[House Report 105-258]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



105th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 1st Session                                                    105-258
_______________________________________________________________________


 
        WITNESS PROTECTION AND INTERSTATE RELOCATION ACT OF 1997

_______________________________________________________________________


 September 18, 1997.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 2181]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the 
bill (H.R. 2181) to ensure the safety of witnesses and to 
promote notification of the interstate relocation of witnesses 
by States and localities engaging in that relocation, and for 
other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably 
thereon without amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.

                           TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                  

                                                                 Page
Purpose and Summary........................................           2
Background and Need for the Legislation....................           2
Hearings...................................................           5
Committee Consideration....................................           5
Vote of the Committee......................................           5
Committee Oversight Findings...............................           7
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight Findings......           7
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures..................           7
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate..................           7
Constitutional Authority Statement.........................           9
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion.................           9
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported......          12
Dissenting Views...........................................          14

                          Purpose and Summary

    In a growing number of criminal cases around the United 
States, police and prosecutors are unable to investigate and 
prosecute cases successfully because key witnesses refuse to 
provide critical evidence or to testify because they fear 
retaliation by the defendant or his or her associates. This 
problem has become particularly acute in gang-related and drug-
related criminal cases. Witnesses refusal to testify is a major 
concern because it undermines the administration of justice 
while simultaneously eroding public confidence. Such 
intimidation is increasingly interstate in nature and now poses 
a severe impediment nationally to the prosecution of violent 
street gangs and drug trafficking organizations.
    H.R. 2181, the ``Witness Protection and Interstate 
Relocation Act of 1997,'' addresses the problem of gang-related 
witness intimidation by establishing a federal offense for 
traveling in interstate or foreign commerce with the intent to 
delay or influence the testimony of a witness in a State 
criminal proceeding by bribery, force, intimidation, or threat. 
The offense would also include using such means to cause any 
person to destroy, alter, or conceal a record, document, or 
other object, with the intent or hindering the document's 
availability for use in a state criminal proceeding. The bill 
also establishes enhanced conspiracy penalties for obstruction 
of justice offenses involving victims, witnesses, and 
informants.
    H.R. 2181 also addresses the need for safe and effective 
witness protection programs by directing the Attorney General 
to survey State and local witness protection programs. The 
Attorney General is then to make training available to witness 
protection programs based on the results of the survey. The 
bill also promotes coordination among jurisdictions when a 
witness is relocated interstate. The Attorney General is to 
promote coordination among State and local interstate witness 
relocation programs, in part, by developing a model Memorandum 
of Understanding for interstate witness relocation. This model 
Memorandum of Understanding is to include a requirement that 
notice be provided to the jurisdiction to which the relocation 
has been made in certain cases. The bill also authorizes the 
Attorney General to make grants under the Byrne discretionary 
grant program to support interstate witness relocation 
programs.

                Background and Need for the Legislation

    Prosecutors and police confront two principal types of 
witness intimidation. The first is overt intimidation, when 
someone, typically a gang member, does something explicitly to 
intimidate a witness, often in connection with a single case. 
The second type is implicit intimidation, when there is a real 
but unexpressed threat of harm, as when a history of gang 
violence creates a community-wide atmosphere of fear.
    Law enforcement officials around the country report a rise 
in both forms of witness intimidation, with gang-related 
witness intimidation now endemic in a growing number of areas 
as diverse as Los Angeles, California, Des Moines, Iowa, and 
Washington, D.C. Both case-specific and community-wide fear of 
retaliation are often fed by the fear that incarcerated gang 
members will return quickly to the community after serving 
brief sentences or will be able, while incarcerated, to arrange 
for other gang members to threaten potential witnesses.
    A 1994 survey of 192 prosecutors found that intimidation of 
victims and witnesses was a major problem for 51 percent of 
prosecutors in large jurisdictions (counties with populations 
greater than 250,000) and 43 percent of prosecutors in small 
jurisdictions (counties with populations between 50,000 and 
250,000). Several prosecutors interviewed for the 1996 National 
Institute of Justice Report, ``Preventing Gang- and Drug-
Related Witness Intimidation,'' estimated that witness 
intimidation occurs in 75 to 100 percent of the violent crimes 
committed in neighborhoods with active street gangs.
    Prosecutors report that the mere fact that a crime is gang-
related an be sufficient to prevent an entire neighborhood from 
cooperating. This type of community-wide intimidation is 
especially frustrating for prosecutors and police investigators 
because, while no actionable threat is ever made in a given 
case--thereby precluding conventional responses--witnesses and 
victims are still discouraged from testifying. Increasingly, 
gangs are actively promoting community-wide noncooperation 
through public humiliation, assaults, and even execution of 
victims and witnesses (or members of their families). In New 
York City, a local drug selling gang executed a local man for a 
petty drug theft, decapitated him, and used his head as a 
soccer ball, kicking it around the street. In this 
neighborhood, according to local law enforcement, resident 
noncooperation prevented law enforcement officials from solving 
an estimated 30 homicides in 1994 and contributed to an 
atmosphere of violence in which an average of eight gunshots 
occurred each night.
    Police and prosecutors report an increased incidence of 
threats of physical violence against victims, witnesses, and 
their families. Law enforcement officials report that threats 
are much more common than actual violence but that threats are 
often just as effective in deterring cooperation because in 
gang- and drug-dominated communities such threats are credible. 
In many cities there are as many requests for protection of 
threatened family members as there are for protection of 
witnesses themselves.
    There is a growing concern within the law enforcement 
community regarding information gained from witnesses and then 
provided to defendants by defense attorneys, including 
confidential court papers. In many jurisdictions, prisoners 
have unmonitored access to phones and their correspondence is 
not screened, making it easy for even defendants who are 
incarcerated to arrange for intimidation based on the 
improperly obtained information. There is evidence that some 
gangs have hired attorneys to represent witnesses who may be in 
custody in relation to the crime in question or on another 
unrelated charge, without the witness's knowledge or consent, 
in an effort to control his or her testimony.
    Another common form of intimidation, reported in almost 
every jurisdiction, involves indirect intimidation, such as 
gang members parked outside a victim's or witness's house, 
nuisance phone calls, and vague verbal warnings by the 
defendant or his or her associates. Packing a court room with 
gang members is a particularly effective and increasingly 
frequent form of intimidation.
    The above-mentioned National Institute of Justice report 
identifies possible reasons for the recent increase in gang-
related witness intimidation and retaliation. The reasons 
include: a growing lack of respect for authority; the 
expectation by gang members that their own lives will be brief; 
a willingness to use violence for almost no reason or in 
retaliation for even minimal slights; and ironically, the 
increased penalties being imposed on those convicted of violent 
crime, which can raise the stakes of a prosecution.
    There have been four traditional approaches utilized by 
State and local law enforcement address the problem of witness 
intimidation. They are: requesting high bail; prosecuting 
intimidation vigorously; carefully managing witnesses; and 
enhancing victim/witness program services (including relocating 
intimidated witnesses). As gangs have become more interstate in 
their scope, and their ability and willingness to trace 
witnesses to other states has expanded, state and local law 
enforcement officials have called for a greater federal role in 
responding to gang- related witness intimidation.
    Witness protection programs are an indispensable tool in 
combating violent crime. Successful prosecution of criminal 
cases depends on the quality of evidence the State can produce. 
In cases involving drug trafficking and organized criminal 
activity, prosecutors must often rely on the testimony of 
witnesses who were involved in some facet of the illegal 
operation. And in order to encourage them to testify, the 
government may need to offer protection before, during, and 
even after the trial when such witnesses may be the subject of 
retaliatory threats by defendants.
    The nature and sophistication of witness protection 
programs varies widely. Some localities have programs, but have 
chosen not to fund them. Other localities have no witness 
relocation capability. And even those that do have such a 
capability appear to vary considerably: While most programs 
apparently do not relocate witnesses out of state, others, such 
as Puerto Rico's program, do so with frequency.
    There is currently no federal law directly addressing the 
interstate relocation of witnesses. As such, unless required by 
State law or other agreement, programs are under no legal 
obligation to notify local law enforcement officials of 
witnesses with criminal records who are relocated interstate.
    The potential problems associated with failing to provide 
notification were highlighted by an incident on June 15th, 
1996, in Osceola County, Florida. On this occasion, Florida 
Highway Patrol officers and plainclothes Puerto Rico police 
officers moving a witness narrowly averted an altercation. The 
Florida troopers thought the officers from Puerto Rico were 
criminals posing as FBI agents, while the officers from Puerto 
Rico apparently thought the Florida troopers were assassins 
sent to kill their witness. As a result of this incident, the 
Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the Puerto Rico 
Department of Justice entered into a Memorandum of 
Understanding to regulate the relocation of witnesses between 
the State and the Commonwealth.

                                Hearings

    The Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime held two 
hearings on the issue of witness protection. The Subcommittee 
held an oversight hearing on witness protection programs in 
America on November 7, 1996. The hearing was held in the 
Council Chambers of the City Hall Building in Orlando, Florida. 
Witnesses for that hearing included Mr. Miguel E. Gierbolini, 
Deputy Director of the Special Investigations Bureau of the 
Department of Justice, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; Mr. Robert 
E. Cummings, Assistant Commissioner, Florida Department of Law 
Enforcement; Mr. Richard Callahan, Prosecuting Attorney, Cole 
County, Missouri; Mr. Steve T. Kach, Associate Director, Office 
of Enforcement Operations, Criminal Division, U.S. Department 
of Justice.
    The Subcommittee on Crime also held a hearing on June 16, 
1997 on gang-related witness intimidation and retaliation. The 
purpose of the hearing was to examine the growing problem of 
gang-related intimidation and retaliation against witnesses, 
and the need for Federal legislation to address this problem. 
The witnesses for the hearing included: Ms. Jennifer L. Snyder, 
Deputy District Attorney, Los Angeles County, California; Mr. 
Charles F. Gallagher, III, Deputy District Attorney and Chief 
of the Homicide Unit, Philadelphia District Attorney's Office, 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Sergeant Ron Stallworth, Gang 
Intelligence Coordinator, Utah Division of Investigations, Salt 
Lake City, Utah.

                        Committee Consideration

    On July 16, 1997, the Subcommittee on Crime met in open 
session and considered a Committee Print of H.R. --------, the 
``Witness Protection and Interstate Relocation Act of 1997,'' 
and by voice vote, a quorum being present, ordered reported to 
the full Committee a clean bill. This Committee Print was 
introduced on July 17, 1997 as H.R. 2181, referred the same day 
to the full Committee, and there held. On July 23, 1997, the 
Committee met in open session and ordered reported favorably 
the bill H.R. 2181 without amendment by a recorded vote of 20 
to 4, a quorum being present.

                         Vote of the Committee

    Mr. Nadler offered an amendment to strike the death penalty 
provisions in the bill. The amendment was defeated by a 7-17 
roll call vote.

                                                   ROLLCALL NO. 1                                               
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Sensenbrenner...............................................  ..............  ..............  ..............
Mr. McCollum....................................................  ..............              X   ..............
Mr. Gekas.......................................................  ..............              X   ..............
Mr. Coble.......................................................  ..............              X   ..............
Mr. Smith (TX)..................................................  ..............              X   ..............
Mr. Schiff......................................................  ..............  ..............  ..............
Mr. Gallegly....................................................  ..............              X   ..............
Mr. Canady......................................................  ..............              X   ..............
Mr. Inglis......................................................  ..............              X   ..............
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................  ..............  ..............  ..............
Mr. Buyer.......................................................  ..............              X   ..............
Mr. Bono........................................................  ..............              X   ..............
Mr. Bryant (TN).................................................  ..............  ..............  ..............
Mr. Chabot......................................................  ..............              X   ..............
Mr. Barr........................................................  ..............  ..............  ..............
Mr. Jenkins.....................................................  ..............              X   ..............
Mr. Hutchinson..................................................  ..............              X   ..............
Mr. Pease.......................................................  ..............              X   ..............
Mr. Cannon......................................................  ..............              X   ..............
Mr. Conyers.....................................................              X   ..............  ..............
Mr. Frank.......................................................              X   ..............  ..............
Mr. Schumer.....................................................  ..............  ..............  ..............
Mr. Berman......................................................  ..............  ..............  ..............
Mr. Boucher.....................................................  ..............  ..............  ..............
Mr. Nadler......................................................              X   ..............  ..............
Mr. Scott.......................................................              X   ..............  ..............
Mr. Watt........................................................              X   ..............  ..............
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................  ..............              X   ..............
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................  ..............  ..............  ..............
Ms. Waters......................................................  ..............  ..............  ..............
Mr. Meehan......................................................              X   ..............  ..............
Mr. Delahunt....................................................              X   ..............  ..............
Mr. Wexler......................................................  ..............  ..............  ..............
Mr. Rothman.....................................................  ..............              X   ..............
Mr. Hyde, Chairman..............................................  ..............              X   ..............
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................              7              17   ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Final Passage. Motion to report H.R. 2181 favorably. The motion 
passed 20-4.

                                                   ROLLCALL NO. 2                                               
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Sensenbrenner...............................................  ..............  ..............  ..............
Mr. McCollum....................................................              X   ..............  ..............
Mr. Gekas.......................................................              X   ..............  ..............
Mr. Coble.......................................................              X   ..............  ..............
Mr. Smith (TX)..................................................              X   ..............  ..............
Mr. Schiff......................................................  ..............  ..............  ..............
Mr. Gallegly....................................................              X   ..............  ..............
Mr. Canady......................................................              X   ..............  ..............
Mr. Inglis......................................................              X   ..............  ..............
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................  ..............  ..............  ..............
Mr. Buyer.......................................................              X   ..............  ..............
Mr. Bono........................................................              X   ..............  ..............
Mr. Bryant (TN).................................................  ..............  ..............  ..............
Mr. Chabot......................................................              X   ..............  ..............
Mr. Barr........................................................  ..............  ..............  ..............
Mr. Jenkins.....................................................              X   ..............  ..............
Mr. Hutchinson..................................................              X   ..............  ..............
Mr. Pease.......................................................              X   ..............  ..............
Mr. Cannon......................................................              X   ..............  ..............
Mr. Conyers.....................................................  ..............              X   ..............
Mr. Frank.......................................................              X   ..............  ..............
Mr. Schumer.....................................................  ..............  ..............  ..............
Mr. Berman......................................................  ..............  ..............  ..............
Mr. Boucher.....................................................  ..............  ..............  ..............
Mr. Nadler......................................................              X   ..............  ..............
Mr. Scott.......................................................  ..............              X   ..............
Mr. Watt........................................................  ..............              X   ..............
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................              X   ..............  ..............
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................  ..............  ..............  ..............
Ms. Waters......................................................  ..............  ..............  ..............
Mr. Meehan......................................................              X   ..............  ..............
Mr. Delahunt....................................................  ..............              X   ..............
Mr. Wexler......................................................  ..............  ..............  ..............
Mr. Rothman.....................................................              X   ..............  ..............
Mr. Hyde, Chairman..............................................              X   ..............  ..............
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             20               4   ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 2(l)(3)(A) of rule XI of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports 
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.

         Committee on Government Reform and Oversight Findings

    No findings or recommendations of the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight were received as referred to in 
clause 2(l)(3)(D) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

    Clause 2(l)(3)(B) of House Rule XI is inapplicable because 
this legislation does not provide new budgetary authority or 
increased tax expenditures.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    In compliance with clause 2(l)(3)(C) of rule XI of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets 
forth, with respect to the bill, H.R. 2181, the following 
estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office under section 403 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                     Washington, DC, July 25, 1997.
Hon. Henry J. Hyde,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2181, the Witness 
Protection and Interstate Relocation Act of 1997.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Mark 
Grabowicz (for federal costs), who can be reached at 226-2860, 
and Leo Lex (for the state and local impact), who can be 
reached at 225-3220.
            Sincerely,

                                           June E. O'Neill, Director.  
    Enclosure.

H.R. 2181--Witness Protection and Interstate Relocation Act of 
        1997

                                Summary

    H.R. 2181 would establish new federal offenses (punishable 
by fines and imprisonment) relating to attempts to influence 
the testimony of witnesses in criminal proceedings. The bill 
would authorize the appropriation of $500,000 for fiscal year 
1998 for the Attorney General to provide witness protection 
training to state and local governments. Additionally, the bill 
would permit the Attorney General to make grants from existing 
appropriations to state and local governments for witness 
security and relocation programs.
    Assuming appropriation of the authorized amount, CBO 
estimates that enacting H.R. 2181 would result in additional 
discretionary spending of $500,000 over the next two years. 
This legislation could affect direct spending and receipts; 
therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply. But CBO 
estimates that any changes in direct spending and receipts 
would be less than $500,000 a year, and would have no net 
effect over time because increases in spending would match 
increases in receipts with a one-year lag. The bill contains no 
intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) and would impose no 
costs on the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments.

                Estimated Cost to the Federal Government

    For the purposes of this estimate, CBO assumes that the 
amount authorized in H.R. 2181 would be appropriated by the 
start of fiscal year 1998. Estimated outlays are based on 
discussions with the Department of Justice about the 
implementation of the witness protection training program. The 
estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 2181 is shown in the 
following table:

                                        SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION                                       
                                    [By Fiscal Year, in Millions of Dollars]                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          1998      1999      2000      2001      2002          
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------        
Authorization Level...................................      0.5        --        --        --        --         
Estimated Outlays.....................................      0.3       0.2        --        --        --         
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 
750 (administration of justice).

                      Pay-As-You-Go Considerations

    The imposition of new criminal fines in H.R. 2181 could 
increase governmental receipts, but CBO estimates that any such 
increase would be less than $500,000 annually. Criminal fines 
would be deposited in the Crime Victims Fund and would be spent 
in the following year. Thus, direct spending from the fund 
would match the increase in revenues with a one-year lag.

        Estimated Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments

    The bill contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined 
in UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal 
governments. The bill would allow the Attorney General to use 
up to 10 percent of Byrne Grant funding for grants to state and 
local interstate witness relocation programs. Such an earmark 
of funds would not affect the total amount of grants received 
by state and local governments, but it could affect the 
allocation among recipients.

                 Estimated Impact on the Private Sector

    The bill would impose no new private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Mark Grabowicz (226-
2860) and Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Leo 
Lex (225-3220).
    Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Pursuant to Rule XI, clause 2(l)(4) of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for 
this legislation in Article I, section 8 of the Constitution..

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

Sec. 1. Short Title.
    This section provides that the Act may be cited as the 
``Witness Protection and Interstate Relocation Act of 1997.''
    Sec. 101. Interstate Travel to Engage in Witness 
Intimidation or Obstruction of Justice. This section modifies 
Section 1952 of title 18, United States Code, by adding a new 
subsection (b). This new subsection addresses the problem of 
gang-related witness intimidation by establishing a federal 
offense for traveling in interstate or foreign commerce with 
the intent to delay or influence the testimony of a witness in 
a State criminal proceeding by bribery, force, intimidation, or 
threat directed against any person, and then engaging or 
attempting to engage in such conduct.
    The offense would also include traveling interstate with 
the intent by bribery, force, intimidation, or threat to cause 
any person to destroy, alter, or conceal a record, document, or 
other object, with the intent to impair the object's integrity 
or availability for use in a state criminal proceeding, and 
then engaging or attempting to engage in such conduct.
    This section provides that the sentence for violating the 
offense in new subsection (b) may be a fine or imprisonment of 
not more than 10 years, or both. The section provides, however, 
that if the offense results in serious bodily injury, as 
defined in section 1365 of title 18, United States Code, the 
term of imprisonment may be not more than 20 years. Section 
1365 defines ``serious bodily injury'' as ``bodily injury which 
involves--(A) a substantial risk of death; (B) extreme physical 
pain; protracted and obvious disfigurement; or (D) protracted 
loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, 
or mental faculty.'' Section 1365 defines ``bodily injury'' as 
``(A) a cut, abrasion, bruise, burn, or disfigurement; (B) 
physical pain; (C) illness; (D) impairment of the function of a 
bodily member, organ, or mental faculty; or (E) any other 
injury to the body, no matter how temporary.''
    The section further provides, however, that if the offense 
results in death, the term of imprisonment may be for any term 
of years or for life, or the sentence may be death.
    Sec. 102. Conspiracy Penalty for Obstruction of Justice 
Offenses Involving Victims, Witnesses, and Informants. This 
section establishes enhanced conspiracy penalties for 
obstruction of justice offenses involving victims, witnesses, 
and informants. It does so by amending Section 1512 of title 
18, United States Code, by adding new subsection (j). This new 
subsection provides that whoever conspires to commit any 
offense defined in section 1512 or 1513 shall be subject to the 
same penalties as those penalties established for the offense 
the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy. 
Section 1512 establishes the offense of tampering with a 
witness, victim, or an informant, and section 1513 establishes 
the offense of retaliating against a witness, victim, or an 
informant. Consequently, under this section, whoever conspires 
to tamper with or retaliate against a witness, victim, or 
informant would be subject to the same penalties as someone who 
himself or herself directly tampers with or retaliates against 
a witness, victim, or informant, pursuant to sections 1512 and 
1513 of title 18, United States Code.
    Sec. 201. Witness Relocation Survey and Training Program. 
This section addresses the need for safe and effective witness 
protection programs. It does so by directing the Attorney 
General to survey all State and selected local witness 
protection and relocation programs to determine the extent and 
nature of such programs and the training needs of those 
programs. The Attorney General is to report the results of this 
survey within 270 days of the bill becoming law. It is the 
Committee's view that the local witness protection and 
relocation programs that are included in the survey should be 
sufficient in number and varied in type so as to ensure that 
the survey encompasses a representative sample of such 
programs. The Committee anticipates that the survey will help 
to answer certain key questions: How many States, counties and 
cities have witness relocation programs? What is their degree 
of sophistication? Are there common deficiencies among these 
programs? What are their training needs?
    This section further directs the Attorney General to use 
the results of the survey to make training available to State 
and local law enforcement agencies to assist them in developing 
and managing witness protection and relocation programs. It is 
the view of the Committee that such training should be 
performed substantially by representatives from the Federal 
agency with greatest expertise in witness protection, the U.S. 
Marshals Service. Such training, to be adequately developed and 
implemented, should be supported by additional appropriations 
dedicated for such purposes. Such additional resources would 
ensure that the training can be provided without compromising 
existing programs.
    This section authorizes to be appropriated to carry out the 
survey and training an amount not to exceed $500,000 for fiscal 
year 1998.
    Sec. 202. Federal-State Coordination and Cooperation 
Regarding Notification of Interstate Witness Relocation. This 
section seeks to promote coordination among jurisdictions when 
a witness is relocated interstate.
    Subsection (a) of this section directs the Attorney General 
to engage in activities, including the establishment of a model 
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), as delineated in subsection 
(b), which promote coordination among State and local witness 
interstate relocation programs. It is the Committee's view that 
such activities would not necessarily require developing new 
programs; rather, such activities might be managed and 
conducted within the framework of already existing programs.
    Subsection (b) directs the Attorney General to establish a 
model MOU for States and localities that engage in interstate 
witness relocation. This model MOU is to include a requirement 
that notice be provided to the jurisdiction to which the 
relocation has been made when the relocation is interstate and 
the relocated witness has been arrested for or convicted of a 
crime of violence as described in section 16 of title 18, 
United States Code. A ``crime of violence'' is defined in 
section 16 as ``(a) an offense that has as an element the use, 
attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the 
person or property of another, or (b) any other offense that is 
a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk 
that physical force against the person or property of another 
may be used in the course of committing the offense.'' The 
Committee recognizes that witness security and relocation 
programs by their very nature require maximum secrecy to ensure 
witness safety. Consequently, this notification requirement 
should be fashioned with due regard for preserving secrecy and 
limiting dissemination of any witness information on a need-to-
know basis.
    Subsection (c) of this section authorizes the Attorney 
General to make grants under the Byrne discretionary grant 
program, pursuant to section 511 of subpart 2 of part E of the 
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, to those 
jurisdictions that have interstate witness relocation programs 
that have substantially followed the MOU. The Attorney General 
is authorized to expend up to 10 percent of the total amount 
appropriated for the Byrne discretionary grant program for this 
purpose.
    Subsection (d) directs the Attorney General to establish 
guidelines relating to the implementation of subsection (c) and 
to determine, consistent with such guidelines, which 
jurisdictions are eligible for grants under subsection (c).
    Sec. 203. Byrne Grants. This section ensures that funding 
pursuant to the Byrne grant program can be used by recipients 
to develop and maintain witness security and relocation 
programs, including training of personnel in the effective 
management of such programs. This section does so by explicitly 
adding such a use of funds to the list of allowable uses.
    Sec. 204. Definition. This section defines the term State 
to include the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and any other 
commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.

  

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

    In compliance with clause 3 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 (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italics, existing law in which no change 
is proposed is shown in roman):

                      TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE

          * * * * * * *

                             PART I--CRIMES

          * * * * * * *

                   CHAPTER 73--OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

          * * * * * * *

Sec. 1512. Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant

    (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
    (j) Whoever conspires to commit any offense defined in this 
section or section 1513 of this title shall be subject to the 
same penalties as those prescribed for the offense the 
commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.
          * * * * * * *

                        CHAPTER 95--RACKETEERING

          * * * * * * *

Sec. 1952. Interstate and foreign travel or transportation in aid of 
                    racketeering enterprises

    (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
    (b) Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce with 
intent by bribery, force, intimidation, or threat, directed 
against any person, to delay or influence the testimony of or 
prevent from testifying a witness in a State criminal 
proceeding or by any such means to cause any person to destroy, 
alter, or conceal a record, document, or other object, with 
intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use 
in such a proceeding, and thereafter engages or endeavors to 
engage in such conduct, shall be fined under this title or 
imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both; and if serious 
bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of this title) 
results, shall be so fined or imprisoned for not more than 20 
years, or both; and if death results, shall be so fined and 
imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, and may 
be sentenced to death.
    [(b)] (c) As used in this section (i) ``unlawful activity'' 
means (1) any business enterprise involving gambling, liquor on 
which the Federal excise tax has not been paid, narcotics or 
controlled substances (as defined in section 102(6) of the 
Controlled Substances Act), or prostitution offenses in 
violation of the laws of the State in which they are committed 
or of the United States, (2) extortion, bribery, or arson in 
violation of the laws of the State in which committed or of the 
United States, or (3) any act which is indictable under 
subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31, United States Code, or 
under section 1956 or 1957 of this title and (ii) the term 
``State'' includes a State of the United States, the District 
of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of 
the United States.
    [(c)] (d) Investigations of violations under this section 
involving liquor shall be conducted under the supervision of 
the Secretary of the Treasury.
          * * * * * * *
                              ----------                              


 SECTION 501 OF THE OMNIBUS CRIME CONTROL AND SAFE STREETS ACT OF 1968

  description of the drug control and system improvement grant program

    Sec. 501. (a) * * *
    (b) The Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance 
(hereafter in this part referred to as the ``Director'') is 
authorized to make grants to States, for the use by States and 
units of local government in the States, for the purpose of 
enforcing State and local laws that establish offenses similar 
to offenses established in the Controlled Substances Act (21 
U.S.C. 801 et seq.) and to improve the functioning of the 
criminal justice system with emphasis on violent crime and 
serious offenders. Such grants shall provide additional 
personnel, equipment, training, technical assistance, and 
information systems for the more widespread apprehension, 
prosecution, adjudication, and detention and rehabilitation of 
persons who violate these laws, and to assist the victims of 
such crimes (other than compensation), including--
            (1) * * *
          * * * * * * *
            (25) developing or improving in a forensic 
        laboratory a capability to analyze deoxyribonucleic 
        acid (hereinafter in this title referred to as ``DNA'') 
        for identification purposes; [and]
            (26) to develop and implement antiterrorism 
        training programs and to procure equipment for use by 
        local law enforcement authorities[.]; and
            (27) developing and maintaining witness security 
        and relocation programs, including providing training 
        of personnel in the effective management of such 
        programs.
          * * * * * * *
                            DISSENTING VIEWS

    We support the witness notification and relocation 
provisions in this legislation as well as the goals of the 
witness intimidation provisions. Nothing is more pernicious to 
our system of laws than interfering with witnesses. Commonly 
drug king pins and gang members attempt to pervert our system 
of criminal laws by threatening juries and witnesses with death 
and injury if they do not cooperate in their subversion. As a 
result, we support the notion that those that obstruct our 
system of justice will be subject to higher penalties. And all 
of us can support measures designed to make such conduct a 
federal crime, if state lines are crossed.
    Although we support the goals of the bill, we are forced to 
dissent from passage of this legislation for the sole reason 
that the legislation includes the death penalty for witness 
intimidation that results in death.\1\ The Committee voted 17-7 
against an amendment offered by Congressman Nadler deleting the 
death penalty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Also troubling is this legislation's inclusion of the death 
penalty for conspiracy offenses. This allows a defendant to be 
sentenced to death without tangible evidence of guilt of murder, 
thereby increasing the risk of a mistaken conviction and execution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Recently, the Death Penalty Information Center issued a 
report entitled ``Innocence and the Death Penalty: The 
Increasing Danger of Mistaken Executions.'' This report 
describes 69 instances since 1973 in which condemned prisoners 
had to be released from death row because mistakes had led to 
wrongful convictions.\2\ This figure represents more than one 
percent of the approximately 6,000 people sentenced to death in 
that period. Of course, there are no statistics available on 
the number of innocent people actually executed.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Bob Herbert, In America, No Room for Doubt, N.Y. Times, July 
21. 1997 at A17.
    \3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Moreover, this past February, the American Bar Association 
passed a resolution declaring that the system for administering 
the death penalty in the United States is unfair and lacks 
adequate safeguards.\4\ The resolution declared that executions 
should be stopped until a greater degree of fairness and due 
process can be achieved.\5\ Twenty-five years after the United 
States Supreme Court invalidated the death penalty in Furman v. 
Georgia,\6\ finding that the death penalty was ``so wantonly 
and so freakishly imposed'' that those being sentenced to die 
received cruel and unusual punishment,\7\ little has changed. 
The death penalty is still inflicted upon a ``capriciously 
selected random handful.'' \8\ Moreover, the proliferation of 
new death penalty offenses only works to guarantee that its 
imposition will become even more haphazard and capricious.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Id.
    \5\ Id.
    \6\ 408 U.S. 238 (1972).
    \7\ Id. at 310.
    \8\ Id. at 309-310.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There is compelling evidence from many jurisdictions that 
the race of the defendant is the primary factor governing the 
imposition of the death sentence.\9\ For example, in the 
Ocmulgee Judicial Circuit in Georgia, the district attorney 
sought the death penalty in 29 cases between 1974 and 1994; in 
23 of those 29 cases (79%) the defendant was black, although 
blacks make up only 44% of the Circuit's population.\10\ 
Similar evidence is emerging under the federal death penalty 
for ``drug kingpins.'' Of 37 defendants against whom the death 
penalty was sought between 1988 and 1994, four defendants were 
white, four were hispanic and twenty-nine were black. 
11
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Edwards, Don and John Conyers, Jr., Violent Crime Control and 
Law Enforcement Act of 1994: The Racial Justice Act--A Simple Matter of 
Justice, 20 Dayton L. Rev. 699, 702 (1995).
    \10\ Id.
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Death sentences are even more frequently imposed when the 
victim is white.\12\ Since 1977, more than 80% of the country's 
death penalty cases have involved white victims while about 
half of the homicides committed each year in the United States 
involve black victims.\13\ A study by Professor David Baldus of 
the University of Iowa of over 2,500 homicide cases in Georgia, 
which controlled for 230 non-racial factors, found that a 
person accused of murdering a white was 4.3 times more likely 
to be sentenced to death than a person accused of murdering a 
black.\14\ Although fewer than forty percent of Georgia 
homicide cases involved white victims, eighty-seven percent of 
all cases in which a death sentence was imposed involved white 
victims.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Bill Rankin, Fairness of the Death Penalty is Still on Trial; 
Some Say It's a Matter of Race, Money, Luck, The Atlanta Journal and 
Constitution, June 29, 1997, 13A.
    \13\ Id.
    \14\ Edwards, The Racial Justice Act, 20 Dayton L. Rev. at 702 
(citing David Baldus et al., Equal Justice and the Death Penalty: A 
Legal and Empirical Analysis (1990)).
    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We are also concerned that the imposition of the death 
penalty has become so routine that there is now immediate 
support for the addition of this drastic penalty whenever it is 
suggested. A death penalty attached to a new crime is deemed 
unremarkable and no longer even engenders serious debate or 
discussion.
    Given the overwhelming concerns about the fairness and the 
accuracy with which the death penalty is imposed, combined with 
the lack of a proven deterrent effect, we are compelled to 
dissent from legislation that includes a new death penalty, no 
matter how laudable the goals of the legislation.
                                   John Conyers, Jr.
                                   Robert C. Scott.
                                   Maxine Waters.
                                   William D. Delahunt.
                                   Melvin L. Watt.




