Witness Security and Protection Act of 2007

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the deeply troubling issue of terrorism right here in our own backyard. It is a problem that is endangering our children, threatening our families, and plaguing our neighborhoods. I am talking about the brazen acts of violence, fire bombings and shootings that are preventing the good people in our communities from testifying to the crimes that they have witnessed. Who can blame them, when they are sitting targets for those who have no shame?

In cities across America, people are murdered in broad daylight and their killers are walking free because we cannot adequately address the issue of witness intimidation. We have all heard the news reports regarding the ``anti-snitching'' campaigns that have appeared in so many of our communities, but few of us are aware of what these efforts really mean to the people on the ground. But all around us, evidence of these campaigns' impact is present. Murder rates are at a record- breaking high this summer in my hometown of Baltimore City and indeed in communities across the country where criminals have persistently evaded law enforcement.

In order to combat this problem, I introduced H.R. 993, the Witness Security and Protection Act of 2007. Upon enactment, this legislation authorizes $90 million per year over the next 3 years to assist State and local law enforcement with witness protection, while fostering Federal, State, and local partnerships.

Priority will be given to prosecuting officers and States with an average of at least 100 murders during the immediate past 5 years. However, smaller entities will also have a chance to receive funding. State and local prosecutors will also be able to use these funds to provide witness protection on their own or to pay the costs of enrolling their witnesses in the short-term State Witness Protection Program to be created within the United States Marshals Service's office.

The U.S. Marshals Service has a wealth of expertise and experience that will assist State and local entities in developing more comprehensive programs. In over 30 years under the Federal Witness Security Program, not a single witness that followed security procedures has been harmed while being protected by the program. More to the point, cases involving the testimony of these participants have an 89 percent conviction rate. In contrast, State witness protection programs are severely underfunded and enjoy virtually no Federal support.

While there has been tremendous support for this initiative in Congress, the lack of support from the administration has certainly been startling. On April 24, 2007, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the Witness Security and Protection Act. During that time, the Department of Justice official opposed this legislation based on the claim that it does not have the capacity or the will to implement a grant program. DOJ officials argued that running a grant program distracts from its ability to carry out its mission. Since when has inconvenience been an excuse for shortchanging justice in America?

On May 24, 2007, I met with officials from the DOJ and the U.S. Marshals Service to discuss my concerns. I left the meeting feeling optimistic about a compromise. However, this has not been the case. I have even given DOJ staff the opportunity to come up with a counterproposal to achieve the same goal as the Witness Security and Protection Act of 2007, that is, the goal of strengthening State and local witness protection programs without a grant program. Unfortunately, DOJ officials have not been able to come up with a compromise, or even an alternative, to H.R. 933.

In light of DOJ's failure to cooperate, it is extremely disappointing to learn that it has no problem supporting efforts in other countries, while dodging our efforts to set up similar programs in places such as Maryland and Washington.

The U.S. Marshals Service, Mr. Speaker, has been assisting about a dozen countries, including Colombia, Israel, Italy, Brazil and Thailand, with the creation of witness protection programs in response to increasing threats against key figures in foreign prosecutions.

International demand for the program is so great that Interpol, the world's largest law enforcement organization, is hosting a conference this month with the Marshals Service at Interpol's headquarters in France to address the needs of foreign governments. It is so very tragic that we can assist those abroad, but we will not fight terrorism right here in our backyards.

Mr. Speaker, improving protection for State and local witnesses will move us one step closer toward alleviating the fears and threats of prospective witnesses and help to safeguard our communities from violence.

I want my constituents in Maryland's Seventh Congressional District and the people across this great Nation to know that they are not alone. This is a priority issue for me, and I will not stop until this issue is addressed. This is why I am calling upon all of my colleagues to cosponsor H.R. 933.

Mr. Speaker, this evening I will continue my discussion on a growing and often deadly plague on our society, witness intimidation.

Each day, there is a story reported about civic-minded citizens being threatened with violence or becoming victims of fire bombings or shootings, all of which are designed to prevent them from testifying to crimes that they have witnessed.

Unfortunately, these tactics are working to form what has become commonly known as a ``conspiracy of silence.'' Witnesses are literally afraid for their lives. If you do not believe me, listen to these recent reports: in Newark, New Jersey, for 2 years Reginald Roe was the star and sole witness that prosecutors were relying on in a case involving an ambush gang killing in a parking lot there. Having picked two men's pictures out of a photo array and sworn before a grand jury, he said: ``I saw everything, I was there.''

But when the case came to trial, with a group of gang members glaring at him in open court, Roe changed his story, testifying that he had heard the shots, but never saw who fired them. The two suspects were acquitted.

In Philadelphia, as the culture of fear continues to deter witnesses from coming forward, a Federal grand jury accused a drug dealer and his girlfriend of conspiring to intimidate a government witness by having the witness's neighborhood plastered with flyers labeling him ``a rat and a snitch.''

In Parachute, Colorado, Garfield County deputies arrested five teenagers they believed threatened to beat someone with a baseball bat who planned to testify against them.

In my hometown of Baltimore, a 16-year-old witness in the case of the murder of 15-year-old Christine Richardson was moved from the city by relatives due to mounting threats. Indeed, the teenager was beaten the day after the murder occurred and was threatened by three girls, one of whom brandished a gun.

Mr. Speaker, the current situation is simply unacceptable. We should be making it easier for witnesses of crime to come forward. It should be the norm, rather than an odd occurrence, for criminals to be prosecuted. This issue must be addressed because without witnesses, there can be no justice in America.

Some success stories do exist. On August 31, Baltimore City State's Attorney Patricia Jessamy was able to get a witness to testify, which helped secure the conviction of 39-year-old Joseph Brinkley on two counts of attempted first-degree murder and handgun charges. In November of 2005, Brinkley approached two men as they hailed a cab and shot them in the back multiple times with a 9 millimeter semi-automatic handgun. The victim originally told detectives that he did not see the shooter, but recanted his statement after Brinkley approach him and his 9-year-old son.

Unfortunately, such bravery is rare. Our constituents must know that taking an interest in their community and reporting crime is the right thing to do and that the government will do everything possible to ensure their safety.

This is why I urge my colleagues to become a cosponsor of H.R. 933, the Witness Security and Protection Act of 2007, and to support its passage when it comes to the House floor. Upon enactment, this legislation authorizes $90 million a year over the next 3 years to assist State and local law enforcement for witness protection while fostering Federal, State, and local partnerships. Priority will be given to prosecuting offices in States with an average of at least 100 murders during the immediate past 5 years; however, smaller entities also have a chance to receive funding.

State and local prosecutors will also be able to use these funds to provide witness protection on their own or to pay the cost of enrolling their witnesses in the short-term State witness protection program to be created within the U.S. Marshal Service.

Mr. Speaker, finally, improving protection for State and local witnesses will move us one step closer toward alleviating the fears of and threats to prospective witnesses and help to safe guard our communities from violence

Madam Speaker, according to today's Baltimore Sun, there have been 240 homicides in my hometown of Baltimore City, 22 more deaths than this time last year. Unfortunately, many of these victims and their families will not have closure because of the inability of law enforcement to bring their killers to justice. This is due in large part to the fear that witnesses have in coming forward.

Witness intimidation is a serious threat to our justice system. According to the National Institute of Justice, 51 percent of prosecutors in large jurisdictions find witness intimidation to be a major problem. In Baltimore City, it is estimated that witness intimidation occurs in 90 percent of the cases that are prosecuted.

Madam Speaker, protecting witnesses is a core government function. It is standard in the Federal system, and State and local prosecutors should have the same tools. However, there is a great disparity between funding and witness services, if any, that are provided by local authorities and those of the Federal Witness Security Program within the United States Marshals Service that operates on a $40 million budget to assist 17,500 witnesses and their family members with gaining new lives, new identities, and new jobs.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel recently reported on the problems associated with inadequate witness protection programs. Maurice Pulley was shot to death in front of his home, the apparent victim of retaliation for agreeing to cooperate with authorities. Just three days prior to his death, Mr. Pulley had agreed to testify as a witnesses against Calvin Glover for shooting him on June 30; however, law enforcement was not able to offer him assistance because the witness program in the county was essentially terminated due to budget cuts. The sheriff even admitted to occasionally relying on private funding to relocate witnesses.

Madam Speaker, the same week, the Denver Post told a story of Javad Marshall-Fields and his fiancee, who were gunned down just days before he was scheduled to testify against Robert Ray. In 2004, Robert Ray shot and killed one person and wounded two others, including Javad Marshall-Fields.

A program to protect State witnesses has been in existence in Colorado for over 12 years; however, the budget was recently cut from $100,000 to $50,000. Unfortunately, it now allows for a little more than a bus ticket or security deposit for a new apartment.

To make matters worse, it appears that no one told Javad that this program even existed, even though prosecutors filed a motion to keep his address and those of five other witnesses secret due to their fear of retribution. Why was Javad not notified of the program? His mom was told that it was because he did not ask.

Madam Speaker, as I always say, there is nothing worse than a person not knowing what they don't know. This is why I recently teamed up with Baltimore City's State's Attorney Patricia Jessamy to film a public service announcement encouraging people in the communities to come forward if they have witnessed a crime, or if they have already come forward and feel they may need protection.

Additionally, I have introduced H.R. 933, the Witness Security and Protection Act of 2007, that authorizes $270 million over the next 3 years to enable State and local prosecutors who demonstrate a need for funds to protect witnesses in cases involving gangs or other violence to establish short-term witness protection programs. This legislation will assist in correcting the inequity that exists between the Federal and State level. I call upon my colleagues to support its enactment.

Improving protection for State and local witnesses will move us one step closer to alleviating the fears and threats to prospective witnesses and help safeguard our communities from violence. It is time that we show our commitment to our constituents and the justice system, because without witnesses, there can be no justice.

Mr. Speaker, I was motivated to address the issue of witness intimidation after the death of Angela and Cornell Dawson and their five children, ages 9 to 14. The entire family was killed, or should I say incinerated, in October 2002 when their home was firebombed in retaliation for Mrs. Dawson's repeated complaints to the police about recurring drug trafficking in her east Baltimore neighborhood.

Since this time, witness intimidation has become a plague on our justice system. According to the National Institute of Justice, 51 percent of prosecutors in large jurisdictions find witness intimidation to be a major problem. Additionally, prosecutors in large jurisdictions suspect that witness intimidation occurs in up to 75 to 100 percent of the violent crimes committed in gang-dominated neighborhoods. In my hometown of Baltimore, it is estimated that witness intimidation occurs in 90 percent of the cases that are prosecuted.

To make matters worse, the murder rate in the city is also at a record-breaking high. Today's Baltimore Sun reported that since January 1, there have been 229 homicides in Baltimore. At this pace, it is conceivable that the city will regretfully reach 300 homicides by the end of the year. While this figure is significantly lower than the record high of 353 homicides in 1993, the current situation is simply unacceptable. We need for our citizens to come forward by reporting crimes to law enforcement and testifying in court when appropriate. However, these simple acts have become a serious threat to one's life.

It is time to combat what is commonly referred to as a ``conspiracy of silence,'' and this is why I am asking

my colleagues to cosponsor and to support the passage of H.R. 933, the Witness Security Protection Act of 2007, should it come to the House floor for a vote. Upon enactment, this legislation authorizes $90 million per year over the next 3 years to enable State and local prosecutors to provide witness protection on their own or to pay the cost of enrolling their witnesses in the Short-Term State Witness Protection Program to be created within the United States Marshals Service.

In closing, I will highlight a recent case that exemplifies the need for this type of program.

On his way to lunch in March 2006, Carl Stanley Lackl, Jr., walked through a Baltimore City alley and witnessed Patrick Byers shoot Larry Haynes. Not only did Carl Lackl call the police, he stayed with the dying victim, comforting and reassuring him as paramedics arrived. Mr. Lackl was prepared to testify as a key witness in Byers' trial.

Unfortunately, Carl Lackl will not get the opportunity to carry out his civic duty. He was killed 8 days before the trial, gunned down in front of his home. Police have accused Byers of sending a text message to an associate giving Lackl's name and address and offering $1,000 to have him killed. According to police, Lackl was at home at about 8:45 when he received a call about a Cadillac that he was selling. As he stood next to the Cadillac, a dark-colored car drove up, and a 15-year- old inside shot him three times, in the arm, chest and leg. Carl Lackl was pronounced dead soon after arriving at a nearby hospital.

Mr. Lackl deserved better. By all accounts, he was a hard worker and a devoted father. My prayers go out to his mother, his daughter, and his entire family. We can and should do better.

Mr. Speaker, witness intimidation is a growing national problem jeopardizing the criminal justice system's ability to protect the public. This issue must be addressed because without witnesses there can be no justice.

Therefore, I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 933, the Witness Security and Protection Act of 2007.

Mr. Speaker, I have stood before the House many evenings to discuss the problems associated with witness intimidation and its detrimental impact on our judicial system and our communities.

Tragically, there has been another ruthless occurrence of witness intimidation in my home town of Baltimore City that I must report tonight. A family who spent 10 years living the American Dream found it destroyed in just 10 minutes. They came home last week to find their home smoldering and torn apart. The phrase ``rats must be killed'' and the word ``snitch'' crossed out with Xs spray painted on their walls.

The couple's oldest daughter has been in custody since July for her role in a robbery of a taxicab driver earlier this year. Apparently, her co-conspirators believe she is cooperating with law enforcement on some level. Gang activity also appears to be involved. The word ``blood'' appeared on various parts of the house.

Needless to say, the family will not be returning to their home. This is an innocent, hardworking family trying simply to live in peace. They deserve so much better.

Unfortunately, when people are willing to cooperate with the police in Baltimore City and other jurisdictions throughout our country, sadly, it has become customary for their homes to be firebombed or for them to be threatened, attacked or even killed.

No one can forget the tragedy surrounding the death of Angela and Carnell Dawson and their five children. The entire family was incinerated in October 2002 in the middle of the night when their home was firebombed in retaliation for Ms. Dawson's repeated complaints to police about recurring drug trafficking in her east Baltimore neighborhood.

Just 2 years ago, the home of community activist Edna Abier survived a firebomb attack that was launched just because of her attempts to rid her neighborhood of drug dealers. Just a few weeks ago, I had an opportunity to meet with another couple whose home had been firebombed because they were simply trying to cooperate with police.

Finally, Carl Lackl was murdered outside of his home with chilling calculation just days before he was scheduled to testify as a witness in a murder case. His murderers lured him out of his home under the premise of looking at his used car that he was trying to sell.

Violent crime in the United States is on the rise nationwide, as is drug-related gang activity. However, if witnesses are too afraid to come forward, criminals cannot be prosecuted and our justice system has no credibility and cannot stand.

This is why I introduced H.R. 933, the Witness Security and Protection Act of 2007, which authorizes $270 million over the next 3 years to enable State and local prosecutors who demonstrate a need for the funds to protect witnesses in cases involving gangs or other violence to establish short-term witness protection programs.

Improving protection for State and local witnesses will move us one step

closer to alleviating the fears and threats to prospective witnesses and help safeguard our communities from violence. The time has come for us to show our commitment to our constituents and the justice system because, without witnesses, there can simply be no justice.