[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 88 (Tuesday, July 11, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H5748-H5757]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AIMEE'S LAW
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill
(H.R. 894) to encourage States to incarcerate individuals convicted of
murder, rape, or child molestation, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 894
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE
This Act may be cited as ``Aimee's Law''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Dangerous sexual offense.--The term ``dangerous sexual
offense'' means sexual abuse or sexually explicit conduct
committed by an individual who has attained the age of 18
years against an individual who has not attained the age of
14 years.
(2) Murder.--The term ``murder'' has the meaning given the
term under applicable State law.
(3) Rape.--The term ``rape'' has the meaning given the term
under applicable State law.
(4) Sexual abuse.--The term ``sexual abuse'' has the
meaning given the term under applicable State law.
(5) Sexually explicit conduct.--The term ``sexually
explicit conduct'' has the meaning given the term under
applicable State law.
SEC. 3. REIMBURSEMENT TO STATES FOR CRIMES COMMITTED BY
CERTAIN RELEASED FELONS.
(a) Penalty.--
(1) Single state.--In any case in which a State convicts an
individual of murder, rape, or a dangerous sexual offense,
who has a prior conviction for any 1 of those offenses in a
State described in paragraph (3), the Attorney General shall
transfer an amount equal to the costs of incarceration,
prosecution, and apprehension of that individual, from
Federal law enforcement assistance funds that have been
allocated to but not distributed to the State that convicted
the individual of the prior offense, to the State account
that collects Federal law enforcement assistance funds of the
State that convicted that individual of the subsequent
offense.
(2) Multiple states.--In any case in which a State convicts
an individual of murder, rape, or a dangerous sexual offense,
who has a prior conviction for any 1 or more of those
offenses in more than 1 other State described in paragraph
(3), the Attorney General shall transfer an amount equal to
the costs of incarceration, prosecution, and apprehension of
that individual, from Federal law enforcement assistance
funds that have been allocated to but not distributed to each
State that convicted such individual of the prior offense, to
the State account that collects Federal law enforcement
assistance funds of the State that convicted that individual
of the subsequent offense.
(3) State described.--A State is described in this
paragraph if--
(A) the State has not adopted Federal truth-in-sentencing
guidelines under section 20104 of the Violent Crime Control
and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13704);
(B) the average term of imprisonment imposed by the State
on individuals convicted of the offense for which the
individual described in paragraph (1) or (2), as applicable,
was convicted by the State is less than 10 percent above the
average term of imprisonment imposed for that offense in all
States; or
(C) with respect to the individual described in paragraph
(1) or (2), as applicable, the individual had served less
than 85 percent of
[[Page H5749]]
the term of imprisonment to which that individual was
sentenced for the prior offense.
(b) State Applications.--In order to receive an amount
transferred under subsection (a), the chief executive of a
State shall submit to the Attorney General an application, in
such form and containing such information as the Attorney
General may reasonably require, which shall include a
certification that the State has convicted an individual of
murder, rape, or a dangerous sexual offense, who has a prior
conviction for 1 of those offenses in another State.
(c) Source of Funds.--Any amount transferred under
subsection (a) shall be derived by reducing the amount of
Federal law enforcement assistance funds received by the
State that convicted such individual of the prior offense
before the distribution of the funds to the State. The
Attorney General, in consultation with the chief executive of
the State that convicted such individual of the prior
offense, shall establish a payment schedule.
(d) Construction.--Nothing in this subsection may be
construed to diminish or otherwise affect any court ordered
restitution.
(e) Exception.--This section does not apply if the
individual convicted of murder, rape, or a dangerous sexual
offense has been released from prison upon the reversal of a
conviction for an offense described in subsection (a) and
subsequently been convicted for an offense described in
subsection (a).
SEC. 4. COLLECTION OF RECIDIVISM DATA.
(a) In General.--Beginning with calendar year 2000, and
each calendar year thereafter, the Attorney General shall
collect and maintain information relating to, with respect to
each State--
(1) the number of convictions during that calendar year
for--
(A) any sex offense in the State in which, at the time of
the offense, the victim had not attained the age of 14 years
and the offender had attained the age of 18 years;
(B) rape; and
(C) murder; and
(2) the number of convictions described in paragraph (1)
that constitute second or subsequent convictions of the
defendant of an offense described in that paragraph.
(b) Report.--Not later than March 1, 2001, and on March 1
of each year thereafter, the Attorney General shall submit to
Congress a report, which shall include--
(1) the information collected under subsection (a) with
respect to each State during the preceding calendar year; and
(2) the percentage of cases in each State in which an
individual convicted of an offense described in subsection
(a)(1) was previously convicted of another such offense in
another State during the preceding calendar year.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas).
General Leave
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
to include extraneous material on H.R. 894, the bill now under
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
{time} 1045
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon), who has appeared to expedite this
particular bill and ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to
control that time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kuykendall). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. SALMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, every day of every week of every year,
States release convicted murderers, rapists and child molesters back
into our neighborhoods. Predictably, every day of every week of every
year these criminals, America's most dangerous and perverted, revert to
form and unleash new waves of terror.
Two years ago, I introduced Aimee's Law, otherwise known as the No
Second Chances for Rapists, Murderers and Molesters Act, to end the
revolving door of justice that floods our cities and neighborhoods with
convicted murderers, rapists, and child molesters. Gail Willard, mother
of Aimee for whom the bill is named, Marc Klaas, Mary Vincent, Fred
Goldman, Mika Moulton, Childhelp USA, and the National Fraternal Order
of Police representing thousands and thousands of police officers
nationwide as well as several other of my colleagues have decided to
draw a line in the sand and say to criminals, If you commit murder,
rape or molestation, you're finished. You don't get a second chance to
destroy the lives of the innocent. The victims of these crimes do not
get a second chance. Why should their attackers?
I stress the narrow category of crimes that we are talking about here
today: murder, rape and child molestation. We are not targeting
jaywalkers, shoplifters, or even drug dealers. We are targeting the
very worst of the worst.
Any opponent of this bill must answer the following: Should a
pedophile have a second chance to live in your neighborhood? Or as so
often is the case, a third and fourth chance? How about a rapist?
Should they be given another chance to violate women? Do you believe
that a murderer living next door to you would enhance the quality of
your life or improve the safety of your community?
Aimee's Law has tremendous bipartisan support. It passed last year as
an amendment to the juvenile crime bill with 412 votes in this House
and 81 votes in the Senate. On the House floor, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. McCollum) referred to this bill in its current form as a
terrific product, an extraordinary bill. Another supporter of Aimee's
Law, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), said, ``It's tragic
that we face on a daily basis the attack of our children by child
molesters and murderers and rapists who go about our Nation and repeat
their crimes.''
The gentlewoman from Texas is right. It is indeed tragic. Aimee
Willard died at the hands of a convicted killer. This is a picture of
Aimee. Arthur Bomar murdered her. He was released from prison after
spending less than 12 years for killing a person over a parking lot
spot. This guy was no model prisoner by any stretch of the imagination.
While he was in prison, he also violated other prisoners and guards. If
Bomar was simply kept in prison after his first murder, Aimee Willard
would be alive today. What a needless waste.
Aimee Willard's death is not an isolated incident but part of a
totally preventable crime epidemic, recidivist attacks by released
convicted murderers, rapists and child molesters.
Politicians talk tough on crime, but here are statistics that you
will not see in a campaign commercial. The average time served for rape
is 5\1/2\ years; for child molestation, 4 years; and for murder, for
murder, the worst crime that I can imagine, 8 years. As a direct result
of this leniency, every year more than 14,000, let me say that again,
every year more than 14,000 rapes, murders and molestations, crimes
against children, are committed by previously convicted and released
murderers and sex offenders; 14,000 crimes that by definition are 100
percent totally preventable.
The toll on children is devastating. Each year over 80 children are
murdered, 1,300 are raped, and 7,500 are sexually assaulted by released
murderers, rapists and child molesters. It is not as if murderers,
rapists and molesters become Boy Scouts after their release from
prison. The recidivism rates for these sex offenders are especially
high. As the best experts who have studied this issue will tell you,
Once a molester, always a molester. The Department of Justice found in
1997 that within just 3 years of release from prison, an estimated 52
percent of discharged rapists and 48 percent of other sexual offenders
were rearrested for a new crime, often a sexual offense. Behind the
statistics are grisly threats by sex offenders eligible for release.
Here is a quote from one of them.
This molester warned: ``I am doomed to eventually rape, then murder
my poor little victims to keep them from telling on me. I might be
walking the streets of your city, your community, your neighborhoods.''
The amended version of H.R. 894 would provide additional funding to
States that convict a murderer, rapist or child molester if that
criminal had previously been convicted of one of those same crimes in
another State. The cost of prosecuting and incarcerating the criminal
would be deducted from the Federal crime assistance funds intended to
go to the first State, in other words, the State that lets them go,
that is irresponsible, loses some of their Federal crime assistance
[[Page H5750]]
funds and it goes to the new offended State. Aimee's Law would finally
hold States accountable for mistakes that shatter lives.
We have heard on this floor and in campaign stump speeches for many
years that we need to get back to personal accountability, personal
responsibility. How about a little bit of government accountability?
How about a little bit of government responsibility?
A safe harbor has been added to the bill which would not require the
funds to transfer if the criminal has served 85 percent of his original
sentence and if the first State was a truth-in-sentencing State with a
higher than average typical sentence for the crime.
Of course, States have the right to release these convicted
murderers, rapists and child molesters into our cities and
neighborhoods; and this bill does not force them to do otherwise.
However, the question is, who should pay when one of these violent
predators commits another rape or sex offense in a different State?
Should Pennsylvania, which has already paid a huge human cost with the
loss of Aimee Willard, have to pay for the prosecution and
incarceration of another killer, Arthur Bomar? Or should Nevada, which
knew that Arthur Bomar was a vicious killer but decided to release him
anyway? They said he was safe. Obviously they thought he was safe, or
they would not have released him on society. So who should pay for
these carnage costs? The State who let the guy loose, the irresponsible
State, or the State that is now a victim as well? I think the answer is
obvious.
The law enforcement community in particular understands the
importance of this legislation. The Nation's largest police union, the
National Fraternal Order of Police, strongly backs this bill. Their
president wrote in a letter, an endorsement letter to me yesterday, and
I am quoting: ``One of the most frustrating aspects of law enforcement
is seeing the guilty go free and, once free, commit another heinous
crime. Lives can be saved and tragedies can be averted if we have the
will to keep these violent, terrible predators locked up. Aimee's Law
addresses this issue smartly, without federalizing crimes and without
infringing on State and local responsibilities of local law enforcement
by providing accountability and responsibility to States who release
their murderers, their rapists and child molesters to prey yet again on
the innocent.''
The revolving door of our criminal justice system can be more than
frustrating to law enforcement officers. It can be fatal. A New Jersey
police officer, Ippolito Lee Gonzalez, was killed by a released
convicted killer, Robert Simon. Simon spent 12 years in a Pennsylvania
prison for killing his girlfriend for refusing to engage in sexual
relations with his motorcycle gang. The judge who sentenced Simon in
Pennsylvania on his first murder conviction had written to the State
parole board that Simon should never, never see the light of day in
Pennsylvania or any other place in the free world. But he got out.
Officer Gonzalez's brother testified at a congressional hearing on
Aimee's Law that if this bill had been in effect previously, my brother
would still be alive today.
Victims rights and child advocacy groups also strongly endorse this
bill. Childhelp USA, Klaas Kids Foundation, Kids Safe, Mothers Outraged
at Molesters, and the list goes on and on and on. Editorial boards
across America have called for the passage of Aimee's Law. The Delaware
County Times, for example, recently offered in an editorial, ``Time for
the House to enact Aimee's Law'': ``We see this consideration of
Aimee's Law as a step in the right direction as it puts a victim's face
on the problem of repeat offenders and the need to place responsibility
on the shoulders of our State prisons.''
A paper from my home State, the Arizona Republic, asserted that
``Congress should pass Aimee's Law for the men, women and children
whose lives are shattered, sometimes extinguished by violent criminals
who should have never been released from prison. Aimee's Law creates a
strong financial incentive for States to impose stiff sentences on
violent offenders. And it deftly does it without imposing Federal
regulations.''
Another paper, the Richmond Times-Dispatch, used the following
rationale to support Aimee's Law: ``Giving a one-way bus ticket to a
sex offender might improve the community he leaves but it is equivalent
to the shipping of toxic waste to unsuspecting States. Aimee's Law
would make States bear the cost of such a repugnant practice. It is
good legislation that the House should pass and the President should
sign into law.''
Of course, no bill satisfies everyone. Some argue that Aimee's Law
responds to a problem that does not really exist. Does not exist? Once
again, I refer to the Justice Department's own statistics: 8 years for
murder, 5\1/2\ for rape, 4 years for molestation of a child. And 13
percent of men convicted of rape serve absolutely no prison time at
all. Thirteen percent of rapists do not even spend one day in prison.
I thank all of those who have worked tirelessly to pass Aimee's Law.
Particularly, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith) for their long-term
commitment and bipartisan support on this project. I also appreciate
the efforts of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority
leader; and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip for
their assistance in advancing the legislation. I also owe the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) a debt of gratitude for discharging the bill
from the Committee on the Judiciary and the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
McCollum) for convening two hearings on this bill.
Aimee's Law will finally bring some accountability to the States who
choose to be irresponsible and release convicted murderers, rapists and
child molesters back into society. Enactment of the bill will spare
families from the needless tragedy experienced by Aimee Willard's
family and thousands and thousands of countless other families across
the Nation. Whose side do you come down on? The 40 or so law
enforcement, child advocacy and victims rights groups that have
endorsed Aimee's Law enthusiastically, or the convicted murderers,
rapists and molesters and their apologists? Please do the right thing
and vote for Aimee's Law.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SALMON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out that when the
author of the bill makes the statement that 13 percent of these rapists
will serve no time at all, that is 13 percent of those caught and
convicted. And there is only 10 percent in the United States of rapists
that are actually even brought to trial. What is truly appalling and
what this bill attempts to mitigate is the fact that there are 14,000
murders and rapes and sexual assaults that in a way occur needlessly in
this society every year because those are repeat offenders who should
in fact be behind bars. They have already committed that offense once.
Now they are committing it again.
One in eight of the major crimes that we see in this category are
second-time offenders that have come from a different State and
frankly, had the law been applied correctly, they would not be out on
the street. These are appalling figures that have been cited here by
the gentleman from Arizona, when we consider that victims of rape do
not get a second chance at security, victims of child molestation do
not get a second chance at innocence, and victims of murder do not get
a second chance of life.
By the same token, rapists, child molesters and murderers should not
be given a second chance only to inflict their terror on other helpless
victims. I believe this bill is a first step toward combating
recidivism by making a State that releases a murderer or rapist from
prison financially responsible for incarceration and for apprehension
and prosecution if the felon commits another violent crime in a
different State. The bill would also allow us really for the first time
to tally precisely the number of crimes committed by previously
convicted offenders who go in and out of that revolving door of the
criminal justice system from State to State committing these types of
crimes.
When I was in the California State senate, I authored an anti-
stalking measure after four local women were killed in the span of 6
weeks. Each one of these women fearing for her life had
[[Page H5751]]
sought police protection only to be told that there was nothing that
law enforcement could do until she was physically attacked. One police
officer told me that the hardest thing he ever had to do was to tell a
victim that there was nothing he could do until the woman was attacked,
only to find her subsequently murdered.
That is the reason that we are trying to reform these laws. By
passing the No Second Chance for Murderers, Rapists or Child Molesters
Act, we can prevent further tragedies.
{time} 1100
Aimee's Law is common sense law. We must stiffen sentencing and
parole guidelines to ensure that murderers and rapists do not go free
to commit these crimes again in a different State.
Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I too have compassion for Aimee. Her tragedy reminds us that we need
to do all we can to prevent situations like this from happening in the
future. However, this bill does not do that, and that is why I rise in
opposition to the bill.
The bill provides that if certain convicts are released from one
State and then go to another State and commit certain crimes, that the
first State will have to pay the second State's costs associated with
that crime. But, if the State has adopted one of numerous truth-in-
sentencing schemes, then they do not have to pay.
Well, Mr. Speaker, no one seriously thinks that the payments by the
State would deter a murderer from committing an additional crime, and
no one can honestly believe that the incentives in the bill will
provoke a State into adopting a truth in sentencing scheme, because the
costs associated with the crime are measured in the hundreds of
thousands of dollars and worse, and some of these sentencing schemes,
when Virginia adopted Truth in Sentencing, it cost billions, not
hundreds of thousands, not millions; billions. So that no State is
going to implement this program because of this bill.
Now, we were asked by the sponsor a question of whether a pedophile
should have a second chance. The bill does not require a longer
sentence; it provides one exception of the $100,000 payment if one has
adopted the truth in sentencing scheme. Ironically, this 13 percent
that do not serve any time at all, they did not get any time, they
served 85 percent of nothing. So that would not be a violation of the
situation.
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that the truth in sentencing schemes have
been studied. The Rand Corporation studied it last year, and they could
find no evidence that truth in sentencing schemes did anything to
reduce crime. Therefore, the bill is, and I quote, ``onerous,
impractical and unworkable. It is worse than an unfunded mandate. It is
certain to generate a morass of bureaucracy; it is enormous and costly,
with a probable public safety impact of zero.''
Now, those are not my words; those are the words of the National
Governors' Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures,
the Council of State Governments, the Department of Justice and a noted
criminologist. Yet, despite all of these very critical descriptions,
the bill comes before us in an amended form on the suspension calendar
without ever having been marked up in committee.
Now, I am aware, as everyone here, that no good politician should
vote against a crime bill named after somebody. However, I think that
before we vote on the bill, we ought to have the evaluations from those
who have evaluated the bill and what they actually thought about it.
Since those who have evaluated have such strong concerns about it, I
suggest that the Members ask their State legislatures and ask their
governors whether or not they believe that it will reduce crime or
whether it will simply allow Members of Congress to take credit for
passing a good sound bite and continue to avoid doing all of what the
experts say will actually reduce crime, and that is investing in
prevention and early intervention programs.
Mr. Speaker, at this point I will include for the Record portions of
letters from the National Governors' Association, the National
Conference of State Legislatures, the Council of State Governments,
Frank Zimring, a law professor from the University of California at
Berkeley, and from the Department of Justice, all of which are critical
of the bill.
[Excerpt from letter dated August 30, 1999 to the Honorable Robert C.
Scott, U.S. House of Representatives from the Council of State
Governments:]
aimee's law
S. 254: ``Aimee's Law'': When an offender convicted of one of
several violent offenses serves an insufficient amount of
his sentence in prison and, following his release,
commits a similar offense in another state, the first
state must reimburse, out of its JAIBG monies, the second
state for the cost of apprehending, prosecuting, and
imprisoning the offender.
H.R. 1501: Similar provision.
Recommendation: Strike this section.
It appears that few, if any states, comply with the
conditions set forth in ``Aimee's Law.'' At least one of the
sentencing requirements if far more stringent than any of the
standards provided in the violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994. Accordingly, as a result of this
provision, each of our jurisdictions is likely to lose part
of its JAIBG funding. Furthermore, the provision is almost
certain to generate a morass of bureaucracy to monitor
compliance with the law and to account for subsequent
adjustments to block grant amounts awarded to states.
In addition, although ``Aimee's Law'' seeks to punish
states where adults are incarcerated for an insufficient
length of time, it appears to penalize various programs,
including those that serve juvenile offenders, by reducing a
state's JAIBG allocation. Lastly, the premise of the bill
(allowing one state to be reimbursed for another state's
failure to meet truth-in-sentencing standards set by
Congress) sets a precedent that has implications far beyond
criminal justice.
____
[Excerpt of testimony dated May 11, 2000 presented by Frank Zimring,
professor of Law and Director, Earl Warren Legal Institute, University
of California at Berkeley to the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee
on Crime:]
STATEMENT OF FRANKLIN ZIMRING
Mr. ZIMRING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am not here so that
you folks can hear my views or my values. I think I have been
solicited as a technical expert on the Federal criminal law.
I will be submitting for inclusion into the record a brief
article Gordon Hawkins and I wrote in the annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Signs on Federal
Jurisdiction. What I would like to do with 5 minutes now is
read only two paragraphs of my statement and a brief box
score on the detailed policy analysis that has been submitted
to the members of this committee; and then if there are
questions about the specifics of that, we can come back to
it.
The four bills that are before you are prime examples of
the legislative frustration that is generated by limited
Federal criminal jurisdiction because Federal criminal
justice accounts for about 7 percent of all the prisoners in
the United States; and a much smaller percentage of violent
and sex crime prosecutions, probably less than 1 percent of
nonbank robbery violence and sex; and that means that House
Members wish to denounce crime and also want to take steps to
make our communities safer, but it turns out that symbolic
gestures are an awful lot easier to find than measures with a
strong preventive potential.
In my view, all four of the proposals that are before this
committee have very strong sort of symbolic value. They make
a stand against crime, but none of the group of proposals
before the committee is a promising method of legislating
public safety. Now, the four proposals you have use four
completely different strategies to get around this
frustration of limited Federal criminal justice impact. One
tries to use the financial carrot. That is House bill 894.
Another, 4045. Looks at Federal offenders only. Third, 4047
looks at only Federal offenders but will take account for
prior State records as well. and 4147 is about one of the
very few Federal criminal laws, the obscenity law, where
there are really case volumes that overlap somewhat with some
kinds of child victims.
My box score on House bill 894 is that its probable impact
is going to be zero because the cost of the fine to a
particular State is a very small fraction of the cost of
mandatory life without possibility of parole sentences for
the long laundry list of crimes which are prevented. The
maximum fine is $100,000 to the victim plus the actual cost
of confinement and case processing. That is about a $100,000
more than the case would have cost with an LWOP in the * * *
[[Page H5752]]
____
[Excerpt from testimony dated May 11, 2000 presented by the Honorable
Mike Lawlor, member of the Connecticut General Assembly and vice chair
of the Law and Justice Committee of the Assembly on State-Federal
Issues for the National Conference of State Legislatures to the House
Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Crime:]
Chair, House Judiciary Committee, Connecticut General
Assembly, on behalf of the National Conference of the State
Legislatures, House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on
Crime, May 11, 2000.
My name is Mike Lawlor and I serve as vice chair of the Law
and Justice Committee of the Assembly on State--Federal
Issues, a part of the National Conference of State
Legislatures. I am here today representing NCSL. Aimee's Law
attempts to solve a problem that no longer exists. If
enacted, Aimee's Law would create a mechanism sure to be used
in other policy areas, like gun control, public health,
education and tobacco. Although well intentioned, Aimee's Law
is worse than an unfunded mandate. Its retroactive
application will pit one state against another and turn
already limited federal law enforcement assistance funds into
a superfund of sorts for clever state budget balancers. In
general, the NCSL believes that Congress should not
substitute national criminal laws for state and local
judgment and we ask you to work in partnership with state and
local governments to achieve truth in sentencing, especially
for violent offenders.
aimee's law is worse than an unfunded mandate
The proposed mechanism appears to be retroactive and will
penalize states for parole and early release decisions made
twenty or thirty years ago. Instead of relying on federal
assistance based on my state's willingness to adopt state-of-
the-art criminal justice policies, Connecticut will be forced
to focus on identifying current defendants and prisoners who
have been convicted previously of homicide rape or sexual
abuse of children in other states. We will be forced to do so
in order to offset the federal funds we will certainly lose
as our former inmates are prosecuted or incarcerated in other
states.
The fact is that no state required violent offenders to
serve 85% of their sentences until the mid 1990's and no
state in the nation currently requires a life sentence
without possibility of release for all of the crimes listed
in H.R. 894. Should this proposal become law, every state
will be subject to the loss of most, if not all, federal law
enforcement assistance. The states with the quickest and most
thorough researchers will reap the windfall. If this proposal
is enacted, Connecticut plans to identify every offender in
or data base who has an out of state record for any of the
listed crimes and pursue reimbursement for all of the listed
expenses. I'm sure that every other state will do the same.
In the end, we would lose our annual law enforcement grants
to other states and we would hope to recoup at least that
much from other states. I'm not sure what the point of this
bureaucratic exercise would be.
aimee's law can be used in other public policy areas
``NCSL strongly urges federal lawmakers to maintain a
federalism that respect diversity without causing division
and that fosters unity without enshrining uniformity.'' NCSL
policy statement adopted July 1998.
Aimee's Law allows individual states to punish other states
that have failed to adequately deal with an individual who
creates a burden on the state. In this case, violent
criminals released early in one state who victimize someone
in a new state create a cause of action against the original
state. The penalty is automatic assuming the statutory
criteria are met and the funds are readily accessible. The
simplicity is appealing and can be adapted to fit other
policy areas.
For example, Congress could authorize states to make a
similar claim against federal law enforcement funds when one
of their citizens is injured or killed by a person who bought
a handgun at a gun show in a state which does not require a
background check for all gun sales, both public and private.
Connecticut allows only licensed individuals to purchase
handguns, whether in a store, gun show or living room, and
all sales require a check with the state police.
Another use of such a mechanism would be for states to make
a claim on another state's Medicaid reimbursement if a
chronically ill person requires hospitalization in a new
state and after receiving inadequate care in the old state.
Perhaps states with relatively lax enforcement of teenage
smoking rules should have to forfeit federals funds to other
states that must care for seriously ill lifetime smokers.
States with substandard schools could forfeit federal
educational assistance grants to states providing remedial
services to students whose families have moved from one state
to another.
My state would benefit under all of these rules. However,
each such rule would undermine the diversity and unity that
have been the bedrock of our federal system.
Aimee's Law solves a problem that no longer exists
This proposal punishes states for decisions made in the
past. Early release of violent offenders was commonplace in
every state ten or fifteen years ago. But, the impact of
Aimee's law will be felt in the future. There is no law my
state can enact which would protect us from the penalties
suggested in this legislation.
Offenders sentenced for murder, rape, sexual abuse of
children and other violent crimes under current state truth
in sentencing rules will not be released for decades.
Connecticut, for example, recently ranked 6th nationally in
percentage of time served on a violent crime sentence. On
average, Connecticut violent offenders served 68% of their
sentences, ranking behind Vermont (87%), Missouri (86%),
Arizona and Washington (74%) and Minnesota (69%). That
ranking is based on 1997 data. In 1998, violent offenders in
my state served on average 74.7% of their sentences.
Also in Connecticut, persons convicted of murder are not
eligible for parole under any circumstances. As of October 1,
1994, good time credits are not available to any offender.
Therefore, persons convicted of murder serve every day of the
sentence imposed by the court.
Lengthy sentences and truth in sentencing have become the
rule rather than the exception for the crimes of murder, rape
and child molestation in almost every state. As a state
legislator, I ask that you help us continue our efforts to
insure that violent criminals receive and serve appropriate
sentences rather than punishing us for our inability to
handle the surging tide of criminal cases and prisoners which
began in 1980 and continued unabated until very recently.
Many states need assistance developing alternative forms of
punishment for less serious, non violent prisoners to free up
cell space for serious, repeat violent offenders. We are
badly in need of more specialized treatment for mentally ill
and drug dependent offenders which have overwhelmed our
prisons and jails.
Aimee's Law ignores several important facts
The ``No Second Chances for Murderers, Rapists or Child
Molesters Act of 1999'' does not take into account the
diversity of criminal statutes and the lack of uniformity in
sentencing systems. It is almost impossible to develop a
formula that appropriately acknowledges the unique aspects of
criminal law and procedure in each of the fifty states. My
state punishes sexual abuse of a fourteen year old just as
severely as sexual abuse of a thirteen year old. Your
proposal creates a distinction not recognized in our criminal
records. Your definition of ``sexually explicit conduct''
would include conduct that would otherwise be a misdemeanor
in Connecticut. Given the high financial stakes, many states
would stretch those definitions to cover compensation for
arrest and prosecution of many sexual offenders who typically
receive sentences of probation or jail.
The proposal also risks diverting crime victim compensation
money to violent offenders themselves. Many homicide victims
are drug dealers with bad aim. A $100,000 entitlement for
less-than-innocent victims is a bad idea. Connecticut and
many states with crime victim compensation programs apply
standards to claims for financial assistance to exclude
``guilty'' victims and federal mandates should respect those
distinctions.
In recent years the Subcommittee on Crime has provided
important leadership to state and local governments in the
fight against violent crime. We in state legislatures
throughout the nation hope to continue working with you in
partnership to ensure that recent reductions in the level of
violent crime can be sustained. We think Aimee's Law and
proposals of this type undermine the long-standing tradition
of respect for state and local responses to crime.
____
[Excerpt from letter dated May 10, 2000 to the Honorable Robert C.
``Bobby'' Scott, ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on Crime
of the House Committee on the Judiciary from the Honorable Robert
Raben, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legislative Affairs, U.S.
Department of Justice:]
No Second Chances for Murders, Rapists, or Child Molesters Act of 1999,
or Aimee's Law (H.R. 894)
This bill ``encourages'' states to give lengthy sentences
to individuals convicted of murder, rape, or child
molestation (as defined by the bill). Specifically, it denies
federal law enforcement assistance funds to the state that
releases a murder, rape or child molestation felon who then
commits the offense a second time, and gives the money to the
state that must prosecute the felon again, to reimburse it
for the costs of prosecution and incarceration. The bill also
seeks to reimburse the victims of the offenses. In addition,
the bill requires the Attorney General to collect recidivism
data on felons convicted of murder, rape or any sex offense
where the victim is under 14 and the offender is under 18.
While we believe that the bill is well-intended, the
Department has numerous concerns about this bill, which we
think will present significant enforcement challenges and
will do little to achieve the laudable goal of protecting
children.
Definitions
H.R. 894 fails to define numerous critical terms in a
manner that would allow clear, efficient enforcement of the
law. For example:
The bill contains definitions such as ``dangerous sexual
offense,'' which include victim and offender age requirements
(14 and 18, respectively) that do not correspond to legal
terms included in most state statutes.
Also, H.R. 894 does not define who qualifies as a
``victim.'' This is a critical omission, given that this
legislation requires that one state pay another up to
$100,000 to ``each victim (or if the victim is deceased, the
victim's estate)'' in certain situations.
[[Page H5753]]
The costs of ``prosecuting,'' ``apprehending,'' and
``incarcerating'' offenders would be difficult to ascertain
for purposes of reimbursement. Such costly will invariably
vary from investigation to investigation.
The bill does not clearly identify from which ``federal law
enforcement funds'' these transfers would come. If this term
means the Byrne grant program, it would have the unintended
consequence of withholding funds that are channeled to law
enforcement for policy decisions that are implemented by the
judicial branch and corrections agencies.
Availability of Data
H.R. 894 has a requirement that the Department of Justice
track and report on an offender's status as a repeat offender
(See section 4(a)(2)). The bill does not make clear if the
requirement is prospective or retrospective; nor does the
language create a time limit between the prior and subsequent
convictions. If this requirement were applied
retrospectively, it would take many years to develop this
historical archive of criminal history data for every
offender convicted of the violent crimes enumerated in this
section. The collection of this information would be an
enormous and costly undertaking and would require the
creation of a major national data center to collect and match
records submitted by the states to records held by the states
and complete cooperation of all the states in conducting
background checks of persons convicted in other states of the
relevant offenses.
Unintended Consequences and States' Rights
Provisions of this legislation may help create a false
sense of security about the ability of the justice system to
identify and punish violent offenders. For example, some
offenders plead to less serious offenses, and so may not be
identified through whatever interstate communication system
would support the implementation of these provisions, as a
risk for other states. In addition, the provisions of this
bill undermine the rights of state governments to determine
sentencing policies appropriate to their fiscal, social and
political climates.
alternatives
The Justice Department would be happy to work with the
Committee to develop a more workable alternative.
Finally, the Committee should note that the Department
currently is supporting, as key priorities, a number of
initiatives to strengthen oversight of sex offenders:
The NIC has created an Advisory Group, comprised of justice
system practitioners, to study and amend the Interstate
Compact on Probation and Parole. This group proposed
amendments to the compact, and has made uniform legislation
available to all states for year 2000 legislative
deliberation.
As Aimee's Law focuses primarily on interstate travel by
felony sex offenders, we have now implemented the FBI's
National Sex Offender Registry, which came online in July,
1999. This system, coupled with provisions in the Pam Lychner
Act and the Interstate Compact, can provide the
infrastructure to assist states in appropriately identifying
and monitoring individuals that may be dangerous to the
community.
The OJP, NIC and SJI have been supporting the Center for
Sex Offender Management, which has developed a model of
intensive supervision of serious sex offenders by coupling
lifetime probation with offender-appropriate treatment and
polygraph to monitor their behavior.
____
[Excerpt from letter dated August 5, 1999 to the Honorable Henry J.
Hyde, chairman House Committee on the Judiciary and the Honorable John
Conyers, ranking minority member of the House Committee on the
Judiciary from the Honorable Thomas R. Carper, governor of Delaware and
chairman of the National Governors' Association; the Honorable Michael
O. Levitt, governor of Utah and vice chairman of the National
Governors' Association; the Honorable James B. Hunt, governor of North
Carolina and chairman of the Human Resources Committee of the National
Governors' Association; and the Honorable Mike Huckabee, governor of
Arkansas and vice chairman of the Human Resources Committee of the
National Governors' Association:]
aimee's law (title xvi, section 1610 of s. 254, and title i, section
103 of h.r. 1501)
This provision would allow the U.S. Attorney General, in
prescribed circumstances, to deduct Byrne funds from State A
and pay those funds to State B, to reimburse State B for the
criminal justice system costs of a defendant convicted of
murder, rape, or a dangerous sexual offense who has a prior
conviction for a similar offense in State A. State A's Byrne
funds would be reduced in such cases if State A cannot meet
one of three criteria: it has adopted truth-in-sentencing
(TIS); the particular defendant served at least 85 percent of
the imposed sentence; or the state's average term of
imprisonment for the offense is at least 10 percent above the
average for all the states.
This mandate is onerous, impractical and unworkable for
several reasons. First, even though many states have adopted
TIS, interpretations of the meaning and the percentage of
time served vary among the states. Second, some states
require offenders to serve 85 percent of their time, while
other states may require offenders to serve 100 percent of
their time. These variances will impact the calculation of
the third criteria, which is that the ``state's average term
of imprisonment for the offense is not less than 10 percent
above the average for all states.'' Third, sources at the
U.S. Department of Justice say it would be difficult to
obtain and measure the data or to maintain a consistent
average for reasonable periods of time. Fourth, the
``average'' would be a constantly moving target, requiring
recalculation every time a single state legislature enacts a
change in the sentence for covered crimes. A change by one
legislature would affect other states without warning.
Moreover, a crime that would trigger a Byrne fund transfer
could occur before the legislature of a state falling below
10 percent, through no fault of its own, has the opportunity
to meet to consider changing its law to keep its sentence/s
at or above the 10 percent mandate. Each state would have to
constantly monitor the legislative actions of every other
state in an effort to be sure that it stayed at or above the
10 percent criteria. Therefore, we strongly urge the
conferees to delete this section from the final bill.
Governors remain eager to work with Congress to develop
reasonable, practical, workable ways to make sure serious
violent offenders serve appropriate sentences.
core requirements
Governors have always supported the underlying principles
of the juvenile justice bill and believe states should be
given maximum flexibility to implement the spirit and
purposes of the act. We appreciate the fact that both bills
give more flexibility on the core requirements. Furthermore,
we appreciate that under both bills, states would receive 50
percent of their funds, then 12.5 percent for complying with
each principle.
However, S. 254 adds a fifth core requirement, which is
both unnecessary and upsets the funds distribution formula
just mentioned. S. 254 mandates that juveniles who possess
illegal firearms in schools be taken to court and detained
for at least 24 hours if the court determines that they are a
danger to themselves or others. If states do not enact such a
law, they will lose 10 percent of their juvenile justice
funds. The goal of this provision is good, but it should not
be a mandate. We urge you to delete this mandate from the
final bill.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, we have several people on this side that
would like to speak; therefore, I ask unanimous consent for an
additional 20 minutes debate on H.R. 894, as amended, 10 minutes to be
controlled by myself and 10 minutes to be controlled by the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kuykendall). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Arizona?
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I hope the
gentleman would proceed as quickly as possible. The Committee on the
Judiciary is waiting for this bill to conclude so that we can complete
a lot of work that we have been handling, so I would hope that the
gentleman would proceed as quickly as possible.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Arizona?
There was no objection.
Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) who represents Aimee Willard's family.
(Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of
Aimee's Law.
Aimee Willard lived 2 miles from my home. Aimee Willard went to the
same schools that my children attended. Aimee Willard played in the
same parks that my kids played in. Aimee Willard's family, being in the
same school district that I lived in, went through the same kind of
experiences in life that my kids went through, that my neighbors' kids
went through. She was an ordinary kid, but she was also very
extraordinary. She was an outstanding lacrosse and soccer player, and
went on to become one of the top stars at George Mason University. She
was an outstanding student. She had many friends, many who knew her,
and although I did not have the pleasure of knowing her personally, her
friends would say frequently that when Aimee was around, everyone was
happy.
Aimee Willard did nothing to offend anyone. She cared about animals,
she cared about people, she loved life. Aimee Willard was struck down
by an
[[Page H5754]]
animal. There is no other word, Mr. Speaker, an animal. As she was
driving home from an event with her friends on one of our major
interstate highways, she was struck by a car behind her, causing her to
pull over. She was abducted, she was raped, and she was brutally
murdered. Her body was found the next day in a dumpster with two trash
bags over her head and a stick between her legs. That was Aimee
Willard's response to a life of wanting to help people.
Now, the man who has since been convicted and sentenced to death for
killing her was an animal, he was an animal, because he had killed
someone else in Nevada, because they parked in his place at his
apartment complex. But he only served 11 years of that life sentence.
But in prison, as the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) said, he had
a felony conviction for assaulting another prisoner and he also had a
conviction for an assault on a woman who was visiting him in prison.
But the Nevada prison officials just did not get it. So after 11 years,
they put Arthur Bomar on the street. Arthur Bomar came to Pennsylvania
and he snuffed out the life of this bright, energetic, future leader
for America. She may have been a sports star, she may have become a
teacher, she may have become a Member of Congress, but an animal struck
her down.
Now, who should pay for that? The family cannot be compensated. Their
daughter is gone, gone forever, snuffed out in the prime of her life,
22 years of age. Who should pay? Sure, Arthur Bomar is going to
pay. Hopefully this time he is sentenced to life in prison and he will
serve life in prison. But who else should pay? Pennsylvania spent
hundreds of thousands of dollars to track down, try and convict Arthur
Bomar, when it was Nevada who let him out after 11 years. This law
says, Nevada will pay. If a State wants to let a convicted killer out
on the street, a rapist on the street, a child molester on the street,
then that State will pay the price, not the State that has to retry,
recapture, and resentence the individual who did the brutalest of a
brutal assault on a person like this.
One of my colleagues said there are those who are against it. Well,
naturally those in the States do not want to bear any responsibility.
Well, duh. What do we think they are going to say, that they are going
to come out and support it? I mean, we all have brains. Every victim
and witness association in this country supports Aimee's Law, and that
is what matters. I do not care what the governor association says and I
do not care what the conference of state legislatures said. I know what
is right, and people like victims of Aimee Willard's family deserve to
know, in her name, that it will never happen again or those States
where the person first committed the crime will pay the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, as they did a short time ago by a
vote of 412 to 15, to pass Aimee's Law.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
(Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am a cosponsor of Aimee's Law
legislation, and I rise in support of the bill, although I share the
concern of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) that the bill should
have come through committee and we should have had the committee
process work. We see that happen too often here on this floor, whether
it be the week before the July recess with prescription drugs or
managed care reform, or anything. I think we are subverting the will of
this House when we do not use the committee structure the way it is
supposed to be, not just to conduct hearings, but also to have the
committee's vote on this legislation.
But be that as it may, I support this bill. The only crimes that are
more heinous than murder and rape are those same crimes committed
against children. I believe that individuals who commit violent or
sexual crimes against children should spend the rest of their lives in
prison. If, however, a State believes that such a criminal has been
rehabilitated and decides to release this person back into society
before the end of his prison term, then it should be held responsible
if that person commits that crime again in someone else's neighborhood
or someone else's State. Under Aimee's Laws, those States who are
irresponsible and release violent criminals would pay to incarcerate
these criminals in the other State.
This is a fair and just approach, and I urge my colleagues to support
this legislation.
Again, as a former State legislator for 20 years, I know the
opposition to this bill, but I also know that the States need to make
that decision so they do not export their problems to other States.
Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Green).
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
This is an important day, not just for this bill, but I think also
for the House as we decide which path we are going to take in response
to some of the good news that we have seen recently in crime. We have
seen some genuine good news. We have seen some reduction in violent
crime. We have seen some reduction in property crime.
We have two ways to respond. We can respond as some would suggest by
perhaps resting and shifting our attention away to other issues, or we
can respond, as the gentleman from Arizona is responding, by redoubling
our efforts and pushing on towards victory.
I know the polls and pundits are saying that people no longer care as
much about crime issues, but, I say to my colleagues, we are here to
lead. We are here to meet challenges. This bill is about pushing on to
victory.
We know that the vast majority of crimes in this Nation are committed
by a very small percentage of criminals, a small number of ruthless
thugs and animals who commit their crimes over and over and over again.
These numbers right here that the gentleman from Arizona presented for
us, this is all we need. This is all we need as an argument in favor of
this bill.
We heard the previous speaker talk about Aimee's Law and the terrible
tragedy that Aimee's family has faced. What is even a greater tragedy
is that it was not an isolated incident. There are tragedies just like
Aimee's all over this Nation. There was one in my district just a
matter of days ago. A young lady, age 19, out innocently jogging in the
City of Kaukauna, Wisconsin, a small, quiet socially conservative
community. As she went out jogging, she was attacked from behind and
knifed to death by a thug, by an animal who had been previously
convicted of a violent crime in New York, but he had been let out. He
was let out, he came to Wisconsin, and he brutalized a family and a
community. This must end, and with the passage of this bill, we will
get there.
Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman. This is a wonderful tribute to
his work here in the House of Representatives and to the family of
Aimee Willard. Let us pass this bill.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick).
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for
bringing this bill forward and yielding me this time today.
I strongly support Aimee's Law. It just is something that makes
common sense to provide incentives to States so that they will make
sure that violent criminals serve at least 85 percent of their original
sentence.
{time} 1115
If criminals do get out early from prison and if they do go to
another State to terrorize yet another community, then some of the
funding from the first State should go and will be sent to the second
State to cover the costs of locking up that criminal. It seems fair to
me.
More than 14,000 murder, rapes, and sexual assaults are committed
each year by previously-committed murderers and sex offenders. In my
community, that is one of the biggest concerns and complaints of the
police is that they are constantly seeing the revolving door of locking
up the same people over and over. One of eight of these 14,000 murders,
rapes, and sexual assaults are committed in a second State.
Each year 80 children are murdered, 1,300 are raped and 7,500 are
sexually
[[Page H5755]]
assaulted by these murderers, rapists, and child molesters. Mr.
Speaker, we need to lock up these violent criminals who play the
system. That is exactly what they do, they play the system because they
know they can get away with it. They destroy our children's lives.
I urge my colleagues to support Aimee's Law.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, nobody seriously thinks a State will be provoked into
adopting a multi-billion dollar sentencing scheme to avoid a couple of
hundred thousand dollars in terms of punishment under this bill,
particularly when that multi-billion dollar sentencing scheme,
according to the Rand study last year, shows no evidence of reducing
crime.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I might respond to the gentleman's comments. He said no
one seriously believes. I take umbrage with that. There are many people
who believe that, 412 who voted in the House, 80-some in the Senate,
the National Fraternal Order of Police, representing thousands and
thousands of police officers across the country, and all the victims'
rights groups that we mentioned. So obviously someone believes that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Calvert).
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly support this
important law enforcement legislation. I am proud to be an original
cosponsor of the original Aimee's Law and legislation, and have voted
on this provision in the juvenile justice bill earlier this year.
Those who prey on innocent children do not deserve repeated
opportunities for freedom. This bill, also known as the No Second
Chances for Murderers, Rapists, and Child Molesters Act of 1999, would
encourage States to increase penalties for serious violent crimes by
calling for murderers to receive the death penalty or be imprisoned for
life without possibility of parole.
Those convicted of rape or dangerous sexual offenses involving a
child under the age of 14 would be imprisoned for life without the
possibility of parole. This legislation finally will assist local law
enforcement officials by ensuring that the most dangerous criminals
will not be released back to the streets to commit more deadly crimes.
Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe that we must take all necessary actions
to help protect the innocent from predatory violent criminals. I
believe that Aimee's Law significantly helps achieve this goal. I
encourage all my colleagues to support this legislation, and thank my
friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) for introducing this
bill. I encourage its passage.
Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Gilman).
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, today we have a chance to take a giant step
in our fight against repeat offenders. I must commend my colleague, the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) for bringing this important
legislation to the floor at this time.
More than 14,000 murders, rapes, and sexual assaults are committed
each year by previously-convicted murderers and sex offenders. About
one in eight of these completely preventable crimes occurs in a second
State. The average time served in State prison for rape is just 5\1/2\
years. For child molestation, it is about 4 years. For murder it is
just 8 years.
It has become all too common in recent years that victims are
violated by someone who has been previously convicted of a crime and
then released. Many who commit murder, rape, and child exploitation
cannot be rehabilitated. We owe it to our communities to put a stop to
that pattern of violence. Aimee's Law will do just that. It will impede
the ability of convicted felons to repeat their offenses at the cost of
innocent human lives.
Too often we have heard personal stories of the terrible crimes that
this legislation could help to eliminate. Ms. Jeremy Brown from my own
congressional district in New York State was the only survivor of a man
who raped and murdered a number of other women. Having been through
this horrible ordeal and having persevered, she demonstrates tremendous
courage, symbolic of the reason why we should be passing this
legislation today.
To all the courageous people who hope that together we will be able
to prevent future violence, our hearts, prayers, and support are with
them now and always.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, it is always difficult to address issues of this kind in
the context of legislation because there is a tendency to think that
people who oppose a piece of legislation because of concerns about the
public policy applications or the cost or the bureaucracy that is
created as a result of passage of the legislation are unsympathetic to
the victims of crime.
So I want to start by emphasizing that nobody can be unsympathetic to
the victim of a rape or sexual abuse, especially one of the kind that
has the violence and animus associated with it that was directed at
Aimee. We need to go out of our way to express regret and support for
families.
There are parts of this bill which are actually very good, and I want
to applaud the sponsors of the bill for parts of the bill, although I
think there are some other parts of the bill which cause substantial
concern and which all of us ought to pay attention to and be concerned
about whether we vote for or against this legislation.
Let me talk about two parts of the bill that I think are very
valuable. One of those is the requirement in the bill that would
provide for collection of data regarding recidivism. It requires the
Attorney General to seek and obtain information for each calendar year,
starting in 1999, about the number of convictions for murder, rape, or
any sex offenses in the United States where the victim has attained the
age of 14 years, and subsequent convictions.
This is the same kind of model that a number of us have tried to
construct in racial profiling cases, for example: Let us try to collect
data that better informs the legislative process so that we know
whether there are repeat offenses and the extent to which there are
repeat offenses taking place, and if there are repeat offenses taking
place and that is a significantly higher problem in this area, then
that will help inform what kind of legislative approach we ought to be
using going forward.
That is a good thing in this bill. I want to applaud the Members who
have supported this bill for bringing that part of the bill forward.
The bill also makes a kind of a half-hearted attempt at establishing
a victim assistance fund by transferring up to $100,000 from one State
to another of the first State's funds to help the victims of rape.
Many of us are supporters of victim assistance funds, although I
would submit to the sponsors of this bill and to my colleagues in the
House that doing it in this way and requiring the kind of paperwork and
bureaucracy that would be associated with administering the transfer
from one State to another State, and having the Attorney General of the
United States monitor that kind of funding, is kind of a dumb way,
really, to set up a victim assistance process.
If we are going to have a victim assistance process, let us go ahead
and set up the victim assistance process and fund it, and say that that
is what we are doing. But at least that part of the bill starts to move
in the right direction.
But there are some parts of this bill that are just dumb and
unworkable, and set up a bureaucracy at the Federal level that does not
justify the existence. And ironically, my friends on the Republican
side who are always railing against Federal bureaucracy, they are now
the ones who are here saying, let us set up this bureaucracy.
It is those parts of the bill that require States, which have already
gone through a conviction and a service of time, taking money from
their Federal funds and transferring it over to another State, and
keeping track of two
[[Page H5756]]
or three States down the line and trying to figure out who has the
responsibility and who should be paying for incarceration. That is just
dumb.
If somebody ought to be put in jail for doing something, put them in
jail for doing it, but do not set up some kind of complicated
bureaucracy and come in here and beat on one's chest and say that this
is something that makes a lot of sense. It does not make a lot of
sense.
It is for that reason that we get the National Governors Association
saying on August 5 of 1999 about this bill, and I quote, ``This mandate
is onerous, impractical, and unworkable.'' We get the National
Conference of State Legislatures on May 11 of this year 2000 saying,
``Aimee's Law is worse than an unfunded mandate.''
I am quoting them. This is not the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Watt) or the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) saying this, this is
the National Conference of State Legislatures, who know that this
bureaucracy that we are creating is just dumb. All it does is create a
mechanism on the floor of Congress for somebody to beat on their chest
and say, we are trying to be tough on crime, and ignore the public
policy rationale for what we are trying to do. There is no public
policy that would support such a circuitous funding mechanism.
It is that reason that caused the Council of State Governments on
August 30, 1999, to say, ``The provision is almost certain to generate
a morass of bureaucracy to monitor compliance with the law and to
account for subsequent adjustments to block grant amounts awarded to
States,'' because we have to have some bureaucracy that monitors the
transfer of Federal funds from one State to another.
This just does not make any sense. It does not make any sense. I
understand that people are outraged about what happened to Aimee, but
our objective here as Members of Congress is not to let our outrage
overtake our common sense and set up a bureaucracy that makes no sense;
that does nothing, really, to address the real issues that we are sent
here to address.
So it is for that reason that we have the National Governors
Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Council
of State Governments all saying negative things about the bill. And we
have the Department of Justice saying, ``This bill will present
significant enforcement challenges and will do little to achieve the
laudable goal of protecting children.''
There is a laudable goal that the supporters of this bill are trying
to achieve. We are not arguing with that. What we are talking about is
this stupid, dumb process that this bill puts in place. It is
simpleminded, the process that we are putting in place to do this.
{time} 1130
There is nothing wrong with the goal that my colleagues are trying to
accomplish, and neither the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) nor
have I said anything negative about the goal my colleagues are trying
to accomplish, it is the process and the bureaucracy and the cost of
implementing it that makes no sense.
Everybody at the State and the Federal level who would be involved in
the process of implementing this bill have tried to point that out to
my colleagues.
Finally, we have independent researchers from universities who have
looked at the bill and studied it in detail saying, ``the box score on
House Bill 894 is that its probable impact is going to be zero.''
And we are not talking about the goals of the bill. We are talking
about the process that is being used. And in the final analysis, where
we get to is we get to the bottom line is that some people have decided
that it is in vogue to stand up and beat ourselves and pat ourselves on
the back for being hard on crime without paying any attention to the
way that this bill will be implemented and the impact that it will
likely have.
For that, even though I applaud the laudable goals of the sponsors of
this bill, I would just say to them, shame on them for using the misery
of this family and these children and these young people who have been
abused to make a political point.
Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, just a quick response to the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Watt). Apparently, he has called this dumb, stupid, shame
on everybody who supported it, I guess the gentleman is talking to the
180 of your Democrat colleagues who voted for this last year as well. A
clear majority, supermajority of your colleagues voted for it as well.
I guess, the gentleman does not value their intelligence very much.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Davis).
(Mr. DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, my friend, the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Watt), says this makes no sense. I think this is
the ultimate common sense. In fact, if we went further and tried to
tell these States what their sentencing procedures could be, we would
be screaming bloody murder and the States would be really making an
outcry.
Mr. Speaker, but this does hold somebody accountable for some of
these prison systems that treat their prisoners like a Motel 6, they
run them in and out of this. In the case of Aimee Willard, it was a
life sentence and they let the guy out after 12 years and he comes back
and murders again.
To hold those States financially accountable to me makes ultimate
sense, and that is all we are doing. We are doing it with Federal
funds, we are not doing it with State taxes. I commend my colleague,
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) for bringing it to the
attention of the House.
Once again, I am happy to support it. This was a great tragedy. If we
can avert this, just one tragedy like this, I think it would be well
worth it. I would just say to my friends more than 800 murders, 3,500
rapes, 9,600 sexual assaults annually from individuals who are let go
early and released early. Somebody ought to be accountable; that is
what this legislation does. I am proud to be a cosponsor.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, 30 States would not be affected one iota by the passage
of this legislation. Murderers will not be deterred from committing
another murder because one State might have to pay another State some
money. The point is by all people who have actually researched it they
have concluded that the net effect would be zero.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I respect very much the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Scott). I know that the gentleman believes just as strongly as I do in
the importance of keeping violent offenders off the street. The
gentleman cited some letters and communiques from some of the
bureaucrats that would be affected by this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, you know something, I really do not care if we offend
these bureaucrats. We saw the statistics, 14,000 rapes, murders,
molestations every year and we saw the numbers. The small sentences
that these people are being given. Of course, these bureaucrats who
stand to possibly lose Federal funding because of their
irresponsibility and their lack of care for keeping these criminals
behind bars and protecting neighborhoods, they will be affected. They
will be affected.
The States that are doing a poor job keeping violent rapists,
murderers and molesters off the streets, they will be affected. And, of
course, their bureaucrats do not like that. They do not want to have
any kind of comeuppance. They do not want to be responsible. At the end
of the day, though, we have a responsibility to protect our
neighborhoods.
This will make a difference. I know that I have heard from the other
side that they believe this is stupid, this is dumb. Frankly, I think
that brings this debate into a new low level. The fact is, this will
change lives, the Fraternal Order of Police, the 40-some victims rights
groups across America, the 412 Members of the House that voted for it
last year all believe this will make a difference.
If it makes a difference in one person's life, it was worth it.
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support,
but with great sadness, for H.R. 894, also known as Aimee's
[[Page H5757]]
Law. The conflicting emotions I feel for this bill are borne out of the
tragedy that lead to it's introduction.
If I can take a moment now to relate to all the Members listening to
this debate, the tragedy that beset Aimee Willard in June of 1996. At
the age of 22, Aimee had already established herself as one of the most
well-liked and successful students at George Mason University. Not only
was Aimee a superb athlete, excelling at both Soccer and Lacrosse, but
she had also distinguished herself in the academic arena. Therefore,
there can be no doubt that Aimee was returning to her home in
Brookhaven, Pennsylvania with nothing but the highest expectations for
her future.
In June, 1996, Arthur Bomar made sure Aimee would never have the
opportunity to enjoy the future she had worked so hard to prepare for.
Bomar, who had been released in 1990 from a Nevada State Prison after
serving only 12 years of a Life sentence for murder, spent late May and
early June looking for another victim. This predator identified,
stalked, kidnaped, raped, and finally murdered Aimee Willard; exacting
on her his horrific blood-lust in a manner no human being should ever
have to endure. It is my sincere belief that when he brutally attacked
Aimee, Arthur Bomar divested himself of any shred of humanity he had
left.
The real tragedy of what happened to Aimee in June of 1996, is that
the terrible circumstances of her murder are by no means unique. When
H.R. 894 passes the House today, we will be one step closer to
preventing more than 800 murders, 3,500 rapes, and 9,600 sexual
assaults annually. I would like to thank Representative Salmon and
Senator Santorum for leading the congressional effort to enact the ``No
Second Chances'' law. I would also like to personally recognize the
efforts of president Alan Merten, and the entire George Mason
University, faculty, staff and students, for their tireless efforts to
see that no other community has to endure the pain and loss they have
suffered.
With that, I urge all my colleagues to support the passage of Aimee's
law.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on H.R.,
894, ``Aimee's Law.'' This bill addresses some of the worst crimes in
our society. And it is incumbent upon us to deliberate the merits of
this bill carefully and to ensure that we take into account the rights
of all stakeholders in this process.
``Aimee's Law'' is premised on the belief that anyone convicted of
murder, rape, or a dangerous sexual offense should be sentenced to
death or life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
This law provides that whenever someone convicted of murder, rape, or
a dangerous sexual offense is released from prison and commits another
such offense in another state, the state from which the offender was
released will be liable for the cost of apprehension, prosecution,
incarceration, and the victim's damages (i.e., up to $100,000 for each
victim).
The Attorney General is also directed to pay these costs and damages
from the federal law enforcement assistance funds to the state of
origin. The costs and damage provisions, which are paid out of federal
law enforcement assistance funds, are designed to leverage states into
passing tougher sentences regarding these crimes or risk losing federal
funds.
I have concerns that this bill is premised on a ``Sense of Congress''
that anyone convicted of these crimes should be sentenced to death or
life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
Before taking such drastic actions, I believe that we need to better
define the criminal offenses of which one may be convicted. I suggest
that we work to narrow the definition of which crimes trigger
punishment.
However, I realize, as do most Americans that prevention is the best
strategy and if this type of law would provide the appropriate
disincentive for potential murders or rapists, I must also recognize
this benefit.
As expressed in the Subcommittee Crime hearings, this law, under the
definition of Dangerous Sexual Offense in H.R. 894, does not require
any age difference between victim and offender on which to base an
assumption of predation.
Consequently, unlike other laws that make no such distinction, there
is more potential for this bill to have an impact on the sexual abuse
of American children.
As a parent, I sympathize with proponents of this bill that want
adequate punishment against those convicted of sexual assault, rape or
murder. I cannot however support the death penalty aspect of the bill
without the simultaneous effort to improve the discriminatory and
unjust implementation of the death penalty.
I agree that we must all work to prevent the killing of our youth and
like other Members, I am growing weary of having to debate on bills
named after murdered children. I do not enjoy hearing of another
murdered child because of the failure of our laws to effectively punish
repeat offenders.
As a mother, a member of Congress and founder of the Congressional
Children's Caucus, I cannot in good faith support the maintenance of
laws that create loopholes for sexual predators.
Every 19 seconds a girl or woman is raped, every 70 seconds a child
is molested and every 70 seconds a child or adult is murdered.
Yet, despite these horrific statistics, the average time served in
prison for rape is 5 years and the average time served in prison for
molesting a child is less than 4 years.
We cannot tolerate the perpetuation of violent crimes against women
and children any longer! This bill provides States the financial
incentive to enact effective legislation that will keep repeat violent
offenders behind bars. However, I am concerned that my State of Texas
may not be eligible for such funds.
We cannot allow states to continue to act irresponsibly in the
prosecution of sexual predators. We all need to work together to help
spare families the needless tragedy of having to put to rest their
children because the state failed to effectively prosecute a sexual
predator.
I am horrified by the story of Aimee Willard, for which this law is
named. I hope that no family will ever have to suffer through such a
tragedy again, but unfortunately I know that this is not true. I
support the enhanced sentencing to keep killers off the street,
especially the life without parole provision.
I ask that my colleague put aside their politics and think about the
children and families that have been affected because of a lack of
adequate enforcement of the laws. Our children need protection now,
let's work on this legislation to overcome the concerns expressed and
pass the bill so it can be signed by the President.
Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kuykendall). The question is on the
motion offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) that the
House suspend the rules and pass the bill H.R. 894, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof), the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was
passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________