Riches, Vice President, Litigation, Goldwater Institute,108  Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation109  Oral Testimony.................................................     8110  Prepared Testimony.............................................    10111The Hon. Debbie Lesko, Fourth District, Maricopa County Board of112  Supervisors113  Oral Testimony.................................................    12114115          LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING116117All materials submitted by the Subcommittee on Crime and Federal118  Government Surveillance, for the record........................    31119120Materials submitted by the Honorable Andy Biggs, Chair of the121  Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance from122  the State of Arizona, for the record123    A lease agreement between Luhr's Investors, LLC and Maricopa124        County, Jan. 13, 2021125    A bill from Warshaw & Associates, Inc., to the Director OMB,126        County of Maricopa, Aug. 1, 2023127    A letter to the Honorable Andy Biggs, Chair of the128        Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance129        from the State of Arizona, and the Honorable Jim Jordan,130        Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of131        Ohio, from the Peace Officers Research Association of132        California (PORAC), Feb. 12, 2026133    A statement from the National Association of Police134        Organizations, Inc. (NAPO), Feb. 11, 2026135    An article entitled, ``DOJ supports call to end Maricopa136        County Sheriff's Office oversight case,'' Jan. 10, 2026,137        AZFamily138    An article entitled, ``Supervisors call for end to $353M139        oversight of sheriff's office,'' Jul. 23, 2025,140        Washington Examiner141    An article entitled, ``County attorney says monitor has142        `financial incentive' to continue MCSO oversight,'' Jul.143        18, 2025, AZFamily144    An article entitled, ``Sheriff's office monitor is draining145        Maricop County |146        Opinion,'' Sept. 3, 2025, The Arizona Republic147    A statement entitled ``A Citizen's Plea for Relief, Balance,148        and Local Accountability in Maricopa County,'' Chris149        Clark, Private Citizen, Taxpayer, and U.S. Marine Corps150        Veteran President, Deputies Law Enforcement Association151    A letter to Hon. Pam Bondi, Attorney General of the United152        States, from the Honorable Andy Biggs, Chair of the153        Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance154        from the State of Arizona, Oct. 7, 2025155156                                APPENDIX157158Materials submitted by the Honorable Andy Biggs, Chair of the159  Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance from160  the State of Arizona, for the record161    A testimony from the United Coalition of Public Safety162        (UCOPS), Feb. 13, 2026163    A statement from Representative Paul Gosar from the State of164        Arizona, Feb. 27, 2026165    A Memorandum for Heads of Civil Litigating Components United166        States Attorneys, Office of the Associate Attorney167        General, U.S. Department of Justice, Aug. 13, 2021168169                         THE MONITORING RACKET:170                     THE GRIFT THAT KEEPS ON GIVING171172                              ----------173174                       Friday, February 13, 2026175176                        House of Representatives177178       Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance179180                       Committee on the Judiciary181182                             Washington, DC183184    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9 a.m., MST, at185the Arizona State Senate, 1700 W. Washington Street, SHR109,186Phoenix, Arizona, the Hon. Andy Biggs [Chair of the187Subcommittee] presiding.188    Present: Representatives Biggs and Nehls.189    Also present: Representative Fry.190    Mr. Biggs. The Subcommittee will come to order. I recognize191the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Fry, to lead us in the192Pledge of Allegiance.193    [Pledge of Allegiance.]194    Mr. Biggs. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to195declare a recess at anytime.196    We welcome everyone to today's hearing on the monitoring of197the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. Without objection, Mr.198Fry will be permitted to participate in today's hearing and199will receive five minutes or more to question the witnesses.200    I want everyone to understand this is an official201Congressional hearing, even though it is being held in Phoenix202at the Arizona State Legislature. We will abide by all the203rules of the House of Representatives and the House Judiciary204Committee.205    This is being televised live by C-SPAN, which is a norm for206Federal Congressional hearings. Thus, we expect decorum to be207enforced, just like we would if we were sitting in a hearing208room in the House of Representatives in Washington, DC.209    I also want to offer a short explanation, because I served210here for many years. There is a distinction between what211happens in a State Legislative hearing and a Federal212Congressional hearing. In a State Legislative hearing, it is213common for the public to have access to microphones and be able214to speak. This is not the norm. I have never actually seen it,215frankly, in a Congressional hearing. I do not believe it is216permissible. That is why we have witnesses that come and217testify, and that is one of the big distinctions between a218State hearing and a Congressional hearing. I wanted to clarify219that.220    Now, without further ado, I recognize myself for an opening221statement.222    I thank everyone who is participating in today's field223hearing in the beautiful State capital of Phoenix, Arizona. I224thank our witnesses for being here, I thank the staff and the225media who are here, and I thank mostly citizens who are here or226watching this live, for participating in that way.227    While today's hearing is focused on the special monitor228here in Maricopa County, it has implications for residents229across this Nation who also find their law enforcement agencies230held hostage by a special monitor or a similar situation.231    Since December 2013, the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office232has been under Federal judicial oversight following a233Department of Justice investigation into a case that started in2342008, Ortega Melendres v. Arpaio. In 2007, Latino motorist and235passengers aided by the ACLU filed a lawsuit against Maricopa236County and then Sheriff Joe Arpaio. The lawsuit alleged that237MCSO violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments by engaging238in a systematic practice of unconstitutional racial profiling,239including stopping, detaining, and arresting Latino individuals240during traffic stops and patrol operations, based on race or241perceived immigration status.242    Following a bench trial in December 2011, U.S. District243Judge Murray Snow ruled, in 2013, that MCSO had violated244constitutional protections and imposed permanent injunctions245that required MCSO to implement sweeping reforms to policies,246training, operations, and internal investigations.247    Unlike a consent decree, which is a negotiated settlement248agreed to by the parties, the court imposed these injunctions249after findings of liability. The DOJ consent decrees are250typically entered into voluntarily by the State or local251governments to resolve a civil rights investigation without a252trial, even though they can result in similarly extensive253Federal oversight and court-appointed monitoring.254    In January 2014, Judge Snow appointed a Federal court255monitor, Robert Warshaw, to oversee MCSO's compliance with the256court's permanent injunctions, including reforms intended to257address racial discrimination during traffic stops and258deficiencies in policy development and oversight. Following259that, in July 2015, the court mandated additional remedial260measures, including further policy revisions to further261strengthen oversight mechanisms.262    The Federal court monitoring was intended to last only263until MCSO achieved full and effective compliance with the264court's injunctions. Yet, oversight has continued for more than265a decade, without a fixed end State.266    As the federally appointed court monitor, some of Warshaw's267tasks include assessing MCSO's adherence to judicial orders,268issuing periodic reports, holding community meetings, and269reviewing MCSO internal practices and policies. This extended270judicial supervision has placed significant financial burdens271on Maricopa County taxpayers, with costs reportedly reaching272nearly $350 million since 2013. Most of these expenses include273the administrative efforts needed to demonstrate compliance274with court orders. For example, despite remote work and275meetings in 2021, the County was responsible for funding a2763,200-square-foot office suite for the monitor, costing277taxpayers more than $97,000 for a year. That is in spite of278remote working.279    This persistent Federal judicial intervention has created280operational challenges for MCSO, including difficulties in281recruiting and retaining qualified deputies. The increased282administrative workload and ongoing scrutiny have led to a283decline in staff retention, have discouraged potential recruits284from pursuing careers with the Department, which ultimately has285impacted on the officers' ability to serve and protect the286community.287    The Federal court monitor typically issues quarterly288reports, which track the MCSO's compliance with the court-289ordered reforms, and provided the court with independent290assessments of policy implementation, operational practices,291and overall progress.292    Over the course of more than 40 reports, MCSO's compliance293rate increased from 30 percent in 2014 to more than 94 percent294by 2025, meeting the standard that requires the agency to295demonstrate adherence in more than 94 percent of instances296under review. According to Warshaw, MCSO's compliance framework297has become self-sustaining and institutionalized. While298compliance measurements are based on documented adherence and299subject to court review, they are not determined by the300monitor. Warshaw also labeled MCSO's compliance with policies,301training, and supervisory review as solid, noting that the302compliance measures were fully built into the agency's daily303work, showing full, independent accountability.304    Last month, the Trump Administration's Justice Department305filed a brief supporting Maricopa County's request to end306Federal oversight, noting that the litigation has been307successful in reforming the agency. The Department argued that308the extensive reforms imposed through the consent decree or the309judgment have been successful in correcting the310unconstitutional practices identified in the original case, and311that MCSO has demonstrated sustained, systemic compliance.312    The Department cited multiple recent monitor reports313documenting consistently high compliance rates,314institutionalized policy adherence, effective training315programs, and durable accountability mechanisms. The Department316indicated that continued Federal supervision is no longer317necessary to ensure constitutional policing, supporting318termination of both the consent decree, the court-appointed319monitoring regime, and the court's order.320    Maricopa County is not the only jurisdiction lining the321pockets of Robert Warshaw and his associates. Warshaw has been322accused of taking exorbitant payments without producing results323and monitoring law enforcement agencies in New York,324California, Michigan, and Louisiana. For example, Warshaw faced325criticism for the duration, high cost, and evolving compliance326benchmarks of Federal oversight in Oakland, California, one of327the longest-running Federal police oversight regimes in U.S.328history, since a 2003 settlement. In 2024, 1,508 complaints329were filed against Oakland Police Department's 710 sworn330officers and were nearly universally, nearly all were331completely dismissed.332    Despite reportedly spending little time in Oakland, Warshaw333was paid more than $1 million annually by the city, a structure334that incentivizes prolonging monitorship. Warshaw's monitorship335is criticized for its expansive scope and prolonged duration.336Compared to monitors who operate under narrowly defined337mandates and fixed timelines, Warshaw's role continuously blurs338the line between oversight and management.339    Questions about judgment and incentives have also followed340Warshaw's consulting contracts elsewhere. In Niagara Falls, New341York, for example, Warshaw was retained at a rate of $200 an342hour, ultimately costing taxpayers more than $200,000 over two343years, despite the mayor's initial public estimate that the344contract would total only $57,000.345    Together these episodes have been cited by critics as346emblematic of a pattern in which Warshaw's work unfolds with347limited transparency, minimal cost controls, and little348external check on the expansion or duration of his authority.349    I look forward to hearing from today's panel, and I thank350the Members and witnesses for taking part and for the public's351interest in attending. I yield back.352    Without objection, all other opening statements will be353included in the record. Now, I will introduce today's354witnesses.355    Ms. Debbie Lesko. Ms. Lesko represents the Fourth District356on the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, where she is also357the Vice Chair. She has previously served as our colleague in358the House of Representatives from 2018-2025, and she also359served in the Arizona Legislature from 2009-2018. Thank you,360Supervisor Lesko.361    Mr. Felix Garcia is a member of the Community Advisory362Board for the Monitor of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office.363He is also the President and CEO of the Zoe Foundation, a364nonprofit organizations that provides materials and resources365to families and businesses. Thank you, Mr. Garcia, for being366with us today.367    Mr. Jon Riches is Vice President for Litigation at the368Goldwater Institute's Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional369Litigation and also serves as the Goldwater Institute's General370Counsel. He litigates in Federal and State courts across the371country on issues including economic liberty, regulatory372reform, free speech, taxpayer protection, government373transparency, and other issues.374    We welcome our witnesses and thank them for appearing375today. Now, we will ask you to stand and be sworn in. Please376raise your right hand.377    Do each of you swear or affirm, under the penalty of378perjury, that the testimony you are about to give is true and379correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief,380so help you God?381    Mr. Biggs. Let the record reflect the witnesses have382answered in the affirmative. Please be seated.383    Please know that your written testimony will be entered384into the record in its entirety, and without objection we will385allow each of you considerable leeway on the normal five-minute386time constraint. Hearing none.387    Ms. Lesko--oh no, we are not going to begin with you, Ms.388Lesko. We are actually going to begin with Mr. Garcia, so we389are going to go back this way. Mr. Garcia, we welcome you here390today and recognize you for your opening statement.391392                   STATEMENT OF FELIX GARCIA393394    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chair and the Members of the395Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My396name is Felix Garcia. I am a volunteer member of the Community397Advisory Board connected with this case. I want to make clear,398today I am speaking in my personal capacity. My opinions are my399own, and they do not represent the other members of the board400who may have different views.401    I decided to serve because I believe in building trust402between law enforcement and the community, especially within my403community, the Hispanic community. Although oversight is404important, it helps protect your rights, ensure accountability,405and build trust when it has been broken.406    At one time court supervision played an important role in407Maricopa County. After more than 10 years and the Federal408monitoring cost $100 million to taxpayers, it is fair to ask409this important question: Is the current system still helping410our community to move forward?411    Over the past year, I worked directly with the community412through my nonprofit working groups, over 10 years. Over the413last year I have worked very closely with the community and the414sheriff to organize many events, and I speak to hundreds and415hundreds of Latino leaderships, people of faith, and families416across the county. What I hear again and again is the people417want to feel safe, respected, and included in it. I have418personally seen engagement between the Sheriff's Office and419community that shows progress.420    My opinion right now with this is my perception is the421people support the Sheriff's Office. Thank you.422    [The prepared statement of Mr. Garcia follows:]423424[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]425426    Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Garcia. We now to go to Mr.427Riches and recognize you for your opening statement.428429                    STATEMENT OF JON RICHES430431    Mr. Riches. Thank you. Mr. Chair and the Members of the432Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify. My name is433Jon Riches. I am the Vice President for Litigation at the434Goldwater Institute. That is a public policy and public435interest litigation organization.436    I want to make two points this morning, one rooted in437longstanding constitutional principles of federalism and the438other rooted in democratic accountability and government439transparency.440    First, under traditional principles of federalism, law441enforcement and local spending decisions are and must remain442primarily State and local functions, not ones administered443indefinitely by Federal officials.444    Second, when tax dollars are spent to operate local445government, including, and perhaps especially, in the law446enforcement context, State public records laws and public447policy require transparency, not secrecy. Taxpayers have a448right to know how their tax dollars are spent.449    As to the federalism point, our Constitution leaves law450enforcement to the responsibility of local officials. Indeed,451the Federal Government has no general police power. Federal452courts absolutely have the authority to remedy constitutional453violations, but remedies are supposed to be temporary,454targeted, and respectful of the State's paramount role in law455enforcement, not substitutions for that role.456    Here that structural balance has broken down. In Maricopa457County, a federally appointed out-of-State monitor, selected by458one Federal judge, has exercised sweeping authority over a459local Sheriff's Office for more than a decade, at taxpayer460expense, exceeding $30 million just for the monitor's expenses.461There is no clear end date in sight.462    At some point, oversight stops being remedial and starts463becoming structural, and that raises constitutional concerns.464When Federal supervision is open-ended it supplants local465voters, it supplants local officials, and it supplants State466law.467    The concern is particularly acute here where core decisions468not only involve law enforcement but spending, and ultimately469taxation. These have been delegated to a Federal agent with no470accountability to the public. In that circumstance, there is a471transfer of powers that the Constitution assigns to other472branches and other levels of government.473    Our constitutional structure exists precisely to prevent474this. Federal authority, even when well intentioned, must be475limited, reviewable, and constrained, or it violates principles476of federalism that are an essential feature of our republic and477a guardrail for the protection of individual liberty.478    That brings me to my second point, transparency. Under479Arizona law and the law of virtually every State, records480concerning the operation of government and the expenditure of481public funds are presumptively public. The public has a right482to know what their government is up to, and that right is483essential to democratic accountability. The Arizona Supreme484Court has made this clear time and again. Citizens cannot hold485officials accountable if they are denied information about what486those officials are doing and how they are spending their487money. Yet, in this case, millions of dollars are being spent488with virtually no meaningful public disclosure.489    My organization, the Goldwater Institute, submitted State490public records requests to the County and to the monitor,491seeking an itemized accounting of the monitor's invoices and492basic salary information for the monitor's staff. Because of493existing Federal orders in this case, the County does not494possess, or cannot disclose, that information, and the monitor495simply did not respond at all.496    Under State law, that outcome would not occur in any other497context. For virtually every public expenditure, things from498road construction, consulting contracts, law enforcement499grants, itemized invoices and supporting documents are public500records. Allowing taxpayer funds to be spent indefinitely,501without disclosure, directly conflicts with Arizona's502transparency laws.503    The only information that has been available to the public504consists of heavily redacted or nondescriptive invoices. There505are no detailed time entries, expense reports, or supporting506documentation. None of that information has been disclosed to507the very people on whose behalf, and at whose expense, the508monitor is purportedly operating. That is now how government509transparency is supposed to work, and that is not how it does510work as a matter of State law. Secrecy may be justified511temporarily to protect a legitimate government interest, but512blanket secrecy for more than a decade, long after reforms have513been implemented, cannot be squared with democratic norms.514    In sum, federalism exists to ensure that law enforcement515and spending decisions remain locally and democratically516accountable. Public records law exists to ensure that taxpayers517can see how their government is operating and how their money518is being spent. When Federal oversight overrides both519democratic control and transparency, it creates a system that520inverts these core principles of our constitutional republic.521    Thank you, and I will be happy to answer any questions.522    [The prepared statement of Mr. Riches follows:]523524[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]525526    Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Riches. Now, I recognize527Supervisor Lesko for her opening statement.528529               STATEMENT OF THE HON. DEBBIE LESKO530531    Ms. Lesko. Well, good morning, Mr. Chair and the Committee532Members. It is great to be here with my former colleagues from533Congress. The Chair and I served right here in these chambers534as our old stomping ground, so it is great to be here.535    I really want to thank you for traveling here. This is a536very important issue for Maricopa County and the taxpayers of537Maricopa County and for public safety in Maricopa County. That538is what this is all about, making sure we protect the public.539    As a Maricopa County Supervisor, I am here today to talk540about the long-term damage caused by the Federal court orders541in Melendres v. Arpaio, and more specifically, the under-542checked and costly monitor regime that has grown out of this543case. It has become a clear example of how Federal oversight,544when left unchecked, can drift far beyond its original purpose,545at great cost in local control and taxpayers.546    This all started with a complaint against then Maricopa547County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, alleging racial profiling of Latino548drivers and passengers. Fourteen years, three sheriffs, and549millions and millions of dollars per year later, the Sheriff's550Office is still under this burdensome and costly Federal551monitor regime.552    For more than a decade, this monitoring process appears to553be operating with virtually no limiting principle. What began554as targeted oversight has evolved into an open-ended system,555where compliance seems to be constantly redefined, new556requirements are layered on, and progress is never allowed to557be final. The monitor's role has expanded far beyond verifying558constitutional policies and instead has expanded into day-to-559day operational micromanagement of the Sheriff's Department.560    The consequences have been severe. Every dollar spent561feeding this monitoring bureaucracy is a dollar not spent on562deputies, patrols, training, crime prevention, or victim563services. Every hour spent satisfying reporting demands is an564hour not spent protecting our neighborhoods.565    The cumulative effect has been a long-term erosion of566public safety capacity in Maricopa County. The public is told,567``This is all necessary,'' by the Federal judge. Necessary for568whom? The monitor is paid to find deficiencies, and the system569seems structured so that their deficiencies are always found.570Even when benchmarks are met, new interpretation seems to571appear, new metrics emerge, and the finish line moves.572    For example, I want to give you one example. Just last573month, the monitor reversed himself and declared that the574Sheriff's Office is not in compliance with a paragraph that has575been in compliance for years. That paragraph requires the576Maricopa County Sheriff's Office to submit training materials577within 90 days of the order, which was satisfied back in June5782016. Now, after a decade, the goalposts have yet again been579moved.580    The monitor, in this case, is the same monitor who has been581monitoring the Oakland, California, Police Department for the582last 25 years. Do you know what the kicker is? Existing court583orders, as has been said before, dating back to 2014, prevent584taxpayers from fully knowing where their money is even going.585Detailed monitor billing and time entries are provided only to586the court. The County itself is restricted from seeing that587information, much less sharing that information with the588public. That is not transparency. That is not accountability.589Twelve years later, it is not justified.590    I want to be very clear. This is not about rejecting591constitutional policing or resisting oversight. Maricopa County592has made significant reforms, many of them at great expense and593in good faith. The Sheriff's Office is doing a fantastic job.594In fact, today there is no evidence of ongoing civil rights595violations, there are no new allegations of targeted596immigration enforcement, and the Maricopa County Sheriff's597Office has achieved 100 percent compliance with required policy598changes.599    The 2023 Traffic Study Annual Report that the court600requires found no statistically significant difference between601White drivers and Hispanic drivers across any measured602benchmark.603    Late last year, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors,604of which I am a member, filed a Rule 60 motion, seeking relief605from this Federal oversight, and I am happy to say that the606United States Department of Justice supports a Rule 60 motion607to end this oversight.608    Let's be clear. The County says it is time. The data says609it is time. The monitor's own findings say it is time. The610United States Department of Justice says it is time to end this611burdensome, bureaucratic, costly Federal oversight of the612Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. It is time to recognize that613Federal monitoring is no longer needed. I say enough is enough.614    Thank you, and I yield back.615616    Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Supervisor Lesko. I appreciate that,617and I appreciate your testimony, all your testimoneys.618    Now, I will recognize, for his questioning, the gentleman619from Texas, Mr. Nehls.620    Mr. Nehls. Thank you, Chair. I would like to thank all the621witnesses for being here.622    I am an old former sheriff from the great State of Texas,623Fort Bend County. A relatively large agency. We had about624800,000 people there, and about 826 deputies. I feel I have625some basic understanding of how to manage a law enforcement626agency. I believe I understand the complexities that law627enforcement is facing today across the country. I do believe628that public safety, above all else, is their No. 1 priority,629public safety.630    I am concerned with the impact of the Federal judicial631monitor on the ability of this Sheriff's Office to adequately632investigate, solve, and deter crime. Mr. Chair, you brought it633up in your opening remarks, but I believe it is worth634repeating. How did we get here? How did this all begin?635    When you go back to that Ortega Melendres v. Arpaio, the6362007-2008 timeframe, allegations surfaced of racial profiling,637I believe, in the Latino community. In 2011, I guess there was638a bench trial, and then in 2013, the District Judge, G. Murray639Snow, ruled that the Sheriff's Office violated constitutional640protections and imposed permanent injunctions, implementing the641sweeping reforms--apparently it had to get done--to the642policies, to training, to operations, and to internal643investigations. In 2014, the judge appoints Robert Warshaw as a644Federal court monitor. In 2015, they come back a little bit and645say, ``We have got to make some additional remedial measures.''646    The question I have to ask of all of you, one at a time,647is: Was there, at that time, a need for this judicial648oversight? Ms. Lesko? Just a yes or no, really. Was there a649need for it at the time?650    Ms. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Mr. Nehls. I was not651involved at the time, but there were allegations and the652Federal court upheld them. They had a court order and said653things needed to be changed.654    What I can tell you, for sure, as a matter of fact, is the655Maricopa County Sheriff's Office has now gone through four656sheriffs under this, and they have worked tirelessly to make657reforms, and make sure that they are in compliance.658    As I have said, they are in 100 percent compliance on their659policies, and many of the paragraphs, they have done everything660over and above to satisfy this court. It is never enough. It is661never enough.662    Mr. Nehls. I do not disagreeing with anything you said, but663my question is, at the time that the judge made the ruling,664back in 2014, was there a need for this type of judicial665oversight, Mr. Riches?666    Mr. Riches. Mr. Chair, Congressman, Federal courts do exist667to remedy constitutional violations, and if the court finds a668constitutional violation, they can put in place orders to669remedy it. The question today, though, is very different than670the question as to what happened then, and as Ms. Lesko671indicated, we are now four sheriffs and beyond the remedial672purpose of the initial allegations in the case.673    Mr. Nehls. How about you, Mr. Garcia? Do you believe back674then, when this judge, appointed by Bush, by the way, appointed675by President Bush, do you believe that there was a need to have676this back then? I tell you, I was an old sheriff 2012-2020, and677I heard about show me your papers. I heard about this sheriff678tents and everything else. There was a lot of attention. They679called him ``America's sheriff.''680    Mr. Garcia. Right.681    Mr. Nehls. Do you feel, at the time when the decision was682made--I am not talking about today, four different sheriffs683now, three or four--but back at the time, was it necessary?684    Mr. Garcia. I think yes. It was necessary.685    Mr. Nehls. Thank you. OK. His job, then, this Mr. Warshaw,686was to get the Sheriff's Office to comply with the permanent687injunctions, the court ordered. His job was to issue periodic688reports, hold community meetings, which I would like to get689into a little bit, and then review the Sheriff's Office's690internal policies and practices.691    I want to talk a little bit about the periodic reports. I692guess there are 40-plus reports that have been issued. These693reports have shown significant improvements. Ms. Lesko, you694brought it up to 100 percent, you said. These reports have695shown much improvement or compliance. The compliance rate back696in 2014 was 30 percent. I am kind of believing maybe back then697there was a need. It was an order. Then, you see we get to6982025, and we are at 94 percent.699    These 40-plus reports, the fourth report back in 2015, had700a 40 percent compliance rate. The 26th report, issued in 2020,701are up to 98 percent. Report numbers 33 and 34, back in 2022702and 2025, show compliance rates of 93 percent, 94 percent. It703certainly appears to me that the Sheriff's Office has complied704with all the aspects of this judicial ruling.705    If I may, Mr. Garcia, I would like to start with you. If706you could, for me--I am new to this here. I do not know who you707are. Would you be willing to share with us a little bit about708your background, how long have you lived here, and why are you709on this Committee? What is your community involvement then?710What makes you, I do not want to say, so special, but what made711you part of this process?712    Mr. Garcia. Basically, I have lived in Phoenix, Arizona,713for the last 26 years. I live in North Central Phoenix. I am a714Mexican American, born in Hermosillo, Mexico. I am working with715the community for so many years with my nonprofit, and in my716nonprofit, we have one immigration program specially for new717citizenships. We are very active in the community with the last718sheriff, working very close with Penzone and the Hispanic719board. With a new sheriff, I am appointed with the sheriff to720this board.721    Mr. Nehls. OK. Again, in recent years the Sheriff's Office722has reached very successful compliance with this oversight of723the judicial monitor. I believe you mentioned in your opening724that you believe the relationship today with the sheriff and725the community he is charged to protect and serve is better726today than what it once was.727    Mr. Garcia. That is excellent. I am attending every single728event with the sheriff. One especially in November--not729November--we have one with the Friends of Arizona. The sheriff730is coming, and this is 100 percent Latinos come, first and731second generation. Everybody at the event is interested in732taking a picture with the sheriff, not only the people733participating but every person at the event. We organize a lot734of events for the sheriff, and everybody is interested in735interacting with the sheriff.736    Mr. Nehls. What you are saying is you have seen improved737relationships, you are noticing it, between the community and738the Sheriff's Office. When I started in my law enforcement739career 30 years ago, community policing, it was the buzzword,740it was the big deal, community policing. You do not have741issues. The Sheriff's Offices, or I will just focus on large742municipal police, when there is friction or the Sheriff's743Office or the Police Department and the people, the residents,744when there is distrust there things are going to get ugly. We745have seen it across our Nation over the last several years when746there is a distrust.747    You have been here this long. Have you noticed that we have748community policing philosophy at the Sheriff's Office back in7492012 or 2008-2009? Was that philosophy to build relationships750with the people?751    Mr. Garcia. Yes, working very closely with my nonprofit, I752started working with the Sheriff, I think in 2014, 2016. The753relationship with the community is very active. After Sheriff754Arpaio left, the inside started to change. I see the difference755right now. That is good.756    Mr. Nehls. Very good. You believe that, I guess point757blank, what has changed? Give me an example of what has changed758now that you see, all of a sudden, a strong relationship versus759having a Federal court get involved with these injunctions?760What changed in that period of time? Attitudes? Different761leadership style?762    Mr. Garcia. The leadership. I do not see so many stops with763the Latino community. As you know, 150-200 people move from764California to Arizona, obviously, the numbers have changed,765because 200 people daily--daily--move to Arizona.766    Mr. Nehls. Very good. How transparent and collaborative is767communication between the Community Advisory Board, which you768serve on, Mr. Warshaw, and the Sheriff's Office leadership769team?770    Mr. Garcia. Normally basically we have one meeting every771month with the board, and every three months, all together in772person.773    Mr. Nehls. Does Mr. Warshaw show up?774    Mr. Garcia. I have seen Mr. Warshaw two times, one dinner775before one event and the court a couple of months ago.776    Mr. Nehls. OK. I am talking over the past several years;777how many times has he actually attended one of these meetings?778    Mr. Garcia. Well, I am on the board for only one year.779    Mr. Nehls. Oh, you have seen him twice in the year?780    Mr. Garcia. Yes.781    Mr. Nehls. If he is not there, does he have other staff, or782does he delegate to others?783    Mr. Garcia. Yes. There is one person working with him. We784have a meeting with this lady.785    Mr. Nehls. Someone is there.786    Mr. Garcia. Yes.787    Mr. Nehls. In your experience, has the Community Advisory788Board influenced policy or practice changes? Are they listening789to you, the board, the community, as it relates to changes in790policy? Are you effective? Do you feel like we actually have791the ability to make things better, because they, the Sheriff's792Office, the monitor, they are listening to the people?793    Mr. Garcia. Well, I do not see the difference in reality,794because three on the board attacking me all the time because I795organize these events to the Sheriff. This is specifically this796week, I received two attacks from two of the members, attacking797by email, why am I here, why, if you represent the whole board.798Is the reason because I say, yes, this is my voice. Another799member of the board, the husband, is an activist outside, and800is attacking me frequently. Yesterday in the newspaper I read a801newspaper, it is attacking me, saying I am a racist person,802this sort of stuff. It is public right now. If you read Prensa803Arizona, read that this person attacked me, says I am a Charlie804Kirk person. That is the reason because I supported Charlie. It805is really bad because I meet with the Sheriff, with the Latino806community. Every single Latino outside is interested in meeting807with the Sheriff.808    Mr. Nehls. You may have touched on this, but I want to get809a yes or no from you. Do you believe that with the cooperation810of the Advisory Board and the Sheriff's Office that the811judicial monitor is still necessary? Do you believe that he is812still necessary today?813    Mr. Garcia. He is not necessary.814    Mr. Nehls. OK, very good. This is not something that--it815could be better managed at the local level with community816input. You have your board, you have a Sheriff's Office, and817you have everybody coming together. Everybody seems to be818working well together. We could just say we do not need any819more judicial overreach, because it is just costing money, and820it is unnecessary.821    Mr. Garcia. Yes.822    Mr. Nehls. I appreciate that. Mr. Riches, Goldwater823Institute's amicus brief argues that federalism requires that a824County Sheriff's Office be overseen by the people of the825county, not the Federal Government. In your view, has the more826than a decade-long Federal monitoring of the Sheriff's Office827violated this principle of local self-governance?828    Mr. Riches. Mr. Chair and Congressman, yes, as I indicated829in my opening statement, obviously the initial order is a830different question than the continued oversight long after831facts and circumstances have changed. In this particular832situation when there is no end to Federal oversight it raises833principles of federalism.834    Mr. Nehls. Chair Galvin brought it up that Warshaw keeps835moving or shifting the goalposts, I believe he stated, and how836does that shifting compliance, the benchmarks, or the837indefinite monitoring of the Sheriff's Office's ability to838implement policies based on local priorities? How do they do839it, when you have this type of overreach?840    Mr. Riches. Well, it is hard to say, and I am not a841particular expert on that issue specifically. I would say that842if there is going to be direction from Federal oversight to any843State or local agency it should be clear and consistent, and844there should not be circumstances where it is consistently845changing.846    Mr. Nehls. These invoices that they keep receiving, really847the taxpayers, do you believe the taxpayers should have access848to detailed information, showing how monitor-related funds are849spent, even when those funds are subject to Federal court850oversight?851    Mr. Riches. Not only should they but as a matter of State852law they have a legal right to that information. Arizona's law853is abundantly clear on this. Anytime the government engages in854public business or spends taxpayer funds, taxpayers have a855right to see what they are doing with that money. As a result856of the Federal court orders in this place, that has hamstrung857taxpayers from a receiving information they would otherwise858have a legal right to receive.859    Mr. Nehls. Thank you, sir. Ms. Lesko, in your capacity as860the Vice Chair of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, you861interact with the Sheriff's Office. Chair Galvin of the Board862of Supervisors has described the judicial monitor's oversight863as, quote, ``decimating the agency with a 26 percent vacancy864rate.'' I do not know how in the hell he can go out there and865perform his job and keep his people safe in this county when866you have got a 26 percent vacancy rate. Do you share this view867of the situation, 26 percent?868    Ms. Lesko. Mr. Chair and Mr. Nehls, I do. It makes it very869difficult for the Sheriff's Department to do their jobs of870protecting citizens. Mr. Chair and Mr. Nehls, I would like to871add a few things, if you do not mind. Not only did the872Sheriff's Department achieve 100 percent compliance with873required policy changes, but the most recently quarterly874reports acknowledged that Latino drivers are not being cited,875searched, or detained for longer periods of times, at rates876different than other drivers in Maricopa County, and for two877years annual traffic study analysis found no disparity between878White and Hispanic drivers.879    In fact, the thing that they keep bringing up as why they880cannot be in compliance is these backlogs of complaints against881the Sheriff's Department or the detention officers. The882backlogs have nothing to do with the original court case. They883could be a complaint about a detention officer in a jail that884has nothing to do with racial profiling of Hispanic or Latino885drivers.886    It is very frustrating, and they have to have been doing887this for years. We have had Republican sheriffs and Democrat888sheriffs. In fact, one of the Democratic sheriffs, Sheriff889Penzone resigned over this. He said that was the reason he890resigned. He cannot do his job with this Federal monitorship.891It has just become so burdensome and cost.892    Mr. Nehls. That is unfortunate. I have more questions for893you, but I am going to yield back to the Chair. I guess we will894have a second round, so I will get back to you in a few895minutes. Thank you.896    Mr. Biggs. The gentleman yields. The Chair recognizes the897gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Fry, for his questions.898    Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for being here.899Thank you to the witnesses for being here. It is a wonderful900State. Debbie, it is good to see you again. It has been too901long.902    You said it best--14 years, three or four sheriffs, and903millions and millions of dollars, and you are still under this904Federal oversight regime. The question for all of us, and maybe905even the public, is why? To me, if I am looking at this906objectively, you are either not in compliance with a court907order from 14 years ago, or we are in an era where it is908duplicative and unnecessary. Would you agree with that?909    Ms. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Mr. Fry. Yes, I agree910with it. This is what has been so frustrating, and this is why911the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors hired an attorney that912deals with Federal issues like this, to file a Rule 60 motion,913because it has been going on and on and on, and the goalposts914keep moving. I have other examples in front of me if you care915to hear them about how things have changed.916    Mr. Fry. We are going to go into that in a minute. I want917to set this up for you.918    Ms. Lesko. They accomplish one thing, and then court and919the monitor say, ``Oh, here's another thing. Here's another920thing. Here's another thing.'' It seems like it never ends.921    Mr. Fry. It is a game of Whack-A-Mole. I think you922mentioned Rule 60(b). That is important. Mr. Riches, what is923Rule 60(b), for the public, for people who are paying924attention, who are here in the room or back home. What is Rule92560(b)?926    Mr. Riches. Mr. Chair, Congressman, it is a rule in the927Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that allows a party to get928relief from an existing order or judgment. Basically, it just929asking the court to reconsider the court's orders.930    Mr. Fry. Yes, hey, judge, this is not--we are either in931compliance with it, we have done our tax. We do not need to be932under this prior court order. That is the thrust of it, right?933It allows an affected party to seek relief from the court,934maybe on an outdated judgment or court order. Is that correct?935    Mr. Riches. Yes, exactly.936    Mr. Fry. One of the things that I would imagine that a937court reviews is the factual basis for the motion, right, what938facts today are different than they were maybe, in this case,93914 years ago. Is that one way the courts evaluate the merits of940a Rule 60(b) relief motion?941    Mr. Riches. Yes, certainly.942    Mr. Fry. OK. You mentioned federalism. federalism also is943triggered under Rule 60(b), at least as far as Federal944oversight over State and local issues. Is that also correct?945    Mr. Riches. Well, the party can raise the constitutional946arguments, legal arguments, and factual developments that have947occurred that would warrant relief from the judgment. To the948extent this raises federalism concerns, and we certainly think949it does, a party can certainly raise that in Rule 60 motion.950    Mr. Fry. Why are courts deferential to federalism concerns951as they pertains to maybe Federal oversight over a State or952local issue? Why is that important?953    Mr. Riches. Well, our whole constitutional system is954predicated on retaining power for themselves and the States955being the primary repository of the police power. The Federal956Government is a system of limited powers. It only has that957power, which is expressly delegated to it under the958Constitution. When you have a situation that involves law959enforcement, local spending, which ultimately inevitably960involves taxation, as well, those are the matters that our961Constitution entrusts to a different level of government than962the one that is currently being exercised.963    Mr. Fry. I would say that looking at court opinions, courts964have been hesitant to have this endless Federal intervention,965if you will, in State and local issues beyond the term that is966reasonably necessary. Is that fair to characterize?967    Mr. Riches. That is fair to characterize. In any situation968like this, oversight should be temporary, it should be969reviewable, and it should be transparent.970    Mr. Fry. Perfect. Let's go back, Ms. Lesko, let's go back971to you for a moment. When you look at the original court order972in 2014, there were, I don't know, 194 paragraphs of things973that the judge wanted to pay attention to and addressed. Of the974194 paragraphs, how many have the County fully complied with to975date? Do you know?976    Ms. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Mr. Fry. I do not know977the exact amount, but I know it is very significant.978    Mr. Fry. It's 174--does that sound about right?979    Ms. Lesko. It sounds right to me, but I would have to check980for details from actually the Sheriff's Department themselves.981The thing is: You are exactly right. This is going on too long,982and the number of paragraphs that it started with has grown983exponentially. They keep adding onto these requirements to the984Sheriff's Department. The reason that we filed, the Maricopa985County Board of Supervisors, filed the Rule 60 motion is986because the original purpose of the Melendres lawsuit, it has987been achieved. It has been achieved. The Maricopa County988Sheriff's Department is doing a good job, and even in many989instances, the monitor agrees. The monitor agrees. They are990doing the job that the original purpose of the lawsuit has been991fulfilled. It is now time to move on and end this. It has been992too long.993    Mr. Fry. Right. Ms. Lesko, one of the original things that994the court took exception with, and the monitor as well, is that995there was an illegal immigration hotline. Is there an illegal996immigration hotline today?997    Ms. Lesko. Thank you. Mr. Chair and Mr. Fry, my998understanding is there is not one.999    Mr. Fry. Correct. Correct. There is no III unit. There is1000no targeting, that has been attested to, of Latino drivers and1001passengers. There is no detention of Latinos pursuant to1002attempted enforcement of the AHSA [ph] and the ESEA compliance.1003I thought this was interesting when I was preparing for this1004hearing. Maybe some of the first reports, would it surprise you1005to show that the Sheriff's Office was not in compliance in the1006early years? That sounds normal. They are getting their feet1007under them, 30 percent, 40 percent compliance in early years.1008You attested to earlier, what is that compliance today?1009    Ms. Lesko. I do not know. There are so many different1010paragraphs that I do not know the compliance of all them. What1011I can tell you is that we are 100 percent in compliance with1012required policy changes. The quarterly reports show that there1013are no significant differences between when you stop a Latino1014driver versus a White driver, and that has been going on for1015two years. There is no evidence of ongoing civil rights1016violations. There are no new allegations of targeted1017immigration enforcement.1018    What seems to have come down to now is just this backlog of1019complaints against the Sheriff's Department, which is not even1020related. The backlog is not related to the original complaint.1021It could be anything. Like let's say somebody does not like a1022jail detention officer. That has nothing to do with this1023lawsuit.1024    I do not work for the Sheriff's Department, I do not know1025all the specifics of which paragraphs have been in compliance,1026how many or what percentage. They have done a great job, and1027even the monitor himself, and the judge himself, has said that1028there has been huge improvement and that it really comes down1029to this backlog now, it appears.1030    Mr. Fry. Correct. I am looking for specific stats. In 2014,1031it looked like 40 percent--2015--reflected 50 percent, 401032percent, or 40.3 percent compliance with Phases I and II. That1033was in 2015. This was right after the order, right. At the1034time, there was at least efforts being made, 40 percent1035compliance, but today it is 100 percent, right, and it has been1036sustained close to 100 percent for quite some time. Is that1037your understanding?1038    Ms. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Mr. Fry. My1039understanding is that the Maricopa County Sheriff's Department1040is in compliance with many of the paragraphs, and there are1041lots of different paragraphs in this court order. To be in1042compliance I believe you have to do it for three years in a1043row. It is difficult to do, and especially when the goalposts1044keep moving.1045    Mr. Fry. Correct.1046    Ms. Lesko. You get in compliance, and then the goalpost1047moves. In the cases of several of these things, the one that I1048brought up in my opening statement, they were in compliance in10492016, and now all of a sudden they are out of compliance, even1050though nothing has changed. I have other examples of that, as1051well. It is very frustrating.1052    Mr. Fry. It is. Over the course, it is frustrating for the1053people, too, because you are under Federal oversight on things1054in which you are compliant of. It goes back to the original1055point of what 60(b) is. It is a relief motion for an aggrieved1056party, in this case the County, the Sheriff's Office. It is a1057relief valve for further duplicative and unnecessary oversight.1058In your legal opinion, Mr. Riches, do you think that the County1059has complied with the original order of the court, enough to1060warrant a 60(b) relief motion?1061    Mr. Riches. I am not fully familiar with the entire1062architecture of the litigation, but I would say that a1063circumstance like this is precisely the reason that Rule 601064exists. When it is very clear that facts have changed, that1065circumstances have changed, and that continuing Federal1066oversight raises constitutional and democratic accountability1067problems, this is precisely the sort of circumstance in which1068that rule allows a party to go and seek relief.1069    Mr. Fry. Thank you for that. Mr. Chair, I yield back. I am1070going to have some second round of questions later, but I will1071yield to you, sir.1072    Mr. Biggs. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize1073myself for some questioning and comments.1074    Mr. Garcia, one of the things that you mentioned today is1075that other individuals on the Community Assessment Board, or1076whatever we call that, that oversight board, have been1077attacking you because you were willing to come to testify1078today. Is that accurate?1079    Mr. Garcia. Yes. I received an invitation last week to come1080here, but I did not receive any details. Basically, one of the1081Members emailed me, to the whole group and the monitoring1082office, and two Members start to attack me. Why are you going,1083and a lot of really bad stuff, not only by email but the1084newspaper too.1085    Mr. Biggs. Well, we appreciate you being here.1086    Mr. Garcia. Thank you.1087    Mr. Biggs. The point that I see is that I am hearing from1088you, is that the community and the Sheriff's Office now are1089simpatico.1090    Mr. Garcia. Yes. Definitely. A hundred percent.1091    Mr. Biggs. If the regime continues, it is not going to get1092any better because it is pretty good, which is my1093understanding.1094    Mr. Garcia. Yes, money for a couple of people. Not for the1095community.1096    Mr. Biggs. Right. Right. For the community. That is what I1097am talking about.1098    Mr. Garcia. Yes.1099    Mr. Biggs. OK. Thank you for that. Then Mr. Riches, I will1100not dwell too much on the 60(b) aspect, but I will just get to1101the point of what courts look at with 60(b), and you have1102highlighted it. They are looking at the facts and the law,1103right? In this instance the law, early on the judge made a1104determination, what he felt the constitutional interpretation1105and application of that was to the facts that were brought1106before him. In your participation in this, the lawsuit1107ultimately, we now see that there seems to be, even on the part1108of the monitor's admission, although he does like to move1109things around a little bit, at least what I have read from him,1110he indicates that there is not just substantial compliance,1111there is almost complete and full compliance. That would be1112something that normally a court would take into account, as the1113changed factual circumstances, when they apply the same law to1114those facts, right?1115    Mr. Riches. Mr. Chair, yes. Yes, exactly. You have a1116circumstance now where a party is saying the facts have1117changed, the monitor has essentially conceded near total1118compliance, and the Federal Government has also weighed in and1119said that it is time for the oversight to end. That confluence1120of factors is certainly an appropriate way to support a Rule112160(b) motion.1122    Mr. Biggs. Well, this is a question for any of you. Since1123the original court order, has there been any modification in1124the actual court's order over the last 12 years? Do any of you1125know that?1126    Ms. Lesko. Well--1127    Mr. Biggs. I am not referring to the monitor moving all1128over the place. I am talking actually in the language of the1129original order. Any modifications?1130    Ms. Lesko. Mr. Chair, all I know is there's lots of1131modifications. I do not know if that is a court. The monitor1132works under the Federal judge in the court, and so they have1133changed the goalposts repeatedly, yes. I will find out if I can1134get your exact answer.1135    Mr. Biggs. OK. That sounds good. Because in my looking1136through this I do not know that I recall seeing actual1137modification--oh, here we go.1138    Ms. Lesko. The answer is yes; they have modified it three1139times.1140    Mr. Biggs. OK. Very good. Thank you. Where the crux of the1141issue becomes is the monitor's, the rather carte blanche way1142the monitor has in acting and has moved things around. That was1143one of my questions on that.1144    I will just say, Ms. Lesko, you talked about the1145incentives, so I am just going to talk for just a second about1146incentives and tradeoffs. When you look at incentives and1147tradeoffs, everybody responds to incentives, or disincentives,1148and everybody is making a tradeoff on virtually everything that1149they decide. When you have a monitor that is making a lot of1150money, and is making money from multiple jurisdictions--which,1151by the way, is contrary to something I am going to talk about1152in a second--their incentive is not to actually encourage1153compliance completely and then walk away and let people be free1154to continue in their actions. Their incentive, instead, is to1155maintain control and the economic benefit that they are1156getting. That is what I see happening here with Mr. Warshaw.1157    The tradeoff that he is making, some people would say it is1158a moral tradeoff, and I will leave that aside, but the other1159people would say he is just flat-out making a tradeoff between1160finding compliance in Maricopa County and walking away to some1161other gig and staying here to the gig that he already has,1162where he going to be continuing to make money. That is the1163tradeoff that he is effectively making. The impact is those1164people in this county, who otherwise need good service from the1165police and the sheriffs, and that is hindered, right.1166    The other thing is people who have absolutely no say in1167this at all whatsoever anymore have lost any ability. Their1168tradeoff is to stay in Maricopa County, where you have a1169monitor that is imposing his will on the Sheriff's Department,1170causing mass morale problems, lack of retention, and also taxes1171that we do not even see any accountability for, or leave the1172county. That is effectively what this monitor is doing. That is1173the tradeoff.1174    That is why it was so important to me. I wanted to hear Mr.1175Garcia's assessment of whether trust has been rebuilt in the1176community. Do you see a synergy and a cooperation, maybe even a1177collaboration with the Sheriff's Department and the Latino1178community, which was where the issue arose.1179    That is why I say if we start looking at that, the trust,1180we look at the law, and then we look at the tradeoffs and1181incentives, it all points to one thing, that the monitor's1182oversight ends.1183    Before I recognize Mr. Nehls for a second round of1184questioning, I have to make one more statement, because as I1185was listening to you today--and by the way, I have set aside my1186questions because these guys are asking all the questions, but1187that is OK. The one thing I get here is that this is a type of1188Federal overreach. When I say ``type'' I am talking about an1189example or--it is not kind, I mean this is a type. This is1190something you can look at and say this happens in multiple1191other areas. What that is, where the Federal Government comes1192into a State or local government, ostensibly with a good1193intention and they never leave. They never leave. Which is why1194federalism and the Tenth Amendment have taken a bad beating in1195the last 125 years, in my opinion.1196    I look at this and I say it is time for the Rule 60(b)1197motion to be granted, and quite frankly, it is time for this1198monitor to go on. I am going to end there before I go into1199Merrick Garland's interpretation of what a monitor should do.1200Right now, I am going to yield and recognize the gentleman from1201Texas.1202    Mr. Nehls. Thank you again, Mr. Chair. This specific case,1203this was not the consent decree. This was judicial, yes. You1204notice a lot, too, with this new administration, the Civil1205Rights Division under the Trump Administration, he is closing1206all the investigations, whether it was right here in Phoenix;1207Trenton, New Jersey; Memphis; Oklahoma City; Louisiana State1208Police; Mount Vernon, New York; Louisville; and Minneapolis.1209Think about that in Minneapolis, and what we saw up there.1210    I do not know, it is a sad State of affairs, anybody that1211is in law enforcement, how has law enforcement become so1212partisan? How? When somebody would call the local Sheriff's1213Office and say they need help, you are not going to call and1214say, ``You Democrat or Republican,'' ``You prolifer,'' or ``You1215prochoice.'' When we book somebody into a county jail, I do not1216think we ask that question either--those lives over here,1217conservatives over here, prolife, and prochoice.1218    How did it get to the point where we are at? I have some1219opinions as to why we got where we are today. If you look at1220ICE and border enforcement, we have a very, very divided1221country. Law enforcement is struggling today because, quite1222honestly, I do not know if I would want one of my daughters or1223a son to even join the ranks anymore. It is just the ridicule.1224The number of officers that have lost their lives since I have1225been in office, I have got a picture of them on the wall1226outside my office. That thing has got to be 30 yards long and122710 feet high. We are losing hundreds and hundreds of law1228enforcement over the years because it is so dangerous today1229because of the partisanship.1230    Where did it all begin? You have got to go back and say why1231are we at where we are? You could go back to George Floyd. That1232had something to do with it. You could even go back a little1233further and go back to Trayvon Martin. It just seems like we1234have leaders that--you go to Tim Walz and others that want to1235create the division, they want to create the chaos, thinking1236that their side, their politics is going to win over. I do not1237know.1238    I am a Second Amendment guy, and I know, Andy, you are too,1239and this and that, but I believe the guy has a right to carry a1240gun at a demonstration or whatever. You are going too far when1241you get into a physical altercation with law enforcement. What1242the hell are you doing? Carry a gun at the demonstration, but1243if you start getting into physical altercations with law1244enforcement, I am questioning--well, you ain't going to be able1245to talk about it, obviously.1246    I just think that we have to do everything we possibly can1247to get back to where law enforcement is considered. Remember1248the old picture where you see the law enforcement officer and1249he holds out his hand to a young child? We need to get back to1250that. Because when we have that distrust it just creates chaos.1251When you have distrust in law enforcement today, you can see1252where we are at. It is quite clear. Every other day, in every1253other city, you see what is taking place, and we are better1254than that.1255    You mentioned the 26 percent vacancy rate. I do not know1256how many of those are in patrol, detective, or CID. I do not1257know how many they have. I cannot imagine. It has got to be1258affecting clearance rates, response times. As the Sheriff said,12591260        Hey, by the way, Ms. Lesko, I need more people. My response1261        times on 911, a priority one call is now 2\1/2\ minutes versus1262        1\1/2\ minutes, because who wants to work here?12631264Quite honestly, I cannot blame him, if Deputy Joe Snuffy would1265say,12661267        I may want to go to the county next to me, that I do not have1268        all those oversight. I do not have to worry about whether I say1269        something or if it is even perceived as something silly, that1270        all of a sudden now I am going to have an Internal Affairs1271        question.12721273You know what I mean? How has that affected morale, response1274times, if you know any of that, clearance rates on crime?1275    Ms. Lesko. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. In my1276conversations with the Maricopa County Sheriff's Department, it1277has affected it a lot, because every aspect, every employee,1278whether they are even assigned to traffic stops or not, they1279have to be trained in this. There are whole Federal bureaucracy1280and monitorship, and they are spending--the County estimates1281this is between the cost of trying to achieve what the monitor1282wants us to do, and the monitor costs themselves, and the1283attorney costs, as Mr. Chair said, ``the County believes it is1284$350 million so far. That is a lot of money that could be used1285for hiring more Sheriff Officers.''1286    Even like somebody that is in administration, that is not1287out on the street, they have to be trained in this. Every1288officer--I cannot remember how many things, at every traffic1289stop, they have to ask and report. It is just so burdensome1290that you are correct. If they could go to another agency, a1291city or DPS, Department of Public Safety, which is the State1292Patrol here, why wouldn't they do it if it is so burdensome?1293    We have to help the Sheriff's Office, because I totally1294believe that the government's No. 1 responsibility is1295protecting the public. It is hard to do that when the Sheriff's1296Office has their hands tied behind their back.1297    Mr. Nehls. Did we have cameras back then, back in all the1298studies. There were body cameras required by--1299    Mr. Garcia. It is a new system we have, the cameras.1300    Mr. Nehls. The cameras would catch it. Even when you make a1301traffic stop you have to put on there why you stopped them, and1302are they Hispanic, Black, or White. You have to list all that.1303    Mr. Garcia. Something important with that is 35 percent of1304the people are Latino.1305    Mr. Nehls. OK. You are going to make quite a few traffic1306stops on Latino if it is a majority.1307    I just have got to go back to this, and I do not know why.1308Was Sheriff Arpaio using his office--maybe he was and maybe he1309was not. I don't know. Help me out--was he trying to use his1310office to enforce Federal immigration law?1311    Mr. Garcia. Yes.1312    Mr. Nehls. OK. I tell you, I had the same issue. I am four1313hours North of the border in Houston, Texas. A lot of people1314would call me up and say, ``Look at them. They are over there.1315Go get them. They are over at Larry's Mexican.'' In the State1316of Texas, I had, a sheriff, right or wrong, I had no authority1317to put somebody in jail that came across the border illegally.1318I had no authority to do it. It was like it was the Federal1319Government's job to do that, and I understood that. Now, as the1320county sheriff, what I had the ability to do is if somebody was1321doing something wrong and he was documented, and I put him in1322the county jail, well then obviously every person I ever1323arrested, we ever arrested, I do not care what color you were,1324what was your name, everybody's name would be entered and we1325would send it to the ICE in Houston. Within two hours they1326would send me back a report that says, ``I want to put a1327detainer on this guy, this guy, this guy, this guy.''1328    I was not enforcing immigration laws, Federal immigration.1329I was enforcing Texas law if the individual committed a State1330violation law. A sheriff in the State of Texas does not have1331the authority. There is nothing in the penal code in the State1332of Texas that says I can arrest somebody for being here1333illegally, even though they are illegal, because it just seemed1334the Federal Government's job.1335    Now, maybe the sheriff, I am sure he understood all this,1336but it just appears to me you are right. This overreach has to1337stop. It has been a decade. Just from my understanding, maybe1338back then a little oversight was warranted, and now you are1339building the community outreach and you have got new sheriffs1340coming in, and you just have to continue to build.1341    This monitor, this gentleman, he is just feathering his1342nest. The guy is not dumb. You have got to give it to him. I1343just hope the judge is watching this, Mr. Chair, and he1344understands that we do not need this here anymore, and you1345cannot tie the hands of this county sheriff by all this1346overreach, when we have shown numbers that add up, that says we1347are in compliance. You have, in the budget, authority over this1348county sheriff. You have got to have the ability to be a good1349steward for the funds, be a good steward to the taxpayers and1350help the sheriff and end this overreach, this bureaucracy. I1351wish you all the best in that, and hopefully we can continue to1352be vocal. This hearing--great job with this, Mr. Chair--1353hopefully this hearing will help this great State and this1354great county here in Arizona. Thank you.1355    Mr. Biggs. The gentleman yields. I now recognize myself for1356some questions.1357    Merrick Garland, former Attorney General under President1358Biden, in September 2021, issued a memo regarding monitorships1359of State and local government entities. I do not know, have any1360of you seen that before? OK, so this is good. You guys are a1361tabula rasa. I am going to just tell you what he says and then1362ask if you think that this has been done in this particular1363case.1364    One of the things he said is you should cap the fees that a1365monitor receives. Has that been the case, Mr. Garcia? Are the1366monitor's fees capped in this case?1367    Mr. Garcia. What is the question again?1368    Mr. Biggs. Are the monitor's fees capped by the court in1369the Melendres case?1370    Mr. Garcia. Yes. Yes, because I request to review the1371expense, and I do not have access to 100 percent for every1372detail.1373    Mr. Biggs. Is it capped?1374    Mr. Garcia. Yes.1375    Mr. Biggs. Is it so they say you cannot spend more than,1376what, $5 million a year?1377    Mr. Garcia. Oh, no.1378    Mr. Biggs. There is no cap.1379    Mr. Garcia. No.1380    Mr. Biggs. They are just reporting to you, is that what you1381are saying? Do you know if it is capped, Mr. Riches?1382    Mr. Riches. Not to my knowledge, Mr. Chair.1383    Mr. Biggs. Supervisor?1384    Ms. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do not know for sure if1385it is capped, but how would we know? We are not even allowed--1386    Mr. Biggs. I will get to that.1387    Ms. Lesko. It is my understanding there is no court order1388that caps it, that is my understanding.1389    Mr. Biggs. OK.1390    Ms. Lesko. If I am wrong, I will get back to you on it. We1391do not even know what he is spending it on.1392    Mr. Biggs. Yes. In looking through I did not see a cap, but1393I could be wrong. He also says, Mr. Garland says, ``the second1394thing is monitoring is a public service. You should not be1395feathering your nest.'' He says, ``they should be structured to1396encourage the use of pro bono time or reduced rates.''1397    Now, you have seen some of their expenses. Does it look1398like they are reducing their rates or giving some stuff for1399free?1400    Mr. Garcia. No.1401    Mr. Biggs. Mr. Riches, have you seen any of this stuff?1402    Mr. Riches. Mr. Chair, if they are providing pro bono time1403it would have to be an awful lot, because the expense invoices1404we have seen show considerable expenditures, $30 million over1405the course of the order. I would think that is unlikely.1406    Mr. Biggs. Ms. Lesko?1407    Ms. Lesko. No. As Mr. Riches said, it ``spent over $301408million.'' It is millions of dollars a year that we are1409spending just on this monitor. At one of the court hearings1410they made a point of flying in all these people that work for1411the monitors and giving their bios of how--anyway, it is a lot1412of expense. Thank you.1413    Mr. Biggs. Nobody said, I am here and I am going to work at1414least half the time, or at least two percent of the time pro1415bono? They did not say that?1416    Ms. Lesko. No, they did not.1417    Mr. Biggs. It makes me wonder if they are lawyers,1418actually. That is the way lawyers--sorry.1419    He also says the lead monitor participation should be1420restricted from participating in multiple monitorships. In1421other words, it is one and done. The lead monitor should serve1422on no more than one monitoring team at a time. Is this monitor1423working on multiple ones, Mr. Garcia.1424    Mr. Garcia. I see only one person. I am working very1425closely with one person.1426    Mr. Biggs. Mr. Warshaw himself, you have seen him twice,1427right?1428    Mr. Garcia. Yes, twice.1429    Mr. Biggs. Mr. Riches, is Mr. Warshaw involved in more than1430one monitorship?1431    Mr. Riches. Yes. It is my understanding he is a monitor in1432other jurisdictions, as well.1433    Mr. Biggs. At the same time?1434    Mr. Riches. At the same time.1435    Mr. Biggs. Ms. Lesko?1436    Ms. Lesko. Mr. Chair, it is my understanding he does this1437in more than one location, more than in Arizona, and in fact,1438he has been doing it for 25 years in California in one case.1439    Mr. Biggs. Yes. Here we go. This is another one that I1440think is interesting. Term limits for monitors should be1441included in a decree. I will go back this way. We are going to1442start this time with you, Ms. Lesko. To your knowledge, is1443there a term limit on Mr. Warshaw's service as monitor in the1444Melendres case?1445    Ms. Lesko. Mr. Chair, I am not aware of any term limit for1446him.1447    Mr. Biggs. Mr. Riches?1448    Mr. Riches. Nor am I, Mr. Chair. This gets to one of the1449important points, that not only should the Federal oversight be1450temporary but anyone specific monitor should likely also be1451temporary, so there is not a circumstance where a monitor might1452be incen-1453tivized to continue the oversight.1454    Mr. Biggs. Mr. Garcia, do you know if there is a term1455limit? Mr. Warshaw?1456    Mr. Garcia. No. Not term limit.1457    Mr. Biggs. OK. We will go with Ms. Lesko again. The next1458one is monitors' work should be publicly accessible. What do1459you think? Is that happening here?1460    Ms. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chair. No, as we have testified,1461the County cannot even see what he is spending his money on. It1462goes to the court, and only the court. I have been at one of1463the public community meetings and asked, the public asked1464actually, some of the people that are here today asked, ``What1465are you spending this money on?'' They did not answer. We have1466asked; they do not answer. It only goes to the court, so the1467public does not know.1468    Mr. Biggs. Mr. Riches, have you seen anything different1469than that?1470    Mr. Riches. No, Mr. Chair, that is one of our very primary1471concerns in this case. Under State law it is abundantly clear,1472taxpayers have a right to this information. The Federal FOIA1473would allow access to this information. The Judiciary is not1474subject to the FOIA. It is a central component of democratic1475government that citizens must know what their government is up1476to, and in this case, Maricopa County taxpayers simply have no1477idea because the monitor has not disclosed it and the orders in1478this case have prevented its disclosure.1479    Mr. Biggs. Mr. Garcia, have you seen, are documents easily1480publicly available for this monitorship of Mr. Warshaw?1481    Mr. Garcia. No.1482    Mr. Biggs. OK. I will keep going. All right. The monitors--1483and I have skipped some of it because we could just go on all1484day about this stuff, but let's get to this one. Community1485engagement begins with the selection of the monitoring team. Do1486any of you know if the community was consulted on the1487appointment of Mr. Warshaw?1488    Ms. Lesko. I do not know.1489    Mr. Biggs. Going on from there, the priority, according to1490Merrick Garland, was that a monitor should put a premium on1491stakeholder involvement. Mr. Garcia, you sit on the Community1492Oversight. Do you feel like this monitor, Mr. Warshaw, has put1493a premium on community input?1494    Mr. Garcia. No.1495    Mr. Biggs. Let's get to these here, because this one is1496actually very interesting. You should require a hearing to1497assess termination after no more than five years.1498    [Laughter.]1499    Mr. Biggs. These should not last longer than five years1500because, according to Mr. Garland, you want to incentivize both1501the parties that are being monitored and the monitor to get1502this thing done, make the changes and corrections, and move on.1503Well, I do not know, Ms. Lesko. Are you aware of any1504termination hearing after five years?1505    Ms. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chair. No. In fact, it has been1506going on for a lot longer than that, and there is no end in1507sight.1508    Mr. Biggs. Mr. Riches?1509    Mr. Riches. No, Mr. Chair, I am not aware of that. Again,1510this gets to the temporary and reviewable components of this.1511This oversight should be temporary, and the decisions should be1512reviewable, both of the monitor and the court.1513    Mr. Biggs. Mr. Garcia, are you aware of any additional1514hearing that has taken place from the time of the original1515order to assess termination of the monitorship?1516    Mr. Garcia. No. It is time to finish this, you know. It is1517too much money. It is too much time. We need to put the money1518in the right place.1519    Mr. Biggs. Well, thank you. In the alternative, he says you1520could use a partial termination. You could come in and say,1521well, they have complied here, but we are not finding1522compliance here. Ms. Lesko, do you know if there was a hearing1523which proposed a partial termination of some of the monitor's1524review targets?1525    Ms. Lesko. I am not aware.1526    Mr. Biggs. Mr. Riches?1527    Mr. Riches. No, Mr. Chair. I am not aware. I know in Rule152860 motion there was a request that some of the oversight1529components be stopped.1530    Mr. Biggs. Mr. Garcia, are you aware of any?1531    Mr. Garcia. No.1532    Mr. Biggs. OK. Well, thank you for answering questions. It1533is painfully obvious that Merrick Garland's suggestions and1534guidance on monitorships, of consent decrees, and in this case1535a judgment, a judicial judgment, have gone largely unheeded,1536and that is a problem.1537    For the record I am going to put in some UCs here.1538    First, the Amendment 2 to Lease Agreement Between Luhr's1539Investors and Maricopa County. This is on behalf of Mr.1540Warshaw, that amendment to that contract.1541    Second, one out of paying for Warshaw and Associates. This1542is for professional services, $212,551 payment, net 15, by the1543way, on August 1, 2023.1544    Third, a letter from the PORAC on behalf of the Peace1545Officers Research Association of California, encouraging that1546the monitorship come to a close.1547    Fourth, a letter from the National Association of Police1548Organizations, encouraging that the monitorship come to an end.1549    Fifth, a piece entitled, ``DOJ Supports Call to End1550Maricopa County Sheriff's Office Oversight Case.''1551    Sixth, an article ``Supervisors Call for $353 Million1552Oversight of Sheriff's Office.''1553    Seventh, the ``County Attorney Says Monitor has Financial1554Incentive to Continue MCSO Oversight.'' That goes back to my1555thing about incentives.1556    Eighth, an article, ``A Monitor Keeps Moving Goalposts for1557MCSO Officers, Putting Our Safety at Risk.''1558    Ninth, an article, ``Citizens Plea for Relief, Balance, and1559Local Accountability in Maricopa County.''1560    Tenth, a letter to Hon. Pam Bondi, Attorney General of the1561United States, written by me. Admitted without objection.1562    With that I am prepared to yield and recognize the1563gentleman from South Carolina for his second round of1564questions.1565    Mr. Fry. Thank you for that, Mr. Chair, and I had to step1566out for a minute, but I think you covered--did you cover the1567Merrick Garland pretty thoroughly?1568    Mr. Biggs. I did, yes.1569    Mr. Fry. That was going to be my second round.1570    Mr. Biggs. Yes. That was covered.1571    Mr. Fry. I will yield back here in a minute, but I think in1572every which way, when I look at the merits of this case and1573what the County has filed with their 60(b) relief, supported by1574any number of groups, including the DOJ, the elements are1575satisfied, meaning that the County and the Sheriff's Office1576have complied substantially for quite some time, with what was1577intended in the court order in 2014. They have complied not1578just on the surface but deep structural changes within the1579Department. They have been validated by the monitor's own1580reporting. They have been validated by other reports that exist1581out there, that are independent of the monitor and the County.1582    When I look at the federalism concerns, those speak to1583themselves. The Federal Government is not here to micromanage1584every aspect of State and local government. That is not their1585function. The Constitution limits the authority given to the1586Federal Government, and the Tenth Amendment is very clear--1587those that are not enumerated in this Constitution are left to1588the States.1589    While Federal oversight is maybe wanted, a judge orders1590that, these are routine sometimes in our country, in this you1591have a 14-year-old, well, over 10-year-old case where you had1592substantial compliance by the County for a long time. They have1593spent over $300 million on compliance costs. Shouldn't that1594money be better left appropriated by the people who are elected1595by the citizens of this area to be spent on, I don't know,1596further policing, more police, other initiatives within the1597county? Doesn't that make more sense than this continuing1598check-the-box.1599    Look, if you go back to 2015, and some of the data that I1600highlighted, 50 percent compliance at that point, OK, that is a1601substantial start, but we are not quite there yet. The County1602is not quite there yet. Now you have 100 percent, high marks on1603everybody that seems to be reviewing this. Why must the County1604continue to endure this, both from an operational standpoint on1605what they are doing, and also a federalism component, which is1606critical to who we are in our republic.1607    The Chair raised up some comments on maybe some oversight1608of monitors, that is not the case. Merrick Garland, who I do1609not agree with much--I did not think he was that effective at1610all as an Attorney General--he may have gotten this right,1611where there is some disclosure that is required by the monitor.1612There is some public input that is required on the selection of1613the monitor. There are term limits to the monitor. This is not1614an unfettered cash grab of continuing to say, ``Yep, they are1615doing their work. Here is a bill for $250,000,'' or whatever1616the case is.1617    The monitor is not a taxpayer of this county. The monitor1618is not a voter of this country. The monitor has done his job,1619and it is time to end. I hope that the 60(b) motion is1620successful. I think it is beyond and past time to end, because1621again, the Federal Government does not need to micromanage1622every aspect of this. The Sheriff's Office should be commended1623for their hard work. I know it probably was not easy to have1624this oversight constantly on you. In many cases, in things that1625I have read, it sounds like they have done a dang good job at1626it.1627    It is time for this to end, and I hope that it does. I1628appreciate you being here and your involvement in the1629community. I think that is huge. That nexus between the1630community and police is massive. It is underrated at times, but1631it works very successfully. You being a part of that, part of1632that discussion is critically important.1633    With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.1634    Mr. Biggs. The gentleman yields. The Chair recognizes Mr.1635Nehls for two minutes.1636    Mr. Nehls. Thank you, sir. I agree with what you just1637stated, Mr. Fry. Mr. Garcia, you are a key here, in my humble1638opinion, in its success. The Sheriff's Office--and it is an1639office. I always say department. It is an office. He is dually1640elected, so it is the Sheriff's Office. The Sheriff's Office is1641complying with the judicial orders. It has been doing that for1642years, the documentation that is there. You stated, and I am1643paraphrasing, the citizens are satisfied. Great, right?1644Everybody seems to be pretty pleased. I believe your working1645group--and if it is just coming from elected officials, I do1646not think that is going to work. If it is coming from the1647working group, if it is coming from the people that reside in1648this county, that are pleased now to see the significant1649improvement, change, at the Sheriff's Office, that should hold1650significant--significant--weight in the elimination of this1651Federal program. I just think having you more involved with1652this, letters to the judge, and everything else, that is the1653key to your success. I wish you all the best of luck.1654    Thank you, sir. I yield back.1655    Mr. Biggs. The gentleman yields. That concludes today's1656hearing. We thank our witnesses for appearing before the1657Subcommittee today. I must point out that we invited our1658colleagues on the Democrat side of the aisle to appear and to1659invite witnesses today, and they opted to not participate in1660this Subcommittee hearing today.1661    Without objection, all Members will have five legislative1662days to submit additional written questions for the witnesses1663or additional materials for the record. Without objection, the1664hearing is adjourned.1665    [Whereupon, at 10:32 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]16661667    All materials submitted for the record by Members of the1668Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance can1669be found at: https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/1670ByEvent.aspx?EventID=118963.16711672                                 [all]