[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.