[House Report 118-704]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


118th Congress }                                                {  Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session    }                                                {118-704

======================================================================



 
             KEEPING VIOLENT OFFENDERS OFF OUR STREETS ACT

                                _______
                                

 September 23, 2024.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

    Mr. Jordan, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 8205]

    The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the 
bill (H.R. 8205) to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
Streets Act of 1968 to provide that Byrne grant funds may be 
used for public safety report systems, and for other purposes, 
having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an 
amendment and recommends that the bill as amended do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Purpose and Summary..............................................     2
Background and Need for the Legislation..........................     2
Hearings.........................................................     6
Committee Consideration..........................................     7
Committee Votes..................................................     7
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................     9
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................     9
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................     9
Committee Estimate of Budgetary Effects..........................     9
Duplication of Federal Programs..................................     9
Performance Goals and Objectives.................................     9
Advisory on Earmarks.............................................    10
Federal Mandates Statement.......................................    10
Advisory Committee Statement.....................................    10
Applicability to Legislative Branch..............................    10
Section-by-Section Analysis......................................    10
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............    10
Dissenting Views.................................................    13

    The amendment is as follows:
    Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``Keeping Violent Offenders Off Our 
Streets Act''.

SEC. 2. FRAUD IN CONNECTION WITH POSTING BAIL.

  Section 1033(f)(1)(A) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
inserting before the comma the following: ``(including the posting of 
monetary bail, criminal bail bonds, and Federal immigration bail 
bonds)''.

                          Purpose and Summary

    H.R. 8205, the Keeping Violent Offenders Off Our Streets 
Act, introduced by Rep. Scott Fitzgerald (R-WI), defines bail 
bonds as insurance products, which subjects them to federal 
insurance fraud laws and allows states to enact licensing 
requirements for corporate, for-profit, and non-profit entities 
that post bail on behalf of defendants. It would also require 
the employees and agents of charitable bail funds to pass a 
criminal background check as required by the Violent Crime 
Control Act of 1994, which places certain requirements on 
individuals operating in the insurance industry.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Pub. L. 103-322 (1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                Background and Need for the Legislation


Charitable Bail Funds

    Charitable bail funds are organizations that use money from 
donations to help pay cash bail for defendants. These 
charitable funds are a small part of the larger movement to 
significantly reform or eliminate the cash bail system. 
According to the National Bail Fund Network, there are over 
ninety charitable bail funds across the country that specialize 
in helping low-income individuals, protesters, LGBTQ 
individuals, immigrants, sex workers, and other individuals 
post bail.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\Community Justice Exchange, National Bail Fund Network, 
Directory of Community Bail Funds, https://
www.communityjusticeexchange.org/en/nbfn-directory (last visited Sep. 
13, 2024); Jack Karp, Do New Laws Seek To Regulate Charitable Bail, Or 
End It?, Law 360 (Apr. 5, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Charitable bail funds regularly post bail for individuals 
who have been charged with violent felonies and have previous 
convictions. For example, a CNN investigation in 2023 into 
charitable bail funds found that in Indiana from 2019 to 2021, 
``24 percent of the roughly 1,000 defendants cut loose by The 
Bail Project--among the largest charitable bail groups in the 
United States--had been charged with a crime of violence; 35 
percent were facing felony charges and had a previous charge of 
at least one crime of violence.''\3\ This led Indiana to pass a 
law in July 2022 that prohibits charitable bail funds from 
bailing out felony offenders with a previous conviction for a 
violent crime.\4\ According to the investigation done by CNN, 
at least nine individuals who were released by a bail charity 
were subsequently arrested for murder.\5\ CNN found that if the 
Indiana law had been applied nationally, it ``likely would have 
prohibited charities from releasing at least five of the nine 
defendants who were later arrested on murder charges.''\6\ 
CNN's investigation also found dozens of cases after the death 
of George Floyd in which individuals were bailed out by 
charitable funds and subsequently committed violent crimes, 
such as robbery, assault, kidnapping, and attempted murder.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\Rob Kuznia and Yahya Abou-Ghazala, Bailed out, arrested again: 
These charities boomed after the murder of George Floyd. They're under 
fire for bailing out violent offenders, CNN (Mar. 21, 2023).
    \4\Jack Karp, Do New Laws Seek To Regulate Charitable Bail, Or End 
It?, Law 360 (Apr. 5, 2024).
    \5\Kuznia and Abou-Ghazala, supra note 3.
    \6\Id.
    \7\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Commercial bail bondsmen--who are subject to licensing and 
background check requirements--are more successful at ensuring 
defendants show up to their court dates when compared to 
charitable bail funds. According to data reviewed by CNN, of 
the 500 defendants bailed out by the Minnesota Freedom Fund 
(MFF), a charitable bail fund, in 2021 and 2022, about 42 
percent of them failed to show up for their court dates.\8\ By 
comparison, of the 16,000 defendants assisted by commercial 
bail companies during the same period, only approximately 22 
percent failed to appear for their court date.\9\ Similarly, 
the Seattle area's Northwest Community Bail Fund, a charitable 
bail fund, has bailed out roughly 440 individuals since the 
2020 summer riots and 52 percent of them failed to appear in 
court.\10\ Commercial bail bondsmen in the Seattle area secured 
the pre-trial release of 3,000 individuals and only 24 percent 
of those individuals failed to appear in court.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\Id.
    \9\Id.
    \10\Id.
    \11\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Defendants are more likely to show up for their court 
appearances if they or their family members have to provide 
collateral to ensure the defendant's appearance in court. With 
a charitable bail fund posting bail on the defendant's behalf, 
defendants have less of an incentive to show up to court as 
there is no financial burden on them or their family if they 
fail to appear. Joe Tamburino, a defense attorney in 
Minneapolis, put it plainly to CNN: ``If you run, so what? . . 
. . It's not your money or your mom's money being lost.''\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    After the death of George Floyd in May 2020, there was an 
unprecedented surge of cash that flowed to charitable bail 
funds. For example, the MFF received $231,000 in 2019 but took 
in close to $42 million in 2020.\13\ The Chicago Community Bond 
Fund raised $1 million in 2019 but took in approximately $8 
million in 2020.\14\ Similarly, the Northwest Community Bail 
Fund took in approximately $158,000 in 2019 but took in around 
$6 million in 2020.\15\ Charitable bail funds used this large 
influx of cash to bail out violent criminals across the 
country. Among other solicitations, then-Senator Kamala Harris 
publicly supported the MFF and encouraged people to ``chip in 
now to the @MNFreedomFund to help post bail'' for the rioters 
and looters in Minnesota.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\Id.
    \14\Id.
    \15\Id.
    \16\Alec Schemmel, Kamala Harris-backed bail fund helped 
incarcerated man, now charged with murder, go free, ABC News 4 (Aug. 
30, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Victims of Criminals Released by Charitable Bail Funds

    Charitable bail funds have repeatedly posted bail for 
criminals previously charged and convicted of serious violent 
crimes, including sexual assault of a minor. Greg Lewin, 
Executive Director of the MFF, has stated, ``I often don't even 
look at a charge when I bail someone out.''\17\ He added, ``I 
will see it after I pay the bill because it is not the point. 
The point is the system we are fighting.''\18\ After these 
individuals are released by the charitable bail funds, they 
often continue to commit crimes. For example:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\Tom Lynden, Minnesota nonprofit with $35M bails out those 
accused of violent crimes, Fox 9 (Aug. 10, 2020).
    \18\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Christopher Boswell, a two-time convicted 
        rapist and level 3 sex offender, was bailed out by the 
        MFF in the summer of 2020 after being charged with ten 
        felonies including sexual assault, kidnapping, and 
        assault.\19\ Despite his violent history, the MFF paid 
        $350,000 to secure his release, and by September 2020 
        Boswell had already violated the conditions of his 
        release and a felony warrant was issued for his 
        arrest.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\Crime Watch MN, Rapist bailed out by Minnesota Freedom Fund 
after being charged in new cases now wanted on felony warrant, Alpha 
News (Mar. 1, 2021).
    \20\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Timothy Wayne Columbus, a 37-year-old 
        previously convicted sex offender, was bailed out by 
        the MFF after sexually assaulting an 8-year-old 
        girl.\21\ The victim told police officers that Columbus 
        held her down on the couch, sexually abused her, and 
        told her that if she told anyone he would hurt her.\22\ 
        Despite his previous criminal history, the MFF paid 
        $300,000 for the unconditional release of Columbus.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\Kyle Hooten, Minnesota Freedom Fund bailed out 37-year-old man 
accused of raping 8-year-old girl, Alpha News (Mar. 1, 2021).
    \22\Id.
    \23\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Lionel Timms, a convicted felon, was bailed 
        out by the MFF after being charged with domestic 
        assault for an attack on a bus rider who refused to 
        give him money.\24\ Shortly after his arrest, the MFF 
        paid $11,500 to bail Timms out of jail despite his 
        history of violence.\25\ After his release, Timms 
        violently assaulted and robbed a bar manager behind 
        Mac's Industrial Bar in Minneapolis, leaving the 
        manager in the hospital with a traumatic brain 
        injury.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\Crime Watch MN, Suspect bailed out by Minnesota Freedom Fund 
leaves bar manager with traumatic brain injury in violent assault, 
Alpha News (Aug. 21, 2020).
    \25\Id.
    \26\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           In 2002, Myon Burrell was sentenced to life 
        in prison for the murder of an 11-year-old girl.\27\ 
        Burrell's sentence was commuted in 2020 by Governor Tim 
        Walz after Minnesota's pardons board found that 
        exculpatory evidence was originally kept from Burrell's 
        legal team nearly twenty years ago.\28\ In August 2023, 
        Burrell was arrested after law enforcement officers 
        found a loaded handgun and drugs in his vehicle during 
        a traffic stop.\29\ The MFF paid $100,000 cash to bail 
        Burrell out of jail after his arrest in August 
        2023.\30\ While out on the MFF's bail, Burrell was 
        arrested and charged in a separate drug case after a 
        traffic stop led to police finding methamphetamine.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\Crime Watch MN, Myon Burrell convicted on gun and drug charges 
stemming from traffic stop last year, Alpha News (Sep. 7, 2024).
    \28\Id.
    \29\Id.
    \30\Id.
    \31\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Current State Regulation of Commercial Bail Bonds and Charitable Bail 
        Funds

    At least thirty-seven states currently have licensing 
requirements for professional bail agents to practice in the 
commercial bail industry.\32\ Most states rely on the state 
insurance department or state insurance commission to regulate 
bond agents, but some states use a financial services agency or 
the courts.\33\ The most common requirements for bail agents to 
maintain a license include ``reaching a certain age, paying a 
fee, passing an exam, completing education requirements, and 
submitting a criminal background check.''\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\Amber Widgery, Bail Bond Agent Licensure, National Conference 
of State Legislatures (Apr. 23, 2013).
    \33\Id.
    \34\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For example, in California, bond agents must complete 
twenty hours of classwork, pass an exam, take continuing 
education courses, and renew their license every two years.\35\ 
Some states will not issue or renew a bail agent's license if 
they ``commit a felony, a crime of moral turpitude or offenses 
involving misappropriation of money or property.''\36\ Jeffrey 
J. Clayton, the Executive Director of the American Bail 
Coalition, stated, ``the for-profit corporate surety industry 
is heavily regulated as an insurance product'' and that similar 
licensing requirements for charitable bail funds would ensure 
accountability for the large donations these funds receive.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\Karp, supra note 4.
    \36\Widgery, supra note 32.
    \37\Karp, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Many states have recently sought to regulate charitable 
bail funds. For example, Georgia recently passed a bill that 
prohibits charitable bail funds from paying more than three 
cash bonds per year in a given jurisdiction and also subjects 
them to the same requirements as professional bail bond 
agencies in the state.\38\ New York heavily regulates 
charitable bail funds by prohibiting them from posting bail in 
an amount more than $2,000.\39\ It also only allows these funds 
to post bail for defendants who are indigent and accused of 
low-level misdemeanor offenses.\40\ Additionally, those 
operating the charitable bail funds in New York must be 
licensed by the Department of Financial Services.\41\ Indiana 
also passed a law in July 2022 prohibiting charitable bail 
funds from posting bail for felony offenders with a violent 
crime conviction.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \38\Id.
    \39\Id.
    \40\Alyssa Work, Establishing a Charitable Bail Fund in New York 
State, A Step-by-Step Guide, Bronx Freedom Fund (last visited Sep. 13, 
2024).
    \41\Id.
    \42\Kuznia and Abou-Ghazala, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Kentucky House of Representatives recently passed the 
Safer Kentucky Act, which bars charitable bail funds from 
paying more than $5,000 in bail and prohibits them from bailing 
out someone accused of certain crimes, including domestic 
violence.\43\ The bill also requires charitable bail funds to 
disclose their donors and expenditures in an annual report to 
the state legislature.\44\ The bill gained traction after the 
Louisville Community Bail Fund posted the $100,000 bond of 
Quintez Brown, who, after being released to home confinement, 
tried to murder mayoral candidate Crag Greenberg.\45\ Other 
states like Idaho, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Virginia have 
introduced similar legislation.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \43\Joe Sonka, Measure to ban charitable bail groups softened; bill 
advances after emotional testimony, Louisville Courier Journal (Feb. 
24, 2022).
    \44\Id.
    \45\Id.
    \46\Erin George, Turning a blind eye to the bail bond industry, The 
Bail Project (Mar. 22, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Keeping Violent Offenders Off Our Streets Act amends 
the federal criminal statute dealing with insurance-related 
crimes (18 U.S.C. Sec. 1033) to include the posting of bail by 
a corporate entity, non-profit entity, or for-profit entity as 
``engaged in the business of insurance.''\47\ Therefore, if a 
charitable bail fund is posting bail on behalf of another 
individual, it will be subject to the criminal provisions 
within the statute. For example, charitable bail funds will be 
prohibited from making materially false statements in any 
financial reports or documents sent to an insurance regulatory 
official or agency.\48\ Charitable bail funds and their agents 
will also be prohibited from embezzling or misappropriating the 
fund's money. The criminal penalties associated with a 
violation of this section vary by the specific offense, but 
generally include both a fine and a prison term not exceeding 
15 years.\49\ Additionally, as charitable bail funds would be 
``engaged in the business of insurance'' under federal law, 
this would subject them to state licensing requirements and 
regulation by state insurance commissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \47\18 U.S.C. Sec. 1033.
    \48\Id.
    \49\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                Hearings

    For the purposes of clause 3(c)(6)(A) of House rule XIII, 
the following hearings were used to develop H.R. 8205: 
``Victims of Violent Crime in Manhattan'' a hearing held on 
April 17, 2023, before the Committee on the Judiciary. The 
Committee heard testimony from the following witnesses:
           Madeline Brame, Chairwoman of the Victims 
        Rights Reform Council and mother of a homicide victim;
           Jose Alba, Former Manhattan bodega clerk and 
        victim of assault in Manhattan;
           Jennifer Harrison, Founder of Victim's 
        Rights New York;
           Paul Digiacomo, President of the New York 
        Police Department (NYPD) Detectives' Endowment 
        Association (DEA);
           Joseph Borgen, Victim of anti-Semitic attack 
        in Manhattan;
           Robert F. Holden, New York City Council 
        Member;
           Jim Kessler, Executive Vice President for 
        Policy, Third Way; and
           Rebecca Fischer, Executive Director, New 
        Yorkers Against Gun Violence.
    The hearing examined the various policies passed by the New 
York State Legislature and implemented by Manhattan District 
Attorney Alvin Bragg, including bail reform. New York passed 
bail reform legislation in 2019 that prohibited judges from 
setting cash bail for most misdemeanors and nonviolent felonies 
and mandated the immediate release of individuals who committed 
these offenses. The Committee received testimony from victims 
of crime, law enforcement officers, and local city officials 
about the crime in New York City and the dangerous laws and 
policies that are fueling it.

                        Committee Consideration

    On September 19, 2024, the Committee met in open session 
and ordered the bill, H.R. 8205, favorably reported with an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute, by a roll call vote of 
14 to 9, a quorum being present.

                            Committee Votes

    In compliance with clause 3(b) of House rule XIII, the 
following roll call votes occurred during the Committee's 
consideration of H.R. 8205:
      1. Vote on favorably reporting H.R. 8205, as amended--
passed 14 ayes to 9 nays.


                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of House rule XIII, the 
Committee advises that the findings and recommendations of the 
Committee, based on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) 
of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, are 
incorporated in the descriptive portions of this report.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

    With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule 
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect 
to the requirements of clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives and section 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has requested 
but not received a cost estimate for this bill from the 
Director of the Congressional Budget Office. The Committee has 
requested but not received from the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office a statement as to whether this bill 
contains any new budget authority, spending authority, credit 
authority, or an increase or decrease in revenues or tax 
expenditures. The Chairman of the Committee shall cause such 
estimate and statement to be printed in the Congressional 
Record upon its receipt by the Committee.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(3) of rule 
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, a cost 
estimate provided by the Congressional Budget Office pursuant 
to section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 was not 
made available to the Committee in time for the filing of this 
report. The Chairman of the Committee shall cause such estimate 
to be printed in the Congressional Record upon its receipt by 
the Committee.

                Committee Estimate of Budgetary Effects

    With respect to the requirements of clause 3(d)(1) of rule 
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared by the 
Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

                    Duplication of Federal Programs

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(5) of House rule XIII, no provision 
of H.R. 8205 establishes or reauthorizes a program of the 
federal government known to be duplicative of another federal 
program.

                    Performance Goals and Objectives

    The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of 
House rule XIII, H.R. 8205 would define bail bonds as insurance 
products, which subjects them to federal insurance fraud laws 
and allows states to enact licensing requirements for 
corporate, for-profit, and non-profit entities that post bail 
on behalf of defendants.

                          Advisory on Earmarks

    In accordance with clause 9 of House rule XXI, H.R. 8205 
does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax 
benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clauses 
9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of House rule XXI.

                       Federal Mandates Statement

    An estimate of federal mandates prepared by the Director of 
the Congressional Budget office pursuant to section 423 of the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act was not made available to the 
Committee in time for the filing of this report. The Chairman 
of the Committee shall cause such estimate to be printed in the 
Congressional Record upon its receipt by the Committee.

                      Advisory Committee Statement

    No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this 
legislation.

                  Applicability to Legislative Branch

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to 
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public 
services or accommodations within the meaning of section 
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Pub. L. 104-
1).

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

    Section 1: Short Title. This Act may be cited as the 
``Keeping Violent Offenders Off Our Streets Act.''
    Section 2: Fraud in Connection with Posting Bail. This 
section defines bail bonds as insurance products and subjects 
them to federal insurance fraud laws, background check 
requirements, and allows states to regulate them.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is 
printed in italics and existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

                      TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE



           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
PART I--CRIMES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 47--FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 1033. Crimes by or affecting persons engaged in the business of 
                    insurance whose activities affect interstate 
                    commerce

  (a)(1) Whoever is engaged in the business of insurance whose 
activities affect interstate commerce and knowingly, with the 
intent to deceive, makes any false material statement or report 
or willfully and materially overvalues any land, property or 
security--
          (A) in connection with any financial reports or 
        documents presented to any insurance regulatory 
        official or agency or an agent or examiner appointed by 
        such official or agency to examine the affairs of such 
        person, and
          (B) for the purpose of influencing the actions of 
        such official or agency or such an appointed agent or 
        examiner,
shall be punished as provided in paragraph (2).
  (2) The punishment for an offense under paragraph (1) is a 
fine as established under this title or imprisonment for not 
more than 10 years, or both, except that the term of 
imprisonment shall be not more than 15 years if the statement 
or report or overvaluing of land, property, or security 
jeopardized the safety and soundness of an insurer and was a 
significant cause of such insurer being placed in conservation, 
rehabilitation, or liquidation by an appropriate court.
  (b)(1) Whoever--
          (A) acting as, or being an officer, director, agent, 
        or employee of, any person engaged in the business of 
        insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce, 
        or
          (B) is engaged in the business of insurance whose 
        activities affect interstate commerce or is involved 
        (other than as an insured or beneficiary under a policy 
        of insurance) in a transaction relating to the conduct 
        of affairs of such a business,
willfully embezzles, abstracts, purloins, or misappropriates 
any of the moneys, funds, premiums, credits, or other property 
of such person so engaged shall be punished as provided in 
paragraph (2).
  (2) The punishment for an offense under paragraph (1) is a 
fine as provided under this title or imprisonment for not more 
than 10 years, or both, except that if such embezzlement, 
abstraction, purloining, or misappropriation described in 
paragraph (1) jeopardized the safety and soundness of an 
insurer and was a significant cause of such insurer being 
placed in conservation, rehabilitation, or liquidation by an 
appropriate court, such imprisonment shall be not more than 15 
years. If the amount or value so embezzled, abstracted, 
purloined, or misappropriated does not exceed $5,000, whoever 
violates paragraph (1) shall be fined as provided in this title 
or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
  (c)(1) Whoever is engaged in the business of insurance and 
whose activities affect interstate commerce or is involved 
(other than as an insured or beneficiary under a policy of 
insurance) in a transaction relating to the conduct of affairs 
of such a business, knowingly makes any false entry of material 
fact in any book, report, or statement of such person engaged 
in the business of insurance with intent to deceive any person, 
including any officer, employee, or agent of such person 
engaged in the business of insurance, any insurance regulatory 
official or agency, or any agent or examiner appointed by such 
official or agency to examine the affairs of such person, about 
the financial condition or solvency of such business shall be 
punished as provided in paragraph (2).
  (2) The punishment for an offense under paragraph (1) is a 
fine as provided under this title or imprisonment for not more 
than 10 years, or both, except that if the false entry in any 
book, report, or statement of such person jeopardized the 
safety and soundness of an insurer and was a significant cause 
of such insurer being placed in conservation, rehabilitation, 
or liquidation by an appropriate court, such imprisonment shall 
be not more than 15 years.
  (d) Whoever, by threats or force or by any threatening letter 
or communication, corruptly influences, obstructs, or impedes 
or endeavors corruptly to influence, obstruct, or impede the 
due and proper administration of the law under which any 
proceeding involving the business of insurance whose activities 
affect interstate commerce is pending before any insurance 
regulatory official or agency or any agent or examiner 
appointed by such official or agency to examine the affairs of 
a person engaged in the business of insurance whose activities 
affect interstate commerce, shall be fined as provided in this 
title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
  (e)(1)(A) Any individual who has been convicted of any 
criminal felony involving dishonesty or a breach of trust, or 
who has been convicted of an offense under this section, and 
who willfully engages in the business of insurance whose 
activities affect interstate commerce or participates in such 
business, shall be fined as provided in this title or 
imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
  (B) Any individual who is engaged in the business of 
insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce and who 
willfully permits the participation described in subparagraph 
(A) shall be fined as provided in this title or imprisoned not 
more than 5 years, or both.
  (2) A person described in paragraph (1)(A) may engage in the 
business of insurance or participate in such business if such 
person has the written consent of any insurance regulatory 
official authorized to regulate the insurer, which consent 
specifically refers to this subsection.
  (f) As used in this section--
          (1) the term ``business of insurance'' means--
                  (A) the writing of insurance (including the 
                posting of monetary bail, criminal bail bonds, 
                and Federal immigration bail bonds), or
                  (B) the reinsuring of risks,
        by an insurer, including all acts necessary or 
        incidental to such writing or reinsuring and the 
        activities of persons who act as, or are, officers, 
        directors, agents, or employees of insurers or who are 
        other persons authorized to act on behalf of such 
        persons;
          (2) the term ``insurer'' means any entity the 
        business activity of which is the writing of insurance 
        or the reinsuring of risks, and includes any person who 
        acts as, or is, an officer, director, agent, or 
        employee of that business;
          (3) the term ``interstate commerce'' means--
                  (A) commerce within the District of Columbia, 
                or any territory or possession of the United 
                States;
                  (B) all commerce between any point in the 
                State, territory, possession, or the District 
                of Columbia and any point outside thereof;
                  (C) all commerce between points within the 
                same State through any place outside such 
                State; or
                  (D) all other commerce over which the United 
                States has jurisdiction; and
          (4) the term ``State'' includes any State, the 
        District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 
        the Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands, 
        American Samoa, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific 
        Islands.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                            Dissenting Views

    H.R. 8205 is poorly drafted and accomplishes very little. 
Rather than do something useful that might actually reduce 
violent crime, the Republican Majority seeks to use this 
legislation as a platform to spread Donald Trump's falsehoods 
and to attack Vice President Harris and Governor Walz.
    This legislation would amend the federal insurance fraud 
statute, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1033, to define ``the business of 
insurance'' to include the posting of monetary bail, criminal 
bail bonds and federal immigration bail bonds, so that entities 
that post bail are subject to federal criminal penalties for 
insurance fraud and other insurance-related offenses. It is 
designed to target nonprofit bail funds, which attempt to level 
the playing field by posting bail for poor and disadvantaged 
persons for whom a bail amount has been set, but who remain in 
pretrial custody solely because they cannot afford to pay their 
bail.
    The only conceivable purpose for moving this bill is to 
further the Majority's baseless attacks on Vice President 
Kamala Harris, who in 2020 expressed support for a nonprofit 
bail fund, the Minnesota Freedom Fund, which in 2022--two years 
later--posted bail for an offender who went on to commit 
murder.
    But H.R. 8205 will do nothing to achieve the stated goal of 
the bill: keeping violent offenders off our streets. Despite 
its title, all it would do is subject bail organizations and 
corporations--which operate in state and local courts and are 
regulated by the states--to federal criminal penalties for 
conduct that is already covered by federal statutes 
criminalizing wire fraud and money laundering. This bill is 
also based on the false premise that so-called ``soft-on-
crime'' progressive bail policies have led to an increase in 
crime, despite the data showing that crime, including violent 
crime, has been dropping nationwide for years under the Biden-
Harris Administration.
    For the reasons discussed below, I urge the Majority to 
reconsider this legislation, and to instead focus on addressing 
the root causes of violent crime by investing in proven 
solutions, such as community violence intervention and drug 
treatment, and by supporting law enforcement with funding and 
other resources. Democrats have consistently supported such 
legislation, which Republicans have repeatedly blocked.

 I. Nonprofit Bail Funds Address the Inequities of the Cash Bail System


                       A. OVERVIEW OF CASH BAIL 

    When cash bail is set in a criminal case (or in an 
immigration proceeding), an individual has few options: they 
can use their own money to pay bail; they can pay a commercial 
bail company to secure their release, often with non-refundable 
fees of 10-15% of the bond amount or higher; or they can remain 
in jail. Today, an individual's ability to afford the cost of 
bail is the single most important factor in determining if the 
person--who is presumed innocent of a crime--is released to the 
community pending trial, or if they will remain in jail.\1\ As 
a result of cash bail, nearly 450,000 people are held in local 
jails each year due to a lack of money, not because they are 
deemed a danger to society.\2\ Pretrial detention, which 
typically lasts between 50 and 250 days, has enormous economic 
consequences on a person and their family: it can mean losing a 
job, housing, custody of their children, and it often impacts 
their physical and mental health.\3\ Meanwhile, local 
governments bear the cost of pretrial incarceration, which 
costs taxpayers $14 billion annually.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Center For American Progress, Fact Sheet: Profit over People: 
Inside the Commercial Bail Bond Industry Fueling America's Cash Bail 
Systems,'' (CAP Fact Sheet), https://www.americanprogress.org/article/
fact-sheet-profit-over-people/.
    \2\Sawyer, W. & Wagner, P., Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2024, 
Prison Pol'y Initiative (March 14, 2024).
    \3\Murdock, K. & Kessler, J., Analyzing Cash Bail Reform, Third Way 
(July 11, 2023), https://www.thirdway.org/memo/analyzing-cash-bail-
reform.
    \4\Bernadette Rabuy, Pretrial detention costs $13.6 Billion Each 
Year, Prison Pol'y Initiative (Feb. 7, 2017), https://
www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2017/02/07/pretrial_cost/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Reliance on cash bail also results in racially and 
economically unjust outcomes. People of color, particularly 
black people, have bail set at higher rates than similarly 
situated white people.\5\ There are also disparate pretrial 
outcomes for women. While women are more likely than men to be 
granted release on their own recognizance, they are much less 
likely to be able to afford bail when it is ordered.\6\ Eighty 
percent of women who are incarcerated are single mothers or 
primary caregivers for their children.\7\ When mothers are 
jailed, their children are more likely to end up with 
grandparents, family friends, or in foster care leading to 
long-term intergenerational harm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\Preston, A., 5 Ways Cash Bail Systems Undermine Community 
Safety, Center for American Progress (Nov. 3, 2022).
    \6\Richardson, R., Paying ransom for freedom: How cash bail is 
keeping Black mothers stuck in prisons, NBC News (Feb. 13, 2022).
    \7\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The reliance on cash bail is particularly troubling in 
light of the fact that high cash bail rates are regularly set 
for nonviolent offenses.\8\ Fewer than five percent of the more 
than 10.5 million arrests each year in the U.S. are for violent 
offenses.\9\ As a result of the proliferation of cash bail, 
wealthier people in the U.S. are able to buy their freedom--
even when they are charged with violent offenses--while poor 
defendants remain in jail, even for nonviolent offenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\CAP Fact Sheet.
    \9\Murdock, K. & Kessler, J., Analyzing Cash Bail Reform, Third Way 
(July 11, 2023), https://www.thirdway.org/memo/analyzing-cash-bail-
reform.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      B. COMMERCIAL BAIL COMPANIES

    The U.S. is one of only two countries in the world that 
allows commercial bail bonds, in which a for-profit company 
enters into an agreement with the Court to pay an individual's 
full bail amount if they fail to appear in court, in exchange 
for a nonrefundable fee of 10-15% of the bail amount, paid by 
arrestee (or their family). This fee can be thousands of 
dollars, depending on the bail amount.
    There are approximately 15,000 bail bond agents in the U.S. 
who bail out more than 2 million people each year.\10\ Some of 
these commercial bail agents hire bounty hunters to find and 
return to custody clients who miss their court dates, or who 
fail to make their bond payments. Most commercial bail bond 
agents are backed by large insurance companies. In 2021, six 
large insurance companies underwrote 76% of bail bonds written 
that year.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\CAP Fact Sheet.
    \11\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        C. NONPROFIT BAIL FUNDS

    Nonprofit bail funds are organizations that raise money to 
pay the cash bail of indigent detainees who are unable to 
afford the bail itself or even the percentage charged by 
commercial bail agents. With nonprofit bail funds, the amounts 
posted are typically returned to the fund at the conclusion of 
the defendant's case. The practice of collectively funding the 
freedom of loved ones and friends dates back to before the 
Civil War, when black communities raised money to purchase the 
freedom of enslaved friends and families.\12\ One of the first 
large bail funds emerged in 1920, when the ACLU established a 
fund in response to anti-Communist prosecutions during the 
``Red Scare.''\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\Cynthia Golembeski and Matthew Bakko, What are bail funds? Two 
social policy experts explain, https://theconversation.com/what-are-
bail-funds-two-social-policy-experts-explain-182631.
    \13\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Similar to the ACLU's National Bail Fund, the Civil Rights 
Congress--a litigation and defense organization founded in 1946 
to advocate for the rights of African Americans, workers, and 
dissidents--established a bail fund to make bail available to 
persons charged with political crimes. During the Civil Rights 
movement in the 1960s, numerous bail funds were established to 
free those fighting to end segregation and highlight the racist 
laws of the Jim Crow South. One such fund was the Mississippi 
Bail Loan Fund, established in conjunction with the Student 
Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) to bail out 
protestors in Mississippi. And in 1965, the Congress of Racial 
Equality (CORE) and the NAACP created a temporary fund for 
protesters in Springfield, Massachusetts.
    Numerous bail funds have emerged in the decades since, 
often led by civil rights activists. Many bail funds are local, 
and some specialize in helping a specific community. For 
example, the National Black Mamas Bailout pays the cash bail 
owed by Black caregivers around Mother's Day, and several mass 
bailout initiatives exist for Juneteenth and Father's Day as 
well.\14\ The National Bail Fund Network is an association of 
over 90 community bail and immigration bond funds across the 
country--each of which would be impacted by H.R. 8205.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Majority likes to point out selective examples of 
individuals who were bailed out by bail funds and then went on 
to commit serious offenses, and those who were bailed out when 
the charged offenses were violent. But it is only these 
relatively few unfortunate cases that make headlines, while the 
vast majority of defendants freed by bail funds go back to 
theirlives and finish their cases without incident.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    What the Majority fails to note is that it is the judge--
not the bail fund--who determines whether to set bail, and in 
what amount. The decision about whether a person is released 
rests with the court; bail funds do nothing more than help 
pretrial detainees gain the freedom to which a judge already 
has determined they are entitled.

     D. REPUBLICAN MISINFORMATION ABOUT BAIL FUNDS AND BAIL REFORM

    Now that Kamala Harris and Tim Walz are on the Democratic 
ticket, Republicans are using the Minnesota Freedom Fund as a 
campaign tool, making patently false allegations about the 
candidates' involvement with the fund. Specifically, Donald 
Trump has claimed that Harris ``helped bail out of jail'' a 
repeat offender named Shawn Michael Tillman who, according to 
Trump, was set free with Harris's help, and who then went on to 
commit a murder.\16\ But that is simply not true.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\Esme Murphy, ``Despite Trump claim and 2020 tweet showing 
support, Harris never donated to the Minnesota Freedom Fund, CBS News 
(July 25, 2024), https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/donald-trump-
kamala-harris-minnesota-freedom-fund-donation/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In June 2020, during the George Floyd protests, then-
Senator Harris tweeted, ``If you're able to, chip in now to the 
@MNFreedomFund to help post bail for those protesting on the 
ground in Minnesota.'' That one tweet, four years ago, is the 
extent of her ``support'' for the fund; MFF has confirmed that 
Vice President Harris has never donated to the fund, and that 
one tweet is her only connection to the fund.\17\ Two years 
after her tweet, in May 2022, MFF did post $2000 bail for 
Tillman, who was arrested on a misdemeanor charge of indecent 
exposure. He went on to murder a man several weeks after his 
release. But Vice President Harris had no involvement with the 
fund, and to say that Tillman was released ``with her help'' is 
simply not true. That one falsehood, however, is the clear 
impetus for H.R. 8205--as evidenced by the Majority's choice to 
play a video during the markup of then-Senator Harris 
discussing the George Floyd protests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 8205 is also an attempt for Republicans to recycle 
their attacks on progressive criminal justice policies such as 
bail reform. Over the last several years, a number of local 
jurisdictions and states have responded to the growing body of 
research that has highlighted the inequities in bail systems by 
reforming their bail practices and, in many instances, 
eliminating the use of cash bail. Alaska, Connecticut, 
California, Maryland, New Jersey (championed and signed by 
Republican Governor, Chris Christie), Davidson County 
(Nashville), and New York modified their bail practices to 
eliminate or deemphasize the use of monetary bail systems.
    Some states, such as Maine and Illinois, have eliminated 
money bail either entirely or for whole categories of lower-
level offenses such as misdemeanors.\18\ Others, like Nebraska, 
have established a clear preference or an explicit presumption 
for releasing individuals on their own recognizance--that is, 
releasing them without any payment or other conditions.\19\ 
Still others, including New Jersey and West Virginia, require 
judges to impose the ``least restrictive'' conditions necessary 
to secure a statutory objective, such as reducing the risk of 
flight or perceived threat to the community.\20\ In most 
instances, bail reform is focused on those deemed not a risk to 
their community and ensures that people arrested for non-
violent offenses are not held in jail simply because they 
cannot afford to post bail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\L.D. 1703, H.P. 1266, 130th Leg., 1st Spec. Sess. (Maine 2021), 
https://legislature.maine.gov/bills/
getPDF.asp?paper=HP1266&item=3&snum=130; and H.B. 3653, 101st Gen. 
Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Ill. 2021), https://legiscan.com/IL/text/HB3653/
id/2255202.
    \19\L.B. 881, 106th Leg., 2d Sess. (Neb. 2020), https://
nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/106/PDF/Intro/LB881.pdf; and Shima 
Baradaran Baughman, The Bail Book: A Comprehensive Look at Bail in 
America's Criminal Justice System New York: Cambridge University Press 
(2017), 43 (discussing the process of release on recognizance).
    \20\N.J. Stat. Ann. Sec. 2A:162-15 (2017), https://
www.njcourts.gov/sites/default/files/attorneys/
calendars/appellate-court/bailreformstatute.pdf; and H.B. 2419, 84th 
Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (W.Va. 2020), https://www.wvlegislature.gov/
Bill_Status/
bills_text.cfm?billdoc=HB2419%20SUB.htm&yr=2020&sesstype=RS&i=2419.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, increases in crime 
were felt in communities of all sizes, political alignments, 
and geographies--in states that enacted bail reform policies 
but also as much or more in states that did not. And murder 
rates were higher in red states than blue states every year 
this century. But Americans' perceptions about crime rates are 
heavily influenced by reckless and disingenuous messaging by 
conservatives, while actual evidence points to sizable declines 
in crime across the country.
    The quarterly data shows that, after crime rates began to 
drop in 2022, 2023 featured one of the lowest rates of violent 
crime in the United States in more than 50 years and crime 
rates continue to fall in 2024. The FBI recently released its 
quarterly report looking at crime trends for January through 
March 2024 compared to January through March 2023. The data 
indicates violent crime decreased by 15.2 percent; murder 
decreased by 26.4 percent, rape decreased by 25.7 percent, 
robbery decreased by 17.8 percent, and aggravated assault 
decreased by 12.5 percent. Property crime also decreased by 
15.1 percent.
    Moreover, data shows that bail reform has not led to an 
increase in crime or recidivism rates. Neither violent nor 
nonviolent crime increased markedly immediately after 
jurisdictions across the political spectrum implemented varying 
versions of bail reform. Notably, there is no direct evidence 
that bail reform drove recent pandemic-related increases in 
violent crime, which itself has been falling since 2023.\21\ 
Furthermore, several studies show that limiting the use of cash 
bail does not result in an increase in the rate at which 
defendants fail to appear in court. The largest and most recent 
study, published by the Brennan Center in August 2024, studied 
33 jurisdictions to test bail reform's causal impact on crime 
trends, finding ``no statistically significant relationship 
between bail reform and crime rates.''\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\Preston, A. & Eisenberg, Rachael, Don't Blame Bail Reform for 
Gun Violence, Center for American Progress (Jun. 23, 2022).
    \22\Terry-Ann Craigie and Ames Grawert, Bail Reform and Public 
Safety: Evidence from 33 Cities, The Brennan Center (August 15, 2024), 
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/bail-reform-
and-public-safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. H.R. 8205 Does Nothing To Address Violent Crime; It Covers Conduct 
 That is Already Addressed by Other Federal Statutes; and It Infringes 
                         on Areas of State Law

    In addition to its use as a campaign tool to further 
baseless Republican talking points, H.R. 8205 raises other 
serious issues. First, despite the fact that the bill's title 
is the ``Keeping Violent Offenders Off Our Streets Act,'' the 
bill itself has nothing to do with violent crime or offenders. 
It applies to entities that post any type of monetary bond--
including non-criminal immigration bonds, and bonds for 
nonviolent criminal offenses, which make up the vast majority 
of criminal bonds.
    The bill also infringes on areas of law--the posting of 
bond in state and local courts, insurance regulation, and 
regulation of bond agencies--that is typically a matter of 
state law. In addition to New York, several other states, 
including Texas, Indiana, Kentucky, and Georgia, already have 
laws regulating nonprofit bail funds. By making local bail 
funds subject to federal criminal laws aimed at insurers, H.R. 
8205 risks creating conflict in regulations, not to mention the 
overcriminalization issues that the Committee held a hearing 
about just recently.
    Finally, H.R 8205 will create confusion due to the 
statutory (and constitutional) requirement that the insurance 
businesses subject to regulation in Sec.  1033 affect 
interstate commerce. Most of the bail funds that the bill's 
supporters intend to target are local funds that post bond in 
local courts; they simply do not affect interstate commerce. If 
any of the funds do engage in bond-related activities that 
affect interstate commerce, then the alleged misconduct that 
the Majority claims to be concerned about--fraud and the use of 
proceeds of criminal conduct--are already covered by the 
federal wire fraud and money laundering statutes, which have 
stiffer penalties than those in Sec.  1033.

                               CONCLUSION

    Instead of addressing the real needs of the American 
people, and leaving state law issues to the states, Republicans 
are poised to advance another bill that is designed only to 
advance false campaign rhetoric. H.R. 8205 is another baseless 
attempt by the Majority to engage in fearmongering and to label 
Democrats as ``soft on crime,'' while ignoring their own 
documented red state murder problem, the mountain of data 
showing that crime has been steadily declining throughout the 
U.S. under the Biden-Harris Administration, and the data 
showing that bail reform policies have not contributed to 
increases in crime that occurred during the pandemic.
    In bringing up this legislation, the Majority seeks to 
distract the American people from the fact that their own 
actions have repeatedly made every American--from presidential 
candidates to school children--more at risk at every turn by 
failing to support law enforcement funding and commonsense gun 
safety measures. For these reasons, I dissent and urge my 
colleagues to oppose this flawed legislation.

                                            Jerrold Nadler,
                                                    Ranking Member.