[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.

                          ____________________