[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 102 (Thursday, June 19, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5821-S5822]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       CAPTURE ARREST AND TRANSPORT CHARGED FUGITIVES ACT OF 2008

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss legislation I 
recently introduced called the Capture Arrest and Transport Charged--
CATCH--Fugitives Act of 2008. I am pleased that Senator Dole has joined 
me as a cosponsor of this bill.
  The CATCH Fugitives Act addresses three important problems that 
undercut State and local efforts to catch fugitives. First, State and 
local law enforcement authorities have insufficient resources for 
identifying and arresting fugitives. Second, even when fugitives are 
arrested, they may not be prosecuted because of the high cost of 
extradition. Third, when fugitives flee across State lines, they 
frequently escape detection because law enforcement officers lack 
complete information about warrants issued in other States. Fewer than 
half of all outstanding felony warrants have been entered into the 
nationwide database that alerts other law enforcement officials that a 
person is wanted.
  The act addresses these three problems by providing assistance to 
State and local law enforcement agencies through the U.S. Marshals 
Service to help them identify fugitives and transport them from one 
State to another for prosecution. It also creates grant programs that 
will encourage States to share information about warrants with each 
other and help them pay for the cost of additional extraditions.
  This legislation is supported by Illinois Attorney General Lisa 
Madigan, Cook County State's Attorney Richard A. Devine, Cook County 
Sheriff Thomas Dart, City of Chicago Police Superintendent Jody P. 
Weis, Peoria State's Attorney Kevin Lyons, the Illinois Association of 
Chiefs of Police, and the Illinois Sheriffs' Association.
  Nationwide, there are an estimated 2.8 million to 3.2 million 
outstanding warrants for the arrest of persons charged with felony 
crimes, and the number is growing. Fugitives often commit additional 
crimes while they are at-large. However, searching for and apprehending 
them is costly. Increasing the resources available for conducting 
fugitive investigations would increase the number of fugitives who are 
arrested, brought to trial for previous crimes, and prevented from 
committing new crimes.
  The Marshals Service plays an integral role in the apprehension of 
fugitives and has a long history of providing assistance and expertise 
to other law enforcement agencies in support of fugitive 
investigations. Pursuant to the Presidential Threat Protection Act of 
2000, the Marshals Service created its Regional Fugitive Task Force 
program. The task forces combine the efforts and resources of Federal, 
State, and local law enforcement agencies as they work to locate and 
apprehend fugitives. Between 2002 and 2006, the Marshals Service 
established task forces in six regions of the country. Since their 
inception, these six task forces have arrested approximately 90,000 
Federal and State felony fugitives, contributing to a significant 
increase in the number of fugitive arrests in those regions. The 
Marshals Service has developed a plan to establish 12 additional task 
forces--enough to serve the rest of the country--but since 2006 it has 
not received the resources needed to implement this plan.
  The CATCH Fugitives act increases the authorization for the Regional 
Fugitive Task Force program from $10 million under current law to $50 
million for each of fiscal years 2009-2012 and $25 million for each of 
fiscal years 2013-2015, in order to fully fund the existing task forces 
and add new ones that serve the remaining parts of the country.
  In addition to strengthening fugitive-hunting capacity in general, 
the act also tackles the problem of capturing out-of-State fugitives 
and extraditing them for prosecution. Since 1967, the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation has operated the National Crime Information Center, NCIC, 
which administers a database containing criminal history information 
from the Federal Government and the States, including outstanding 
arrest warrants. The NCIC database is designed to allow a law 
enforcement officer who stops a person in one State to be made aware of 
any outstanding warrants for that person

[[Page S5822]]

issued in another State. The database contains approximately 1.3 
million felony and misdemeanor warrants, but it is missing more than 
half of the Nation's 2.8 million to 3.2 million felony warrants, 
including hundreds of thousands of warrants for the arrest of the 
people accused of committing violent crimes.
  A State's failure to enter all of its warrants into the NCIC database 
enables fugitives to escape arrest even when they are stopped by an 
officer in another State. Many such fugitives go on to commit 
additional crimes. In addition, they pose a danger to the officers who 
encounter them but have no knowledge of their pending charges and 
record of fleeing law enforcement authorities.
  Let me give an example from an investigative series of articles that 
appeared in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch earlier this year. On March 21, 
2001, Eloy Williams was charged with the rape of a college student in 
Florida. Florida authorities issued a warrant for his arrest but did 
not enter it into the NCIC database. On July 16, 2001, Williams skipped 
a hearing in Florida on a cocaine trafficking charge. Florida 
authorities issued a warrant for his arrest for failure to appear on 
that charge but again did not enter the warrant into the NCIC database. 
On April 11, 2002, Williams was stopped by a police officer in Decatur, 
GA. The officer found no record of the Florida warrants in the NCIC 
system and Williams was released the next day. On July 25, 2002, 
Williams was arrested in Decatur for speeding. Again, the police 
officer found no record of his Florida warrants so Williams was 
released the next day. On October 9, 2002, Williams raped and robbed a 
14-year-old girl while she was walking home from school. In May and 
June of 2003, Williams raped four women in the Decatur and Lithonia, 
GA, areas. On June 12, 2003, officers finally tracked Williams down and 
arrested him. He confessed to all six of these rapes. The five rapes 
committed between October 2002 and June 2003 could have been prevented 
if the outstanding Florida warrants had been entered into the NCIC 
system. The officers who stopped Williams in April and July of 2002 
would have learned of the warrants and made him available to Florida 
for extradition. If extradited, he would not have been in a position to 
commit those five rapes.
  Improving the completeness of the warrant records in the NCIC 
database would enable law enforcement officers to identify and arrest a 
larger number of fugitives and would improve the safety of our 
officers. However, the challenge does not end there. Even if a fugitive 
is arrested, extraditing that fugitive back to the State that issued 
the warrant can be costly. Law enforcement agencies often lack the 
resources to pay for the cost of transporting fugitives. They 
frequently choose to forego prosecution, allowing fugitives to evade 
justice and commit new crimes. Reducing the cost of extradition would 
increase the number of prosecutions.
  Let me give you another example from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch 
series. In the fall of 1999, Virginia law enforcement authorities 
issued two felony warrants for the arrest of Felipe Fowlkes. Fowlkes 
had a record of criminal convictions that spanned two decades and 
included convictions for crimes ranging from burglary to sexual 
misconduct. In April 2000, Fowlkes learned of the warrants and turned 
himself in to the local police in Schenectady, NY. The Virginia 
authorities, however, refused to retrieve him for prosecution. Three 
weeks later, Fowlkes attempted to rob a woman and was arrested. He was 
convicted and sentenced to prison time. In July 2003, 6 weeks after his 
release, Fowlkes attempted to sexually assault a woman. Hours later on 
the same day, he lured a 15-year-old girl behind a school and raped 
her. The 2000 attempted robbery and 2003 rape might have been prevented 
if the Virginia authorities had extradited Fowlkes in 2000.
  The CATCH Fugitives Act has three provisions that address the twin 
challenges of identifying fugitives who have crossed State lines and 
extraditing them for prosecution. First, it includes a major grant 
program that offers States and local governments significant funding 
for extraditions, but builds in strong incentives to improve the entry 
of warrants into the NCIC database. It authorizes $50 million in grants 
to States for each of fiscal years 2009-2015 to help cover the costs of 
extraditing additional numbers of fugitives from one State to another, 
but it conditions eligibility for grants on improved performance in 
entering warrant records into NCIC. Any State or unit of local 
government is eligible for an extradition grant during the first 3 
years after enactment. However, a State or unit of local government 
would lose its eligibility if after 3 years it is still transmitting 
less than 50 percent of its warrants to NCIC; after 5 years it is 
transmitting less than 70 percent of its warrants to NCIC; or after 7 
years it is transmitting less than 90 percent of its warrants to NCIC.
  Second, to help States and local governments improve their 
performance in submitting warrants to NCIC, the CATCH Fugitives Act 
authorizes $10 million for each of fiscal years 2009-2013 for grants to 
State and local governments to improve their capacity, infrastructure 
and processes for transmitting warrants to NCIC.
  Third, in order to help States and local governments further reduce 
the cost of extraditing fugitives between States, the Act directs the 
Marshals Service to expand its Justice Prisoner and Alien 
Transportation Service, JPATS--currently used for transporting 
detainees and inmates--and make it available for fugitive transports 
requested by States and local governments that participate in a 
Regional Fugitive Task Force. The act authorizes $2 million for each of 
fiscal years 2009-2015 for this purpose.
  In summary, the CATCH Fugitives Act addresses serious problems that 
interfere with law enforcement efforts to bring fugitives to justice. 
It increases fugitive-hunting capacity nationwide. It provides 
resources and incentives for States to make information about 
outstanding warrants available to other States so that law enforcement 
agencies in one State can recognize when a fugitive from another State 
is in their grasp. And, it provides assistance that will reduce the 
cost of extraditing such fugitives from one State to another for 
prosecution. I urge my colleagues to support this important bipartisan 
legislation.

                          ____________________