[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 22 (Wednesday, February 26, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1661-S1670]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Biden):
  S. 362. A bill to deter and punish serious gang and violent crime, 
promote accountability in the juvenile justice system, prevent juvenile 
and youth crime, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.


          the anti-gang and youth violence control act of 1997

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Anti-Gang and Youth 
Violence Control Act of 1997. This is the President's juvenile justice 
bill, and I am pleased to introduce it on behalf of the administration.
  Like the Democratic leadership bill, S. 15, the President's Anti-Gang 
and Youth Violence Control Act includes important provisions to address 
the increases in juvenile crime and gang violence that we have seen 
over the past decade.
  Just as we proposed measures in S. 15 to streamline the procedures 
for prosecuting violent juveniles, the President's bill would take 
steps to ensure that serious juvenile offenses are addressed quickly 
and efficiently by the courts.
  In addition, the President's bill targets many of the same problems 
we addressed in S. 15, such as increasing the penalties for witness 
intimidation--a particular problem for prosecutors in gang cases--and 
improving the rights of the victims of juvenile crime to include 
restitution, notification of disposition, and greater public access to 
juvenile proceedings.
  The President's bill also addresses the Federal Government's grant 
authority in the area of juvenile justice and delinquency prevention. I 
applaud the President for his reform-minded effort for improving the 
Federal Government's role in helping State and local authorities 
prevent juvenile crime and juvenile victimization. I look forward to 
working with the President and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
on this issue. It is important that we reach a bipartisan agreement on 
the role the Federal Government should play in this area as we move 
forward into the next century.
  Certain sections of the administration's bill differ from S. 15, and 
I look forward to sorting out this and other differences in the 
proposals.
  I commend President Clinton and the Department of Justice on their 
efforts to address the problems of gang and youth violence with the 
concrete proposals in this bill. I urge my colleagues to put partisan 
politics aside, to work together on finding constructive solutions to 
these problems. Our challenge is to resolve any differences in approach 
in ways that make sense and will work to reduce youth and gang 
violence.
  As we proceed to meet this challenge, I know we will depend heavily 
on Senator Biden, our former chairman and ranking member of the 
Judiciary Committee and now the ranking member on the Youth Violence 
Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee. He has worked hard and 
effectively on these issues in the past and, I thank him in advance for 
continuing to share his expertise on these important issues.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 ANTI-GANG AND YOUTH VIOLENCE ACT OF 1997--SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

       The Anti-Gang and Youth Violence Act of 1997 is a 
     comprehensive federal effort to address the nation's youth 
     and juvenile crime problem. This legislation contains many of 
     the proposed amendments to the federal code that were 
     contained in legislation introduced, but not enacted into law 
     during the 104th Congress. This legislation also redesigns, 
     refocuses, and enhances the federal government's role in 
     relation to state, local and Indian tribal governments in 
     combating and preventing juvenile and youth crime, violence, 
     gang involvement, and drug use. Additionally, this 
     legislation includes the authorization for several programs 
     submitted by the President in his fiscal year 1998 budget 
     request.

               Title I--Findings, Policies, and Purposes

       This title enumerates findings regarding juvenile crime and 
     violence, as well as purposes tied to the various provisions 
     of the legislation. Additional definitions are provided as 
     needed.

         Title II--Targeting Violent Gang, Gun and Drug Crimes


 Subtitle A--Federal Prosecutions Targeting Violent Gangs, Gun Crimes 
                   and Illicit Gun Markets, and Drugs

            Part 1--Targeting Gang and Other Violent Crimes

     Section 2111.  Increased penalties under the RICO law for 
         gang and violent crimes.
       This amendment would boost the penalty for certain crimes 
     typically committed by gangs and other violent crime groups 
     by eliminating an anomaly in the penalty provisions of the 
     federal Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations 
     statute (18 U.S.C. 1963(a)). Specifically, the amendment 
     would increase the maximum penalty from twenty years to the 
     greater of twenty years or the maximum term applicable to a 
     racketeering activity on which the defendant's violation is 
     based. This principle already applies under the RICO statute 
     where the predicate racketeering activity carries a maximum 
     life sentence. The present twenty-year maximum applicable to 
     all other predicate racketeering offenses is anomalous in 
     light of the fact that several of the predicate offenses that 
     constitute ``racketeering activity'' themselves carry more 
     than twenty-year (but less than life) maximum prison terms, 
     e.g., 18 U.S.C. 1344 (bank fraud) and 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(B) 
     (large-scale drug trafficking).
     Section 2112.  Increased penalty and broadened scope of 
         statute against violent crimes in aid of racketeering.
       This amendment would close loopholes in 18 U.S.C. 1959, the 
     law punishing violent crimes in aid of racketeering. The 
     statute presently and anomalously reaches threats to commit 
     any crime of violence (with the requisite intent) but only 
     the actual commission of some such crimes. The amendment also 
     would clarify that the term ``serious bodily injury'' in 18 
     U.S.C. 1959 shall be defined as provided in 18 U.S.C. 1365.
       This proposal also would increase penalties for certain 
     violent crimes in aid of racketeering in recognition of the 
     serious nature of such crimes and to bring the penalties in 
     line with other penalties for similar crimes in title 18. 
     First, the amendment would increase from a maximum of ten 
     years' imprisonment to a maximum of life imprisonment a 
     conspiracy or attempt to commit murder or kidnapping, in 
     violation of 18 U.S.C. 1959. That statute punishes various 
     violent offenses committed in aid of racketeering activity. 
     The present ten-year maximum penalty for a conspiracy or 
     attempt to commit murder or kidnapping in aid of racketeering 
     is clearly inadequate. The maximum penalty for a conspiracy 
     to commit a murder within the special maritime and 
     territorial jurisdiction of the United States is life 
     imprisonment, 18 U.S.C. 1117, as is the maximum penalty for a 
     conspiracy to commit kidnapping, 18 U.S.C. 1201(c). Such acts 
     when performed with the additional intent of furthering 
     racketeering activity deserve no lesser punishment. Moreover, 
     an attempt warrants an equivalent sanction as a conspiracy. 
     Second, the amendment would increase from five years to ten 
     years the maximum penalty for committing or threatening to 
     commit a crime of violence under paragraph (4). Finally, the 
     amendment would increase from three years to ten years the 
     maximum penalty for attempting or conspiring to commit a 
     crime involving maiming, assault with a dangerous weapon or 
     assault resulting in serious bodily injury under paragraph 
     (6).
     Section 2113.  Facilitating the prosecution of car-jacking 
         offenses.
       This section would eliminate an unjustified and unique 
     scienter element created for the offense of carjacking by the 
     enactment of section 60003(a)(14) of the Violent Crime 
     Control and Law Enforcement Act. The carjacking statute, 18 
     U.S.C. 2119, essentially proscribes robbery of a motor 
     vehicle. It punishes the taking of a motor vehicle that has 
     moved in interstate or foreign commerce ``from the person or 
     presence of another by force and violence or by 
     intimidation.'' The basic penalty is up to fifteen years' 
     imprisonment but rises if serious bodily injury or death 
     results.
       Prior to the enactment of VCCLEA, the offense applied only 
     if the defendant possessed a firearm. Section 60003(a)(14) of 
     that law appropriately deleted the firearm requirement, as 
     had been proposed in the Senate-passed bill, but in 
     conference a new scienter element was added that the 
     defendant must have intended to cause death or serious 
     bodily injury. This unique new element will 
     inappropriately make carjackings difficult or impossible 
     to prosecute in certain situations. Robbery offenses 
     typically require only what the carjacking statute 
     formerly required by way of scienter, i.e., that property 
     be knowingly taken from the person or presence of another 
     by force and violence or by intimidation. The Hobbs Act, 
     18 U.S.C. 1951, the quintessential federal robbery law 
     which carries a higher maximum penalty

[[Page S1662]]

     than the carjacking statute, essential defines ``robbery'' 
     in this manner. The new requirement of an intent to cause 
     death or serious bodily harm will likely be a fertile 
     course of argument for defendants in cases in which no 
     immediate threat of injury occurs, such as where a 
     defendant enters an occupied vehicle while it is stopped 
     at a traffic light and physically removes the driver. Even 
     when a weapon is displayed, the defendant may argue that 
     although it was designed to instill fear, he had no intent 
     to harm the victim had the victim in fact declined to 
     leave the car.
       Carjacking is one of the most serious types of robbery 
     precisely because, unlike other person property, a car is a 
     place where people are accustomed to feel safe and where they 
     and their family spend hours of their lives. To give 
     defendants who take cars from the person or presence of their 
     occupants by force and violence or intimidation a new legal 
     tool with which to resist their prosecution is unjustified. 
     This new element should be eliminated as soon as possible 
     from Section 2119. The proposed amendment would do so.
     Section 2114.  Facilitation of RICO prosecutions.
       This amendment is intended to overcome decisions in the 
     First and Second Circuits that require proof that a RICO 
     conspiracy defendant agreed personally to commit at least two 
     acts of racketeering activity. United States v. Ruggiero, 726 
     F. 2d 913, 921 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 831 (1984); 
     United States v. Winter, 663 F. 2d 1120, 1136 (1st Cir. 
     1981), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1011 (1981). See also United 
     States v. Sanders, 929 F. 2d 1466, 1473 (10th Cir.), cert. 
     denied, 112 S. Ct. 143 (1991). Virtually all other circuits 
     have more recently rejected these holdings and have concluded 
     that it is sufficient to show that the defendant joined the 
     conspiracy and agreed that two or more racketeering acts 
     would be committed by some conspirators on behalf of the 
     enterprise. See, e.g., United States v. Pryba, 900 F. 2d 748, 
     759-60 (4th Cir. 1990); United States v. Traitz, 871 F. 2d 
     368, 395-96 (3 d Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 821 (1989); 
     United States v. Neapolitan, 791 F. 2d 489, 491-98 (7th Cir. 
     1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1101 (1987); United States v. 
     Joseph, 781 F. 2d 549, 554-55 (6th Cir. 1986; United States 
     v. Tille, 729 F. 2d 615, 619 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 
     U.S. 845 (1984); United States v. Carter, 721 F. 2d 1514, 
     1528-31 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 819 (1984).
       There is no reason to require that a defendant charged with 
     RICO conspiracy personally commit racketeering acts. Standard 
     conspiracy law does not contain such a requirement. See, 
     e.g., Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 645-48 
     (1946). It should be sufficient to show that the defendant 
     joined the overall conspiracy and agreed to the commission of 
     a pattern of racketeering activity by others on behalf of the 
     conspiracy. This amendment resolves this conflict in the 
     circuits.
     Section 2115.  Elimination of the statute of limitations for 
         murder and Class A felonies.
       This section makes important changes in federal law and 
     will enhance the ability of federal prosecutors to bring 
     serious offenders to justice. The first proposal relates to 
     the prosecution of certain murders. Current law provides that 
     no statute of limitations shall apply for the commission of a 
     federal crime punishable by death. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3281. This 
     statute should be amended to further eliminate the statute of 
     limitations for any federal offense involving murder, even if 
     the crime does not carry the death penalty. The rationale 
     behind this proposal is straightforward. Most states have no 
     statute of limitations for murder. Moreover, the act of 
     killing another person is so serious that no murderer should 
     go unpunished simply because the government was unable to 
     develop a case for many years.
       By virtue of the 1994 Crime Act, most murders committed 
     during the course of a federal offense are now punishable by 
     the death penalty--and thus already have no statute of 
     limitations. The 1994 Crime Act only applies, however, to 
     murders committed on or after the Crime Bill was passed on 
     September 13, 1994. The proposed legislation will help bridge 
     this gap by eliminating the statute of limitations for 
     murders committed within five years of the date of passage of 
     the legislation and September 13, 1994. Furthermore, the 
     Crime Act did not provide for the death penalty for murders 
     committed in violation of the RICO statute. 18 U.S.C. 
     Sec. Sec. 1961 et seq. The proposed legislation would bridge 
     another important gap by eliminating the statute of 
     limitations for RICO offenses when murders are committed in 
     furtherance of a racketeering enterprise.
       The second proposal relates to the prosecution of certain 
     violent crimes and drug trafficking crimes. Current law 
     provides that the general federal five-year statute of 
     limitations applies to non-capital crimes of violence and 
     drug trafficking crimes. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3282. This proposal 
     extends to 10 years the statute of limitations for all crimes 
     of violence and drug trafficking crimes (except for cases 
     involving murder) currently classified as Class A felonies. 
     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3559, Class A felonies are 
     the most serious federal crimes, which carry a maximum 
     sentence of life imprisonment or death.
       This proposal is necessary for several reasons. First, 
     evidence of gang-related and other violent crimes, as well as 
     drug trafficking crimes, often develops years after the 
     crimes were committed because the organizations, gangs, and 
     racketeering enterprises that typically perpetrate such 
     crimes enforce strict codes of silence--through violence and 
     threats of violence--on their members. Thus, some violent 
     crimes and drug trafficking crimes are not solved until 
     imprisoned defendants begin to cooperate after spending years 
     behind bars--years in which the five-year statutes of 
     limitations may have lapsed. Second, society's interest in 
     repose and fairness to prospective defendants is greatly 
     outweighed by society's interest in punishing those 
     individuals who commit crimes that are so serious that 
     Congress has imposed a maximum sentence of life imprisonment 
     or death. Under current law, theft of major art work carries 
     a 20-year statute of limitations (18 U.S.C. Sec. 3294), and 
     most white-collar crimes involving financial institutions 
     (e.g., theft of money by a bank teller) carry a 10-year 
     statute of limitations (18 U.S.C. Sec. 3293). Given that 
     Class A crimes of violence and drug trafficking crimes 
     generally are at least as harmful to society as these 
     offenses, there is no reason for these Class A felonies to 
     carry such a relatively short statute of limitations.
     Section 2116.  Forfeiture for crimes of violence, 
         racketeering, and obstruction of justice.
       This section extends the forfeiture statutes to cover all 
     crimes of violence plus the racketeering crimes set forth in 
     Chapter 95 (18 U.S.C. Sec. 1951-60), including extortion, 
     murder-for-hire, and violent crimes in aid of racketeering, 
     and the obstruction of justice offenses set forth in Chapter 
     73 (18 U.S.C. Sec. 1501-17). Presently, there is no 
     forfeiture authority for such offenses except when they are 
     included in a RICO prosecution.

 Part 2--Targeting Serious Gun Crimes and Protecting Children from Gun 
                                Violence

     Section 2121.  Gun ban for dangerous juvenile offenders.
       This amendment would make it unlawful for any person 
     adjudicated a juvenile delinquent for serious violent 
     felonies or drug crimes to receive or possess firearms. It 
     would also make it unlawful for any person to sell or 
     otherwise dispose of any firearm to any person knowing or 
     having reasonable cause to believe that the recipient has 
     been adjudicated a juvenile delinquent for such crimes. Under 
     current law, persons adjudicated juvenile delinquent, even 
     for the most serious crimes, e.g., murder, may receive and 
     possess firearms as adults. This amendment will ensure that 
     such juveniles will be ineligible to possess firearms after 
     the finding of juvenile delinquency.
       The disability will only apply to the most serious drug 
     offenses and violent crimes, as enumerated in the recently 
     enacted ``three-strikes'' law (but because it would otherwise 
     be impossible to administer, the proposed statutory reference 
     incorporates the basic offenses enumerated in paragraph 
     (c)(2) of section 3559, without the exceptions set forth in 
     paragraph (3)). In addition, this amendment will only apply 
     to findings of acts of juvenile delinquency that occur after 
     the effective date of the statute. Thus, persons who have 
     acted or been adjudicated delinquent prior to the effective 
     date will not be subject to this disability. Adjudicated 
     delinquents would be permitted under the proposal to have 
     their firearms rights restored based upon an individualized 
     determination by an appropriate authority of the state of 
     their suitability for such restoration.
       The proposal also would make a conforming change to the 
     restoration of rights statute affecting adult convictions. 
     One of the most serious problems today hindering enforcement 
     of a federal firearms statutes arises from the definition of 
     ``conviction'' in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(20). Under 18 U.S.C. 
     922(g), it is unlawful for a convicted felon to possess a 
     firearm. Section 922(g) violations also serve as the basis 
     for the mandatory penalties applicable under the Armed Career 
     Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. 924(e), for 922(g) violators with 
     three or more crime of violence or serious drug trafficking 
     convictions. What is a ``conviction'' is therefore vital to 
     the enforcement of these important provisions.
       Prior to the 1986 Firearms Owners' Protection Act, a 
     conviction for purposes of federal firearms prohibitions was 
     a question of federal, not state, law. Federal law provided 
     that once an individual was convicted of a felony, that 
     person remained under a federal firearms disability 
     irrespective of state laws purporting to restore the person's 
     rights to possess firearms. Offenders could apply for relief 
     from firearms disabilities to the Secretary of the Treasury. 
     The 1986 Act, however, changed this policy and provided, in 
     18 U.S.C. 921(a)(20), that a conviction for which a person 
     has had civil rights restored generally ``shall not be 
     considered a conviction'' under federal firearms statutes.
       The 1986 amendment has had adverse effects from the 
     standpoint of public safety. This results from the fact that 
     about half the states have laws that provide for some form of 
     automatic firearms rights restoration, including several 
     states that provide for such restoration after a waiting 
     period, and at least one state that automatically restores 
     firearms possession rights immediately upon completion of a 
     felon's sentence, so that the felon is enabled to walk 
     directly out of prison into a gun dealer's establishment and 
     legally arrange to purchase a firearm. Other states make 
     restoration of rights automatic except for certain categories 
     of felons (typically those convicted of violent crimes), 
     while still other states make restoration automatic for 
     some types of firearms but not others.
       Under the proposed amendment, state laws restoring firearms 
     rights would continue to be recognized for federal firearms 
     enforcement purposes, but only if the restoration of

[[Page S1663]]

     rights was done on an individualized rather than an automatic 
     basis, including a determination that the circumstances of 
     the person's conviction, and his or her record and 
     reputation, make it unlikely that the person will endanger 
     public safety. The Federal Government should not give effect 
     to state restoration of rights statutes that provide for no 
     individualized consideration of the offender's likelihood of 
     committing future crimes. About half the states currently 
     restore firearms rights only after such an individualized 
     review. The remaining states need not change their laws if 
     they do not wish to do so, but the Congressional policy 
     underlying the federal felon-in-possession prohibition in 18 
     U.S.C. 922(g) should not be deemed superseded by a state law 
     that automatically restores a felon's firearms rights. Such 
     automatic restoration laws insufficiently protect the public 
     safety, not only in the states that provide for such 
     automatic restoration but in other states to which the 
     convicted felon may travel.
       The proposed amendment also includes a provision, in the 
     final sentence, that would reverse the outcome in United 
     States v. Indelicato, 97 F.3d 627 (1st Cir. 1996). The Court 
     there held, contrary to other courts of appeals, that where a 
     state had never deprived a convicted felon of his or her 
     civil rights as a result of the conviction, that person was 
     to be considered as if the state had ``restored'' such 
     rights. Whether or not this interpretation is deemed correct 
     under the current law, as a matter of policy it makes sense 
     to require a state to make an individualized determination of 
     suitability to possess firearms in every case involving a 
     conviction of a state crime punishable by more than one year 
     in prison.
     Section 2122.  Locking devices for firearms.
       The amendment would require Federal firearms licensees, 
     other than licensed collectors, to provide a locking device 
     with every firearm sold to a nonlicensee. The term ``locking 
     device'' would be defined as a device that can be installed 
     on a firearm that prevents the firearm from being discharged 
     without removing the device. It would also include firearms 
     being developed which can ``identify'' their lawful possessor 
     by the use of a personal electronic ``key'', palmprint, or 
     other identifier. The provision is intended to provide added 
     safety to gun owners and to prevent accidental discharges 
     that can result when children gain access to firearms.
     Section 2123. Enhanced penalties for discharging or 
         possessing a firearm during a crime of violence or drug 
         trafficking crime.
       In Bailey v. United States, __ U.S. __, 116 S. Ct. 501, 133 
     L. Ed. 2nd 472 (1995), the Supreme Court put a restrictive 
     interpretation of the verb ``use'' in relation to a firearms 
     violation under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(c), finding that an 
     offender only ``uses'' a firearm if the weapon is ``actively 
     employed'' in connection with a criminal act. The legislative 
     proposal makes it clear that the statute punishes possession 
     of a firearm, as well as its ``use.'' Under the proposal, 
     possession of a firearm during the commission of a violent 
     crime or drug felony will result in a 5-year mandatory 
     minimum penalty. Offenders will receive a 10-year mandatory 
     minimum penalty if during the commission of a drug felony or 
     violent crime, the offender discharges the firearm or uses it 
     to inflict bodily harm.
     Section 2124.  Juvenile handgun possession.
       This proposal would increase the penalties for violations 
     of 18 U.S.C. 922(x), which makes it unlawful for a person to 
     transfer a handgun to a juvenile or for a juvenile to possess 
     a handgun. Existing law provides a penalty of not more than 
     one year for violations of Sec. 922(x) and, if the person 
     transferring the handgun to the juvenile knew that the 
     handgun would be used in a crime of violence, a penalty of 
     not more than 10 years. Existing law also provides for 
     probation by juvenile offenders, unless the juvenile has been 
     previously convicted of certain offenses or adjudicated as a 
     juvenile delinquent.
       The proposal would eliminate probation as a mandatory 
     sentence for juveniles. Thus, juveniles would be sentenced to 
     a penalty of not more than one year or, if previously 
     convicted under this section or adjudicated delinquent for an 
     act that would be a serious violent felony under 18 U.S.C. 
     3559(c) if committed by an adult, sentenced to up to five 
     years' imprisonment. The proposal also increases the penalty 
     for adults who transfer handguns to juveniles knowing that 
     they intend to use it in the commission of a crime of 
     violence to not less than three years nor more than 10 years 
     (currently only the ten-year maximum applies).
     Section 2125.  Increased penalty for firearms conspiracy.
       This section would amend the firearms chapter of title 18 
     to provide that a conspiracy to commit any violation of that 
     chapter is punishable by the same maximum term as that 
     applicable to the substantive offense that was the object of 
     the conspiracy. An identical amendment was enacted to the 
     explosives chapter of title 18 by section 701 of the Anti-
     Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-
     132). This also accords with several other recent 
     congressional enactments, including 21 U.S.C. 846 (applicable 
     to drug conspiracies) and 18 U.S.C. 1956(h) (applicable to 
     money laundering conspiracies). This trend in federal law, 
     which is emulated in the penal codes of many States, 
     recognizes that, as the Supreme Court has observed, 
     ``collective criminal agreement--partnership in crime--
     presents a greater potential threat to the public than 
     individual delicts.'' Callanan v. United States, 364 U.S. 
     587, 593 (1961); accord, United States v. Feola, 420 U.S. 
     671, 693-94 (1975).

                 Part 3--Targeting Illicit Gun Markets

     Section 2131.  Certain gang-related firearms offenses as RICO 
         predicates
       The proposed amendment would add a number of title 18 
     firearms offenses that are related to gang activity to the 
     RICO statute. A brief description of the covered offenses is 
     as follows: 922(a)(1) (illegally engaging in business of 
     dealing in firearms); (922(a)(6) (knowingly making false 
     statement to a licensee in order to acquire a firearm); 
     922(i) (transporting a firearm in interstate or foreign 
     commerce knowing it to have been stolen); 922(j) (possession 
     or disposition of a firearm or ammunition knowing it to have 
     been stolen); 922(k) (transporting or receiving a firearm 
     interstate with an obliterated serial number); 922(o) 
     (unlawful possession or transfer of a machinegun); 922(g) 
     (unlawful possession of a firearm that affects or has moved 
     in interstate commerce in a school zone); 922(u) (theft from 
     a licensee of a firearm that has moved in interstate 
     commerce; 922(v) (illegal transfer or possession of a 
     semiautomatic assault weapon); (922(x)(1) sale or transfer of 
     a firearm to a person known to be a juvenile); 924(b) 
     (transporting or receiving a firearm in interstate commerce 
     with intent to commit therewith a felony); 924(g) (traveling 
     interstate to acquire a firearm, with intent to commit a 
     crime of violence, drug trafficking offense, or other 
     enumerated felony); (24(h) (transferring a firearm with 
     knowledge it will be used to commit a crime of violence or 
     drug trafficking offense); 924(k) (smuggling a firearm into 
     the United States with intent to commit a crime of violence 
     or drug trafficking offense); 924(l) (theft of a firearm from 
     a licensee); and 924(m) (traveling in interstate or foreign 
     commerce to acquire a firearm, with intent to engage 
     illegally in business of dealing in firearms).
     Section 2132.  Felony treatment for offenses tantamount to 
         aiding and abetting unlawful purchases
       This proposal would increase the punishment for the most 
     serious record keeping violations committed by federal 
     licensees, which are tantamount to aiding and abetting 
     unlawful deliveries or purchases of firearms, to the same 
     level of offense as that committed by the unlawful provider 
     or receiver. Sections 922(b) (1) and (3) proscribe sales of 
     firearms known to be juveniles or to reside out of State, 
     respectively. Each carries a five-year maximum sentence for a 
     willful violation under 18 U.S.C. 924(a)(1)(D). Sections 
     922(a)(6) and (d) proscribe, respectively, making false 
     statements to a licensee in relation to the acquisition of a 
     firearm, and knowingly selling a firearm to a convicted felon 
     or other prohibited category of firearm recipient. Each is 
     punishable by up to ten years' imprisonment.
       At present, all record keeping violations by licensees are 
     misdemeanors carrying a maximum of one year in prison. This 
     is insufficient in the above situations, where the knowingly 
     false record keeping entry is very serious and closely 
     associate with or in the nature of aiding and abetting a 
     violation involving the provision of a firearm to a person 
     not entitled to obtain it. Accordingly, the amendment would 
     increase the penalty for such record keeping violations to 
     the same as that would attach to the underlying violation.
     Section 2133.  Secure storage of firearms inventories
       This amendment would require Federal firearms licensees 
     other than collectors and gunsmiths to store their firearms 
     inventory in accordance with regulations issued by the 
     Secretary. The purpose of the amendment is to provide 
     security requirements for the firearms industry. Thefts of 
     firearms from dealers is a growing problem and contributes to 
     the number of firearms available to juvenile youth gangs and 
     other criminals. In issuing the storage regulations, the 
     Secretary would be required to consider the standards of 
     safety and security used by the firearms industry. The 
     industry, as well as other interested persons, could 
     participate in the rulemaking process and have input into the 
     regulations.
     Section 2134.  Suspension of federal firearms licenses and 
         civil penalties for willful violations of the Gun Control 
         Act
       Under current law, the only available administrative 
     remedies to deal with licensees' violations are the extreme 
     measures of denying license renewal applications and license 
     revocation. There may be certain minor violations of the Gun 
     Control Act, e.g., failure to timely record information in 
     required records, that may not warrant license revocation or 
     license denial. This amendment provides new administrative 
     sanctions, less severe than current administrative remedies, 
     including license suspension, civil money penalties, and 
     authority to accept monetary offers in compromise of 
     violations of the law and regulations.
     Section 2135.  Transfer of firearm to commit a crime of 
         violence
       Present 18 U.S.C. 924(h) makes it unlawful to transfer a 
     firearm ``knowing'' that the firearm will be used to commit a 
     crime of violence or drug trafficking crime. However, 18 
     U.S.C. 924(b) makes it unlawful to transport or receive a 
     firearm in interstate commerce ``with knowledge or reasonable 
     cause to believe'' that any felony is to be committed

[[Page S1664]]

     therewith. Both statutes carry the same maximum penalty.
       There is no plausible reason why section 924(h) is limited 
     to instances in which the actor has knowledge that a crime of 
     violence or drug trafficking crime will be committed, as 
     opposed to having ``reasonable cause to believe'' that such 
     is the case. Indeed, the offenses covered by section 924(h)--
     violent felonies and drug trafficking felonies--are 
     inherently more serious than the offenses covered by section 
     924(b), which extends to all felonies. Accordingly, this 
     section would conform the scienter element in section 924(h) 
     by adding ``reasonable cause to believe'' to that statute.
     Section 2136.  Increased penalty for knowingly receiving 
         firearm with obliterated serial number.
       The current maximum penalty for knowingly receiving a 
     firearm with an obliterated or altered serial number in 
     violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(k) is five years. This offense is 
     tantamount to that of receiving a firearm known to be stolen. 
     However, the latter carries a maximum penalty of ten years. 
     Accordingly, this amendment would increase the maximum 
     penalty for receiving a firearm with an obliterated or 
     altered serial number to ten years.
     Section 2137.  Amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines for 
         transfers of firearms to prohibited persons.
       The proposed amendment would require the United States 
     Sentencing Commission to provide an increase in the base 
     offense level for certain firearms violators under sentencing 
     guideline section 2K2.1. The increase should assure that the 
     base offense level for a person who transfers firearms or 
     ammunition with knowledge or reasonable cause to believe that 
     the transferee is a convicted felon or otherwise in a 
     prohibited category is the same as that for the transferee. 
     Under Federal law the offense of selling or disposing of a 
     firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having 
     reasonable cause to believe that the person is in a 
     prohibited category is punishable by a maximum term of 
     imprisonment of 10 years--the same penalty that applies to 
     the transferee. See 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 922(d), 922(g) and 
     924(a)(2).
       The sentencing guidelines provide that a prohibited person 
     who engages in a firearm offense is subject at least to 
     offense level 14. Thus, for example, a convicted felon who 
     unlawfully acquires a firearm in violation of section 922(g) 
     of title 18, United States Code, would face a sentencing 
     range of 18-24 months of imprisonment if his past conviction 
     resulted in a sentence of imprisonment of 60 days or more. 
     However, the transferor currently faces a guideline offense 
     level of just 12 (10-16 months of imprisonment for a first 
     offender, which can result in five months of imprisonment and 
     five months of supervised release with home confinement). The 
     transferor in this case should be subject to offense level 
     14, like the transferee.
       Guideline section 2K2.1 also provides an offense level of 
     20 for a prohibited person whose offense involved a 
     machinegun or certain other dangerous firearms. The proposed 
     directive would require the Sentencing Commission to make 
     this offense level applicable to the transferor of such a 
     weapon if the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to 
     believe that the transferee is in a prohibited category. 
     However, the sentencing guidelines currently provide 
     additional base offense level increases in the case of 
     defendants who have prior felony convictions of either a 
     crime of violence or controlled substance offense, 
     Sec. 2K2.1(a)(1), (2), (3), and (4)(A). The directive to the 
     Sentencing Commission specifically exempts these additional 
     increases from its requirements.
     Section 2138.  Forfeiture of firearms used in crimes of 
         violence and felonies.
       The amendment adds the authority to forfeit firearms used 
     to commit crimes of violence and all felonies to 18 U.S.C. 
     Sec. Sec. 981 and 982. This authority would be in addition to 
     the authority already available to Treasury agencies under 18 
     U.S.C. Sec. 924(d).
       The purpose of the amendment is (1) to provide for criminal 
     as well as civil forfeiture of firearms; and (2) to permit 
     forfeiture actions to be undertaken by Department of Justice 
     law enforcement agencies who have authority to enforce the 
     statutes governing crimes of violence but who do not have 
     authority to pursue forfeitures of firearms under the 
     existing statutes.
       Section 924(d) of title 18 already provides for the civil 
     forfeiture of any firearm used or involved in the commission 
     of any ``criminal law of the United States.'' The statute, 
     however, is enforced only by the Treasury Department and its 
     agencies; it provides no authority for the FBI, for example, 
     to forfeit a gun used in the commission of an offense over 
     which it has sole jurisdiction. Moreover, Sec. 924(d) 
     provides for civil forfeiture only.
       Subsection (d) adds a provision to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(d) 
     intended to permit the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and 
     Firearms to forfeit property that otherwise would have to be 
     forfeited by another agency. Under Sec. 924(d), ATF is 
     presently authorized to forfeit a firearm used or carried in 
     a drug trafficking crime. Property involved in the drug 
     offense itself, such as drug proceeds, may also be 
     forfeitable under the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 881, but ATF does not presently have authority to 
     forfeit property under that statute and has to turn the 
     forfeitable property over to another agency. The amendment 
     does not expand the scope of what is forfeitable in any way, 
     but does allow the forfeiture to be pursued by ATF when the 
     agency is already involved in the forfeiture of a firearm in 
     the same case.
       Finally, subsection (e) clarifies an ambiguity in the 
     present statute relating to the 120-day period in which a 
     forfeiture action must be filed. Presently, the statute says 
     that a forfeiture proceeding must be filed within 120 days of 
     the seizure of the property. This was intended to force the 
     government to initiate a forfeiture action promptly. In one 
     case, however, where the government did initiate an 
     administrative forfeiture action within the 120-day period, 
     the claimant filed a claim and cost bond which required the 
     government to begin the forfeiture action over again by 
     filing a formal civil judicial proceeding in federal court. 
     The claimant then moved to dismiss the judicial proceeding 
     because the complaint was filed outside the 120-day period.
       The court granted the motion to dismiss because the literal 
     wording of Sec. 924(d) requires any forfeiture action against 
     the firearm to be filed within 120 days of the seizure. 
     United States v. Fourteen Various Firearms, __ F. Supp. __, 
     1995 WL 368761 (E.D. Va. June 19, 1995). This interpretation, 
     however, leads to unjust results in cases where the 
     government promptly commences an administrative forfeiture 
     action but the claimant waits the full time allotted to him 
     to file a claim. (Under Section 101 of this Act, the claimant 
     would have 30 days from the date of publication of notice of 
     the administrative forfeiture action to file a claim, which 
     is likely to be several months after the seizure even if the 
     government initiated the administrative forfeiture almost 
     immediately after the seizure.) In such cases, Congress could 
     not have intended the 120-day period for filing a judicial 
     complaint to count from the date of the seizure; indeed, it 
     is often the case that the claimant doesn't even file the 
     claim until more than 120 days have passed. Thus, the 
     amendment clarifies the statute to make clear that the 
     government must initiate its administrative forfeiture 
     proceeding within 120 days of the seizure and then will have 
     120 days from the filing of a claim, if one is filed, to file 
     the case in federal court. The amendment also tolls the 120-
     day period during the time a related criminal indictment or 
     information is pending.
     Section 2139.  Forfeiture for gun trafficking
       This section provides for the forfeiture, under 18 U.S.C. 
     Sec. Sec. 981 and 982, of vehicles used to commit gun 
     trafficking, such as transporting stolen firearms, and for 
     the proceeds of such offenses. The provision is limited to 
     instances in which five or more firearms are involved, thus 
     making it clear that it is not intended to be used in 
     instances where an individual commits a violation involving a 
     small number of firearms in his or her personal possession.

  Part 4--Targeting Serious Drug Crimes and Protecting Children From 
                                 Drugs

     Section 2141.  Increased penalties for using minors to 
         distribute drugs
       This provision would amend Section 420 of the Controlled 
     Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 861) to increase the current 
     mandatory minimum penalty for using or employing minors to 
     distribute drugs from one year to three years. Similarly, the 
     provision would increase the mandatory minimum penalty for a 
     second or subsequent violation of this statute from one year 
     to five years. The proposed increases are necessary to punish 
     persons who use or employ minors to distribute illegal drugs 
     and to deter others from engaging in such reprehensible 
     conduct.
     Section 2142.1  Increased penalties for distributing drugs to 
         minors
       This provision would amend Section 418 of the Controlled 
     Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 859) to increase the minimum 
     penalty for distributing drugs to minors from one year to 
     three years for a first offense, and from one year to five 
     years for a second or subsequent offense. The proposal would 
     also alter the age of the minor that triggers these 
     penalties. Under the proposed amendment, the penalties would 
     apply whenever a person at least eighteen years of age 
     distributes drugs to a person under eighteen. Presently, the 
     statute punishes a person at least eighteen who distributes 
     drugs to a person under twenty-one, thus reaching some 
     transactions in which the buyer is significantly older than 
     the seller. This makes little sense and is inconsistent with 
     the companion statute, 21 U.S.C. 861, which punishes persons 
     who employ minors to distribute drugs. The proposed amendment 
     would bring section 859 into conformity with section 861.
     Section 2143.1  Increased penalties for drug trafficking in 
         or near a school or other protected location
       This provision would amendment Section 419 of the 
     Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 860) to increase the 
     mandatory minimum penalty for distributing drugs in or near a 
     school or other protected location. The provision also would 
     increase the mandatory minimum penalty for second and 
     subsequent offenses from one to five years. The increased 
     penalties for drug trafficking in or near schools or other 
     protected locations are consistent with the other proposed 
     penalty increases in this legislation and are aimed at 
     protecting children from drug trafficking and abuse, 
     punishing drug dealers who target

[[Page S1665]]

     children, and deterring others who might engage in such 
     conduct.
     Section 2144.1  Serious juvenile drug trafficking offenses as 
         Armed Career Criminal Act predicates
       This section would amend the Armed Career Criminal Act 
     (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(e)(2)(A), to permit the use of an 
     adjudication of juvenile delinquency based on a serious drug 
     trafficking offense as a predicate offense under that Act. 
     The ACCA targets for a lengthy period of at least 15 years' 
     imprisonment those felons found in unlawful possession of a 
     firearm who have proven records of involvement in serious 
     acts of misconduct involving drugs and violence.
     Section 2145.  Attorney General authority to reschedule 
         certain drugs posing imminent danger to public safety.
       Under existing law, the Attorney General is empowered to 
     add temporarily a substance to Schedule I of the Controlled 
     Substances Act when necessary to respond to an imminent 
     danger to public safety. See 21 U.S.C. 811(h). However, the 
     Attorney General is not authorized to reschedule a substance 
     that already has been placed on one of the schedules of the 
     Controlled Substances Act. Once a substance has been added to 
     one of the schedules, any rescheduling of that substance must 
     be done pursuant to the standard procedures for scheduling or 
     rescheduling a substance. Under the standard procedures, the 
     rescheduling of a substance can take several years.
       The proposal would extend the Attorney General's existing 
     authority to schedule a substance on an emergency basis to 
     include the rescheduling of an already scheduled drug to 
     Schedule I. This authority will give the Attorney General to 
     respond to public health crises involving scheduled 
     substances, such as the rapidly escalating abuse of rohypnol, 
     a Schedule IV drug with no approved medical uses in the 
     United States.
       The proposal contains the same limitations and procedures 
     as apply to the Attorney General's existing emergency 
     scheduling authority. The Attorney General could temporarily 
     reschedule a substance only for one year, with the 
     possibility of a one-time six month extension under certain 
     circumstances. In addition, the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services would continue to have a formal role in advising the 
     Attorney General in any proposed rescheduling.
     Section 2146.  Increased penalties for using federal property 
         to grow or manufacture controlled substances.
       This provision would increase the penalty for cultivating 
     or manufacturing a controlled substance on federally owned or 
     leased land. A significant amount of the domestic marijuana 
     crop is grown on federal lands and a substantial number of 
     methamphetamine laboratories also have been discovered on 
     federal lands. Federal law enforcement agencies believe that 
     the use of federal lands for cultivating and manufacturing 
     controlled substances has increased because there is no 
     possibility that the land will be forfeited as is the case if 
     the cultivation or manufacture took place on private 
     property.
     Section 2147.  Clarification of length of supervised release 
         terms in controlled substance cases.
       This section resolves a conflict in the circuits as to the 
     permissible length of supervised release terms in controlled 
     substance cases. Under 18 U.S.C. 3583(b), ``[e]xcept as 
     otherwise provided,'' the maximum authorized terms of 
     supervised release are 5 years for Class A and B felonies, 3 
     years for Class C and D felonies, and 1 year for Class E 
     felonies and certain misdemeanors. The drug trafficking 
     offenses in 21 U.S.C. 841 prescribe special supervised 
     release terms, however, that are longer than those applicable 
     generally under section 3583(b). Those longer terms, which 
     may include lifetime supervised release, were enacted in 1986 
     in the same Act which inserted the introductory phrase 
     ``Except as otherwise provided'' in section 3583(b). Because 
     of this clear legislative history and intent, two courts of 
     appeals have held that section 3583(b) does not limit the 
     length of supervised release that may be imposed for a 
     violation of 21 U.S.C. 841 when a greater term is there 
     provided. United States v. LeMay, 952 F.2d 995, 998 (8th Cir. 
     1991); United States v. Eng, 14 F.3d 165, 172-3 (2d Cir. 
     1994. One court of appeals, however, has reached the opposite 
     result, holding that the length of a supervised release term 
     that can be imposed for controlled substance cases is limited 
     by 18 U.S.C. 3583(b). United States v. Gracia, 983 F.2d 625, 
     630, (5th Cir. 1993); United States v. Kelly, 974 F.2d 22, 
     24-5 (5th Cir. 1992).
       Although the issue has not arisen with frequency, the 
     conflict is entrenched and should be dealt with definitively. 
     Accordingly, the amendment would add the words 
     ``Notwithstanding section 3583 of title 18'' to the title 21 
     controlled substance offenses in the parts of those statutes 
     dealing with supervised release to make clear that the longer 
     terms there prescribed control over the general provision in 
     section 3583.
     Section 2148.  Technical correction to assure compliance of 
         sentencing guidelines with provisions of all federal 
         statutes.
       This section would amend 28 U.S.C. 994(a) to assure that 
     sentencing guidelines promulgated by the United States 
     Sentencing Commission are consistent with the provisions of 
     all federal statutes. Currently, section 994(a) contains a 
     requirement of consistency only with statutes in titles 28 
     and 18 of the United States Code. No discussion of this 
     somewhat peculiar limitation appears in the legislative 
     history, see S. Rep. No. 98-225, 98th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 
     163 (1983). The limitation seems to have been based on the 
     mistaken assumption that all provisions pertinent to the 
     promulgation of sentencing guidelines were contained in those 
     two titles. However, other provisions, such as mandatory 
     minimum sentences in title 21, are relevant and clearly are 
     meant to act as constraints on the guidelines. This amendment 
     will insure that guidelines are not created that are 
     inconsistent with the provisions of any relevant enactment 
     of Congress.
     Section 2149.  Drug testing, treatment, and supervision of 
         incarcerated offenders.
       This section amends Section 20105(b) of the Violent 
     Offender Incarceration/Truth-In-Sentencing (VOI/TIS) grant 
     program of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act 
     of 1994 by adding the language at Section 20105(b)(1)(B) and 
     Section 20105(b)(2). The victims' rights language at Section 
     20105(b)(A) is current law as Section 20105(b).
       The amendment adds several requirements to the conditions a 
     state must meet in order to receive funding under the VOI/TIS 
     program. First, the state must by September 1, 1998, have a 
     plan for drug testing/monitoring and treatment for violent 
     offender housed in their corrections facilities. This plan 
     needs to include sanctions for inmates who test positive. 
     Second, the language at (2) would permit the state to use 
     funds received under the VOI/TIS program to pay the costs of 
     the testing and treatment required under (B). Currently the 
     provisions at (B) are found in the Conference Report H.Rpt. 
     104-863 that accompanies the Department's fiscal year 1997 
     appropriations act. The language at (2) is not included. The 
     goal of the amendment is to make the language at (B) 
     permanent and add the language at (2) by amending the 
     underlying law.


  subtitle b--grants to prosecutors' offices to target gang crime and 
                           violent juveniles

       This subtitle amends Section 31702, Community-Based Justice 
     Grants for Prosecutors,'' of Title III of the Violent Crime 
     Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13862) to 
     respond to the increase of violent juvenile offenders and the 
     rate of gang-related juvenile crime. This subtitle provides 
     needed resources for state and local prosecutors to 
     facilitate the prosecution of violent and serious juvenile 
     offenders. There is no existing comparable legislative text 
     and programs previously authorized to assist prosecutors have 
     not been appropriated. As part of the President's fiscal year 
     1998 budget proposal, this program is authorized for 
     appropriations of $100,000,000 for fiscal year 1998 and 
     $100,000,000 for fiscal year 1999.
       Specifically, the legislation expands authority to: hire 
     additional prosecutors to reduce prosecutorial backlogs; 
     enable prosecutors to more effectively prosecute youth drug, 
     gang, and violence problems; supply the technology, 
     equipment, and training to assist prosecutors in reducing the 
     rate of youthful violent crime while increasing the rate of 
     successful identification and rapid prosecution of young 
     violent offenders; and assist prosecutors in their efforts to 
     engage in community-based prosecutions, problem solving, and 
     conflict resolution techniques through collaborative efforts 
     with law enforcement officials, school officials, probation 
     officers, social service agencies, and community 
     organizations.
       There is also a two percent set aside of all funds 
     appropriated under this Part to be set aside for ``training 
     and technical assistance'' consistent with the above-
     mentioned purposes. Similarly, 10 percent is taken ``off the 
     top'' of all funds appropriated under this Part to be set 
     aside for research, statistics, and evaluation'' consistent 
     with these purposes. Numerous jurisdictions have requested 
     training and technical assistance as a priority need. 
     Additionally, through the introduction of various bills, 
     Congress has evidenced its support for enhanced research, 
     statistics, and evaluation.


       subtitle c--grants to courts to address violent juveniles

       Subtitle C establishes federal grant funding for states, 
     units of local government, and Indian tribal governments to 
     use in developing and implementing innovative initiatives to 
     increase levels of efficiency, expediency, and effectiveness 
     with which juvenile and youths are processed and adjudicated 
     within the criminal and juvenile justice system. This is a 
     new grant authority to assist state, local, and tribal 
     courts, including probation and parole offices, public 
     defenders, and victim/witness service providers, to respond 
     to violent and serious youthful offenders.
       This subtitle amends Section 21062 of Subtitle F of Title 
     XXI of the ``Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 
     1994'' (42 U.S.C. 14161), that currently provides assistance 
     to state and local courts. This subtitle reintroduces the 
     Administration's State and Local Courts Assistance Program 
     Act to authorize the establishment of the juvenile gun 
     courts, drug courts, other specialized courts, and innovative 
     programs to better deal with the adjudication and prosecution 
     of juveniles. As part of the President's fiscal year 1998 
     budget proposal), this program is authorized for 
     appropriations of $50,000,000 for fiscal year 1998.

[[Page S1666]]

   Title III--Protecting Witnesses To Help Prosecute Gangs and Other 
                           Violent Criminals

     Section 3001.  Interstate travel to engage in witness 
         intimidation or obstruction of justice.
       This section would amend the Travel Act (18 U.S.C. 1952) to 
     add witness bribery, intimidation, obstruction of justice, 
     and related conduct in State criminal proceedings to the list 
     of predicates under the Travel Act (18 U.S.C. 1952). Recent 
     studies demonstrate that witness intimidation is one of the 
     most serious impediments to the prosecution of violent 
     street gangs and drug trafficking organizations in State 
     courts. This amendment responds to the growing witness 
     intimidation problem by authorizing federal prosecution of 
     persons who travel in interstate commerce with the intent 
     to bribe or intimidate a witness, obstruct a criminal 
     proceeding, or engage in related conduct.
     Section 3002.  Expanding pretrial detention eligibility for 
         serious gang and other violent criminals.
       This section would make three amendments to the pretrial 
     detention statutes designed to enhance the ability, in 
     appropriate circumstances, to use these statutes in 
     prosecutions against gang members and against other violent 
     criminals. Under the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. 3141 et seq., 
     defendants charged with certain offenses can be detained 
     pretrial if the court concludes there is clear and convincing 
     evidence that no condition or combination of conditions of 
     release will adequately assure the safety of any other person 
     and the community. See 18 U.S.C. 3142 (e) and (f). The kinds 
     of charges that permit such detention on grounds of the 
     defendant's dangerousness include certain serious drug 
     trafficking offenses and a ``crime of violence''. They also 
     include any felony if the defendant has previously been 
     convicted of two or more crimes of violence or serious drug 
     trafficking offenses.
       The first proposal would add a definition of the term 
     ``convicted'' to include adjudications of juvenile 
     delinquency. Thus, it would permit pretrial detention, upon 
     the requisite showing, of persons charged with any felony, 
     e.g., interstate transportation of a stolen automobile, who 
     had two or more prior violent or drug convictions, including 
     juvenile delinquency adjudications for such conduct. This 
     should facilitate the use of pretrial detention when 
     appropriate against young career offenders such as gang 
     members.
       The second proposed amendment relates to the definition of 
     ``crime of violence'' in 18 U.S.C. 3156(a)(4). That 
     definition reaches offenses (A) that have as an element the 
     use or attempted or threatened use of physical force, (B) any 
     other felony offenses that, by their nature, involve a 
     substantial risk that physical force may be used in the 
     course of their commission, and (C), by virtue of an 
     amendment in the 1994 crime bill, any felony under chapter 
     109A or 110 (which proscribe sex offenses and child 
     pornography).
       It is not clear whether the offenses of possession of 
     explosives or firearms by convicted felons qualify as 
     ``crimes of violence'' under the second or (B) branch of the 
     definition. What little case law exists suggests that they 
     do. See United States v. Sloan, 820 F. Supp. 1133, 1136-41 
     (S.D. Ind. 1993); United States v. Aiken, 775 F. Supp. 855 
     (D. Md. 1991). See also, United States v. Dodge, 846 F. Supp. 
     181 (D. Conn. 1994). The Sloan court noted that, although the 
     Supreme Court held in United States v. Stinson, 113 S. Ct. 
     1913 (1993), that a similar definition of ``crime of 
     violence'' in the sentencing guidelines did not encompass the 
     felon-in-possession statutes, because the Sentencing 
     Commission had promulgated a policy statement to that effect, 
     the bail statutes serve a very different purpose from 
     sentencing enhancements and should be more broadly construed 
     to protect the public from continued endangerment by 
     convicted felons charged with a new offense of weapon 
     possession. (Prior to the Commission's policy statement, the 
     courts were divided as to whether a violation of 18 U.S.C. 
     922(a) was a crime of violence for sentencing purposes). This 
     proposed amendment would codify the result reached in Sloan. 
     It would not mandate pretrial detention but would permit the 
     government to show, in the case of a convicted felon such as 
     a gang member charged with violating the certain explosives 
     or firearms statutes, that no one or more conditions of 
     release would be adequate to safeguard society.
       The third proposed amendment would make membership or 
     participation in a criminal street gang, racketeering 
     enterprise, or other criminal organization a factor to be 
     considered by courts in making bail determinations. 
     Presently, many other personal history and characteristics of 
     the individual charged are required to be considered in 
     making bail decisions, such as prior convictions, drug abuse, 
     and whether the alleged offense was committed while on 
     parole, probation, or other form of release pending criminal 
     trial. Clearly, gang or organized crime group membership is a 
     relevant factor that bears both on dangerousness and risk of 
     flight and that courts should take into account in making 
     bail determinations. The amendment is not intended to impinge 
     on rights of freedom of association but rather to reach 
     membership or participation in those organizations that 
     exist, at least in part, for the purpose of committing crimes 
     or depriving third parties of their lawful rights. See Madsen 
     v. Women's Health Center, Inc. 114 S. Ct. 2516, 2530 (1994).
     Section 3003.  Conspiracy penalty for obstruction of justice 
         offenses involving victims, witnesses, and informants.
       Increasingly typical of many criminal gangs is violence 
     directed at silencing or retaliating against witnesses or 
     potential witnesses and informants. 18 U.S.C. 1512 and 1513 
     set forth offenses and penalties that, generally speaking, 
     adequately deter and punish such offenses. However, a 
     conspiracy to engage in witness intimidation or retaliation 
     in violation of these statutes is punishable only under the 
     catchall conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. 371, which carries a 
     maximum prison term of only five years. This is clearly 
     inadequate to vindicate an offense that involves, for 
     example, a conspiracy to kill a witness or potential witness 
     in a federal criminal proceeding. Such a conspiracy, if 
     perpetrated upon the special maritime and territorial 
     jurisdiction, would be punishable by up to life 
     imprisonment. 18 U.S.C. 1117. This is consistent with the 
     principle, recognized in some federal statutes and 
     prevalent in modern State criminal codes, that a 
     conspiracy warrants the same maximum penalty as the 
     offense which was its object. This principle is reflected 
     in several recently enacted federal statutes, including 21 
     U.S.C. 846 (drug conspiracies), 18 U.S.C. 1856(h)(money 
     laundering conspiracies), and 18 U.S.C. 844(n)(explosives 
     conspiracies). The proposed amendment in this section 
     would apply this principle to 18 U.S.C. 1512 and 1513 and 
     thus provide better protection from gang violence to 
     witnesses and informants.

                  Title IV--Protecting Victim's Rights

       Title IV contains two Sections that expand the rights and 
     protections afforded to the victims of crime, particularly 
     crimes committed by juvenile offenders and crimes committed 
     against children. It should be noted that a number of other 
     provisions of the Anti-Gang and Youth Violence Act of 1997 
     expand the rights and protections of crime victims. For 
     example, the proposed Section 5002, which amends 18 U.S.C. 
     5032, would establish a rebuttable presumption that juvenile 
     proceedings shall be open to victims and members of the 
     public, with special protections and access afforded to crime 
     victims. In addition, proposed Section 5037 would expand the 
     allocution rights of crime victims, including the right to 
     have input into the predisposition report prepared by the 
     probation officer and the right to appear before the judge 
     and be heard prior to an order of disposition.
     Section 4001.  Records of crimes committed by juvenile 
         offenders.
       The proposed Section 40001 would amend 18 U.S.C. 5038(a)(6) 
     to correct an oversight in current law. The amendment 
     affirmatively provides for a victim's or a victim's official 
     representative's allocation at the dispositional phase of the 
     juvenile proceeding. In addition, the new statutory language 
     clarifies that communication is allowable with the victim 
     about ``the status or disposition of the [juvenile] 
     proceeding in order to effectuate any other provision of 
     [state or federal] law''. This language clears up any 
     ambiguity in current law by explicitly extending to victims 
     of juvenile offenders the right to information about the 
     juvenile proceeding that they might need or be entitled to 
     under any other state or federal law, such as the victim's 
     rights set out in 42 U.S.C. 10606. Thus, under this new 
     language, victims of juvenile offenders would be treated like 
     victims of adult offenders. For example, victims would be 
     able: to know about the status of the proceedings and the 
     release status of the offenders; to consult intelligently 
     with the prosecutor; and to make a knowledgeable victim 
     impact statement at the time of the disposition. In addition, 
     if state law allows victim compensation or grants any other 
     rights, this provision allows communication about the federal 
     delinquency proceeding in order to effectuate those 
     provisions.
       Fingerprints and photographs of adjudicated delinquents 
     found to have committed the equivalent of an adult felony 
     offense or a violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(x) and 924(a)(6) 
     (possession of a handgun by a juvenile) would be sent to the 
     Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and made available in 
     the manner applicable to adult defendants.
       The limited availability of juvenile criminal records is a 
     serious concern in connection with violent and firearms 
     offenses. In order to address this problem, the Department of 
     Justice amended its regulations in 1992 to expand the ability 
     of the FBI to receive and retain records from State courts 
     for ``serious and/or significant adult and juvenile 
     offenses.'' 28 C.F.R. 2032. The proposed bill would further 
     alleviate this problem by making corresponding changes in the 
     statutory rules for reporting offenses by juveniles who are 
     prosecuted federally. This amendment was passed in substance 
     by the Senate in the 103rd Congress as Section 618 of H.R. 
     3355.
       Further disclosure of records relating to a juvenile or a 
     delinquency proceeding would be authorized if it would be 
     permitted under the law of the State in which the delinquency 
     proceeding took place. The proposal will allow for the 
     development of State systems of graduated sanctions by making 
     it possible for the court to take into account a juvenile's 
     criminal history when imposing sentence. The records could 
     also be used for analysis by the Department of Justice if so 
     requested by the Attorney General.
       Finally, the new Section 5038(c) would be amended to allow 
     the disclosure of ``necessary docketing data''. This is 
     necessary because the nationwide military justice system 
     cannot process traffic tickets without disclosing some 
     docketing information.

[[Page S1667]]

     Section 4002.  Victims of Child Abuse Act extension of 
         authorizations.
       This section extends the authorization of appropriations 
     for programs under Subchapter I of the Victims of Child Abuse 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 13001 et seq.). The programs authorized under 
     VOCA include regional children's advocacy centers, local 
     children's advocacy centers, and specialized training and 
     technical assistance for state and local practitioners 
     dealing with the prosecution of child abuse cases. These 
     programs currently are administered by the Office of Juvenile 
     Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

 Title V--Federal Prosecution of Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders

     Section 5001.  Short title.
       The amendments made in this title are designed to provide 
     protection for the community and hold juveniles accountable 
     for their actions. They will help ensure that prosecution of 
     serious juvenile offenders is more swift and certain, and 
     that punishment of juvenile offenders will be commensurate 
     with the seriousness of the crimes committed.
     Section 5002.  Delinquency proceeding or criminal 
         prosecutions in district courts.
       Under current law, the decision to charge a juvenile as an 
     adult for specified crimes is made by the United States 
     district court as a result of a motion by the United States 
     to transfer the juvenile for criminal prosecution. The 
     offenses subject to this transfer authority are limited. Even 
     more restrictive are the list of violent offenses for which a 
     juvenile under 15 years of age can be transferred.
       There is virtually universal agreement among federal 
     prosecutors that the present system is cumbersome and has 
     frequently inhibited them for seeking adult prosecution. 
     Prosecutors who have sought the transfer of juveniles to 
     adult status have experienced many difficulties in the 
     application of an outmoded statute or have encountered judges 
     personally opposed to the transfer of juveniles, even in 
     cases involving very serious crimes. Moreover, there is a 
     presumption under present law in favor of a juvenile 
     adjudication, and a district court's decision to decline 
     transfer to adult status may be reversed only upon a finding 
     of abuse of discretion. United States v. Juvenile Male #1, 47 
     F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 1995). The result is a juvenile justice 
     system which fails to provide an effective deterrent to 
     juvenile crime and fails adequately to protect the public.
       The proposed statute would amend 18 U.S.C. Sec. 5032 to 
     greatly strengthen and simplify the process for prosecuting 
     the most dangerous juveniles as adults in federal court. The 
     legislation would bring federal law into conformity with that 
     of many states by giving prosecutors, rather than the courts, 
     the discretion to charge a juvenile alleged to have committed 
     certain serious felonies as an adult or as a juvenile.
       The proposed statute would retain the minimum age in 
     existing law for prosecution of a juvenile as an adult but 
     would expand the list of offenses with serious violent, gun 
     or drug felonies. A number of states have similar statutes.
       The legislation would, however, create a distinction 
     between juveniles 16 years of age and older and those who are 
     younger. Prosecution of juveniles 13 to 15 years of age at 
     the time of the offense would require approval of the 
     Attorney General or his or her designee at a level not lower 
     than Deputy Assistant Attorney General. This internal Justice 
     Department approval requirement (which would not be 
     litigable) has been used in other types of particularly 
     sensitive cases and would ensure that careful scrutiny and 
     uniform standards are used in determining whether to bring 
     criminal charges against very young juveniles. Prosecutors 
     would retain the discretion to proceed against anyone under 
     age 18 as a juvenile delinquent. In those cases, the current 
     requirement for prosecutorial certification would apply, thus 
     assuring that most such cases are handled at the state or 
     local level.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \1\ The federal prosecutor would be required to certify that 
     (A) the appropriate State does not have or declines to assume 
     jurisdiction over the juvenile, or (B) the offense is one 
     specified in the statute, and (C) there is a substantial 
     federal interest in the case of the offense to warrant the 
     exercise of federal jurisdiction. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 5032(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       The proposed bill would amend section 5032, to expand the 
     list of serious felonies for which a juvenile can be 
     prosecuted as an adult to include additional violent crimes, 
     firearms charges and drug offenses. Under the amended 
     statutes, a juvenile could be prosecuted as an adult for the 
     following offenses:
       (1) a serious violent felony or a serious drug offense as 
     described in section 3559 (c)(2) or (c)(3) or a conspiracy or 
     attempt under section 406 of the Controlled Substances Act or 
     under section 1013 of the Controlled Substances Import and 
     Export Act (21 U.S.C. 846 or 963) to commit an offense 
     described in section 3559(c)(2); and
       (2) the following offenses if they are not described in 
     paragraph (1): (A) a crime of violence (as defined in section 
     3156(a)(4)) that is a felony; (B) an offense described in 
     section 844(d), (k), or (l), or paragraph (a)(6) or 
     subsection (b), (g), (h), (j), (k), or (l), of section 924; 
     (C) a violation of section 922(o) that is an offense under 
     section 924(a)(2); (D) a violation of section 5861 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that is an offense under 
     section 5871 of such Code (26 U.S.C. 5871);
       (E) a conspiracy to violate an offense described in any of 
     subparagraphs (A) through (D); or
       (F) an offense described in section 401 or 408 of the 
     Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841, 848) or a 
     conspiracy or attempt to commit that offense which is 
     punishable under section 406 of the Controlled Substances Act 
     (21 U.S.C. 846), or an offense punishable under section 409 
     or 419 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 849, 860), 
     or an offense described in section 1002, 1003, 1005, or 1009 
     of the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 
     952, 953, 955 or 959), or a conspiracy or attempt to commit 
     that offense which is punishable under section 1013 of the 
     Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 963).
       To ensure the prosecution in one trial of all offenses 
     charged, a juvenile tried as an adult for one of the 
     designated offenses could also be prosecuted as an adult for 
     any other offenses properly joined under the Federal Rules of 
     Criminal Procedure. With these amendments, juveniles 
     convicted as adults could receive substantially higher 
     sentences than under current law, commensurate with their 
     crimes and criminal histories.
       The existing statute excludes younger juveniles in Indian 
     country charged with certain crimes from prosecution unless 
     the tribal government opts to have the provision apply. The 
     proposal would continue this provision.
       The proposed bill allows, in certain limited circumstances, 
     the district court to order that a juvenile charged as an 
     adult be tried under the juvenile delinquency procedures. 
     This is sometimes referred to as a ``reverse waiver.'' Any 
     juvenile charged with one of the offenses listed in 3(A)-(F) 
     or a juvenile under the age of 16 would be able to request a 
     ``reverse waiver'' hearing. A motion making such a request 
     would have to be filed within 20 days of the juvenile first 
     being charged as an adult. At the hearing, the juvenile 
     charged as an adult would have the burden of establishing 
     that it would be in the interest of justice that the case be 
     tried under the juvenile delinquency provisions of 5032(a). 
     The criteria by which the court should make its determination 
     are listed in the proposed statute. The procedure for 
     appellate review of the court's ruling would be similar to 
     that presently used after a motion to suppress evidence. If 
     the trial court determined that the juvenile should be tried 
     as a juvenile delinquent, the government would have the right 
     to seek an expedited appeal. In the event the court 
     determined that the juvenile had not carried his or her 
     burden of establishing that it was in the interests of 
     justice that there be a reverse waiver, then the case would 
     proceed to trial as an adult prosecution and the juvenile 
     could appeal in the event of a guilty verdict.
       Juveniles under the age of 16 charged as adults, but who 
     have not previously been adjudicated delinquent of a serious 
     violent felony, and who are charged with certain limited 
     offenses would be sentenced under the sentencing guidelines 
     but would not be subject to mandatory minimums.
       Section 5032(a)(4) is amended to make clear that federal 
     juvenile proceedings are normally open to the public but may 
     be closed in the interests of justice or for good cause 
     shown. It also includes a provision allowing victims, their 
     relatives and guardians to be included when the public is 
     otherwise excluded, unless the same two tests applied for 
     exclusion of the public also independently require exclusion.
     Section 5003.  Custody prior to appearance before judicial 
         officer.
       Minor changes have been made to make clear that the 
     procedures applicable to the arrest of a juvenile prior to 
     the formal filing of charges apply whether or not it is 
     anticipated that the juvenile will be charged as a juvenile 
     or as an adult.
     Section 5004.  Technical and conforming amendments to Section 
         5034.
       This section is amended to clarify that it applies to 
     juvenile proceedings only.
     Section 5005.  Speedy trial.
       The proposed status would require that for a juvenile in 
     custody juvenile delinquency proceedings begin within 45 
     days, rather than the current 30 days. Exclusions in the 
     Speedy Trial Act (18 U.S.C. Sec. 3161(h)) would also be made 
     applicable for the first time in juvenile delinquency 
     proceedings. This additional time is necessary, particularly 
     in cases involving both adult and juvenile defendants such as 
     in the prosecution of gangs, to protect witnesses and 
     critical evidence by ensuring that the trial of a juvenile 
     does not proceed before the case against the adults. The time 
     within which a disposition hearing must be held after an 
     adjudication of delinquency would also be increased from 20 
     to 40 days. Within the 40 days, the probation office would 
     prepare a predisposition report which would include victim 
     impact information. Forty days is consistent with federal 
     court practice generally and will provide the time necessary 
     to prepare a comprehensive report.
     Section 5006.  Disposition; availability of increased 
         detention, fines and supervised release for juvenile 
         offenders.
       The legislation would amend section 5037 to make fines and 
     supervised release--not presently sentencing options--
     available for adjudicated delinquents in addition to 
     probation and detention. The maximum period of official 
     confinement for an adjudicated delinquent would be increased 
     to ten years or through age 25 to give judges increased 
     sentencing flexibility for juveniles who are adjudicated 
     delinquent. The maximum period

[[Page S1668]]

     for probation would be increased to the same period 
     applicable to an adult. To strengthen the accountability 
     of juveniles to victims, mandatory restitution would also 
     apply to adjudicated delinquents.
     Section 5007.  Technical amendment of Sections 5031 and 5034.
       This section makes technical and confirming amendments to 
     Sections 5031 and 5034.

       Title VI--Incarceration of Juveniles in the Federal System

     Section 6001.  Detention prior to disposition or sentencing.
       Sections 6001 and 6002 relate to the detention of juvenile 
     offenders prior to disposition or sentencing. Specifically, 
     the bill would amend 18 U.S.C. 5035, to provide that juvenile 
     offenders less than 16 years of age being prosecuted as 
     adults but not yet convicted must be placed in an available, 
     suitable juvenile facility located within, or a reasonable 
     distance from, the district in which the juvenile is being 
     prosecuted. If such a suitable juvenile facility is not 
     available, the juvenile could be placed in any other suitable 
     facility located within, or a reasonable distance from, the 
     district in which the juvenile is being prosecuted. Only if 
     neither of these types of facilities is available could a 
     juvenile less than 16 years old be placed in some other 
     suitable facility. In order to protect the safety of these 
     younger offenders, the bill would require that, to the 
     maximum extent feasible, juveniles not be detained prior to 
     sentencing in any institution in which they have regular 
     contact with adult prisoners.
       The requirement in current Section 5035, that a juvenile 
     charged with juvenile delinquency has regular contact with 
     adult prisoners would generally be retained in the proposed 
     legislation. However, the proposed bill would permit 
     juveniles adjudicated delinquent, once they reach the age of 
     18, to be placed with adults in a correctional facility. This 
     recommended change is consistent with recent regulatory 
     changes to state requirements under the Juvenile Justice and 
     Delinquency Prevention Act, 42 U.S.C. 5601 et seq.
       Section 5039 of title 18, United States Code, would also be 
     amended to permit juveniles adjudicated delinquent to be 
     placed with adults in community-based facilities in order to 
     provide transition services for juveniles moving from 
     incarceration to the community and to allow juveniles to be 
     housed in their home communities. These changes would help 
     protect younger juveniles 13 or 14 years old, from 19 or 20 
     year-olds who, although adjudicated delinquent, may be as 
     dangerous as adults.
       The legislation would also amend Sections 5035 and 5039 to 
     give the Attorney General discretion to confine with adults a 
     serious juvenile offender 16 years of age or older who is 
     charged as an adult, both before and after conviction. As 
     under present law, only those juveniles charged as adults 
     whom a judicial officer has found would, if released, 
     endanger the safety of another person or the community or 
     would pose a substantial risk of flight could be detained 
     prior to trial.
       The current requirement in Section 5039 that every juvenile 
     under 18 years of age who is in custody be provided with 
     adequate food, heat, light, sanitary facilities, bedding, 
     clothing, recreation, education, and medical care, including 
     necessary psychiatric, psychological, or other care and 
     treatment would continue to apply to every juvenile charged 
     as an adult who is detained prior to trial and sentencing and 
     would be expanded to provide for reasonable safety and 
     security as well.
       These changes are consistent with current practice in many 
     states and are proposed to ensure that the most violent 
     juvenile criminal offenders are not detained or incarcerated 
     with juvenile delinquents. By providing the discretion to 
     house older juveniles prosecuted as adults, adjudicated 
     delinquents once they reach the age of 18 and all juveniles 
     convicted as adults in adult facilities, this proposal would 
     also solve practical problems reported by the U.S. Marshals 
     Service and the U.S. Attorneys, who have experienced great 
     difficulty in finding suitable juvenile facilities for older 
     and violent juvenile offenders.
     Section 6002.  Rules governing the commitment of juveniles.
       The legislative analysis for the amendments made in this 
     discussion are discussed in the analysis accompanying Section 
     5005.

       Title VII--Office of Juvenile Crime Control and Prevention

       Title VII establishes within the Office of Justice Programs 
     the ``Office of Juvenile Crime Control and Prevention,'' the 
     ``Juvenile Crime Control and Prevention Formula Grant 
     Program,'' the ``Indian Tribal Grant Programs,'' and ``At-
     Risk Children Grants Program,'' and ``Developing, Testing, 
     and Demonstrating Promising Programs Program,'' the 
     ``Incentive Grant Programs,'' the ``Research, Statistics, and 
     Evaluation'' grants, and the ``Training and Technical 
     Assistance'' grants.
       Subtitle A of Title VII creates the ``Office of Juvenile 
     Crime Control and Prevention'' to replace the Office of 
     Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. The new Office 
     of Juvenile Crime Control and Prevention responds to the 
     changing nature of juvenile and youth crime and represents a 
     more focused, efficient, and effective office. Fundamental 
     protections safeguarding juveniles and youth within the 
     juvenile justice system have been maintained, while 
     operations within this new office have been streamlined to 
     better coordinate and integrate juvenile and youth crime 
     initiatives with other Department of Justice activities, 
     particularly activities within the Office of Justice 
     Programs, the National Institute of Justice and the Bureau 
     of Justice Statistics, as well as with states, units of 
     local government, Indian tribal governments, and local 
     communities.
     Section 7001.  Short title.
       This section provides that Title VII of the Anti-Gang and 
     Youth Violence Act may be cited as the ``Juvenile Crime 
     Control and Prevention State and Local Assistance Act of 
     1997.''


   subtitle a--creation of the office of juvenile crime control and 
                               prevention

     Section 7101.  Establishment of Office.
       Section 2701 establishes the ``Office of Juvenile Crime 
     Control and Prevention'' under the general authority, and the 
     ``supervision and direction'' of the Assistant Attorney 
     General for the Office of Justice Programs, United States 
     Department of Justice. The words ``supervision and 
     direction'' are used to describe the line of authority and 
     reporting relationship between the Director of the Office of 
     Juvenile Crime Control and Prevention and the Assistant 
     Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs in the 
     same way the words ``supervision and direction'' are used to 
     describe the line of authority and reporting relationship 
     between the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human 
     Services and the Assistant Secretary of Health as cited at 42 
     United States Code Section 202. This section continues the 
     Department of Justice's efforts in maintaining coordination 
     and cooperation among those federal agencies whose 
     jurisdictions involve the health, welfare, education or 
     general well-being of youths and/or juveniles. There are 
     numerous transitional elements to provide for the continuity 
     between the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
     Prevention and the new Office of Juvenile Crime Control and 
     Prevention, including a specific transfer for the current 
     Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and 
     Delinquency Prevention to become the Director of the Office 
     of Juvenile Crime Control and Prevention.
     Section 7102.  Conforming amendments.
       Section 7102 makes minor and technical conforming 
     amendments.
     Section 7103.  Authorization of appropriations.
       Section 7103 provides for the authorization of 
     appropriations to carry out the functions of the Office of 
     Juvenile Crime Control and Prevention.


                 subtitle b--juvenile crime assistance

       Subtitle B of Title VII of the Act maintains and 
     establishes numerous federal grant programs and initiatives--
     the ``Juvenile Crime Control and Prevention Formula Grant 
     Program,'' the ``Indian Tribal Grant Program,'' the 
     ``Incentive Grant Program,'' the ``Developing, Testing, and 
     Demonstrating Promising Programs'' program, the ``At-Risk 
     Children Grants Program,'' and two initiatives that provide 
     additional funding for research, statistics, evaluation, and 
     training and technical assistance.
     Section 7201.  Formula grant assistance.
       Section 7201 amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
     Streets Act of 1968 by maintaining but revising the formula 
     grant program.
       This federal grant program has fewer state planning 
     requirements, specifically allocates ten percent of all 
     grants funds appropriated to be set aside and used for 
     research activities (including program evaluations, data 
     collection efforts, and studies to identify initiatives that 
     reduce juvenile and youth crime and violence), and 
     specifically allocates two percent of all grant funds 
     appropriated to be set aside and used for providing training 
     and technical assistance to states and local communities for 
     the implementation of initiatives and programs that have 
     demonstrated a high likelihood of success.
       Under a new formulation, all states receive 50 percent of 
     their allocation. To receive the remaining funds a state must 
     continue to follow established practices and procedures for 
     protecting juveniles within the juvenile justice system. 
     These provisions are reflected in the Department of Justice's 
     newly issued regulations, 28 CFR Part 31, governing this 
     section. Should a state fail to meet the requirements of this 
     section, the unallocated funds may be redistributed within 
     the state.
     Section 7202.  Indian tribal grants.
       Section 7202 establishes for the first time a direct 
     federal grant program whereby funding goes directly from the 
     Office of Juvenile Crime Control and Prevention to Indian 
     tribal governments without utilizing state pass-through 
     procedures. Grant funds under this section shall be used for 
     initiatives designed to reduce, control, and prevent juvenile 
     and youth crime on Indian lands. This method of direct 
     funding is expected to better address and respond to the 
     needs and concerns of Indian tribes as well as increase 
     funding for these tribes. Also included is language 
     amending the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act 
     of 1994 to substantially increase funding targeted for 
     correctional facilities on Indian tribal lands.
     Section 7203.  At-risk children grant programs.
       The ``At-Risk Children Grants Program'' is a new federal 
     grant program administered by the Office of Juvenile Crime 
     Control and Prevention that provides federal assistance to 
     states, for distribution by states to local

[[Page S1669]]

     units of government and locally-based organizations to combat 
     truancy, school violence, and juvenile crime by providing 
     funding for local crime prevention and intervention 
     strategies. Programs and initiatives funded with these grants 
     are designed to address youth within the juvenile justice 
     system who, with some focused supervision, direction, and 
     discipline, can go forward to lead-crime-free, productive 
     lives. This program is an expansion of what is currently 
     known as Title V of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
     Prevention Act.
       Grants awarded pursuant of this Part may be used for: 
     supporting locally based efforts for assisting high-risk 
     juveniles and juveniles within the juvenile justice system; 
     preventing and reducing truancy and school drop outs; 
     enforcing juvenile curfews; supporting school safety 
     programs, juvenile mentoring, violence reduction programs, 
     intensive supervision services, jobs and life skills 
     training, family strengthening interventions, early childhood 
     services, after-school programs for juveniles, tutoring 
     programs, recreation and parks programs, parent training 
     initiatives, health services, alcohol and substance abuse 
     services, restitution and community services activities, 
     leadership development, accountability and responsibility 
     education, and other such efforts designed to prevent or 
     reduce truancy, school violence, and juvenile crime.
       Local units of government that participate under this Part 
     must utilize a local planning board to develop a three-year 
     plan.
     Section 7204.  Developing, testing, and demonstrating 
         promising programs.
       Section 7204 establishes new federal discretionary grant 
     programs for states, units of local government, and Indian 
     tribal governments administered by the Office of Juvenile 
     Crime Control and Prevention to develop, test, and 
     demonstrate initiatives and programs that have a high 
     probability of preventing, controlling, and/or reducing 
     juvenile crime. These grants were developed to motivate 
     states, units of local government, and Indian tribal 
     governments to independently generate innovative initiatives 
     to combat juvenile crime and youth violence.
       This section replaces the current multiple discretionary-
     categorical grant programs currently established by the 
     Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, by 
     consolidating several categorical grant programs into a 
     single, flexible, broad program.
     Section 7205.  Incentive grant program.
       This section establishes new federal formula grant programs 
     for states, units of local government, and Indian tribal 
     governments to develop and advance initiatives to prevent, 
     control, reduce, evaluate, adjudicate, or sanction juvenile 
     or youthful crime.
       The state agency that receives a formula grant is eligible 
     to apply for a grant under this Part. Every applicant must 
     submit assurances to the Director of the Office of Juvenile 
     Crime Control and Prevention that they have or will have 
     within one year of submittal of an application:
       (1) implemented a system of accountability-based graduated 
     sanctions; and/or
       (2) implemented a system of information collaboration and 
     dissemination regarding acts of juvenile delinquency and 
     adjudication of the same.
       Grants authorized under this section may be used to:
       Achieve paragraphs (1) and/or (2) above; advance 
     initiatives that prevent or intervene in the unlawful 
     possession, distribution, or sale of a firearm by or to a 
     juvenile; implement initiatives that facilitate the 
     collection, dissemination, and use of information regarding 
     juvenile crime; implement new initiatives that assist state 
     and local jurisdictions in tracking, intervening with, and 
     controlling serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders; 
     implement comprehensive program services in juvenile 
     detention and correction facilities; implement procedures 
     designed to prevent and reduce juvenile disproportionate 
     minority confinement; or for any other purpose related to 
     juvenile crime reduction, control, and prevention as 
     determined by the Director of the Office.
     Section 7206.  Research, statistics and evaluation.
       Better research, evaluation, and statistical analysis is 
     critical to understanding and addressing the causes of 
     juvenile and youth crime. Under this section, increased 
     funding is combined with a collaboration between the Director 
     of the Office of Juvenile Crime Control and Prevention and 
     the Directors of the National Institute of Justice and the 
     Bureau of Justice Statistics to better direct and expand 
     these functions.
     Section 7207.  Training and technical assistance.
       This section provides for specific federal grant funding 
     for much-needed technical and training assistance for 
     individuals in the fields of juvenile justice and juvenile 
     and youth crime. Funding under this section will enable more 
     communities to implement effective programs and initiatives 
     that reduce, control, and prevent juvenile and youth crime. 
     While this is a new federal grant program, training and 
     technical assistance have been established functions of the 
     Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
       In further recognition of the importance of high quality 
     and focused research, statistical analysis, evaluation, 
     training, and technical assistance, Title VII includes 
     specific provisions within each funded program setting aside 
     a percentage of grant funds appropriated for the above-
     mentioned functions. These monies are in addition to funding 
     appropriated for these functions in Sections 409 and 410 of 
     Title VII. Specifically, Sections 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 
     and 408 of Title VII of this Act provide that 2 percent of 
     all funds appropriated for each funded program shall be set 
     aside for training and technical assistance consistent with 
     Title VII. Similarly, Sections 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, and 
     408 provide that 10 percent of all funds appropriated for 
     each funded program shall be set aside for research, 
     statistics and evaluation activities consistent with Title 
     VII.


               subtitle c--missing and exploited children

       This subtitle amends the ``Missing Children's Assistance 
     Act'' (42 U.S.C. 5771 et seq.) by extending its authorization 
     to the year 2001 and by setting aside funds appropriated 
     under this subtitle to be used for research, statistics, 
     evaluation, and training. Additionally, conforming language 
     is added to the Act to reflect the replacement of the Office 
     of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention with the new 
     Office of Juvenile Crime Control and Prevention.

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join Senator Leahy in 
introducing on behalf of the administration, President Clinton's Anti-
Gang and Youth Violence Act, which the President announced last week in 
Boston.
  Three years ago Congress passed the Biden crime bill into law. Today, 
the verdict is in--the law is working to reduce adult crime. For 
example, the projected violent crime rate is the lowest since 1991 and 
the projected murder rate is the lowest since 1971.
  But we all know that, unlike adult crime, juvenile crime is on the 
rise. The statistics are all too familiar: Violent juvenile crime 
increased by 69 percent from 1987 to 1994; from 1983 to 1994 the 
juvenile homicide rate jumped 169 percent; and just recently, the 
Center for Disease Control has reported that the United States has the 
highest rate of childhood homicide, suicide, and firearm related deaths 
of 26 industrialized countries. We can and must do better than that.
  The President's program is based in large part, on success stories 
from cities like Boston, MA, which developed a comprehensive community-
based strategy to both prevent at-risk youth from becoming criminals 
and deal harshly with those already in the criminal justice system.
  Boston's Operation Night Light sends probation officers on patrol 
with police to ensure that youth with criminal records stay out of 
trouble and to assist in the investigation of new crimes. And Boston's 
police force has joined with Federal law enforcement to target the 
illegal gun markets that supply most of the guns to gangs and violent 
youth.
  The results have been dramatic: Youth homicides have dropped 80 
percent citywide; violent crime in public schools dropped 20 percent in 
just 1 school year; and most impressively--not a single youth died from 
a firearm homicide during 1996. Now that is a record we could be proud 
of.
  We are taking the same balanced approach to juvenile crime and drug 
abuse as we did in the 1994 Crime Act--tough sanctions, certain 
punishment and protection of vulnerable kids.
  Like the Democratic crime bill I, Along with Senators Daschle, Leahy, 
and many others introduced earlier this year--S. 15--the President's 
juvenile crime initiative cracks down on violent juvenile offenders and 
youth gangs, takes concrete steps toward preventing drug and gun 
violence, and invests in programs that will get kids off the streets 
and into supervised programs during the after-school hours when they 
are most likely to be the victims of gangs and criminals or the 
customers of drug pushers.
  The Anti-Gang and Youth Violence Act proposes to use Federal law 
enforcement where its expertise and resources can best contribute to 
fighting crime and the spread of gangs. The act also seeks assistance 
for local police and criminal justice systems to help them address 
matters that we all know are local law enforcement challenges that they 
handle the best.
  On the Federal level the President's bill: contains tough new Federal 
penalties applicable to gang activities such as racketeering, witness 
intimidation, car-jacking, and interstate firearms and drug 
trafficking; cracks down on juvenile gun use by extending the Brady 
bill to juveniles and requiring the sale of gun locks; makes juvenile 
records more accessible to police and

[[Page S1670]]

educators; and targets abuse of drugs popular among youths by giving 
the Attorney General emergency rescheduling authority.
  But in recognition that the battle against youth crime and drug abuse 
is fought primarily in our communities and schools, the President's 
bill provides over $325 million annually to support State and local 
governments to: hire additional prosecutors to target gang and youth 
violence; create special drug and gun courts to handle violent 
juveniles more effectively; create safe-havens for at-risk youth; 
initiate systems of graduated sanctions so youth receive certain 
punishment for their first offense instead of a mere slap on the wrist; 
and promote use of curfews and put truants back in school where they 
belong.
  The President also proposes to recraft the Federal Juvenile Justice 
Office by eliminating bureaucracies, streamlining programs, providing 
additional flexibility to States and localities, and sharpening the 
Office's focus on research and development. These are reforms that I 
have long advocated.
  However, the President's reform proposal reaffirms our commitment to 
a few core principles that have worked well over the past 23 years--
juveniles should not be housed in adult jails or lockups; juveniles in 
custody should be separated from adult criminals; status offenders 
should not be incarcerated; and where it exists, the disproportionate 
confinement of minorities must be addressed.
  With the introduction of this legislation the administration, Senate 
Republicans, and Senate Democrats have now all made it a priority to 
address the problem of youth violence. Of course, there are other 
proven, effective crime control programs that I would like to pursue--
such as extending the 100,000 Cops Program to put another 25,000 cops 
on the beat. I am sure there are initiatives which others would want to 
push.
  But, instead of trying to pass an omnibus bill--which we all know 
will be difficult, if not impossible--I think that we should keep our 
focus on a targetted, specific bill which keeps our focus on the most 
immediate concern: youth violence and the criminal victimization of 
youth.
  I look forward to working with the administration and my Republican 
colleagues to craft responsible legislation that will address the 
pressing concerns of the American public and be signed into law during 
this session of Congress.
                                 ______