PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Aug 3, 2007
Witness Protection Enhancement Act of 2007 - Amends the federal judicial code to establish in the U. S. Marshals Service a Short Term State Witness Protection Section to provide protection for witnesses in state and local trials involving homicide or other major violent crimes pursuant to cooperative agreements with state and local prosecutor's offices and the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia.
Directs the Section to give priority in awarding grants and providing services to prosecutor's offices in states with an average of at least 100 murders per year or with a violent crime rate above the national average.
Authorizes: (1) the Attorney General to make grants to state and local prosecutors and to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia for providing such witness protection; and (2) each recipient to use the grant to provide witness protection or to credit the grant to the Section to cover the Section's costs of providing witness protection.
Amends the federal criminal code to specify that federal witness relocation and protection services extend to witnesses in cases involving criminal street gangs, serious drug offenses, and homicide.
People & committees
Rep. Arcuri, Michael A. [D-NY-24] · D–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.3376 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.3376 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.3376 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.3376 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.