Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004 Extension Act

I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson) for yielding, and I want to certainly thank Chairman Conyers, Chairman Scott, Mr. Issa, the entire Judiciary Committee, and the House leadership for recognizing the importance of this legislation by bringing it to the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, while our soldiers fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, many citizens across our Nation are facing terrorism right here at home, right here in their own neighborhoods. People are being murdered in broad daylight, and their killers are walking free because we do not protect witnesses to crimes from threats against their safety if they cooperate with the police, if they testify in court, or even if they are listed as witnesses to testify in court.

This epidemic of witness intimidation is a menace to our civil society, and it is a plague on our entire justice system. In fact, it was the deaths of Angela and Carnell Dawson and their five children, ages 9 to 14, that first motivated me to address this issue. I can remember very vividly sitting at a funeral with one adult casket and with the caskets of five children. Then, a day later, the husband died, and we went to his funeral.

The entire Dawson family was killed in October 2002 when a gang member firebombed their home in the middle of the night in retaliation for Mrs. Dawson's repeated complaints to the police about the recurring drug trafficking in her east Baltimore neighborhood.

I might add, Mr. Speaker, that Mrs. Dawson literally lived within about a 5-minute drive from my house.

Angela Dawson and her family were not affiliated in any way with drugs or gangs. Rather, Mrs. Dawson was just a civic-minded parent, trying to clean up her neighborhood, and trying to make it a safe place for her children and for other families.

While several State and local entities have established witness assistance programs, many of these programs have fallen victim to the tough economic times and have had to be discontinued. Conversely, the U.S. Marshals Service uses $65 million to operate its Federal Witness Security Program, and it has an excellent track record. In all of its years in existence, they have never been known to have lost a witness, and at the same time, the prosecutors in those cases have had an 89 percent success rate.

It is because of this inequity that I call upon my colleagues to give law enforcement the ability to protect the sanctity of our justice system and pass H.R. 1741, the Witness Security and Protection Grant Program Act.

H.R. 1741 would help local law enforcement officers strengthen witness assistance and protection units, sending a very loud and clear message to

criminals that our citizens and we in the Congress of the United States of America will not be deterred by fear tactics like intimidation.

Speaking of intimidation, throughout the City of Baltimore, we have a group that put out two trailers entitled ``Stop Snitching.'' In one of those trailers I, along with the State's attorney, were threatened because we were standing up for this legislation and because we were standing up for witnesses. I made it very clear to them that I have no fear because, if you can have a situation where a person can literally be standing on a corner and 20 people know the perpetrator and the perpetrator comes up and blows somebody's brains out and nobody testifies, what happens then is that we have given the criminal more power; we have taken power away from regular citizens. The next thing you know, the criminal feels that there are no consequences to his or her actions.

You cannot have a criminal justice system that is effective and efficient unless you have the cooperation of witnesses. It is up to this Congress to make it very, very clear that we will not, under any circumstances, stand for witnesses to be intimidated, harmed, threatened, killed or in any way deterred from carrying out their duties to assist police and law enforcement.

The bill would provide $150 million in competitive grants over 5 years to enable State and local governments to establish witness assistance programs with priority given to cities or to locales that have had an average of at least 100 homicides per year during the most recent 5-year period. H.R. 1741 would also allow these programs to receive technical assistance from the United States Marshals Service.

By improving the protection for State and local witnesses, we come one step closer to alleviating the fears and the threats of prospective witnesses and to safeguarding our communities from violence.

Again, I want to thank Mr. Conyers. I want to thank Mr. Johnson, Mr. Scott, and the ranking member for their support. I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1741, the Witness Security and Protection Grant Program Act of 2009. Witness testimony is a critical component of our criminal justice system. Even with sophisticated DNA and other forensic evidence, there is no substitute for an eyewitness testimony.

However, engaging the cooperation of witnesses is frequently a daunting obstacle in many criminal prosecutions. Many witnesses fail to come forward or refuse to testify out of fear of retribution by the defendants or pressure by the community.

It is no surprise that violent criminals will unleash their brutality on witnesses whose testimony could result in years or decades in prison. It is also no surprise that violent gangs and drug organizations are the source of much of this brutality. The Justice Department's National Gang Center reports that ``gang members so frequently engage in witness intimidation that it is considered part of normal gang behavioral dynamics.'' State and local law enforcement officials and prosecutors are in a constant struggle to counteract witness intimidation and to convince witnesses to cooperate. It's vital that we assist in this.

At the Federal level, the U.S. Marshals Service is charged with witness protection and has operated the Witness Security Program since 1970. Under the program, more than 7,500 witnesses and over 9,500 family members have been protected, relocated, or given new identities. Most States and local governments cannot offer that level of protection. Many cannot afford to offer even basic protection services, for instance, during a trial in which the proceedings in a small town might be all too evident to gangs in the area.

H.R. 1741, the Witness Security and Protection Grant Program Act, directs the Attorney General to award grants to State and local governments to establish and maintain witness protection programs.

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that this not only is a well-worthwhile program whose time has come, but, in fact, it could be a real cost- saving to the taxpayers from the Federal level. Federal prosecution tends to be more expensive. In the case of gang, drug, and other activities, there is almost always a dual nexus: one in which the State or local courts can try the gang members, one in which the Federal Government can find Federal statutes to try under. Unfortunately, without an effective witness protection program, localities may often choose to move a case to Federal court where witness protection is available rather than providing that protection themselves.

So, Mr. Speaker, I rise with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to support strongly that we find those opportunities in which local government can provide this service rather than removing to Federal court. This is a cost-saving, commonsense initiative, and I support it.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished attorney from the City of New Orleans, the junior Member from Louisiana, Mr. Cao.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. Speaker, we believe that the precious time on the floor needs to be well spent, and we certainly support that we are well spending it. This is an important piece of legislation. It's important because, in fact, we in the Federal Government need to team with cities and localities around the country to ensure that we not distort where prosecutions are made. I fully support this legislation because, with all due respect to my colleague, it will relieve the cities and the counties from often choosing a Federal venue rather than a local venue if we help with protecting their witnesses, something that the Federal Government and the U.S. Marshals have proven to do very well. So I do support the bill. It's a bipartisan bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would yield back the balance of my time and support the passage of this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1741) to require the Attorney General to make competitive grants to eligible State, tribal, and local prosecutors to establish and maintain certain protection and witness assistance programs, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the Witness Security and Protection Act of 2009 authorizes the Attorney General to award grants to States and local prosecutors for establishing and improving short-term witness protection programs for witnesses that are involved in a State or local trial involving a homicide, a serious violent felony, or a serious drug offense.

Witness intimidation reduces the likelihood that citizens will be willing to perform their civic duty in the criminal justice system, often depriving police and prosecutors of critical evidence. More broadly, it also undermines public confidence that the criminal justice system can adequately protect its citizens.

And there is no better example that demonstrates the need for this legislation than the tragedy that befell the Dawson family in the autumn of 2002 in Baltimore, Maryland.

Angela Dawson had repeatedly contacted the police about drug dealing in her neighborhood. In retaliation, Darrell Brooks, a neighborhood dealer, firebombed the Dawson home not once but twice before killing Angela; her husband, Carnell; and all five of their children.

This heinous violence perpetrated against the Dawson family was the impetus for this legislation, and I commend Congressman Cummings for his tireless pursuit of this legislation over multiple Congresses. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to my great colleague from the great State of Maryland, Congressman Cummings, I will yield so much time as he may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I will yield 3 minutes to my fellow Judiciary Committee member, Congressman Pedro Pierluisi.

Mr. Speaker, nothing can be more important than the liberties that we enjoy under our Constitution. This bill that we are considering could not be any more important.

Therefore, in that regard, I wish to yield 5 minutes to my good friend from New Jersey, Congressman Pascrell.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask how many minutes are left.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I now yield 4 minutes to the gentlelady from Houston, Texas, and also a fellow member of the Judiciary Committee, Ms. Jackson-Lee.

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

The great Constitution of the United States of America starts off with a preamble, and that preamble goes as follows:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

So this bill deals with domestic tranquility; and as you know, Mr. Speaker, the most powerful beast imagined can always be brought down by just a little parasite inside of that particular beast. We too can be subjected to internal parasites, and we can die from that. The question is, are we willing to die to ensure that domestic tranquility is achieved? If we truly care about ourselves, our own safety and the safety of our dear families, neighbors and anyone else, should we not be willing to die to protect our liberties by calling it like it is, street crime? You see something happen--regardless of whether or not you consider that snitching or not, and I would say that it's not. But do you have the courage to be able to do what will really protect your folks? That's the question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague from Georgia for bringing forth and for handling this commonsense bill on the floor of the House. I want to thank my colleague from California for yielding me time.

This is an important issue. There are many issues that are remarkably important to the American people, and I want to talk about one of them. It is the national energy tax.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, there is a proposal that is moving through the House committees right now that will have a remarkable effect on the American people. If history holds true, there will be very little time on the floor of this House to debate this issue. As the Speaker has said, she wants to get it done by July 4.

So I would suggest that it is important for all of our colleagues to be paying attention to the national energy tax and to the consequences of it. I would suggest that the American people ought to be paying attention as well. Let me point out a couple of the issues on this national energy tax.

By an outside group, by an objective group, the estimates are that it will destroy millions of jobs--1.1 million jobs on average each year. It will raise electricity rates 90 percent after adjusting for inflation. It will increase gasoline prices by 74 percent. It will increase residential natural gas prices by 55 percent. It will raise the average family's

annual energy bill by $1,500. That's right, Mr. Speaker, by $1,500. It will increase inflation-adjusted Federal debt by 26 percent. So let's review.

This national energy tax, supported by the Speaker, is going to decrease jobs, and she is trying to get it through this House by the end of this month. It will decrease jobs; it will increase electricity rates; it will increase gas prices; it will increase natural gas prices; it will increase the family energy bill; and it will increase the Federal debt.

Now, the American people think this is a terrible idea, and they are very frustrated with the fact that the commonsense solutions that have been put on the table are not being given an opportunity to come to the floor.

What are those commonsense solutions?

Well, Mr. Speaker, as you know and as the American people know, there are good bills out there. One of them is one that I have cosponsored, H.R. 2300, coming out of the Republican Study Committee and the Western Caucus. It is called the American Energy Innovation Act.

What it does is provide for increasing production, responsible production of American resources. It provides for increasing conservation so that we decrease the demand side of the energy curve; and it provides for expansion of innovation, incentives for innovation so that we unleash the genius of the American people to solve the challenges that we have in the area of energy. It doesn't tax the American people. It doesn't decrease jobs. It doesn't increase electricity prices, as the Democrat plan would do. It doesn't increase gas prices, as the Democrats would do. It doesn't increase natural gas prices, as the Democrat plan would do. It doesn't increase the family energy bill, and it doesn't increase the Federal debt. No, Mr. Speaker, it solves the problems in the way that the American people want them solved.

The American Energy Innovation Act would increase production in a responsible and environmentally sensitive and sound way. It would increase innovation so that we develop a new energy for this 21st century, and it would increase conservation, decrease that demand side so that we don't continue to support countries overseas that, frankly, aren't necessarily our friend.

I appreciate the opportunity to commend my friend from Georgia for his bill. I appreciate my friend from California for offering this opportunity to speak to my colleagues and to ask the Speaker if she wouldn't allow for full and open debate of appropriate energy bills that American people can support, not ones that increase their taxes and decrease jobs all across this land.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2675) to amend title II of the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004 to extend the operation of such title for a 1-year period ending June 22, 2010.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation extends by 1 year expiring provisions of the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004, otherwise known as ACPERA. ACPERA not only increases maximum criminal penalties under the Sherman Act for hardcore antitrust violations but also created whistleblower incentives to spur antitrust cartel detection.

Portions of the 2004 act are set to expire in 2 weeks on June 22. This 1-year extension preserves the penalties and incentives currently in place, while affording Congress time to explore possible improvements to the 2004 act.

I am pleased to have as cosponsors of this bill the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, John Conyers, as well as full committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith and Courts Subcommittee Ranking Member Howard Coble.

Cartel violations are some of the worst crimes perpetrated on the American consumer; yet they are too often crimes we cannot see, as all of this criminal activity takes place in secret meetings behind closed doors. In the previous bill, we were talking about crime in the streets, and now we are talking about crime in the suites.

Price-fixing cartels can go undetected for years, possibly forever. With hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars worth of unlawful profits at stake, these criminal cartels are very effective at finding ways to keep their actions secret. But 5 years ago, Congress gave the Justice Department's Antitrust Division a new weapon to attack this secrecy head-on. ACPERA promotes the detection and prosecution of illegal cartel behavior by giving participants in a price-fixing cartel powerful incentives to report the cartel to the Justice Department and cooperate in the prosecution of the cartel.

Before ACPERA, the Justice Department could offer leniency to a coconspirator who exposed a cartel and helped bring it to justice. But the cooperating party remained fully liable to paying treble damages to the cartel's victims and potentially exposed to having to pay the entire amount.

ACPERA addressed this shortcoming in the criminal leniency program by also limiting the cooperating party's exposure to liability with respect to civil litigation. ACPERA empowers the Justice Department to limit civil liability of a cooperating party to single damages, not treble. The remaining coconspirators, however, remain jointly and severally liable for all damages. In this way, Mr. Speaker, the act strikes a carefully crafted balance, encouraging the cartel members to turn on each other while ensuring full compensation to the victims.

The positive impact of this law cannot be overstated. In the first half of this year, ACPERA has aided the antitrust division in securing jail sentences in 85 percent of its individual prosecutions and over $900 million in criminal fines.

As chairman of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy, I want to ensure that the Justice Department has all the tools it needs to continue its excellent work, which is to protect consumers against price-fixing cartels.

Again, I thank the bipartisan coalition of Members who have joined me as cosponsors in this very important legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

We have no more speakers, and I would be prepared to conclude.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time on this matter.