Special Events - Voice For The Defense Online

precedent ill Gisueros, the Fifth Circuit panel in illnrck strained to read"uses . . . any faciliv in inte~statc or foreign conmerce," as nsed in subsection(a), to man that the facility and not the use IIIIN be in interstateconllnerce and that because Western Union has tile capability to be ininterstate comnlerce, it is al\vays a facility "I interstate con~n~erce.~~ TheAlmek pmel essentially interpreted "facility in interstate con~n~elre" tonlm "facility of interstate con~n~erce,"~~ and held tllal the stahltereached tl~e "~trasas$te use of a\Vesten~ ~ nion.~~The en banc FiIti~ Circuit adopted tl~e~llarek paml's positionand l~eld that "5 1958's use of a 'facility in interstate comnlerce' is syo~l)lnouswith the use of an 'interstate con~nlerce facility,"' and illusintraslate use of a facilitysatisfies the requisite kte~slate nen~s.~~ ll~enbanc court found no conflict between subsections (a) and (b)(2)11ecause (b)(2) merely clarifies tl~at a facility can include a means oftranspo~~ation.~~ In andying the statute's plain meaning, the en banccourt concluded that the pl~nse "in interstate or foreign commerce"111odies "facility; \vl~icll inunediately precedes the pl~rase, nther thanthe more remote "11se."~5 However, as the dissent pointed out, then~ajoriq's rule of proximity fails because if Congress 11ad sdd, "wl~oevercauses a~lotl~er to use, in interstate or foreig~~ conlmerce, thc mail or anyfacilit):" the constn~ction wold have been $\vkward a~ld \vould I~verequired interstate use of the nlail, cor~tca~y to legislative intent. 26hloreores, not only does the majority's interpretation conflictwit11 granunar and case lay but it also conflicts with the legislatiw histo-~y of both 3 1952 and § 1958, which require that the use actuauy be inirlte~slate comnlerce.Ill. THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORYA. Section 1952 (The Tr.wel Act)Becanse the murder-fo~i~ire statnte was intended to supplementthe Tr:i\d Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1952 , tile legislative history of the Tra\pelAct is relemnt to the interpretation of § 1958.2' The Trml Act ponis11-es, inter din, anyone TVIIO uses any faciliy in interstate or foreign COIIIrnercewit11 the intent to distribute the proceeds of unla\\fd activit): corn-Init a criloe of viole~lce to fi~rll~er u~da\hl activit): or otheivise pronloteonl;~\\fi~l activity28111 1961, Congress enacted the Travel Act as part of Attorneytie~~e~:~l Robert Kennedy's progcml to combat organized crime and mckete~ring.~9h a letter to the Speaker of the House, dated April 9, 1961,the Atlort~ey Generd wrote about the need for the federal goverllnlent toprosecute crime tlnt crosses slate lines:Over the years :III e\wincre,lsing portiouof our national resources b;~s been tlircrted intoillicit cI~;tnnels. Becausc ~n~any rackets are conductedby highly organized sy~dicatcs whose infl~~cnceextends over State and Natio~lal borders, tile FederalGo\~ernn~enl sl~oulrl come to the aid of local lawenforcement :~othorities in a11 effort to slenl s11c11activilyenterprises involving ganlulmg, liquor, narcotics, orprostitl~tion activities wl~icli are offenses u~~derFederal law or the Imv of the State wllere they areconln~ined, and extortion and bribeq. * * *The effect of this legislation wodd be toimpede the clandestine now of pl.ofits from crin~inalventures and to bring about a serious disruption inthe far-Uong orgmiution and nlanagei~ent of coordinatedcriminal enterprises. it u~orrld thus be ofnmterial anssista~~ce to the States in co1116atingperrricior~s irndertrrkirrgs which cross Statelirres.30The House Report summarized the Attorney General'stestimony before Congress:He spoke of racketeers ltui~rg in oneState and cotrtrolling the rackets nrld reaping theproJ7ts 90111 those rackets located in arrotherState. The rwketeer ruorddhe 6q01rd the controlof fhepolice it1 the State of opercrlion and liuingas a respected citimr in the St&e of his abode.The iirrtersiate tentacies of this octoprrskrtorrrrr as "orgmrized crirrre" or "fbe ~pridicate"cmr o~r(y 60 cut hy nrakurg it a Pederd ofeme touse the facilities of interstate commerce iri ihecarrying o~r of these uefariorrs (rciiuities.This biU \dl mist locd law enforcementby de~qingintentate facilities to indi~idoals engngedin illegal gambling, liqoor, narcotics, or prostitutionbusiness enterprises. Testimony ymdl~ced at the11e.1rings clearly demonstlxtetl the interstate networkof crulklals eng~ged in such unlanful activities.It further demonstnled the need for tile assistanceof he Federal Go\'enlnlent in view of the factthat law enforcement mtl~oritics are limited andl~inderetl by lllc interstate nature of time activities.Your con~nliltee wislles to clearly pointout ti~athis bill, because of tl~e very nature of thetlefinitiou of tile crime, will not preenlpt the areacovered by it. Those violations of State law involringnarcotics, gambling, liqaor, and prostitution, as wellas tile crimes of extortion or brihcq wl~en theyoccur ia connection with the fo~~r categories ofcrime, \\dl be subject to State and locd prosecutionby State and local a~~thorilies. h'otl~ing in this hili isto be construed as imnlunizing any violator of SIatelaw fro111 State prosecutio~~.31Tllos, Coqress intended to conlhat organized crinle and racketceri~lgwhere the perperraton lived in one stale hut conducted illegalacti\