Congressional Record, Volume 143 Issue 59 (Thursday, May 8, 1997)

[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 59 (Thursday, May 8, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H2356-H2398]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

{time} 1045
JUVENILE CRIME CONTROL ACT OF 1997

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). Pursuant to House Resolution 143
and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill, H.R. 3.

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the
bill (H.R. 3) to combat violent youth crime and increase accountability
for juvenile criminal offenses, with Mr. Kingston in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, May
7, 1997, all time for general debate had expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill
for the purpose of an amendment under the 5-minute rule, and shall be
considered as read.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is
as follows:

H.R. 3

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Juvenile Crime Control Act
of 1997''.
TITLE I--REFORMING THE FEDERAL JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM

SEC. 101. DELINQUENCY PROCEEDINGS OR CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS IN
DISTRICT COURTS.

Section 5032 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to
read as follows:

``Sec. 5032. Delinquency proceedings or criminal prosecutions
in district courts

``(a)(1) A juvenile alleged to have committed an offense
against the United States or an act of juvenile delinquency
may be surrendered to State authorities, but if not so
surrendered, shall be proceeded against as a juvenile under
this subsection or tried as an adult in the circumstances
described in subsections (b) and (c).
``(2) A juvenile may be proceeded against as a juvenile in
a court of the United States under this subsection if--
``(A) the alleged offense or act of juvenile delinquency is
committed within the special maritime and territorial
jurisdiction of the United States and is one for which the
maximum authorized term of imprisonment does not exceed 6
months; or
``(B) the Attorney General, after investigation, certifies
to the appropriate United States district court that--
``(i) the juvenile court or other appropriate court of a
State does not have jurisdiction or declines to assume
jurisdiction over the juvenile

[[Page H2357]]

with respect to the alleged act of juvenile delinquency, and
``(ii) there is a substantial Federal interest in the case
or the offense to warrant the exercise of Federal
jurisdiction.
``(3) If the Attorney General does not so certify or does
not have authority to try such juvenile as an adult, such
juvenile shall be surrendered to the appropriate legal
authorities of such State.
``(4) If a juvenile alleged to have committed an act of
juvenile delinquency is proceeded against as a juvenile under
this section, any proceedings against the juvenile shall be
in an appropriate district court of the United States. For
such purposes, the court may be convened at any time and
place within the district, and shall be open to the public,
except that the court may exclude all or some members of the
public, other than a victim unless the victim is a witness in
the determination of guilt or innocence, if required by the
interests of justice or if other good cause is shown. The
Attorney General shall proceed by information or as
authorized by section 3401(g) of this title, and no criminal
prosecution shall be instituted except as provided in this
chapter.
``(b)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), a juvenile
shall be prosecuted as an adult--
``(A) if the juvenile has requested in writing upon advice
of counsel to be prosecuted as an adult; or
``(B) if the juvenile is alleged to have committed an act
after the juvenile attains the age of 14 years which if
committed by an adult would be a serious violent felony or a
serious drug offense described in section 3559(c) of this
title, or a conspiracy or attempt to commit that felony or
offense, which is punishable under section 406 of the
Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 846), or section 1013 of
the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C.
963).
``(2) The requirements of paragraph (1) do not apply if the
Attorney General certifies to the appropriate United States
district court that the interests of public safety are best
served by proceeding against the juvenile as a juvenile.
``(c)(1) A juvenile may also be prosecuted as an adult if
the juvenile is alleged to have committed an act after the
juvenile has attained the age of 13 years which if committed
by a juvenile after the juvenile attained the age of 14 years
would require that the juvenile be prosecuted as an adult
under subsection (b), upon approval of the Attorney General.
``(2) The Attorney General shall not delegate the authority
to give the approval required under paragraph (1) to an
officer or employee of the Department of Justice at a level
lower than a Deputy Assistant Attorney General.
``(3) Such approval shall not be granted, with respect to
such a juvenile who is subject to the criminal jurisdiction
of an Indian tribal government and who is alleged to have
committed an act over which, if committed by an adult, there
would be Federal jurisdiction based solely on its commission
in Indian country (as defined in section 1151), unless the
governing body of the tribe having jurisdiction over the
place in which the alleged act was committed has before such
act notified the Attorney General in writing of its election
that prosecution may take place under this subsection.
``(4) A juvenile may also be prosecuted as an adult if the
juvenile is alleged to have committed an act which is not
described in subsection (b)(1)(B) after the juvenile has
attained the age of 14 years and which if committed by an
adult would be--
``(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 subsection (a)(6), (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 commit 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).
``(d) A determination to approve or not to approve, or to
institute or not to institute, a prosecution under subsection
(b) or (c), and a determination to file or not to file, and
the contents of, a certification under subsection (a) or (b)
shall not be reviewable in any court.
``(e) In a prosecution under subsection (b) or (c), the
juvenile may be prosecuted and convicted as an adult for any
other offense which is properly joined under the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure, and may also be convicted of a
lesser included offense.
``(f) The Attorney General shall annually report to
Congress--
``(1) the number of juveniles adjudicated delinquent or
tried as adults in Federal court;
``(2) the race, ethnicity, and gender of those juveniles;
``(3) the number of those juveniles who were abused or
neglected by their families, to the extent such information
is available; and
``(4) the number and types of assault crimes, such as rapes
and beatings, committed against juveniles while incarcerated
in connection with the adjudication or conviction.
``(g) As used in this section--
``(1) the term `State' includes a State of the United
States, the District of Columbia, any commonwealth,
territory, or possession of the United States and, with
regard to an act of juvenile delinquency that would have been
a misdemeanor if committed by an adult, a federally
recognized tribe; and
``(2) the term `serious violent felony' has the same
meaning given that term in section 3559(c)(2)(F)(i).''.

SEC. 102. CUSTODY PRIOR TO APPEARANCE BEFORE JUDICIAL
OFFICER.

Section 5033 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to
read as follows:

``Sec. 5033. Custody prior to appearance before judicial
officer

``(a) Whenever a juvenile is taken into custody, the
arresting officer shall immediately advise such juvenile of
the juvenile's rights, in language comprehensible to a
juvenile. The arresting officer shall promptly take
reasonable steps to notify the juvenile's parents, guardian,
or custodian of such custody, of the rights of the juvenile,
and of the nature of the alleged offense.
``(b) The juvenile shall be taken before a judicial officer
without unreasonable delay.''.

SEC. 103. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS TO SECTION
5034.

Section 5034 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``The'' each place it appears at the
beginning of a paragraph and inserting ``the'';
(2) by striking ``If'' at the beginning of the 3rd
paragraph and inserting ``if'';
(3)(A) by designating the 3 paragraphs as paragraphs (1),
(2), and (3), respectively; and
(B) by moving such designated paragraphs 2 ems to the
right; and
(4) by inserting at the beginning of such section before
those paragraphs the following:
``In a proceeding under section 5032(a)--''.

SEC. 104. DETENTION PRIOR TO DISPOSITION OR SENTENCING.

Section 5035 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to
read as follows:

``Sec. 5035. Detention prior to disposition or sentencing

``(a)(1) A juvenile who has attained the age of 16 years
and who is prosecuted pursuant to subsection (b) or (c) of
section 5032, if detained at any time prior to sentencing,
shall be detained in such suitable place as the Attorney
General may designate. Preference shall be given to a place
located within, or within a reasonable distance of, the
district in which the juvenile is being prosecuted.
``(2) A juvenile less than 16 years of age prosecuted
pursuant to subsection (b) or (c) of section 5032, if
detained at any time prior to sentencing, shall be detained
in a suitable juvenile facility located within, or within a
reasonable distance of, the district in which the juvenile is
being prosecuted. If such a facility is not available, such a
juvenile may be detained in any other suitable facility
located within, or within a reasonable distance of, such
district. If no such facility is available, such a juvenile
may be detained in any other suitable place as the Attorney
General may designate.
``(3) To the maximum extent feasible, a juvenile less than
16 years of age prosecuted pursuant to subsection (b) or (c)
of section 5032 shall not be detained prior to sentencing in
any facility in which the juvenile has regular contact with
adult persons convicted of a crime or awaiting trial on
criminal charges.
``(b) A juvenile proceeded against under section 5032 shall
not be detained prior to disposition in any facility in which
the juvenile has regular contact with adult persons convicted
of a crime or awaiting trial on criminal charges.
``(c) Every juvenile who is detained prior to disposition
or sentencing shall be provided with reasonable safety and
security and with adequate food, heat, light, sanitary
facilities, bedding, clothing, recreation, education, and
medical care, including necessary psychiatric, psychological,
or other care and treatment.''.

SEC. 105. SPEEDY TRIAL.

Section 5036 of title 18, United States Code, is amended
by--
(1) striking ``If an alleged delinquent'' and inserting
``If a juvenile proceeded against under section 5032(a)'';
(2) striking ``thirty'' and inserting ``45''; and
(3) striking ``the court,'' and all that follows through
the end of the section and inserting ``the court. The periods
of exclusion under section 3161(h) of this title shall apply
to this section.''.

SEC. 106. DISPOSITION; AVAILABILITY OF INCREASED DETENTION,
FINES AND SUPERVISED RELEASE FOR JUVENILE
OFFENDERS.

(a) Disposition.--Section 5037 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:

``Sec. 5037. Disposition

``(a) In a proceeding under section 5032(a), if the court
finds a juvenile to be a juvenile delinquent, the court shall
hold a hearing concerning the appropriate disposition of the
juvenile no later than 40 court days after the finding of
juvenile delinquency, unless the court has ordered further
study pursuant to subsection (e). A predisposition report
shall be prepared by the probation officer who shall promptly
provide a copy to the juvenile, the juvenile's counsel, and
the attorney for the Government. Victim impact information
shall be included in the report, and victims, or in
appropriate cases their official representatives, shall be
provided the opportunity to make a statement to the court in
person or present any information in relation to the
disposition. After the dispositional hearing, and after
considering the sanctions recommended pursuant to subsection
(f), the court shall impose an appropriate sanction,
including the ordering of restitution pursuant to section
3556 of

[[Page H2358]]

this title. The court may order the juvenile's parent,
guardian, or custodian to be present at the dispositional
hearing and the imposition of sanctions and may issue orders
directed to such parent, guardian, custodian regarding
conduct with respect to the juvenile. With respect to release
or detention pending an appeal or a petition for a writ of
certiorari after disposition, the court shall proceed
pursuant to chapter 207.
``(b) The term for which probation may be ordered for a
juvenile found to be a juvenile delinquent may not extend
beyond the maximum term that would be authorized by section
3561(c) if the juvenile had been tried and convicted as an
adult. Sections 3563, 3564, and 3565 are applicable to an
order placing a juvenile on probation.
``(c) The term for which official detention may be ordered
for a juvenile found to be a juvenile delinquent may not
extend beyond the lesser of--
``(1) the maximum term of imprisonment that would be
authorized if the juvenile had been tried and convicted as an
adult;
``(2) ten years; or
``(3) the date when the juvenile becomes twenty-six years
old.

Section 3624 is applicable to an order placing a juvenile in
detention.
``(d) The term for which supervised release may be ordered
for a juvenile found to be a juvenile delinquent may not
extend beyond 5 years. Subsections (c) through (i) of section
3583 apply to an order placing a juvenile on supervised
release.
``(e) If the court desires more detailed information
concerning a juvenile alleged to have committed an act of
juvenile delinquency or a juvenile adjudicated delinquent, it
may commit the juvenile, after notice and hearing at which
the juvenile is represented by counsel, to the custody of the
Attorney General for observation and study by an appropriate
agency or entity. Such observation and study shall be
conducted on an outpatient basis, unless the court determines
that inpatient observation and study are necessary to obtain
the desired information. In the case of an alleged juvenile
delinquent, inpatient study may be ordered only with the
consent of the juvenile and the juvenile's attorney. The
agency or entity shall make a study of all matters relevant
to the alleged or adjudicated delinquent behavior and the
court's inquiry. The Attorney General shall submit to the
court and the attorneys for the juvenile and the Government
the results of the study within 30 days after the commitment
of the juvenile, unless the court grants additional time.
Time spent in custody under this subsection shall be excluded
for purposes of section 5036.
``(f)(1) The United States Sentencing Commission, in
consultation with the Attorney General, shall develop a list
of possible sanctions for juveniles adjudicated delinquent.
``(2) Such list shall--
``(A) be comprehensive in nature and encompass punishments
of varying levels of severity;
``(B) include terms of confinement; and
``(C) provide punishments that escalate in severity with
each additional or subsequent more serious delinquent
conduct.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The Sentencing Commission shall
develop the list required pursuant to section 5037(f), as
amended by subsection (a), not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Conforming Amendment to Adult Sentencing Section.--
Section 3553 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(g) Limitation on Applicability of Statutory Minimums in
Certain Prosecutions of Persons Under the Age of 16.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in the case of a
defendant convicted for conduct that occurred before the
juvenile attained the age of 16 years, the court shall impose
a sentence without regard to any statutory minimum sentence,
if the court finds at sentencing, after affording the
Government an opportunity to make a recommendation, that the
juvenile has not been previously adjudicated delinquent for
or convicted of an offense described in section
5032(b)(1)(B).''.

SEC. 107. JUVENILE RECORDS AND FINGERPRINTING.

Section 5038 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to
read as follows:

``Sec. 5038. Juvenile records and fingerprinting

``(a)(1) Throughout and upon the completion of the juvenile
delinquency proceeding under section 5032(a), the court shall
keep a record relating to the arrest and adjudication that
is--
``(A) equivalent to the record that would be kept of an
adult arrest and conviction for such an offense; and
``(B) retained for a period of time that is equal to the
period of time records are kept for adult convictions.
``(2) Such records shall be made available for official
purposes, including communications with any victim or, in the
case of a deceased victim, such victim's representative, or
school officials, and to the public to the same extent as
court records regarding the criminal prosecutions of adults
are available.
``(b) The Attorney General shall establish guidelines for
fingerprinting and photographing a juvenile who is the
subject of any proceeding authorized under this chapter. Such
guidelines shall address the availability of pictures of any
juvenile taken into custody but not prosecuted as an adult.
Fingerprints and photographs of a juvenile who is prosecuted
as an adult shall be made available in the manner applicable
to adult offenders.
``(c) Whenever a juvenile has been adjudicated delinquent
for an act that, if committed by an adult, would be a felony
or for a violation of section 924(a)(6), the court shall
transmit to the Federal Bureau of Investigation the
information concerning the adjudication, including name, date
of adjudication, court, offenses, and sentence, along with
the notation that the matter was a juvenile adjudication.
``(d) In addition to any other authorization under this
section for the reporting, retention, disclosure, or
availability of records or information, if the law of the
State in which a Federal juvenile delinquency proceeding
takes place permits or requires the reporting, retention,
disclosure, or availability of records or information
relating to a juvenile or to a juvenile delinquency
proceeding or adjudication in certain circumstances, then
such reporting, retention, disclosure, or availability is
permitted under this section whenever the same circumstances
exist.''.

SEC. 108. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS OF SECTIONS 5031 AND 5034.

(a) Elimination of Pronouns.--Sections 5031 and 5034 of
title 18, United States Code, are each amended by striking
``his'' each place it appears and inserting ``the
juvenile's''.
(b) Updating of Reference.--Section 5034 of title 18,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) in the heading of such section, by striking
``magistrate'' and inserting ``judicial officer''; and
(2) by striking ``magistrate'' each place it appears and
inserting ``judicial officer''.

SEC. 109. CLERICAL AMENDMENTS TO TABLE OF SECTIONS FOR
CHAPTER 403.

The heading and the table of sections at the beginning of
chapter 403 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to
read as follows:

``CHAPTER 403--JUVENILE DELINQUENCY

``Sec.
``5031. Definitions.
``5032. Delinquency proceedings or criminal prosecutions in district
courts.
``5033. Custody prior to appearance before judicial officer.
``5034. Duties of judicial officer.
``5035. Detention prior to disposition or sentencing.
``5036. Speedy trial.
``5037. Disposition.
``5038. Juvenile records and fingerprinting.
``5039. Commitment.
``5040. Support.
``5041. Repealed.
``5042. Revocation of probation.''.
TITLE II--APPREHENDING ARMED VIOLENT YOUTH

SEC. 201. ARMED VIOLENT YOUTH APPREHENSION DIRECTIVE.

(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General of the United
States shall establish an armed violent youth apprehension
program consistent with the following requirements:
(1) Each United States attorney shall designate at least 1
assistant United States attorney to prosecute, on either a
full- or part-time basis, armed violent youth.
(2) Each United States attorney shall establish an armed
youth criminal apprehension task force comprised of
appropriate law enforcement representatives. The task force
shall develop strategies for removing armed violent youth
from the streets, taking into consideration--
(A) the importance of severe punishment in deterring armed
violent youth crime;
(B) the effectiveness of Federal and State laws pertaining
to apprehension and prosecution of armed violent youth;
(C) the resources available to each law enforcement agency
participating in the task force;
(D) the nature and extent of the violent youth crime
occurring in the district for which the United States
attorney is appointed; and
(E) the principle of limited Federal involvement in the
prosecution of crimes traditionally prosecuted in State and
local jurisdictions.
(3) Not less frequently than bimonthly, the Attorney
General shall require each United States attorney to report
to the Department of Justice the number of youths charged
with, or convicted of, violating section 922(g) or 924 of
title 18, United States Code, in the district for which the
United States attorney is appointed and the number of youths
referred to a State for prosecution for similar offenses.
(4) Not less frequently than twice annually, the Attorney
General shall submit to the Congress a compilation of the
information received by the Department of Justice pursuant to
paragraph (3) and a report on all waivers granted under
subsection (b).
(b) Waiver Authority.--
(1) Request for waiver.--A United States attorney may
request the Attorney General to waive the requirements of
subsection (a) with respect to the United States attorney.
(2) Provision of waiver.--The Attorney General may waive
the requirements of subsection (a) pursuant to a request made
under paragraph (1), in accordance with guidelines which
shall be established by the Attorney General. In establishing
the guidelines, the Attorney General shall take into
consideration the number of assistant United States attorneys
in the office of the United States attorney making the
request and the level of violent youth crime committed in the
district for which the United States attorney is appointed.
(c) Armed Violent Youth Defined.--As used in this section,
the term ``armed violent youth'' means a person who has not
attained 18 years of age and is accused of violating--
(1) section 922(g)(1) of title 18, United States Code,
having been previously convicted of--
(A) a violent crime; or
(B) conduct that would have been a violent crime had the
person been an adult; or
(2) section 924 of such title.
(d) Sunset.--This section shall have no force or effect
after the 5-year period that begins 180 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act.

[[Page H2359]]

TITLE III--ACCOUNTABILITY FOR JUVENILE OFFENDERS AND PUBLIC PROTECTION
INCENTIVE GRANTS

SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Juvenile Accountability
Block Grants Act of 1997''.

SEC. 302. BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--Part R of title I of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796 et seq.)
is amended to read as follows:

``PART R--JUVENILE ACCOUNTABILITY BLOCK GRANTS

``SEC. 1801. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.

``(a) In General.--The Director of the Bureau of Justice
Assistance is authorized to provide grants to States, for use
by States and units of local government, and in certain cases
directly to eligible units.
``(b) Authorized Activities.--Amounts paid to a State, a
unit of local government, or an eligible unit under this part
shall be used by the State, unit of local government, or
eligible unit for the purpose of promoting greater
accountability in the juvenile justice system, which
includes--
``(1) building, expanding or operating temporary or
permanent juvenile correction or detention facilities;
``(2) developing and administering accountability-based
sanctions for juvenile offenders;
``(3) hiring additional juvenile judges, probation
officers, and court-appointed defenders, and funding pre-
trial services for juveniles, to ensure the smooth and
expeditious administration of the juvenile justice system;
``(4) hiring additional prosecutors, so that more cases
involving violent juvenile offenders can be prosecuted and
backlogs reduced;
``(5) providing funding to enable prosecutors to address
drug, gang, and youth violence problems more effectively;
``(6) providing funding for technology, equipment, and
training to assist prosecutors in identifying and expediting
the prosecution of violent juvenile offenders;
``(7) providing funding to enable juvenile courts and
juvenile probation offices to be more effective and efficient
in holding juvenile offenders accountable and reducing
recidivism;
``(8) the establishment of court-based juvenile justice
programs that target young firearms offenders through the
establishment of juvenile gun courts for the adjudication and
prosecution of juvenile firearms offenders;
``(9) the establishment of drug court programs for
juveniles so as to provide continuing judicial supervision
over juvenile offenders with substance abuse problems and to
provide the integrated administration of other sanctions and
services;
``(10) establishing and maintaining interagency
information-sharing programs that enable the juvenile and
criminal justice system, schools, and social services
agencies to make more informed decisions regarding the early
identification, control, supervision, and treatment of
juveniles who repeatedly commit serious delinquent or
criminal acts; and
``(11) establishing and maintaining accountability-based
programs that work with juvenile offenders who are referred
by law enforcement agencies, or which are designed, in
cooperation with law enforcement officials, to protect
students and school personnel from drug, gang, and youth
violence.

``SEC. 1802. GRANT ELIGIBILITY.

``(a) State Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant
under this section, a State shall submit to the Director an
application at such time, in such form, and containing such
assurances and information as the Director may require by
rule, including assurances that the State and any unit of
local government to which the State provides funding under
section 1803(b), has in effect (or will have in effect not
later than 1 year after the date a State submits such
application) laws, or has implemented (or will implement not
later than 1 year after the date a State submits such
application) policies and programs, that--
``(1) ensure that juveniles who commit an act after
attaining 15 years of age that would be a serious violent
crime if committed by an adult are treated as adults for
purposes of prosecution as a matter of law, or that the
prosecutor has the authority to determine whether or not to
prosecute such juveniles as adults;
``(2) impose sanctions on juvenile offenders for every
delinquent or criminal act, or violation of probation,
ensuring that such sanctions escalate in severity with each
subsequent, more serious delinquent or criminal act, or
violation of probation, including such accountability-based
sanctions as--
``(A) restitution;
``(B) community service;
``(C) punishment imposed by community accountability
councils comprised of individuals from the offender's and
victim's communities;
``(D) fines; and
``(E) short-term confinement;
``(3) establish at a minimum a system of records relating
to any adjudication of a juvenile who has a prior delinquency
adjudication and who is adjudicated delinquent for conduct
that if committed by an adult would constitute a felony under
Federal or State law which is a system equivalent to that
maintained for adults who commit felonies under Federal or
State law; and
``(4) ensure that State law does not prevent a juvenile
court judge from issuing a court order against a parent,
guardian, or custodian of a juvenile offender regarding the
supervision of such an offender and from imposing sanctions
for a violation of such an order.
``(b) Local Eligibility.--
``(1) Subgrant eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a
subgrant, a unit of local government shall provide such
assurances to the State as the State shall require, that, to
the maximum extent applicable, the unit of local government
has laws or policies and programs which--
``(A) ensure that juveniles who commit an act after
attaining 15 years of age that would be a serious violent
crime if committed by an adult are treated as adults for
purposes of prosecution as a matter of law, or that the
prosecutor has the authority to determine whether or not to
prosecute such juveniles as adults;
``(B) impose a sanction for every delinquent or criminal
act, or violation of probation, ensuring that such sanctions
escalate in severity with each subsequent, more serious
delinquent or criminal act, or violation of probation; and
``(C) ensure that there is a system of records relating to
any adjudication of a juvenile who is adjudicated delinquent
for conduct that if committed by an adult would constitute a
felony under Federal or State law which is a system
equivalent to that maintained for adults who commit felonies
under Federal or State law.
``(2) Special rule.--The requirements of paragraph (1)
shall apply to an eligible unit that receives funds from the
Director under section 1803, except that information that
would otherwise be submitted to the State shall be submitted
to the Director.

``SEC. 1803. ALLOCATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS.

``(a) State Allocation.--
``(1) In general.--In accordance with regulations
promulgated pursuant to this part, the Director shall
allocate--
``(A) 0.25 percent for each State; and
``(B) of the total funds remaining after the allocation
under subparagraph (A), to each State, an amount which bears
the same ratio to the amount of remaining funds described in
this subparagraph as the population of people under the age
of 18 living in such State for the most recent calendar year
in which such data is available bears to the population of
people under the age of 18 of all the States for such fiscal
year.
``(2) Proportional reduction.--If amounts available to
carry out paragraph (1)(A) for any payment period are
insufficient to pay in full the total payment that any State
is otherwise eligible to receive under paragraph (1)(A) for
such period, then the Director shall reduce payments under
paragraph (1)(A) for such payment period to the extent of
such insufficiency. Reductions under the preceding sentence
shall be allocated among the States (other than States whose
payment is determined under paragraph (2)) in the same
proportions as amounts would be allocated under paragraph (1)
without regard to paragraph (2).
``(3) Prohibition.--No funds allocated to a State under
this subsection or received by a State for distribution under
subsection (b) may be distributed by the Director or by the
State involved for any program other than a program contained
in an approved application.
``(b) Local Distribution.--
``(1) In general.--Each State which receives funds under
subsection (a)(1) in a fiscal year shall distribute not less
than 75 percent of such amounts received among units of local
government, for the purposes specified in section 1801. In
making such distribution the State shall allocate to such
units of local government an amount which bears the same
ratio to the aggregate amount of such funds as--
``(A) the sum of--
``(i) the product of--
``(I) two-thirds; multiplied by
``(II) the average law enforcement expenditure for such
unit of local government for the 3 most recent calendar years
for which such data is available; plus
``(ii) the product of--
``(I) one-third; multiplied by
``(II) the average annual number of part 1 violent crimes
in such unit of local government for the 3 most recent
calendar years for which such data is available, bears to--
``(B) the sum of the products determined under subparagraph
(A) for all such units of local government in the State.
``(2) Expenditures.--The allocation any unit of local
government shall receive under paragraph (1) for a payment
period shall not exceed 100 percent of law enforcement
expenditures of the unit for such payment period.
``(3) Reallocation.--The amount of any unit of local
government's allocation that is not available to such unit by
operation of paragraph (2) shall be available to other units
of local government that are not affected by such operation
in accordance with this subsection.
``(c) Unavailability of Data for Units of Local
Government.--If the State has reason to believe that the
reported rate of part 1 violent crimes or law enforcement
expenditure for a unit of local government is insufficient or
inaccurate, the State shall--
``(1) investigate the methodology used by the unit to
determine the accuracy of the submitted data; and
``(2) if necessary, use the best available comparable data
regarding the number of violent crimes or law enforcement
expenditure for the relevant years for the unit of local
government.
``(d) Local Government With Allocations Less Than $5,000.--
If under this section a unit of local government is allocated
less than $5,000 for a payment period, the amount allotted
shall be expended by the State on services to units of local
government whose allotment is less than such amount in a
manner consistent with this part.
``(e) Direct Grants to Eligible Units.--
``(1) In general.--If a State does not qualify or apply for
funds reserved for allocation under subsection (a) by the
application deadline established by the Director, the
Director shall reserve not more than 75 percent of the
allocation that the State would have received under
subsection (a) for such fiscal year to provide grants to
eligible units which meet the requirements for funding under
subsection (b).

[[Page H2360]]

``(2) Award basis.--In addition to the qualification
requirements for direct grants for eligible units the
Director may use the average amount allocated by the States
to like governmental units as a basis for awarding grants
under this section.

``SEC. 1804. REGULATIONS.

``The Director shall issue regulations establishing
procedures under which an eligible State or unit of local
government that receives funds under section 1803 is required
to provide notice to the Director regarding the proposed use
of funds made available under this part.

``SEC. 1805. PAYMENT REQUIREMENTS.

``(a) Timing of Payments.--The Director shall pay each
State or unit of local government that receives funds under
section 1803 that has submitted an application under this
part not later than--
``(1) 90 days after the date that the amount is available,
or
``(2) the first day of the payment period if the State has
provided the Director with the assurances required by
subsection (c),

whichever is later.
``(b) Repayment of Unexpended Amounts.--
``(1) Repayment required.--From amounts appropriated under
this part, a State shall repay to the Director, by not later
than 27 months after receipt of funds from the Director, any
amount that is not expended by the State within 2 years after
receipt of such funds from the Director.
``(2) Penalty for failure to repay.--If the amount required
to be repaid is not repaid, the Director shall reduce payment
in future payment periods accordingly.
``(3) Deposit of amounts repaid.--Amounts received by the
Director as repayments under this subsection shall be
deposited in a designated fund for future payments to States.
``(c) Administrative Costs.--A State, unit of local
government or eligible unit that receives funds under this
part may use not more than one percent of such funds to pay
for administrative costs.
``(d) Nonsupplanting Requirement.--Funds made available
under this part to States, units of local government, or
eligible units shall not be used to supplant State or local
funds as the case may be, but shall be used to increase the
amount of funds that would, in the absence of funds made
available under this part, be made available from State or
local sources, as the case may be.
``(e) Matching Funds.--The Federal share of a grant
received under this part may not exceed 90 percent of the
costs of a program or proposal funded under this part.

``SEC. 1806. UTILIZATION OF PRIVATE SECTOR.

``Funds or a portion of funds allocated under this part may
be utilized to contract with private, nonprofit entities or
community-based organizations to carry out the purposes
specified under section 1801(a)(2).

``SEC. 1807. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.

``(a) In General.--A State that receives funds under this
part shall--
``(1) establish a trust fund in which the government will
deposit all payments received under this part; and
``(2) use amounts in the trust fund (including interest)
during a period not to exceed 2 years from the date the first
grant payment is made to the State;
``(3) designate an official of the State to submit reports
as the Director reasonably requires, in addition to the
annual reports required under this part; and
``(4) spend the funds only for the purposes under section
1801(b).
``(b) Title I Provisions.--The administrative provisions of
part H shall apply to this part and for purposes of this
section any reference in such provisions to title I shall be
deemed to include a reference to this part.

``SEC. 1808. DEFINITIONS.

``For the purposes of this part:
``(1) The term `unit of local government' means--
``(A) a county, township, city, or political subdivision of
a county, township, or city, that is a unit of local
government as determined by the Secretary of Commerce for
general statistical purposes; and
``(B) the District of Columbia and the recognized governing
body of an Indian tribe or Alaskan Native village that
carries out substantial governmental duties and powers.
``(2) The term `eligible unit' means a unit of local
government which may receive funds under section 1803(e).
``(3) The term `State' means any State of the United
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the
Northern Mariana Islands, except that American Samoa, Guam,
and the Northern Mariana Islands shall be considered as 1
State and that, for purposes of section 1803(a), 33 percent
of the amounts allocated shall be allocated to American
Samoa, 50 percent to Guam, and 17 percent to the Northern
Mariana Islands.
``(4) The term `juvenile' means an individual who is 17
years of age or younger.
``(5) The term `law enforcement expenditures' means the
expenditures associated with police, prosecutorial, legal,
and judicial services, and corrections as reported to the
Bureau of the Census for the fiscal year preceding the fiscal
year for which a determination is made under this part.
``(6) The term `part 1 violent crimes' means murder and
nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and
aggravated assault as reported to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation for purposes of the Uniform Crime Reports.
``(7) The term `Director' means the Director of the Bureau
of Justice Assistance.

``SEC. 1809. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

``(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this part--
``(1) $500,000,000 for fiscal year 1998;
``(2) $500,000,000 for fiscal year 1999; and
``(3) $500,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.
``(b) Oversight Accountability and Administration.--Not
more than 1 percent of the amount authorized to be
appropriated under subsection (a), with such amounts to
remain available until expended, for each of the fiscal years
1998 through 2000 shall be available to the Director for
studying the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the
provisions of this part, assuring compliance with the
provisions of this part, and for administrative costs to
carry out the purposes of this part. The Director shall
establish and execute an oversight plan for monitoring the
activities of grant recipients.
``(c) Funding Source.--Appropriations for activities
authorized in this part may be made from the Violent Crime
Reduction Trust Fund.''.
(b) Clerical Amendments.--The table of contents of title I
of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 is
amended by striking the item relating to part R and inserting
the following:

``Part R--Juvenile Accountability Block Grants

``Sec. 1801. Program authorized.
``Sec. 1802. Grant eligibility.
``Sec. 1803. Allocation and distribution of funds.
``Sec. 1804. Regulations.
``Sec. 1805. Payment requirements.
``Sec. 1806. Utilization of private sector.
``Sec. 1807. Administrative provisions.
``Sec. 1808. Definitions.
``Sec. 1809. Authorization of appropriations.''.

================

The CHAIRMAN. No amendment shall be in order except those printed in
House Report 105-89, which may be considered only in the order
specified, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report,
shall be considered read, shall be debated for the time specified in
the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment except as specified in the
report, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the
question.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone until a time
during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request
for a recorded vote on any amendment, and may reduce to not less than 5
minutes the time for voting by electronic device on any postponed
question that immediately follows another vote by electronic device
without intervening business, provided that the time for voting by
electronic device on the first in any series of questions shall not be
less than 15 minutes.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House
Report 105-89.

Amendment No. 1 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Stupak

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 1 in the nature of a
substitute.
The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak] the
designee of the minority leader?
Mr. STUPAK. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of
a substitute.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:

Amendment No. 1 in the nature of a substitute offered by
Mr. Stupak:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Families
First Juvenile Offender Control and Prevention Act of 1997''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

TITLE I--JUVENILE OFFENDER CONTROL AND PREVENTION GRANTS

Sec. 101. Short title.
Sec. 102. Grant program.

TITLE II--VIOLENT JUVENILE OFFENDERS

Sec. 201. Time limit on transfer decision.
Sec. 202. Increased detention, mandatory restitution, and additional
sentencing options for youth offenders.
Sec. 203. Juvenile handgun possession.
Sec. 204. Access of victims and public to records of crimes committed
by juvenile delinquents.

TITLE III--IMPROVING JUVENILE CRIME AND DRUG PREVENTION

Sec. 301. Study by national academy of science.
TITLE I--JUVENILE OFFENDER CONTROL AND PREVENTION GRANTS

SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Juvenile Offender Control
and Prevention Grant Act of 1997''.

SEC. 102. GRANT PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--Part R of title I of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act

[[Page H2361]]

of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796 et seq.) is amended to read as
follows:

``PART R--JUVENILE OFFENDER CONTROL AND PREVENTION GRANTS

``SEC. 1801. PAYMENTS TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.

``(a) Payment and Uses.--
``(1) Payment.--The Director of the Bureau of Justice
Assistance may make grants to carry out this part, to units
of local government that qualify for a payment under this
part. Of the amount appropriated in any fiscal year to carry
out this part, the Director shall obligate--
``(A) not less than 60 percent of such amount for grants
for the uses specified in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of
paragraph (2);
``(B) not less than 10 percent of such amount for grants
for the use specified in paragraph (2)(C), and
``(C) not less than 20 percent of such amount for grants
for the uses specified in subparagraphs (E) and (G) of
paragraph (2).
``(2) Uses.--Amounts paid to a unit of local government
under this section shall be used by the unit for 1 or more of
the following:
``(A) Preventing juveniles from becoming involved in crime
or gangs by--
``(i) operating after-school programs for at-risk
juveniles;
``(ii) developing safe havens from and alternatives to
street violence, including educational, vocational or other
extracurricular activities opportunities;
``(iii) establishing community service programs, based on
community service corps models that teach skills, discipline,
and responsibility;
``(iv) establishing peer medication programs in schools;
``(v) establishing big brother programs and big sister
programs;
``(vi) establishing anti-truancy programs;
``(vii) establishing and operating programs to strengthen
the family unit;
``(viii) establishing and operating drug prevention,
treatment and education programs; or
``(ix) establishing activities substantially similar to
programs described in clauses (i) through (viii).
``(B) Establishing and operating early intervention
programs for at-risk juveniles.
``(C) Building or expanding secure juvenile correction or
detention facilities for violent juvenile offenders.
``(D) Providing comprehensive treatment, education,
training, and after-care programs for juveniles in juvenile
detention facilities.
``(E) Implementing graduated sanctions for juvenile
offenders.
``(F) Establishing initiatives that reduce the access of
juveniles to fire arms.
``(G) Improving State juvenile justice systems by--
``(i) developing and administering accountability-based
sanctions for juvenile offenders;
``(ii) hiring additional prosecutors, so that more cases
involving violent juvenile offenders can be prosecuted and
backlogs reduced; or
``(iii) providing funding to enable juvenile courts and
juvenile probation offices to be more effective and efficient
in holding juvenile offenders accountable.
``(H) Providing funding to enable prosecutors--
``(i) to address drug, gang, and violence problems
involving juveniles more effectively;
``(ii) to develop anti-gang units and anti-gang task forces
to address the participation of juveniles in gangs, and to
share information about juvenile gangs and their activities;
or
``(iii) providing funding for technology, equipment, and
training to assist prosecutors in identifying and expediting
the prosecution of violent juvenile offenders.
``(I) Hiring additional law enforcement officers
(including, but not limited to, police, corrections,
probation, parole, and judicial officers) who are involved in
the control or reduction of juvenile delinquency.
``(J) Providing funding to enable city attorneys and county
attorneys to seek civil remedies for violations of law
committed by juveniles who participate in gangs.
``(3) Geographical distribution of grants.-- The Director
shall ensure that grants made under this part are equitably
distributed among all units of local government in each of
the States and among all units of local government throughout
the United States.
``(b) Prohibited Uses.--Notwithstanding any other provision
of this title, a unit of local government may not expend any
of the funds provided under this part to purchase, lease,
rent, or otherwise acquire--
``(1) tanks or armored personnel carriers;
``(2) fixed wing aircraft;
``(3) limousines;
``(4) real estate;
``(5) yachts;
``(6) consultants; or
``(7) vehicles not primarily used for law enforcement;

unless the Attorney General certifies that extraordinary and
exigent circumstances exist that make the use of funds for
such purposes essential to the maintenance of public safety
and good order in such unit of local government.
``(c) Repayment of Unexpended Amounts.--
``(1) Repayment required.--A unit of local government shall
repay to the Director, by not later than 27 months after
receipt of funds from the Director, any amount that is--
``(A) paid to the unit from amounts appropriated under the
authority of this section; and
``(B) not expended by the unit within 2 years after receipt
of such funds from the Director.
``(2) Penalty for failure to repay.--If the amount required
to be repaid is not repaid, the Director shall reduce payment
in future payment periods accordingly.
``(d) Nonsupplanting Requirement.--Funds made available
under this part to units of local government shall not be
used to supplant State or local funds, but shall be used to
increase the amount of funds that would, in the absence of
funds made available under this part, be made available from
State or local sources.
``(e) Matching Funds.--The Federal share of a grant
received under this part may not exceed 90 percent of the
costs of a program or proposal funded under this part.

``SEC. 1802. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

The appropriations authorized by this subsection may be made
from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund.
``(b) Oversight Accountability and Administration.--Not
more than 3 percent of the amount authorized to be
appropriated under subsection (a) for each of the fiscal
years 1998 through 2000 shall be available to the Attorney
General for studying the overall effectiveness and efficiency
of the provisions of this part, and assuring compliance with
the provisions of this part and for administrative costs to
carry out the purposes of this part. The Attorney General
shall establish and execute an oversight plan for monitoring
the activities of grant recipients. Such sums are to remain
available until expended.
``(c) Availability.--The amounts authorized to be
appropriated under subsection (a) shall remain available
until expended.

``SEC. 1803. QUALIFICATION FOR PAYMENT.

[[Page H2362]]

October 1, 1990, and the date of the enactment of this
section of their eligibility for the employment preference.
``(d) Sanctions for Noncompliance.--
``(1) In general.--If the Director determines that a unit
of local government has not complied substantially with the
requirements or regulations prescribed under subsections (a)
and (c), the Director shall notify the unit of local
government that if the unit of local government does not take
corrective action within 60 days of such notice, the Director
will withhold additional payments to the unit of local
government for the current and future payment periods until
the Director is satisfied that the unit of local government--
``(A) has taken the appropriate corrective action; and
``(B) will comply with the requirements and regulations
prescribed under subsections (a) and (c).
``(2) Notice.--Before giving notice under paragraph (1),
the Director shall give the chief executive officer of the
unit of local government reasonable notice and an opportunity
for comment.
``(e) Maintenance of Effort Requirement.--A unit of local
government qualifies for a payment under this part for a
payment period only if the unit's expenditures on law
enforcement services (as reported by the Bureau of the
Census) for the fiscal year preceding the fiscal year in
which the payment period occurs were not less than 90 percent
of the unit's expenditures on such services for the second
fiscal year preceding the fiscal year in which the payment
period occurs.''.
(b) Technical Amendment.--The table of contents of the
title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of
1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796 et seq.) is amended by striking the
matter relating to part R and inserting the following:

``Part R--Juvenile Crime Control Grants

``Sec. 1801. Payments to local governments.
``Sec. 1802. Authorization of appropriations.
``Sec. 1803. Qualification for payment.''.
TITLE II--VIOLENT JUVENILE OFFENDERS

SEC. 201. TIME LIMIT ON TRANSFER DECISION.

Section 5032 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
inserting ``The transfer decision shall be made not later
than 90 days after the first day of the hearing.'' after the
first sentence of the 4th paragraph.

SEC. 202. INCREASED DETENTION, MANDATORY RESTITUTION, AND
ADDITIONAL SENTENCING OPTIONS FOR YOUTH
OFFENDERS.

Section 5037 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to
read as follows:

``Sec. 5037. Dispositional hearing

``(a) In General.--
``(1) Hearing.--In a juvenile proceeding under section
5032, if the court finds a juvenile to be a juvenile
delinquent, the court shall hold a hearing concerning the
appropriate disposition of the juvenile not later than 20
court days after the finding of juvenile delinquency unless
the court has ordered further study pursuant to subsection
(e).
``(2) Report.--A predisposition report shall be prepared by
the probation officer who shall promptly provide a copy to
the juvenile, the attorney for the juvenile, and the attorney
for the government.
``(3) Order of restitution.--After the dispositional
hearing, and after considering any pertinent policy
statements promulgated by the Sentencing Commission pursuant
to 994, of title 28, the court shall enter an order of
restitution pursuant to section 3556, and may suspend the
findings of juvenile delinquency, place the juvenile on
probation, commit the juvenile to official detention
(including the possibility of a term of supervised release),
and impose any fine that would be authorized if the juvenile
had been tried and convicted as an adult.
``(4) Release or detention.--With respect to release or
detention pending an appeal or a petition for a writ of
certiorari after disposition, the court shall proceed
pursuant to the provisions of chapter 207.
``(b) Term of Probation.--The term for which probation may
be ordered for a juvenile found to be a juvenile delinquent
may not extend beyond the maximum term that would be
authorized by section 3561(c) if the juvenile had been tried
and convicted as an adult. Sections 3563, 3564, and 3565 are
applicable to an order placing a juvenile on probation.
``(c) Term of Official Detention.--
``(1) Maximum term.--The term for which official detention
may be ordered for a juvenile found to be a juvenile
delinquent may not extend beyond the lesser of--
``(A) the maximum term of imprisonment that would be
authorized if the juvenile had been tried and convicted as an
adult;
``(B) 10 years; or
``(C) the date on which the juvenile achieves the age of
26.
``(2) Applicability of other provisions.--Section 3624
shall apply to an order placing a juvenile in detention.
``(d) Term of Supervised Release.--The term for which
supervised release may be ordered for a juvenile found to be
a juvenile delinquent may not extend beyond 5 years.
Subsections (c) through (i) of section 3583 shall apply to an
order placing a juvenile on supervised release.
``(e) Custody of Attorney General.--
``(1) In general.--If the court desires more detailed
information concerning a juvenile alleged to have committed
an act of juvenile delinquency or a juvenile adjudicated
delinquent, it may commit the juvenile, after notice and
hearing at which the juvenile is represented by an attorney,
to the custody of the Attorney General for observation and
study by an appropriate agency or entity.
``(2) Outpatient basis.--Any observation and study pursuant
to a commission under paragraph (1) shall be conducted on an
outpatient basis, unless the court determines that inpatient
observation and study are necessary to obtain the desired
information, except that in the case of an alleged juvenile
delinquent, inpatient study may be ordered with the consent
of the juvenile and the attorney for the juvenile.
``(3) Contents of study.--The agency or entity conducting
an observation or study under this subsection shall make a
complete study of the alleged or adjudicated delinquent to
ascertain the personal traits, capabilities, background, any
prior delinquency or criminal experience, any mental or
physical defect, and any other relevant factors pertaining to
the juvenile.
``(4) Submission of results.--The Attorney General shall
submit to the court and the attorneys for the juvenile and
the government the results of the study not later than 30
days after the commitment of the juvenile, unless the court
grants additional time.
``(5) Exclusion of time.--Any time spent in custody under
this subsection shall be excluded for purposes of section
5036.
``(f) Conviction as Adult.--With respect to any juvenile
prosecuted and convicted as an adult pursuant to section
5032, the court may, pursuant to guidelines promulgated by
the United States Sentencing Commission under section 994 of
title 28, determine to treat the conviction as an
adjudication of delinquency and impose any disposition
authorized under this section. The United States Sentencing
Commission shall promulgate such guidelines as soon as
practicable and not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act.
``(g)(1) A juvenile detained either pending juvenile
proceedings or a criminal trial, or detained or imprisoned
pursuant to an adjudication or conviction shall be
substantially segregated from any prisoners convicted for
crimes who have attained the age of 21 years.
``(2) As used in this subsection, the term `substantially
segregated'--
``(A) means complete sight and sound separation in
residential confinement; but
``(B) is not inconsistent with--
``(i) the use of shared direct care and management staff,
properly trained and certified to interact with juvenile
offenders, if the staff does not interact with adult and
juvenile offenders during the same shift; and
``(ii) incidental contact during transportation to court
proceedings and other activities in accordance with
regulations issued by the Attorney General to ensure
reasonable efforts are made to segregate adults and
juveniles.''

SEC. 203. JUVENILE HANDGUN POSSESSION.

Section 924(a)(6) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by striking all that precedes subparagraph (B) and
inserting the following:
``(6)(A) A juvenile who violates section 922(x) shall be
fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or
both, and for a second or subsequent violation, or for a
first violation committed after an adjudication of
delinquency for an act that, if committed by an adult, would
be a serious violent felony (as defined in section 3559(c) of
this title), shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not
more than 5 years, or both.'';
(2) in subparagraph (B)(i), by striking ``one year'' and
inserting ``5 years''; and
(3) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by striking ``not more than 10
years'' and inserting ``not less than 3 nor more than 10
years''.

SEC. 204. ACCESS OF VICTIMS AND PUBLIC TO RECORDS OF CRIMES
COMMITTED BY JUVENILE DELINQUENTS.

Section 5038 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``Throughout and upon''
and all that follows through the colon and inserting the
following: ``Throughout and upon completion of the juvenile
delinquency proceeding pursuant to 5032(a), the court records
of the original proceeding shall be safeguarded from
disclosure to unauthorized persons. The records shall be
released to the extent necessary to meet the following
circumstances:'';
(2) in subsection (a)(3), by inserting before the semicolon
``or analysis requested by the Attorney General'';
(3) in subsection (c), inserting before the comma and after
``relating to the proceeding'' the phrase ``other than
necessary docketing data''; and
(4) by striking subsections (d) and (f), by redesignating
subsection (e) as subsection (d), by inserting ``pursuant to
section 5032 (b) or (c)'' after ``adult'' in subsection (d)
as so redesignated, and by adding at the end new subsections
(e) and (f) as follows:
``(e) Whenever a juvenile has been adjudicated delinquent
for an act that if committed by an adult would be a felony or
for a violation of section 924(a)(6), the juvenile shall be
fingerprinted and photographed, and the fingerprints and
photograph shall be sent to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation. The court shall also transmit to the Federal
Bureau of Investigation the information concerning the
adjudication, including name,

[[Page H2363]]

date of adjudication, court, offenses, and sentence, along
with the notation that the matter was a juvenile
adjudication. The fingerprints, photograph, and other records
and information relating to a juvenile described in this
subsection, or to a juvenile who is prosecuted as an adult
pursuant to sections 5032 (b) or (c), shall be made available
in the manner applicable to adult defendants.
``(f) In addition to any other authorization under this
section for the reporting, retention, disclosure, or
availability of records or information, if the law of the
State in which a Federal juvenile delinquency proceeding
takes place permits or requires the reporting, retention,
disclosure, or availability of records or information
relating to a juvenile or to a juvenile delinquency
proceeding or adjudication in certain circumstances, then
such reporting, retention, disclosure, or availability is
permitted under this section whenever the same circumstances
exist.''.
TITLE III--IMPROVING JUVENILE CRIME AND DRUG PREVENTION

SEC. 301. STUDY BY NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE.

(a) In General.--The Attorney General shall enter into a
contract with a public or nonprofit private entity, subject
to subsection (b), for the purpose of conducting a study or
studies--
(1) to evaluate the effectiveness of federally funded
programs for preventing juvenile violence and juvenile
substance abuse;
(2) to evaluate the effectiveness of federally funded grant
programs for preventing criminal victimization of juveniles;
(3) to identify specific Federal programs and programs that
receive Federal funds that contribute to reductions in
juvenile violence, juvenile substance abuse, and risk factors
among juveniles that lead to violent behavior and substance
abuse;
(4) to identify specific programs that have not achieved
their intended results; and
(5) to make specific recommendations on programs that--
(A) should receive continued or increased funding because
of their proven success; or
(B) should have their funding terminated or reduced because
of their lack of effectiveness.
(b) National Academy of Sciences.--The Attorney General
shall request the National Academy of Sciences to enter into
the contract under subsection (a) to conduct the study or
studies described in subsection (a). If the Academy declines
to conduct the study, the Attorney General shall carry out
such subsection through other public or nonprofit private
entities.
(c) Assistance.--In conducting the study under subsection
(a) the contracting party may request analytic assistance,
data, and other relevant materials from the Department of
Justice and any other appropriate Federal agency.
(d) Reporting Requirements.--
(1) In general.--Not later than January 1, 2000, the
Attorney General shall submit a report describing the
findings made as a result of the study required by subsection
(a) to the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on
Education and the Workforce of the House of Representatives,
and to the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on
Labor and Human Resources of the Senate.
(2) Contents.--The report required by this subsection shall
contain specific recommendations concerning funding levels
for the programs evaluated. Reports on the effectiveness of
such programs and recommendations on funding shall be
provided to the appropriate subcommittees of the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Appropriations of the Senate.
(e) Funding.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
carry out the study under subsection (a) such sums as may be
necessary.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 143, the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Stupak] and a Member opposed will each control 30
minutes.
Is the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] opposed to the amendment
in the nature of a substitute?
Mr. McCOLLUM. I am opposed, Mr. Chairman, and I claim the time in
opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] will control
30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak].
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the Stupak-Stenholm-Lofgren-Scott substitute takes the
approach that juvenile crime can best be battled at the local level. In
our bill we set aside the same $1.5 billion over 3 years for local
initiatives. Our Crime Task Force went to the communities around this
Nation and they asked us, give us the flexibility and give us local
control. We need help from the Federal Government. We do not need
mandates.
Unfortunately, the majority legislation here, the majority bill, puts
down four mandates that each State must follow. In those mandates, if
we do not follow those mandates, our State is denied any access to the
$1.5 billion. In the most recent list that has been compiled, in
reviewing the majority's bill, only six States may be eligible. Forty-
four other States would be denied access to any funds in fighting
juvenile crime.
Mr. Chairman, the Democratic substitute is a balanced approach to the
problem of juvenile crime. It is an approach that includes enforcement,
intervention, prevention, and we reform the juvenile justice system to
target violent kids, and they would be locked up underneath our bill.
We allow the local community approach and not the federalism
approach. The National Conference of State Legislators has written to
each Member of Congress and they asked us not to pass this bill, not to
pass the majority bill, adopt the Democratic substitute. Why do they
not want the Republican bill? Because there are mandates there. It is a
continuation of federalism, with four different mandates that most
States cannot comply with.
Since when has the Federal Government, who does not have juvenile
courts, who does not have juvenile probation officers, since when have
we become the experts, and we are telling the rest of the country how
to fight juvenile crime? The Democratic substitute is a smart bill, a
fair bill, a tough bill, and everyone gets to join in, and we work with
our local officials.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume, and I rise in opposition to the substitute.
Mr. Chairman, let me begin by expressing my sincere appreciation to
my chairman for his leadership in this process. I want to talk about
this amendment, though, for a second, if I could, and my biggest
concern with this is that this amendment is a very, very serious matter
in terms of the fact that it completely changes the bill that we are
dealing with here today, both for what it does and what it fails to do.
First, I want to make it clear what this amendment would do. It would
mandate that the States and localities spend at least 60 percent of
their juvenile crime funds on prevention programs. It is a prevention
mandate. Such a mandate is exactly the wrong approach to take in this
bill, for four reasons.
First, the Committee on Education and the Workforce will be reporting
out a justice and delinquency prevention program within 6 weeks which
has prevention as its primary focus. Chairman Riggs has been working
with the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott] on this bipartisan bill,
which is primarily prevention oriented, and which focuses resources on
at-risk youth.
Second, this bill focuses on the problems of a broken juvenile
justice system, that is what the underlying bill is all about, which
chronically fails to hold juvenile offenders accountable. It does so by
providing assistance to the States and localities to reform their
juvenile justice systems by embracing accountability-based reforms.
The minority substitute mandated prevention spending would divert
desperately needed resources from the juvenile justice system. It would
divert resources from the prosecutors, the courts, the probation
officers who represent the means of ensuring meaningful accountability
for juvenile offenders.
The third reason why this amendment is a bad idea, and it is a bad
idea to mandate that 60 percent of the funds be spent on prevention, is
because of the extensive prevention resources already provided for in
prevention programs of the Federal Government.
According to the General Accounting Office, the Federal Government
programs already funded for at-risk and delinquent youth number as
follows: 21 gang intervention programs, 35 mentoring programs, 42 job
training assistance programs, 47 counseling programs, 44 self-
sufficiency programs, and 53 substance abuse intervention programs.
Yet, there is currently not even one Federal program to support States
in their efforts to reform their juvenile justice systems and embrace
accountability-based reforms.
That is what this bill, the underlying bill, is all about. The
amendment would gut that, change that, turn this into a prevention
grant program, adding to all the others that are out there, and not
helping the States do what

[[Page H2364]]

they need to do to hire the probation officers, juvenile judges, build
the detention facilities, and so forth to make their juvenile justice
system work.
The fourth reason I oppose the prevention mandate is because of the
recent data which calls into question the effectiveness of many of the
government prevention programs. While locally developed, community-
based prevention programs are often extremely effective, there is a
growing body of research that suggests that Government-sponsored
prevention programs are of limited benefit. According to a
comprehensive Justice Department Commission study published last month,
``Recreational enrichment and leisure activities such as after-school
programs are unlikely to reduce delinquency.''
The study went on and stated, ``Midnight basketball programs are not
likely to reduce crime.'' With a crisis of violent youth crime and the
broken juvenile justice system demanding action, there is no time to be
spreading out limited Federal resources among hundreds of government
programs that have not been shown to work.
The minority substitute also requires that not less than 10 percent
of funds be spent on building or expanding secure juvenile correction
or detention facilities for violent juvenile offenders, and that not
less than 20 percent of the funds be spent on graduated sanctions and
hiring prosecutors.
In other words, the substitute amendment establishes categorical
spending requirements that all States and localities must adhere to,
whether or not these spending categories reflect their own priorities.
In other words, they are setting out a math deal, that 10 percent of
the funds can be spent on building or expanding secure juvenile
corrections, 20 percent on graduated sanctions and hiring prosecutors.
Suppose a community thinks they need to spend 50 percent or a State
needs to certainly spend 50 percent or better of its money on juvenile
detention facility construction in order to be able to detain those
violent youthful offenders in segregated cells, instead of mixing with
adults, that all of us want in the bill and the underlying bill
mandates.

They could not do it because they could only spend 10 percent of
their funds on building a secure juvenile center, or the same could be
true about spending funds on graduated sanctions or hiring prosecutors.
One community needs a lot of prosecutors and another community needs a
lot of juvenile judges. It is just nonsensical to give them the kind of
straitjackets this amendment would do.
In other words, the substitute amendment establishes the spending
requirements they have to adhere to, whether they believe it or not.
When you do the math, you realize 90 percent of the funds must be spent
under this amendment according to the categorical requirement, leaving
locals only 10 percent of the funds in this bill to allocate according
to their own priorities. This is, in my judgment, a level of
micromanagement that must be avoided.
The second reason I oppose the substitute amendment is because of
what it fails to do. As a substitute, it fails to turn the already
existing Federal juvenile justice system into a model. I am of the view
that the first step to encouraging the States to put accountability
back into their juvenile systems is to do in our own juvenile system
what we think needs to be done.
Right now the Federal juvenile justice is as bad or worse than that
of any State. Now it is true that the Federal juvenile justice deals
with fewer than 500 juveniles a year, some say as few as 300, but
somewhere in that neighborhood. But I still believe it is our
responsibility to make sure that that system is as effective as
possible, and the minority substitute guts the sensible and overdue
reforms that H.R. 3 makes to the Federal juvenile justice system.
Consider the following. It maintains, under the amendment that is
being offered as a substitute, it maintains the status quo of current
law, which gives judges the unfettered authority to decide when a
violent juvenile can be prosecuted as an adult. Second, it rejects the
smart and tough provisions which put the safety of the public first
through the establishment of a presumption in favor of adult
prosecution of a juvenile when the crime committed is a serious violent
felony or a serious drug crime, an extremely violent and serious type
of crime.
It rejects the provision which would allow, not mandate, prosecutors
to prosecute juveniles who commit serious violent felonies or serious
drug crimes as adults, and leaves us with the anomaly of current law.
Under current law prosecutors have the discretion to prosecute 13-
year-old juveniles for only certain serious crimes and lack the
discretion for numerous other more serious crimes. And it rejects, the
amendment does, some of the key sentencing provisions of H.R. 3 which
provide judges a greater range of sanctions, including allowing judges
to issue orders to the juveniles' parents, guardian or custodian
regarding their conduct with respect to the juvenile.
For all of these reasons, I must strongly oppose the amendment that
the minority is offering as a substitute. I would point out again that
the underlying premise of this bill, which this amendment guts, is that
we need to provide a change, a repair, in a broken juvenile justice
system in this Nation.
We have 1 out of every 5 violent crimes in America being committed by
those under 18 years of age, and of those who are under 18 that are
adjudicated for a violent crime, or convicted, if you will, we are
finding that only 1 out of 10 of those ever serve any time in a secure
detention facility of any sort.

{time} 1100

We are finding that based on statistics and demographics, there is a
huge population of teenagers ready to come upon us that causes the FBI
to predict that by the year 2010 we will more than double the number of
violent youth crimes if we keep up this trend.
The only way we can solve this problem is if we, first of all,
correct the broken juvenile justice systems that are primarily in the
States. The premise of the bill is to provide a core grant program, an
incentive grant program to the States that says, here is $500 million a
year, $1.5 billion for 3 years, if you will make four key changes that
will repair your juvenile justice systems. You do not have to do that.
You do not have to accept the money. But if you do, you are going to
have to assure the Federal Government that you are going to provide a
sanction for the very first delinquent act, such as throwing a rock
through a window or ripping off a hubcap or spray painting a building.
That is not happening in virtually any community in this country
today, and it should be. We need to do that if we are going to put
consequences back into the juvenile justice system and assure that
young people understand if they commit an early offense, there really
are consequences to it so that later they will not evolve to the point
when they pick up a gun some day as an older teenager that they think
pulling the trigger means they will not get any consequences.
Second, it requires that the States assure the Federal Government to
get the money that their prosecutors have the flexibility if they
choose to try as adults 15 years old and older juveniles who commit
serious violent crimes, murders, rapes, and robberies and that if there
has been a felony committed by a juvenile and that is the second or
greater number of juvenile offenses that youngster has committed, that
the records will be maintained and made available to all involved just
as they would be if they were adults.
We are destroying records now. We are closing cases and not
preserving records after 18 and the States need to do that to fix the
juvenile justice system.
And last but not least, it does say that judges need to have no
impediments that would keep them as juvenile judges from being able to
hold a parent accountable, not for the juvenile delinquent's act, but
for those things that the juvenile judge charges them with the
responsibility of doing to oversee the child.
Those are the things that are needed to be done to fix basically the
States critical juvenile justice systems. States may not choose to take
this money. They may not want it, but the whole reason for this bill is
to correct that system and to provide a Federal model for the limited
number of Federal juvenile justice system cases that are tried here in
the Federal system every year.

[[Page H2365]]

It is not to provide prevention, though I must say I believe we
should have precontact with the juvenile authorities prevention
programs. They are important. But there is going to be another bill out
here another day for us to debate the prevention and provide the
prevention moneys. It is not in this bill. It is not this bill's
purpose to do that.
The substitute amendment guts the underlying purpose of this bill,
destroys the incentive grant program, removes it altogether from this
bill, destroys the Federal model, reforms and substitutes in its stead
basically a prevention program which, as I said, is coming, a bill like
that is coming out of the Committee on Education and the Workforce in a
couple of weeks. I urge defeat of this amendment.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I think we will use our own time to go
through, I think there are some inaccuracies in the gentleman's
representation about the amendment, but I do want to address this issue
which is the quote the gentleman read about the study of what works.
I think it is important to read the whole sentence, which reads,
``Simply spending time in these activities is unlikely to reduce
delinquency,'' which the gentleman read. The rest of the sentence says,
``Unless they provide direct supervision when it would otherwise be
lacking.'' That goes to the 22 percent of violent juvenile crime that
occurs between the hours of 2 p.m. and 6 p.m. I just wanted to correct
that.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, there are lots of
things that go on between 3:00 in the afternoon and 6:00, 9:00 at
night. That is generally when juveniles commit most juvenile offenses,
when they are not supervised. There are all kinds of problems we need
to deal with. This bill simply is not focusing on all of that.
We have other legislation we are trying to do to help the States come
along. This bill is to correct, to provide the incentives and to
provide the money to correct a failed, broken juvenile justice system.
That is the focus of the bill.
Let us not destroy the focus of this bill in the name of doing
something else. Apples and oranges. Let us take care of the apples
today. Let us take care of the oranges in a future bill.
Do not take away any of the resources we need for the apples to give
to the oranges. Let us give to the oranges as well, but let us do that
on another day, another time, another bill, not gut the underlying bill
with this substitute amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
In response to the gentleman from Florida, we are going to go back
and forth here all day. Let me remind my colleague what Mr. Ralph
Martin, a Republican district attorney in Boston stated. It is in
today's Washington Post. As to my colleague's bill, he says, and I
quote, ``There is a lot of concern among a lot of State prosecutors
because we do not want to see overfederalization of juvenile crime.''
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 45 seconds to the gentleman from
New Jersey [Mr. Pascrell].
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Stupak] for leading the effort to bring a commonsense approach to this
issue. First of all, there is purposeful misconstruing of our bill. Our
bill does provide for States to apply for dollars right in the bill
itself to local communities to hire law enforcement officers or
officers of the corps, that may include police officers, juvenile
judges, and probation officers.
Mr. Chairman, there has been an attempt by some on the other side of
the aisle to paint this as being soft on crime. It is not soft on
crime. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our bill expedites the
time that a judge has to decide whether to transfer a juvenile to adult
court, increases the penalties for juveniles who possess a handgun and
expands the use of the juvenile records for Federal law enforcement
purposes.
However, in addition to that, we must focus on the majority of our
young people, who follow the law. They need opportunity so that they do
not cross that line. If we focus solely on the few who are convicted
with juvenile crimes, we are surely going to lose the war on youth
violence in America. Our bill is balanced. There is nothing wrong with
funding boys and girls clubs. In fact, unlike the provisions of the
McCollum bill, funding prevention has proven to work.
Mr. Chairman, this is a critical issue for the country. I ask us to
have an open mind of how we are really going to help our young people
instead of pounding our chests and having poor results.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 90 seconds to the gentlewoman from
New York [Ms. Velazquez].
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Stupak] for leading this effort.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3, the so-called
Juvenile Crime Control Act, and in support of the Democratic
substitute. We might as well call the Republican version the throw away
the key act. Instead of providing education for children, the
Republicans offer them prison with adults. Instead of offering programs
to inspire and challenge children in poor communities, the Republicans
offer them prison with adults. Instead of properly protecting children
from firearms and drugs, the Republicans offer them prison with adults.
Mr. Chairman, the Republicans think that this is the way to solve
crime. How naive. My colleagues across the aisle do not seem to want to
save these precious lives. They want to take these kids, put them in
prison and throw away the key. Mr. Chairman, this is mean, shortsighted
legislation. Vote no for H.R. 3 and yes to the Democratic substitute.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas], a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
(Mr. GEKAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
The American people across the Nation are constantly shocked by the
brutality and viciousness of some of the crimes that are being
committed by 13 and 14 and 15 year olds. And they are equally shocked,
the American people are, when they see a system that treats these
juveniles as something less than the predators that they seem to be
even at that early age. And what happens? They produce this juvenile
system which, as we know it today, produces a cycle of recidivism among
the juveniles that commit these vicious crimes.
If we adopt the Gephardt or minority substitute, as it is now known,
we are going to remove the emphasis on trying to treat these special
brutal types of crimes that are committed by juveniles to give
additional discretion to prosecutors to treat them as adults for the
purpose of prosecution and revert back to the coddling type of, we want
to be fair. So, adoption of the minority substitute eviscerates the
efforts that are being made to treat the juvenile violent offenders
when they do adult crimes as adults. That is one thing.
The second thing is, again, the minority is throwing money at a
problem when they want to have 60 percent of the resources thrown into
prevention. We have, I say to the gentleman from New Jersey, for the
youths that are trying to obey the law, job training, counseling,
street gang prevention types of things, substance abuse programs,
hundreds of programs at which we have thrown millions of dollars. Yet
the only answer that we come up with in this substitute is to throw
money again into more kinds of programs that will join a passel of
programs that have failed in the past. It is time now to move into a
new cycle to treat the accountability of the juvenile, No. 1.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, for the last speaker, I hope he understands
that his State of Pennsylvania does not qualify for any fund or help
underneath the majority bill, but underneath the minority bill they
could, with local initiatives.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Delahunt].
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I just want to be very clear that the
statements that were made by the preceding speaker relative to juvenile

[[Page H2366]]

murders, murderers, not currently being treated as adults by the State
juvenile courts and by the State courts in this Nation is absolutely
incorrect. I would suggest that the gentleman take a review and get his
facts straight.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Turner], a valuable member of our task force and former
State senator.
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I come forward today as a former member of
the State senate in Texas where we passed one of the toughest juvenile
justice laws in the country just last session, a bipartisan bill
supported by a Republican Governor and our then-Democratic State
legislature.
I think it is hypocritical to suggest that this Congress, by
mandating requirements on the States, is somehow going to provide
leadership on juvenile justice. Our States are responding. And I think
it is hypocritical for this Congress to pass a bill and suggest that we
are going to mandate our States to be even tougher than they already
are.
This bill says Washington knows best, and that is why we support this
substitute that we are offering today. I think it is time to get
fiscally conservative in fighting juvenile crime. Our substitute
devotes 60 percent of that $1.5 billion to prevention programs. I
suggest to my colleagues this morning that any elementary school in the
classroom today can identify the at-risk children who are going to be
in the juvenile justice system 5 and 10 years from now. We need to
follow that commonsense approach and invest 60 percent of the $1.5
billion in prevention activities.
Our substitute is tough on crime. It is smart on crime. It is
fiscally responsible. It is a balanced budget and provides the seed
money that our communities need to mobilize hundreds of volunteers that
must be a part of the solution to juvenile crime. Communities will
solve the problem of juvenile crime, not this Congress by mandating
that our States enact certain laws simply to make the Congress look
like we are tough on crime when our States already are.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for
yielding me the time and applaud his leadership on this very important
issue.

{time} 1115

Mr. Chairman, I think the big differences between H.R. 3 and our
Democratic substitute are that, for one, H.R. 3 says that Washington
knows best. We are going to tell the States how to run their programs
and if they do not do it our way they do not get any money.
Our bill says we rely on local prosecutors and police and parents to
submit the grants and then they get the grants to their local community
from Washington, DC.
The second big difference: Under H.R. 3, 12 States are eligible for
all these moneys, $1.5 billion. Under our bill, every single State can
qualify.
The third big difference, Mr. Chairman, is that our bill builds
prisons and it builds hope, because it invests in making sure that our
children have alternatives to prison. Sure, we expand. We are tough on
crime. We target juvenile offenders, seven new ways we put them in jail
when they commit the crime, but we also say to the hundreds of
thousands of good kids, we want to give you a place to go after school
that is safe, where you can play at a computer to get prepared for
school the next day, and we do not assume that you are a criminal
tomorrow.
We just had a tragic situation in South Bend where two people shot a
woman up in Michigan that are juveniles. This would put them in jail,
but we also want to make sure that the thousands of children that are
not doing that get hope in their future.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California [Mr. Farr], our delegate to the Summit on Volunteerism
and Hope for America.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time. I rise today in strong opposition to the bill
that is on the floor and in strong support for the substitute that we
are debating at this time.
I was a former local elected official as a county supervisor in
California and after that a member of the State legislature. We learned
from our local and State practices, and frankly, if we look at it,
almost all laws are prosecuted in State courts under State laws using
the State criminal justice system and juvenile justice system, and what
we have learned is that no one sock or one shoe fits everybody. Each
community, based on the resources and based on the attitude of the
community, whether it is small or large, has a different approach to
it.
H.R. 3, as it has come to the floor, I think is very poorly drafted.
I think it is contrary to the entire spirit of Philadelphia.
Philadelphia and the Presidents all said that no one is broken so far
that they cannot be fixed. This bill, as it goes before us, just says
the solution is to lock everybody up and not to educate them, not to
try to prevent crime.
Frankly, I feel that Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Ford, none of them
would support H.R. 3 as it comes on the floor. I urge all my colleagues
to support the substitute. The substitute is a bill that is well
thought out and looks at the way communities can do it. It does not
have a Washington approach to everything, it has community-based
support. Community action works. Please support the substitute.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 45 seconds to the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Sandlin], a great addition to our caucus.
Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, in this country today, obviously, we have
a problem with juvenile crime. It seems to me that we must decide what
to do about that problem and who should do it. The Democratic
alternative addresses those issues.
As a former judge, I have heard thousands of juvenile cases. Many
times we must deal seriously with juveniles. Some must be incarcerated.
However, as the father of four children, as a former youth baseball,
basketball, and softball coach, as someone active in the Boy Scouts of
America, I can tell my colleagues that the children of America are
worth saving.
Just like they must be responsible for their acts, we must be
responsible, the U.S. Congress, for providing opportunities for
children to stay out of the system. We know what does not work. We know
that.
We know that spending more and more tax dollars to build more and
more facilities to lock up more and more children without hope is not
the answer, but we have to provide alternatives. We need to incarcerate
some juveniles, but we need to provide for education. We need to
provide for intervention. We need to provide for community support, and
the Democratic alternative does that.
Who knows best how to handle these problems? Who knows best how to
handle things in Texas, in New York, in California, in Mississippi, in
Iowa, in Illinois, in Massachusetts? People in those communities do,
that is who does, not Washington. Under the substitute legislation,
local communities receive local grants to solve local problems. Let us
let local teachers, local preachers, local parents, local friends
handle local problems in our States.
One point I have not heard discussed is the fact our friends on the
other side of the aisle are attempting to model the juvenile system
after the adult system. Like it is some model. Is that not dandy? The
adult system has not worked either. Treating juveniles and modeling the
juvenile system after a failed adult system is certainly ridiculous.
It is time for a new approach. Our States do not need to change, our
local communities do not need to change, Washington needs to change.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson], a member of the subcommittee.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the substitute
bill and in strong support of H.R. 3.
One thing is clear in the debate today and what is going on in our
country, and that is there is a serious growing threat of youth
violence. Both the President in the State of the Union Address and
Members of Congress agree that there is this problem in America, a
growing threat of youth violence. The question is what do we do about
it?
Does the substitute bill address the problem in the right way or does
H.R.

[[Page H2367]]

3? It is my belief that the substitute amendment should be opposed not
only for what it does but, more importantly, for what it does not do.
Let me focus on what it does first.
The substitute requires that the States and localities spend at least
60 percent of their juvenile crime grant funds on prevention programs.
While this is laudatory to a certain extent, this requirement comes
despite the fact that there are billions of dollars that are currently
being spent each year on prevention programs, and this bill addresses a
different side of it, which is the enforcement.
Agencies as diverse as the Department of Agriculture, the Department
of Defense, the Appalachian Regional Commission run programs for at-
risk youth. That is already being met. The General Accounting Office
compiled a list of all Federal programs targeted at juveniles to assist
them. The GAO found that the taxpayers already support 21 gang
intervention programs, 35 mentoring programs, 42 job training programs,
47 counseling programs, 44 self-sufficiency programs, and 53 substance
abuse intervention programs.
We spent $44 billion in programs in fiscal year 1995, and so there is
not a lack of funds for prevention programs, but there is not one grant
program, not one, that addresses the need for supporting the States in
their reform of the juvenile justice system, and that is what this bill
does.
Certainly we need prevention programs. We support those. There are
programs for that. But we need assistance, as the prosecutors from my
State have argued, we need assistance for our States in developing and
strengthening our juvenile system programs. So that is why I support
this.
In addition to the negative aspects of the substitute, the Democrat
alternative falls short for what it does not do. The substitute bill
does not establish a model system for our States to look at when
reforming their own juvenile procedures. H.R. 3 does that. It does not
mandate changes in the laws, but it does provide a model system for the
States to follow, to borrow from, if they choose.
The substitute does not provide the flexibility that the principal
bill does, H.R. 3, and flexibility is critically important to our
States and localities.
In Arkansas we want to provide them with flexibility. I have examined
the law in our State. And, true, we might not comply specifically, but
it would be very simple to bring it into compliance, to make the
improvements if they decide to do so. They might decide not to do so.
But these funds are available for them if they wish, and we provide
that model for our States.
Second, the substitute does not encourage the States to provide
graduated sanctions. Although some States do that in a model fashion,
other States do not. This encourages them to have graduated sanctions
for every act of wrongdoing, starting with the first offense and
increasing in severity with each subsequent offense. I believe this is
important.
The substitute maintains the current impediments to prosecuting
violent juveniles as adults. We have to give more latitude and
encourage, when necessary, the prosecution of violent juveniles. Not
all juveniles, but violent juveniles. That small percentage of
juveniles that cross the line, we need to prosecute those as adults.
And so the main bill is a good bill that gives flexibility to the
States, provides a model for them to follow, provides funding for the
important programs of building their juvenile systems rather than
simply focusing on what we are already providing $4 billion for, and
that is the prevention programs. For that reason I encourage my
colleagues to reject the substitute.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, to the last gentleman that spoke from Arkansas [Mr.
Hutchinson], he said his prosecutors have asked for help from the
Federal Government. I am pleased to see that he acknowledged that they
would not get any help underneath the majority bill without changing
the law in Arkansas to reflect this poorly drafted bill called H.R. 3.
That is why the gentleman should support the Democratic substitute
because we do at least give them some help in Arkansas.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 45 seconds to the gentleman from
Iowa [Mr. Boswell], another new member of our caucus.
(Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the people from the majority for
at least addressing this bill. I thank them for taking it on. We need
to do that. But times have changed. Single parents, both parents
working, somewhat different than my time.
When I got home after school, I knew what I was going to be doing for
the next 2 or 3 or 4 hours, whatever it took, as we went home to the
farm. But times have changed. We have got to have balance and we have
got to realize that is going to take the whole community, the whole
block, whatever we are talking about, to reach out to these kids.
I believe that any debate regarding juvenile crime must also take
into account prevention measures. We simply cannot write off a
generation of young people, still in their teens, without making an
investment in their future productivity to our society.
We can agree that young people who commit violent crime must be held
accountable and punished accordingly. I understand there are certain
incorrigible young people who must and should be incarcerated. But let
us be smart about juvenile crime. We need a balanced approach. Locking
them up and throwing away the key is not always the solution. That
approach is just closing the barn door after the horses are out, as we
say down on the farm.
I do not believe that we should abandon our attempts to put in place
programs designed to prevent wayward youths from pursuing a path of
crime and despair. We all have responsibility to see that our kids are
provided with the guidance, opportunity and support for becoming
successful and productive adults.
Today's youth will serve as the backbone of tomorrow's workforce.
They are our future leaders, workers and parents. To only look toward
the criminal justice system as the key to combating juvenile crime is
short-sighted. More prisons at a cost of $25,000 to $30,000 per bed
annually is not the single solution.
I would just like to leave this thought with my colleagues: They are
our kids. They are not the next town over. They are our kids. They are
our future. To educate and early intervene is something we can surely
do better so that they do not move into that population of 14 or 15,
and we have to go ahead and do the things suggested. Let us give it
careful thought. Let us do it for the future of our kids.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 10 seconds to the
gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Hooley].
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I agree with my colleagues that
our juvenile justice system is in desperate need of attention. There is
no question that juvenile crime is on the rise. We must stop this
violence.
Now the question is: Are we going to sit here in Washington, DC,
3,000 miles away from our communities, and try to solve our juvenile
crime problem, or are we going to trust our local communities and give
them the resources they need to stop juvenile violence? Are we going to
keep coming up with piecemeal quick-fixes, or are we going to look at a
comprehensive program to stop juvenile crime?
I have made a point to meet with the people of my district, people
who really understand juvenile justice. I have talked with our sheriffs
and our law enforcement officials, our judges and our prosecutors. They
all agree that this proposal, which focuses on prevention, intervention
and sanctions, is the only way to stop juvenile crime.
We also need to look at programs that have worked. I can guarantee we
will get more accountability from proven programs than we will from
plans that we draw up in Washington. This proposal asks our community
members to work together to share methods of decreasing crime in their
neighborhoods. When people work together on a plan, I will guarantee
that they will take a lot more interest and it will be much more
successful than a plan that we dictate from thousands of miles away.
Our proposal gives communities the tools they need to work together
to

[[Page H2368]]

support our kids before they become juvenile delinquents. Our proposal
also has a strong intervention component for those juveniles who can be
steered away from the path of crime.
We can also stop our juvenile delinquents from committing more crimes
if we make sure they have immediate consequences to their problems no
matter how minor the infraction. They need to know they will be
punished if they break the law. We must also get tough on kids that
commit violent crimes and prosecute those kids to the fullest extend of
our laws.
This is a comprehensive juvenile justice plan that stops teenage
violence by giving incentives to communities that work together and
come up with a plan that works in their communities. We will measure
the results and hold them accountable for decreasing juvenile crime.
My question is, are we going to dictate solutions to juvenile crime
from D.C. or are we going to trust our communities, invest in our
future, and vote for a bill that will reduce juvenile violence?

{time} 1130

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Michigan [Mr. Levin].
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, the substitute addresses the real concerns
of my constituents. On Tuesday in Warren, the third largest city in the
State, concerned officials and residents held the first meeting of the
city's new antigang task force to discuss their concerns about
increased gang activity and juvenile crime in their neighborhoods.
Concerned residents spoke about the need for measures that get violent
juvenile offenders off the streets and in prevention programs. Police
officials asked for more support to help hire more backup personnel to
free up front-line officers to patrol the streets. And police officials
and educators both called for more money to help fund after and in-
school prevention programs. This substitute legislation does what
residents in Warren and other communities are asking for.
Mr. Chairman, we need to pass a bill that gets at the real problems.
Most juvenile crime is State and local. What we need is a bill that
gives local communities and States flexibility to handle these
problems, not a bill that forces States to accept a one-size-fits-all
fix.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the community-based Democratic
substitute.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Georgia [Mr. Barr], a member of the subcommittee.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. It is a good
bill not because it is a great, learned, eloquent exposition of great
enlightened theories of criminal justice. It is a good bill because it
is practical and it is mainstream, and it is based not on listening to
a bunch of folks in ivory towers but listening to prosecutors, juvenile
justice administrators in our court systems, parole officers, jailers
and local law enforcement officials all across America.
They need practical help. They do not need treatises on enlightened
theories of criminal justice. They need practical help, and this bill
will give it to them. It will give it to them because it gives them
flexibility and it removes barriers that we have allowed to build up,
like scales in pipes, year after year after year, that have tied the
hands of our local prosecutors and our Federal prosecutors.
This bill is practical because it removes Federal restrictions on how
juveniles can be dealt with. It is practical because it allows citizens
in our communities to understand the most violent juveniles who may be
among them, a right that is now denied our citizens and our schools.
To say that this bill removes flexibility is absolutely laughable.
This bill provides the maximum flexibility and options and practical
alternatives to our local prosecutors and our Federal prosecutors that
are possible and necessary. This bill does not mandate one single
thing. It does just the opposite.
It allows State prosecutors who wish to see their cases that are
denied to them to be prosecuted as adults, our most violent offenders,
to get into the Federal system. It does indeed set a model and a
standard through reforms of our Federal system. And through its block
grant approach with incentive grants, it provides an incentive, not a
mandate, to our State governments.
It also avoids the trap into which this Congress fell back in 1994,
to add yet more specific programs with mandates and with paperwork and
with cost. It does not add to the currently 131 different programs
already administered federally by 16 different departments and other
agencies to benefit at-risk or delinquent youth.
A vote for this bill and a vote against the substitute amendment says
we want our States to have maximum flexibility, we want our prosecutors
to have the tools and to have their hands untied by the shackles of
bureaucratic regulations and red tape that now prevent them from
removing from America's streets the most dangerous, violent youth among
us. That has been the one thing that they have told us that they need.
Yes, they need prevention moneys. Yes, it is important to solve the
long-term problem of juvenile crime in America, to focus a great deal
of energy and resources on prevention. But we are doing that. This bill
adds to that.
This bill, in allowing our prosecutors to take the most violent
juvenile offenders off the streets, prosecute them, treat them as
adults, reflecting the seriousness of the crimes with which they are
charged and eventually convicted, disperse them through the Federal
system across the country, we deny them the ability to maintain their
tentacles in communities in America, and that after all is the very
best prevention on which we could be expending our money and devoting
our resources. I urge support for the bill and rejection of this
amendment.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, as to the gentleman from Georgia, his State will not
even qualify. The police unions, the International Union of Police
Associations, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, all
support our legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland
[Mr. Wynn].
Mr. WYNN. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding me this
time and also for his leadership on this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Democratic
alternative and in strong opposition to H.R. 3. The Democratic
alternative is both tough and smart. It strikes the proper balance
between toughness and also prevention. On the other hand, H.R. 3 is
dumb and dumber.
Let me be clear. I support charging violent juveniles as adults. The
problem is we can already do it. In each and every State, the
prosecutor can petition and the judge has the discretion, local judges
that are elected or that are appointed locally have the discretion to
charge juveniles as adults. So do not believe that this is a legitimate
issue before the Congress today. We can address this problem.
Prosecutors, police, the people on the front lines, however, will
tell my colleagues that prosecution is not the answer. The issue is
prevention. That is why this amendment is smart, because it puts most
of the money into prevention programs that really matter, gang
prevention, safe havens, programs that help divert young people from a
life of crime.
I said H.R. 3 was dumb and dumber. Here is why. Under their bill,
only 12 States would qualify to get the money. They come up and tell
Members how critical fighting juvenile crime is, but they introduce
before this body a piece of legislation under which only 12 States
could qualify; 38 States cannot qualify. Even the sponsors of this
legislation could not get money into their own States. That is dumb. We
need a balanced bill. The Democratic alternative meets that criterion.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to my good friend,
the gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms. Kilpatrick], former member of the
Michigan legislature, head of the appropriations and especially
appropriations on prisons.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Let me thank my good friend from Michigan for
yielding

[[Page H2369]]

me this time and also for his leadership.
Mr. Chairman, let us be clear. America's greatest problem today is
what we will do with our young people as we move to the new millennium,
how we will educate them, how we will treat them and how we will offer
them the opportunity they need to become productive citizens in this
world.
Let us be clear. H.R. 3, $1.5 billion, only addresses 12 States.
Thirty-eight States cannot even get in the front door of H.R. 3 in its
present form.
Let us talk about what our children need. They need opportunity. They
need hope. Over 300,000 of them find themselves in the juvenile system.
They need hope. They want us to work with them. We want to put the
toughest in prison. We think violent offenders must be incarcerated.
Over 98 percent of the bill before us, H.R. 3, only talks about
enforcement. Nothing about hope. All studies show that children need to
be educated, disciplined, counseled and loved. H.R. 3 in its present
form does not do that. The Democratic substitute does offer hope.
I want to talk a bit about HIDTA, high intensity drug trafficking
areas, that is now part of the Federal budget and goes out to many
communities across America. Again, enforcement dollars. It is okay to
have enforcement, as the previous speaker mentioned. We want the most
violent juvenile offenders to be locked up.
Judges. We elect judges. Local communities ought to be able to decide
what to do with their juvenile offenders. We should not be dictating in
Washington. $1.5 billion. Do we want to build 25 new prisons with that
money? Or do we want to put it into alternatives to incarceration, save
our children and give hope to America's future?
This bill will not solve the problem of juveniles and crime. As a
matter of fact, only 6 percent of juvenile arrests in 1992 were for
violent crimes. With one exception, the level of juvenile crime has
declined over the past 20 years. There are only 197 juveniles currently
serving Federal sentences. Juvenile crime is almost exclusively a State
and local issue.
This bill is a waste of taxpayers dollars. In the Wall Street Journal
of March 21, 1996 high risk youths who are kept out of trouble through
intervention programs could save society as much as $2 million per
youth over a lifetime. This bill puts more money into police and
prisons, tactics that simply do not work without adequate prevention
programs. The $1.5 billion in funding in the bill is conditioned on the
willingness of States to try youths as adults. Even at that caveat,
only 12 States would be eligible for this funding.
Most police chiefs believe that prevention programs are the most
effective crime reduction strategy versus hiring additional police
officers.
H.R. 3 takes an extreme approach to juvenile justice, without any
evidence that these approaches actually work. Under H.R. 3, 13-year-old
children could be tried as adults; provides no funding for prevention
programs, and is not supported by a single major social service
organization.
Who opposes H.R. 3? Among other organizations, the YMCA, the American
Psychological Society, the National Recreation and Park Association,
the National League of Cities, the National Association of Child
Advocates, the Chief Welfare League of America, among many others.
We need to put our scarce resources into programs and projects that
work. The Democratic alternative to H.R. 3 gives us that chance. It is
a balanced approach to fighting juvenile crime that includes
enforcement, intervention, and prevention. These funds go directly to
local communities to implement a variety of comprehensive prevention
initiatives--initiatives that work.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Cummings]. He has been a valuable member of our task
force who helped put this bill together, along with the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Scott], the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren] and
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm]. The gentleman was a great
addition to our team.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, the folks who support H.R. 3 just do not
get it. They just do not get it.
Our children need help. They need a lot of help. They do not need a
kick in the behind. A young man who was placed in a Maryland prison, 15
years old, killed himself. But just before he killed himself, he wrote
a poem that is embedded in the DNA of every cell of my brain. It is
entitled, ``All Cried Out.''

I'm all cried out from the pain and sorrow, Wondering if
I'll live to see tomorrow. I'm tired of my feelings getting
hurt. It feels like the stuff of life getting pulled over my
eyes and I'm constantly in the dark. I'm all cried out and
this is without a doubt. This is my fight with life and I'm
at the end of my bout.
I'm a victim of society and a victim of circumstance,
hoping that I'll get a second chance to prove that I am
somebody instead of nobody. I've been put down, put out and
even cursed out but somehow I still rise to the top.
I'm tired of crying my pain away because even after the
tears are gone, I still feel the pain each and every day.
This poem is just telling people what I'm really about, but
it's really to let them know that I'm all cried out.

Mr. Chairman, last week, I hosted two town-hall meetings in my
district of Baltimore and the overwhelming message that I received from
my constituents is their overpowering fear of crime.
My constituents told me that they are afraid to walk to the bus stop
to get to work--they are frightened that their homes will be
burglarized. I, myself, had a shotgun pinned to the back of my head--
splayed out on the sidewalk right outside my home.
And more and more, these are young people committing these crimes.
I am angry. I am angry because I feel so helpless. I didn't have an
answer last weekend and I don't have one now * * * but I do know one
thing--the bill we are considering today is not the answer.
I commend the authors of this bill because I recognize that juvenile
crime is among the most pressing crime problems facing the Nation, and
that Federal legislation addressing this problem is warranted.
However, this bill in its present form has serious and fundamental
flaws.
One of my primary concerns with this bill is that it allows juveniles
to be housed with adults. And even more disturbing, children that have
been charged with petty offenses like shoplifting or motor vehicle
violations could be held with adult inmates.
Children as young as 13 to 15 years old can be placed with adult
offenders if juvenile facilities are not readily available. Children 16
years and older can be detained and mixed with adults regardless of the
availability of juvenile facilities.
I know there are some in this body that are not sympathetic to this
notion. They will say--if you're old enough to do the crime, you are
old enough to do the time.
According to the American Psychological Association, children
confined in adult institutions are five times more likely to be
sexually assaulted, twice as likely to be beaten by staff, and 50
percent more likely to be attacked with a weapon than children detained
in juvenile facilities.
The youthful offenders that we are treating like adults are the same
kids that we saw playing hopscotch, jumping rope, and playing tag. What
happened to them? Whose fault is it that they fell from grace? Who is
responsible for their failures?
I understand the need to make a statement to the citizens back home
and to all that are watching us today on C-SPAN across the country. I
understand how polls work and the need to communicate to one's
constituency about ``going to Washington and doing something about
crime.'' Yes, I am cynical and this bill is not the solution.
We are ignoring prevention and early intervention programs, which are
the most effective means of reducing crime. We are ignoring
rehabilitation methods such as getting to these kids while they are
still impressionable, allowing them to reverse the path and mistakes
that they have made. Are we as a collective body going to throw away
kids that are 13 or 14 or 15 years old?

i'm all cried out

That is the title of a poem that a young man from Maryland wrote
before he killed himself.
This young man was only 15 years old. The local law enforcement
authorities placed him in an adult prison for a petty offense and he
wrote this poem, which was found on a scrap of paper at his feet:

All Cried Out

I'm all cried out from the pain and sorrow,
Wondering if I'll live to see tomorrow.
I'm tired of my feelings getting hurt.
It feels like the stuff of life keeps getting pulled over my
eyes and I'm constantly in the dark. I'm all cried out
and this is without a doubt.
This is my fight with life and I'm at the end of my bout.
I'm a victim of society and a victim of cricumstance, hoping
that I'll get a second chance to prove that I am
somebody instead of nobody.
I've been put down, put out and even cursed out but somehow I
still rise to the top.
I'm tired of crying my pain away because even after the tears
are gone,
I still feel the pain each and every day.
This poem is just telling people what I'm really about, but
it's really to let them know that I'm all cried out.

Another area in which this bill fails is that it fails to deal with
the problem of disproportionate minority confinement.

[[Page H2370]]

Although African-American juveniles age 10 to 17 constitute 15
percent of the total population of the United States, they constitute
26 percent of junvenile arrests, 32 percent of delinquency referrals to
juvenile court, 41 percent of the juveniles detained in delinquency
cases, 46 percent of the juveniles in correctional institutions, and 52
percent of the juveniles transferred to adult criminal court after
judicial hearings.
We are doing nothing to address this serious issue. Under this
legislation, we can expect to see a significant increase in the number
of African-American juveniles receiving mandatory minimum sentences.
Further, this bill does not address fundamental law enforcement
issues including juvenile gun use, drug use, or gang activity and
prevention.
Localities and urban areas across the country are looking for
guidance from the Federal Government and we are dropping the ball.
I go home every night to Baltimore and I hear it when I walk up the
steps to my home, I hear it when I fill my car with gas, I hear it in
the supermarket--our young people need somewhere to go and something to
do.
We need to provide local governments with money to assist them in
finding ways to stop the children in their communities from getting
involved in crime in the first place.
We need to focus on early intervention for youth at risk of
committing crimes and intervention programs for first offenders at risk
of committing more serious crimes--before the juvenile becomes involved
with the criminal justice system.
I'm not ready to throw these kids away and I'm not willing to vote
for a bill that emanates political grandstanding without real
solutions.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill in its present form
and support the Democratic substitute.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy].

{time} 1145

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, the base bill, the
McCollum bill, is a joke. Anybody in juvenile corrections knows it is a
joke. It ignores the facts. The facts are these:
When we put kids in adult prison, guess what? They do not serve as
much time because the judges do not have the heart to sentence a kid
for as long as an adult. Second, if the kid is in jail, we are lucky
they do not end up murdered or committing suicide, as my former
colleague just said. Third, if they stay there long enough, they come
out meaner and harder than you sent them in to begin with.
Now this bill is a joke because it ignores these facts, and what is
more, it ignores the fundamental truth that prevention works. And if my
colleagues need to talk to States attorneys and local people, probation
officers, and the like, they will tell them prevention works.
Now are my colleagues serious about reducing crime or do my
colleagues just want to play politics with this issue? It seems to me
they just want to play politics because only 12 States will receive
money on their side of the bill whereas all the States will be eligible
for money with the Democratic substitute.
Vote for the Democratic substitute for real solutions to this
problem.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Rhode Island [Mr. Weygand].
Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Chairman, I am particularly troubled by the
provisions of H.R. 3, and my colleagues should be too. What this is
strong on is political rhetoric. What it is weak on is substance.
Early intervention, childhood developments, and prevention we know
are the keys to making sure that we keep kids out of prisons and making
sure that we make a better society. But what does this bill do? This
bill gives bragging rights to people who can say, ``I'm putting people
in prison.'' Is that really what we want to do?
The other day Jimmy Carter quoted. What he said was an uneasy feeling
he had about the trend in prisons. Twenty-two years ago when he was
Governor of Georgia the bragging rights of Governors were alternative
sentencing program, keeping people out of prisons. Now Governors go
around the country saying how many prison cells they are building, how
many people they are putting behind bars.
Let us not forsake our children for the bragging rights of just
building prisons. Let us be strong on crime but even stronger on crime
prevention.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Blagojevich] a new Member.
Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from
Michigan for yielding this time to me. One needs about a minute to say
my name. It is ``Bla-goy-a-vich.''
Mr. Chairman, I just want to comment briefly about H.R. 3 and the
funding situation. It seems odd to me that 12 States will qualify for
funding and 38 States will not, and when we break it down in reality,
the fact of the matter is that when we consider that one-third of all
murders happen in four cities, Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, and
Detroit, three of those cities, none of the Federal funds would arrive,
not in the northwest side of Chicago, not in the barrios of Los
Angeles, nor a dime to the downtown section of Detroit. Yet under this
bill, among those 12 States, it is conceivable Federal funds to fight
juvenile crime could trickle down to Jackson Hole, Wyoming, and Stowe,
VT.
Now, I am aware that there are juvenile problems on the ski slopes in
Jackson Hole, where they like to snowboard and get in the way of
skiers, but in our communities in big cities kids have assault weapons
and they have handguns and they are very serious. It seems to me if
this bill is going to address crime nationally, we ought to have
funding available to all 50 States, particularly those communities
where crimes occur.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].
(Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut asked and was given permission to
revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I express my absolute
opposition to H.R. 3.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3 and in support of the
substitute before us now. The Juvenile Crime Control Act is just
focused in the wrong direction. There are only 197 juveniles currently
serving Federal sentences. Yet this legislation focuses on the
punishment of this tiny segment of juvenile offenders, while ignoring
the far greater numbers who are handled at the State and local level.
If you want to reach out to troubled youth, you have to have proven
intervention strategies to stop offenders before they are entrenched in
criminal activities. If you want to have a broad impact on American
society, you have to work to prevent juvenile crime before it starts.
Fortunately, we have experience doing these things; we know what works.
But you would never know that to look at this bill.
Look instead at the substitute amendment now being offered. It
targets a much larger population than H.R. 3. It is tough on violent
juvenile offenders. It contains early intervention programs, and it
provides local authorities with the flexibility to initiate prevention
programs that work in their communities.
I urge my colleagues to support the substitute and oppose H.R. 3.
Let's focus on real solutions--not rhetorical ones.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
North Carolina [Mr. Etheridge], another new Member.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Stenholm-Stupak
substitute.
Over the past several weeks I have had the opportunity to ride with
extensive law enforcement officers in my district. I have ridden with
police chiefs, I have ridden with sheriffs who on a daily basis put
their lives on the line protecting property and protecting lives. The
challenges facing these brave men and women are daunting. Each day they
confront the ugly face of drugs, violence, and crime that is more
serious than ever and is being committed by younger and younger
individuals.
Mr. Chairman, local police officers need our help in fighting
juvenile crime. They have asked me to tell Congress that they need the
tools and the flexibility to respond effectively to this growing
threat. This substitute is tough, but it is smart. My mother taught me
a long time ago that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I
am all for locking up violent criminals, but we must also be smart
enough to invest an ounce of prevention to save the costs of the heavy
cure.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Kind].
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for
yielding this time to me.
As my colleagues know, as a former prosecutor in the State of
Wisconsin I

[[Page H2371]]

am just trying to find some philosophical consistency with this bill.
On the one hand, we are talking about it should be a State and local
responsibility to teach our children, and there is very little
disagreement about that. But when it comes time to punishing violent
juveniles, we are saying with this bill being proposed today that
Washington knows best, and perhaps one of the most troubling aspects of
this entire bill is the lack of any type of oversight or review
regarding prosecutorial discretion.
I am telling my colleagues as long as the criminal justice system is
made up of human beings errors will be made. I wish I believed in the
infallibility of prosecutors when it came to making these very
important and very crucial decisions on whether or not to prosecute a
child as an adult. We need some type of review process in place in
order to protect against errors that are going to be made.
I do not think this bill addresses that concern. I think the
substitute that is being offered does provide the tools and the
resources and especially the prevention that communities need to combat
juvenile crime.
I urge my colleagues today to support the substitute, to think about
what we are trying to do, what we are trying to mandate on the States
from Washington. Let us give the States some credit. They are doing a
good job.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands [Ms. Christian-Green].
(Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to state my objection to
H.R. 3 and my support for the Stupak amendment.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Boyd].
Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I listened to the debate last night and
listened with interest, and so this morning I went back to my office,
and I called our State capital and talked to the secretary about the
Department of Juvenile Justice, and I want to tell my colleagues what
he says about H.R. 3.
Our State statute mandates already that adult filings, regardless of
age in serious offenses, carjackings, death, rape, any kinds of issues
like that. However, our statute also gives broad discretion to
prosecutors to enter those juveniles into the juvenile system if they
choose to based on the crime itself.
Now we went through this about 4 years ago in Florida because we had
a very serious problem, and we did a major reform. We committed a
quarter of a billion dollars in Florida to this reform in which we
created some hard beds that we locked up violent juvenile offenders,
and we also created some prevention and some rehab beds so that we
could turn those young people around who were not yet hardened, and I
want to tell my colleagues that this H.R. 3 undoes some of that, and
Florida will not qualify under this proposal.
Mr. Chairman, I support the Stupak amendment.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time as we have
one more speaker left to close.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
North Carolina [Mrs. Myrick].
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support for H.R. 3. As a
former mayor of a large city, I have been for years deeply involved in
trying to solve the problems, not only of juvenile crime, but of crime
in general, and also from the standpoint of looking at prevention
programs as well as justice solutions. Unfortunately, our area is
growing very fast, and with that comes increased juvenile crime, like
the rest of the country is experiencing.
I am very sad to say as mayor I attended more funerals of 13-, 14-,
and 15-year-old children than I care to remember, senseless murders and
young people who did these things that I would talk to afterward who
would have absolutely no remorse for their actions. This bill helps our
system deal with these problems.
I also have a son who is a law enforcement officer. I spent many
hours on the streets with the police and the sheriff and other people.
So I come to this having had some experience with the issue.
I would like to say that the majority is not ignoring prevention. We
recognize the need for prevention. However, accountability is
prevention. We have got to teach children that their actions hold
consequences, and many youthful offenders that face those consequences
of their actions stop their criminal careers before they start a life
of crime.
H.R. 3 is only a part of our effort to combat juvenile crime. The
Committee on Education and the Workforce is currently working on a bill
aimed directly at prevention, and it should be coming to the floor in
the upcoming weeks.
I would also like to remind my colleagues that that bill is part of
more than $4 billion this Federal Government is spending on at-risk and
delinquent youths this year.
I also support the bill because it is not a mandate to the States,
and as a former and local official I am very sensitive to that issue.
The States are not mandated to do anything by H.R. 3. They are given
the incentive to reform their juvenile justice system, which is not
unlike the truth in sentencing incentive grant program that provided
certain grant programs for things like more prisons. That program has
been successful, and so will H.R. 3.
H.R. 3 provides funds to the States who access those incentives to be
used for a wide variety of juvenile crime fighting activities, building
and expanding juvenile detention centers, establishing drug courts,
hiring prosecutors, establishing accountability programs that work, the
juvenile offenders who are referred by law enforcement agencies.
So I urge support of H.R. 3 and urge rejection of the substitute.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from
North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make sure
that my colleague from North Carolina understood that while this bill
does not mandate taking any money North Carolina would have to make
substantial changes. We do not meet 3 out of the 4 criteria that this
bill sets up, and right now North Carolina, which has one of the most
aggressive juvenile justice programs, would not qualify.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time to the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], who helped draft this proposal and is one of
the chief sponsors, along with the gentlewoman from California [Ms.
Lofgren], the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott], and myself.
(Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, this has been a good debate and a true
competition of ideas. Today I find myself in the past agreeing quite
often with the chairman from Florida, but today I respectfully differ
with the bill that he brings to the floor and enthusiastically support
the substitute.
When I first became involved in the issue of juvenile justice, I
contacted judges, police chiefs, sheriffs, prosecutors, educators and
other folks in my district who deal with this problem on a daily basis
to ask for their input. The input I received was very useful to me in
helping my colleagues craft this substitute. The folks in my district
told me that we do need to get tough with juvenile offenders from the
first offense, but we also need to focus on prevention efforts to deal
with at risk kids before serious problems occurred. They told me that
in order to truly address the problems of juvenile crime we need to
focus on parents as well as kids. Most importantly, local officials
that deal with juvenile crime in my district ask that they be able to
develop the programs in their own communities without mandates in
micro-management from the Federal or the State government.
The substitute will provide funding and technical assistance directly
to local communities. Local educators who contacted my office warned me
that we will never stop the cycle of juvenile delinquency without
dealing with the problems of the family unit. The substitute give
priorities to programs that focus on strengthening the family. The
substitute will provide States with additional funds to establish
detention centers for juvenile offenders that provide discipline,
education, and training.
The substitute allows States, and this is the fundamental difference,
the

[[Page H2372]]

substitute allows States to use these funds for punishment programs
that are already working in their States.
By contrast, H.R. 3 requires that States comply with several Federal
mandates in order to receive any Federal assistance. My State of Texas
would be required to rewrite the juvenile justice legislation that
Governor Bush passed with bipartisan support in the last session of the
Texas Legislature in order to receive additional funds.

{time} 1200

Texas has a successful program of determinant sentencing. I do not
know where we get the idea that Congress knows how to deal best with
juvenile crime, better than State and local officials. If my colleagues
agree with me, I ask my colleagues to support the substitute.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I have heard a lot of discussion from the other side
about what is wrong with the underlying bill and how the substitute
they are offering today would be far preferable. I think the arguments
come down to really two or three things.
First of all, the other side in their substitute is arguing the
emphasis should be on prevention, that this bill we bring out today
should have pre-time before one ever gets into any effective contact
with the juvenile justice system, any delinquent act or whatever,
prevention moneys, moneys for programs I presume that could go for
purposes that do not have anything to do with the system.
I would suggest, as the gentlewoman from North Carolina said just a
moment ago, we are going to have legislation on the floor out here in
just a couple of weeks that deals with that from the Committee on
Economic and Educational Opportunities. It is like apples and oranges.
Nobody disagrees. We need to do both things. We need to deal with
correcting a broken juvenile justice system, that this bill deals with,
and we need to deal with the prevention programs. That is not, however,
what this bill does. The objective is not to do prevention out here
today, and therefore the underlying amendment that basically destroys
the incentive grant program in this bill is a very flawed substitute.
The incentive grant program, I would remind my colleagues, is not a
mandate program, it is patterned precisely after the program that has
been very successful, that we passed a few years ago here in this body
to provide incentive grants to States to change their laws to require
those who are going through the revolving door, those violent felons,
to serve at least 85 percent of their sentence.
At the time that we passed that grant program, States like Illinois
that was cited earlier, did not qualify. There were only six States
that qualified for money under that program. I do not think there were
any more than 6 States, although I heard the number 12 mentioned, who
qualified for the money, but there may be more that qualify for the
money in this bill than they did for that program.
But now, today, more than half the States are receiving money,
qualified, changed their laws and are receiving money under that truth-
in-sentencing program because they are requiring the violent felons in
that State to serve at least 85 percent of their sentences.
The fact that we do not have a bunch of States qualifying, North
Carolina or Florida or whatever, is no reason to vote against this
bill, no reason to vote for the substitute. In fact, it is the essence
of this bill. It is the essence, that we want these States to correct a
broken juvenile justice system.
I challenge anybody; there are a lot of Members out here saying today
that their States have wonderful juvenile justice systems. I went all
over the country, had six regional hearings, had every State
represented, every State represented over the last 2 years, and that is
not what I heard. I heard every State juvenile justice authority
telling me that they had huge problems with their system, and this is
the kind of stuff in the underlying bill that we need to correct.
Last but not least, why my colleagues should vote against this
substitute that guts the underlying incentive grant program in this
bill is that it also guts the Federal reform, the program reforms for
those juvenile cases we want to bring.
It is weaker on a very critical item, and that is gang warfare. The
Justice Department has asked, and we put in this bill, provisions that
would allow more flexibility in cases where we have major gang problems
in cities for the Federal prosecutors to get in there and prosecute,
help the local authorities prosecute in the Federal system juveniles
where we need to have them prosecuted in that system, and then spread
them all around across the country.
That flexibility, that opportunity, that ability to get at the gangs
in that way in the Federal system on a limited basis would be taken out
by the substitute amendment. I do not know if the authors of it
realized they were doing that or not, but they did. As a result of
that, it has weakened considerably the tough provisions in this bill
that would let us get at the truly violent juveniles.
Let me tell my colleagues, there are violent juveniles. Fortunately
there are very few. Most kids are good kids. The essence of what we are
doing today is to try to fix the juvenile justice system so that the
very bad are removed from society because they commit the most heinous
of crimes that we have here. We need to be tough with them, but we
allow that choice at the State level to be made, we do not dictate,
prosecute if they want at that level. But we also get at the young,
first-time offender that really is not getting any sanction today and
is not being held accountable and does not realize the consequences.
Vote ``no'' on the substitute and sustain the underlying bill that
puts consequence back into the juvenile justice systems of the Nation
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute
offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 200,
noes 224, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 8, as follows:

[Roll No. 111]

AYES--200

Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Engel
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Petri
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)

[[Page H2373]]

Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates

NOES--224

Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

Abercrombie

NOT VOTING--8

Clay
Costello
Filner
Hefner
Lewis (CA)
McKinney
Pickering
Schiff

{time} 1227

Mr. CRAMER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. HALL of Texas changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
Ms. WATERS changed her vote from ``present'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed
in House Report 105-89.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 2.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment,
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 2 offered by Ms. Waters:
Page 4, beginning in line 15, strike ``that felony'' and
all that follows through line 18 and insert ``a serious
violent felony.''.
Page 6, beginning in line 15 strike ``or a conspiracy'' and
all that follows through ``846'' in line 18.
Page 6, beginning in line 23, strike ``or a conspiracy''
and all that follows through line 2 on page 7 and insert a
period.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 143, the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Waters] and a Member opposed, the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. McCollum] will each control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters].

{time} 1230

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment would delete in H.R. 3 the provision that
requires the prosecution as adults of juveniles who are charged with
conspiracy to commit drug crimes under the Controlled Substance Act and
the Controlled Substance Import and Export Act. H.R. 3 would for the
first time allow juveniles to be prosecuted for conspiracy and result
in another attempt to ensnare our youth into the criminal justice
system.
For those who consider ourselves pro-youth or supportive of families,
this huge new prosecutorial device should cause great alarm. Young
people often do not have the ability to protect themselves from those
situations which lead to conspiracies in criminal activity. Juveniles
are not wise enough to pick up and understand that they may be used.
The application of conspiracy laws to young people who may not have the
common sense, experience, or awareness to know that they are in danger
is a terrible idea. Sophisticated criminals are experts in manipulating
inexperienced and naive people in general and youth in particular. Our
goal should be to protect our young people from these older and
sophisticated criminals, not punish them for finding themselves at the
wrong place at the wrong time.
The fact is that many of our young people live in communities where
drugs and gangs are indeed prevalent. Conspiracy as defined in this
legislation would put many young people at risk for prosecution by
simply visiting their next-door neighbor in a particular apartment
building or housing project or by visiting a popular hangout that may
be frequented by people who are doing wrong. College students living in
a dormitory would be subject to conspiracy charges defined in this
bill. Many of our youth live in surroundings that put them at risk
every day. Instead of creating more elaborate ways to prosecute these
young people, we should be exploring ways to give them the resources
and the skills to create better opportunities for their lives.
This bill would expand the concept of guilt by association of many of
our youth.
I urge Members' support for this most important amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Conyers], ranking member of the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The amendment that the gentlewoman offers would strike the language
in this bill which allows juveniles to be prosecuted as adults for the
purposes of a conspiracy to commit a drug offense. I would suggest that
a 16-year-old who is sitting in the back of a room planning an
operation of major drug trafficking proportions is in more need of
being prosecuted and tried for that than perhaps the street runners
that he is directing. The conspiracy is what he is involved with though
he may never touch physically a single quantity of drugs but he plans
it. He is the mastermind. Sadly, that is what often does happen. Gangs
are conspiracies. We all know the trade of gangs are drugs. Prosecuting
gang members for conspiracy to commit drug crimes is at the heart of
what it takes to undo the viselike grip gangs have on all too many of
our Nation's children.
A conspiracy charge is a critical tool for prosecutors. Without it we
will never be able to attack gangs themselves. The Waters amendment
simply serves to further protect gang members from Federal prosecution,
which is one of the primary thrusts of this bill, is to open up the
opportunity on limited occasions for the Federal prosecutors to tackle
gangs. A conspiracy requires an agreement. It is not something ominous;
it has been around Federal law forever and State law. It is a
traditional part of all criminal law. A conspiracy requires an
agreement to commit a crime and an act in furtherance of the
conspiracy. This is the law in every Federal courtroom in America.
It is also true that every conspirator must knowingly engage in the
conspiracy. Answering a phone call or simply being in the same house as
the conspirators is not good enough. Ironically, the effect of this
amendment that the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters] offers will
be to hamper Federal prosecution of those juveniles who are actively
organizing and running the sale of drugs but who are also crafty enough
to avoid any actual distribution of the drugs.

[[Page H2374]]

The Waters amendment will simply insulate any juvenile leaders and
planners of the drug rings from prosecution. The Supreme Court has
recognized the vital significance of the conspiracy tool. Justice Felix
Frankfurter wrote in Callanan versus the United States:

Concerted action both increases the likelihood that the
criminal object will be successfully attained and decreases
the probability that the individuals involved will depart
from their path of criminality. Combination in crime also
makes more likely the commission of crimes unrelated to the
original purpose for which the group was formed. In sum, the
danger which a conspiracy generates is not confined to the
substantive offense which is the immediate aim of the
enterprise.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Conyers] controls the time in support of the amendment.
There was no objection.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy].
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding to me.
Now we have it, folks, now we have it. Remember we were just hearing
a few moments ago about these particularly heinous crimes that we
needed to lock these kids up for good, wave them into the adult system
because the system needed to be corrected. Remember all that rhetoric.
Now we are talking about what they are really after: putting
conspirators, kids, 14 years old, 8th grade, in Federal court. I mean,
just now, can we understand where they are going? They are playing
politics with kids. It is wrong. We need to pass this amendment.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This amendment is probably fundamental to the whole juvenile justice
bill because now we are going to take the last resort of prosecutors:
When there is nothing left, you cannot get any substantive case, you
can always tack on a conspiracy charge, always. Now we are going to go
to 13-year-olds and 14-year-olds to nail them.
Well, one picks up his big brother's phone, and it is a drug
something going on, and the kid picks up the phone. The phone is
tapped. He is brought in with his brother. He says: Well, I do not even
know what you are talking about. They say: Well, kid, you were not in
on the drug deal but you were in on the planning of it because we have
got your voice on the phone.
Get him out of that, Mr. Chairman. We cannot get him out of that
because the prosecutor does not have anything else to get him on.
Now we are stooping to the lowest statutory tactic that prosecutors
frequently, not all of them, but frequently use.
How could we not support the amendment of the gentlewoman from
California?
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] has 30
seconds remaining, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] has
2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I believe I have the right to close, and
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Under the legislation, if a 14-year-old commits conspiracy, they can
be tried as an adult. That is the other part of this. Not only do we
nail a kid on conspiracy, but under the McCollum bill, the base bill,
he will be tried as an adult. Guess what kind of sentences we are
talking about when an adult gets nailed for conspiracy? Mandatory
minimums kick in. Nice going, nice going.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
What we have been listening to is a discussion by those who I
understand do not agree with the conspiracy as a part of criminal law
particularly as it pertains to younger people for reasons that they
have, and I guess I respect that. But I just do not agree with it. The
bottom line is that the Justice Department has asked us to have the
type of revisions that are in our bill. They support keeping the
conspiracy in for a 14-year-old who is committing the kind of crime
that we are trying to get at here, a drug-related crime, which this is;
15-year-old, 16-year-old, if that person is sitting in the back of the
room is the organizer and director of a major criminal enterprise, drug
trafficking enterprise in large quantities of drugs, which is
frequently the case, he or she is actually the one we really want to
get at, even though they may not actually put their hands on the drugs
at all. In order to get at them, we have to have the conspiracy law. It
is a traditional law.
The word ``conspiracy'' conjures up all kinds of images and so on,
but this has been in common law from the days of England. It has been
in our criminal statutes in the States and Federal system forever and
ever. It is a fundamental part of criminal law that allows prosecutors
in their discretion to be able to get at those like gang members who
are involved in plotting the process, directing the process, even
though they themselves may not go out and carry out the ultimate crime
of moving the drugs themselves directly.
Mr. Chairman, I think that we would be very wrong if we took this out
and prohibited Federal prosecutors from doing what they should be able
to do at any age group where we are involved with this. This, by the
way only applies, this amendment and the underlying bill, to the
reforms and the things and changes we are making in the Federal
juvenile justice proceedings. This has nothing to do with the States.
The amendment does not and this portion of the debate does not.
So everybody is clear about it, we are talking about restricting by
the Waters amendment, restricting Federal prosecutors from being able
to go after gang leaders in gangs in the cities when they are dealing
in drugs, which mostly is what the gangs do. That is wrong. It is
wrong. They should be able to prosecute them, and they should be able
to prosecute them as adults; and the conspiracy theory is the only way
they can get at them.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman agree first of all that
this is not limited to drugs, this is limited to all of the crimes that
is identified trying juveniles as adults? And would the gentleman agree
that, if a 14-year-old sits around a table with five or six other
people and talks about----
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the amendment applies
to all drug cases. My colleague's amendment only applies to them, not
anything else. It is a conspiracy, and it will undermine the right for
gang's prosecution. I oppose the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote and, pending
that, I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 143, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California [Ms.
Waters] will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in House
Report 105-89.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Conyers

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Conyers:
Page 4, beginning in line 24, strike ``if the juvenile is
alleged to have committed an act after the juvenile has
attained the age of 13 years which if committed by a juvenile
after the juvenile attained the age of 14 years would require
that the juvenile be prosecuted as an adult under subsection
(b), upon approval of the Attorney General.'' and insert ``,
upon approval of the Attorney General, if the juvenile is
alleged to have committed, after the juvenile has attained
the age of 13 years and before the juvenile has attained the
age of 14 years, an act which if committed by an adult would
be an offense under section 113(a), 113(b), 113(c), 1111,
1113, or, if the juvenile possessed a firearm during the
offense, section 2111, 2113, 2241(a), or 2241(c) of this
title.''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 143, the gentleman from

[[Page H2375]]

Michigan [Mr. Conyers] and a Member opposed will each control 5
minutes.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim the 5 minutes in opposition to
the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Conyers].
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
What we do here is try to deal with the problem of 13-year-olds in
this juvenile justice bill. This is really a crime bill. The only
reason this is called the juvenile bill is because we are dealing with
kids. But the whole idea is to bring them into the criminal justice
process.
In a word, what we try to stop the McCollum base bill from achieving
is to allow the prosecutors to determine which 13-year-olds will be
prosecuted for any felony, any felony.
I stand here as one that says there are some crimes that 13-year-olds
should be prosecuted for, but not any felony.

{time} 1245

And therein lies the difference. And certainly not to let the
prosecutor unilaterally determine who is going to be tried. Where is
the judge?
And so for that reason, I merely strike the provisions in H.R. 3 that
would allow 13-year-olds to be tried as adults at the discretion of the
prosecutor for any felony.
For goodness sakes, what is going on here? Why do we need this?
Judges and prosecutors can try 13-year-olds now under the Federal law,
under the Federal crime bill of 1994. The gentleman from Florida passed
it. It was his bill, so he knows what is in it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the Conyers amendment because it
weakens H.R. 3 and takes us back to current law with respect to
juvenile offenders who are 13 or older and commit extremely violent and
serious crimes.
Current law provides that a juvenile 13 years of age or older may be
prosecuted as an adult at the discretion of the prosecutor if the
juvenile is alleged to have committed, on Federal property, murder,
assault with intent to commit murder, assault with intent to commit a
felony, or while in the possession of a firearm is alleged to have
committed a robbery, bank robbery or aggravated sexual abuse. That is
current law.
As such, the current law creates the anomaly of being able to
prosecute such a juvenile as an adult when he has committed a robbery
on Federal lands with a firearm, but not a rape committed at knife
point on Federal lands. In other words, current law fails to include
several extremely violent crimes.
The underlying bill that the gentleman from Michigan would strike the
provision from provides that a juvenile 13 years of age or older may be
prosecuted, it is permissible but not mandatory, as an adult at the
discretion of the prosecutor if the juvenile is alleged to have
committed a serious violent felony or a serious drug offense.
These terms include such heinous crimes as murder, manslaughter,
assault with intent to commit murder or rape; aggravated sexual abuse,
abusive sexual contact; kidnapping; robbery, carjacking; arson; or any
attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation to commit one of these offenses;
any crime punishable by imprisonment for a maximum of 10 years or more
that involves the use or threatened use of physical force against
another; the manufacturing, distributing or dispensing of 1 kilogram or
more of heroin, 5 kilograms or more of cocaine, 50 grams or more of
crack, 100 grams or more of PCP, 1,000 kilograms of marijuana, or 100
grams of methamphetamine, which are huge quantities of these; and the
drug kingpin offense under section 848 of title 18.
The President's bill recommended these crimes be listed and be made
available for prosecution for 13-year-olds. So I think if my colleagues
think as I do, that prosecutors should have the discretion to prosecute
13-year-olds for manslaughter, all rape offenses, arson, carjacking,
then Members should vote no on the Conyers amendment.
If my colleagues strongly oppose, as I do, the Conyers amendment, I
hope they will vote ``no.''
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
If my colleagues think as I do, we will leave the Federal law alone,
which already allows the enumerated crimes in the Federal crime bill of
1994 that now gives the prosecutor the option on major crimes, murder,
attempted murder, possessing firearms during an offense, aggravated
sexual abuse, robbery, and bank robbery. We already have those crimes.
Now, what is the point? Is giving 13-year-olds adult sentences at the
discretion of the prosecutor going to reduce juvenile crime in the
United States? Well, I guess if 13-year-olds are reading the Federal
criminal statute and realize what the McCollum provision will do, quite
likely some of them will not do it.
Please, why are we going to this clinical obsession with getting
kids? For what purpose? For what satisfaction? For what national
Federal objective? For what purpose? To reduce crime in America? Well,
of course, there is not any.
By what authority do we even dare bring this provision up? Any
quotes, any reports, any studies, any Department of Justice? None. It
is just that the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime feels this would
be a good way to get more 13-year-olds. Try them as adults. A
questionable theory in and of itself.
And that way, then give the prosecutor. What about the judge? Federal
judges, what do they know? Give it to the U.S. prosecutor and let him
build his rep and in that way we will fight juvenile crime in the
United States. I think that is not sick, but not healthy either.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have
remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] has 2\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I think something needs to be clearly explained in this process and
that is simply that the law today reads that assault with intent to
commit murder and some other things are clearly something that the
prosecutors have the discretion to prosecute, and that the issue here
is what are we going to give them in addition to that.
As I said earlier, there is a hole in the law. The fact of the matter
is, assault with intent to commit murder, assault with intent to commit
a felony, or while in the possession of a firearm, et cetera, to commit
robbery, bank robbery, or aggravated sexual abuse, the Federal
prosecutors already have the right to prosecute a juvenile if they want
to for those things, 13 years of age or older.
We are simply spelling out some of the loopholes they have in here so
that for kidnapping and carjacking and arson, and some other very, very
bad crimes, that the prosecutors have that discretion to do it.
I am opposed very strongly to the Conyers amendment, and I would urge
my colleagues to oppose that amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 143, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers]
will be postponed.

Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 143, proceedings will now
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed,
in the following order: Amendment No. 2 offered by the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Waters], and amendment No. 3 offered by the gentleman
from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. WATERS

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote

[[Page H2376]]

on amendment No. 2 offered by the gentlewoman from California [Ms.
Waters], on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 100,
noes 320, not voting 13, as follows:

[Roll No. 112]

AYES--100

Abercrombie
Allen
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bishop
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Capps
Carson
Clayton
Clyburn
Conyers
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
Dellums
Dixon
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E.B.
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kilpatrick
Lantos
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McDermott
McGovern
Meek
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Morella
Nadler
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Payne
Pelosi
Rahall
Rangel
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Scott
Serrano
Slaughter
Stabenow
Stark
Stokes
Thompson
Thurman
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weygand
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates

NOES--320

Ackerman
Aderholt
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blagojevich
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kildee
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Manton
Manzullo
Mascara
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tierney
Torres
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--13

Bliley
Clay
Costello
Diaz-Balart
Filner
Hefner
McKinney
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Sanchez
Scarborough
Schiff
Watts (OK)

{time} 1314

The Clerk announced the following pairs:
On this vote:

Mr. Filner for, Mr. Diaz-Balart against.
Ms. McKinney for, Mr. Scarborough against.

Messrs. HEFLEY, McNULTY, TORRES, STUPAK, TAUZIN, TIERNEY, STRICKLAND,
NEAL of Massachusetts, and Mrs. CUBIN changed their vote from ``aye''
to ``no.''
Mr. MINGE changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

personal explanation

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 112, I
was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted
``no.''

Announcement by the Chairman

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the Chair announces that he will
reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within which a vote
by electronic device will be taken on each amendment on which the Chair
has postponed further proceedings.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Conyers

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers]
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 129,
noes 288, not voting 16, as follows:

[Roll No. 113]

AYES--129

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blumenauer
Bonior
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Buyer
Capps
Carson
Clayton
Clyburn
Conyers
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
Dellums
Dixon
Doggett
Duncan
Ehlers
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Franks (NJ)
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kilpatrick
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
McCarthy (MO)
McDermott
McGovern
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Petri
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Rivers
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Slaughter
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates

NOES--288

Aderholt
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman

[[Page H2377]]

Bentsen
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blagojevich
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Etheridge
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kildee
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Manton
Manzullo
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moran (KS)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--16

Barr
Bliley
Clay
Costello
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Filner
Frank (MA)
Hansen
Hefner
McKinney
Nadler
Pickering
Sanchez
Scarborough
Schiff

{time} 1323

The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:

Mr. Filner for, with Mr. Diaz-Balart against.

Mr. GORDON changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

PERSONAL explanation

Mr. Hansen. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 113, I was inadvertently
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed
in House Report 105-89.

amendment no. 4 offered by mr. scott

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order by the
rule.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Scott:
Page 22, strike lines 14 through 16.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 143, the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Scott] and a Member opposed will each control 5 minutes.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I request the 5 minutes in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] will be
recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott].
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Chairman, the bill, underlying bill, authorizes $500 million a
year in spending. This amendment strikes prison construction as
allowable use of the money.
Mr. Chairman, this is for two reasons. First, $500 million nationally
in prison construction cannot have any effect on crime. For example,
Virginia is in the process of spending almost $1 billion a year on new
prisons over the next 10 years. If all of Virginia shared this money,
that is, if we qualified, which we do not, but if all the money were
used in prisons, instead of $1 billion a year we would be spending
$1.01 billion a year on prisons, obviously not enough to cause a
difference in crime that anybody would notice.
The second reason, Mr. Chairman, is that if we used up the money on
prisons, there would not be anything left over for the other worthwhile
uses of the money.
Mr. Chairman, we already lock up more people than anywhere else on
Earth. Some communities have more young men in jail than in college,
and several States already spend more money for prisons than higher
education. So States do not need the encouragement to build prisons,
they need encouragement to spend money on other initiatives where
little money can actually make a difference in public safety.
So, Mr. Chairman, I hope this House will adopt the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr.
Scott] would strike the provision which allows States and localities to
use the block grant funds in the bill for building, operating, and
expanding juvenile correction and detention facilities. These are not
prisons, these are juvenile correction and detention facilities, and we
are really short on those in many of the States.
We went around the country, had several big meetings with juvenile
authorities all over the country over the past couple of years, and
what they want are more tools, they want more probation officers; in
some cases, more judges, more social workers, and, yes, more juvenile
detention facilities because we want these juveniles to be housed
separately from adults. But when they commit serious offenses, then we
need to detain them.
So it is not practical to strike this from the bill. It is part of
the discretion. We take away some discretion, the States would not have
any money to be able to build any more detention facilities when we
want them to do that, and it is an essential part of correcting the
broken juvenile justice system. There is some price to house the
juveniles separate and apart from prisons where only adult prisoners
are housed.
So I urge a no vote ``on'' this.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Indiana [Ms. Carson].
Ms. CARSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support enthusiastically the
amendment of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott]. As he has
indicated, building prisons is the fastest growing business in the
United States. We are very willing and generously spending money to
build new jails and prisons, and we are annihilating any possibility
for potential criminals to have an opportunity to be educated.
It is my express opinion based on the facts of this bill that we
should be earmarking money for prevention and for allowing people
access to education. We spend $40,000 a year for one individual in
institutionalizing them instead of giving them an educational
opportunity.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Cunningham].

{time} 1330

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I laud the gentleman from Virginia [Mr.
Scott]. He and I have worked on the Committee on Education and the
Workforce, and if the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott] could listen
for a moment, I do not have time to yield, but I would like the
gentleman to really listen to what I have to say, because

[[Page H2378]]

I have worked with the gentleman on the committee.
Let me tell my colleagues what some of our frustrations are. The
amendments and the substitute focus on programs that are working from
my colleagues' side. We find ourselves in a very critical situation
today, and we find that in many cases it is not working.
Many of us, and I have had Members from the other side come across, a
lot of us have personal problems with our own children that we are
looking at. Do we want our children in prison systems? No. We want them
in a boot camp where they can be taken care of where there are
counselors, and not even juveniles, but maybe a first-time offender
that we can reach out to.
However, we have been stymied, and I would like to go over a few of
those frustrations. I have just met with the police chief in the
District of Columbia, and yet there has been very little activity
between law enforcement and the schools and the education systems. New
York came and testified before the Subcommittee on the District of
Columbia, but yet the school systems are a disaster in New York; but
they have cleaned up the law enforcement. We need the gentleman from
Virginia's help on that, because these are all pieces of the puzzle
that we are trying to work on.
In education, the comment is we are trying to take the Federal
Government out of it and let it do it on a State level, but yet every
day we fight the same battle from our side trying to take the power out
of Washington and back down. In education, a classic example, we get
less across the country than about 50 cents on a dollar down to our
education programs, and that is a key part of law enforcement and
especially juvenile justice, but yet we cannot break that.
When we talk about jails, in California, I would tell the gentleman
from Virginia [Mr. Scott], we have 18,000 to 22,000 illegal felons,
illegals, just in our prison system. We would not have to build any
more prisons if we could get help on the illegal immigration.
When we talk about the State level, Proposition 187, which about two-
thirds of the Californians voted for, would have taken care of that;
yet a single Federal judge overruled the wishes of two-thirds of the
Californians.
We have in the State of California over 400,000 illegals in our
education system. At $5,000 a year, that is $2 billion a year. All of
these are symptomatic of problems that we have. These are the kinds of
things and the pieces of the puzzle, not just this particular bill,
that my colleagues' side of the aisle is very concerned about, and so
are we. But understand the frustrations that we have, and we are trying
to fight for these things, knowing that they are a piece of that puzzle
and we cannot get support for it.
The welfare bill, 16 years average, and those children having two and
three babies. What happens to those children? They are the ones we are
talking about, because they end up in the gangs and having the
problems. We need help on that, and that is why it is so important to
us. I think we can work together a lot better than we have on these
things; and I do oppose the gentleman's bill, but I would like to work
with him.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Tennessee [Mr. Ford], the youngest Member of the U.S. House, to speak
on the juvenile justice bill.
Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. Let me say that this
piece of legislation sends a perverse message, Mr. Chairman, to young
people in our gallery and young people throughout this Nation.
As we talk about, as the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] did in
this morning's newspaper, national leadership on the issue of juvenile
crime, if we cannot provide national leadership in our educational
system, why is it that we ought to be providing and usurping local
control in the juvenile justice arena?
The crisis we face in our juvenile justice system, Mr. Chairman, is
no less than dire, no less than catastrophic. If we are serious about
preparing this next generation of Americans for the challenges of the
new marketplace in the 21st century, then let us get serious about a
national role in education as we are about a national role in juvenile
justice.
I would submit to this body and submit even to the President of the
United States, if we talk about arresting 13-year-olds and not about
intervention and rehabilitation and prevention, we will be debating 2
years from now how we arrest 5-year-olds, 8-year-olds, and 11-year-
olds.
Mr. Chairman, I plead to my friends on the other side of the aisle
and even Democrats, do the right thing for young people, do the right
thing for our future, provide us some real meaningful opportunities and
chances, and all of us will benefit from it.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Scott] for yielding me this time.
One important point is to listen to those who are in the war. The
chiefs of police of the United States of America say, nearly four times
in their ranking, increasing investment in programs that help all
children and youth get a good start is better and more effective than
trying more juveniles as adults and hiring additional police officers.
Listen to the experts. Prevention and intervention is what this bill
should have, and it does not. Vote down H.R. 3.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the
gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy], the second youngest Member
of the House.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Virginia for his leadership on this issue.
I have to say at the outset how dismayed I have been with the votes
that we have just had. I would say to the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
McCollum] that we might as well scrap the whole juvenile justice
system, we might as well do that, because picking away at this a little
bit at a time really makes no sense at all.
If the gentleman thinks that kids should not be distinguished from
adults with respect to their crimes, just be honest with everybody and
tell them what the gentleman is really doing, and that is just
scrapping the whole juvenile justice system. This stuff about 13-year-
olds and 14-year-olds is just out of hand.
I think the Scott amendment is just the way we need to go. We know
the facts are that prevention works. I will give my colleagues a few
statistics that I wish that the gentleman's bill had recognized.
In Salt Lake City a gang prevention program led to a 30 percent
reduction in gang related crimes. In Washington State, gang prevention
programs reduced violence, reduced violence, that is less victims, less
victims by 80 percent. The gentleman's bill puts $102,000 per cell, it
costs to construct those cells, $102,000. Imagine how far that could go
in putting that money behind prevention programs that work.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield the final 1 minute to the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brady] for purposes of closing debate.
Mr. BRADY. Mr. Chairman, over the past year I served on the juvenile
justice committee for the Texas Legislature. We rewrote our juvenile
justice laws in trying to curb gang violence, and we found a number of
things. One is that we met and saw a 12-year-old from Dallas who raped
and bludgeoned a classmate and threw her body on the top of a local
convenience store to hide her body. We learned that juveniles today are
more violent and more mean and more mentally unstable than ever before
in committing crimes. We find ourselves in a position of having to
choose between building beds to house the most violent juveniles and
choosing between a sanction process that we knew could make a
difference.
Had we had this bill, had we had this incentive, we would have been
able to do both and put them in place immediately to make a difference.
Finally, I would say the reason juvenile beds are so expensive is
that we are trying to find out if there are kids who are
rehabilitatable. For that reason we have to build additional
classrooms, we have to build additional amenities. We are trying to
allow, we want to give them a chance to come back to society if
possible. We need these dollars, and I oppose this amendment.

[[Page H2379]]

The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Scott].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 143, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott]
will be postponed.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed
in House Report 105-89.

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 5 offered by Ms. Lofgren:
Page 24, after the line 9, insert the following:
``(12) preventing young Americans from becoming involved in
crime or gangs by--
``(A) operating after school programs for at-risk youth;
``(B) developing safe havens from and alternatives to
street violence, including educational, vocational or other
extracurricular activities opportunities;
``(C) establishing community service programs, based on
community service corps models that teach skills, discipline,
and responsibility;
``(D) establishing peer mediation programs in schools;
``(E) establishing big brother/big sister programs;
``(F) establishing anti-truancy programs;
``(G) establishing community based juvenile crime
prevention programs that include a family strengthening
component;
``(H) establishing community based juvenile crime
prevention programs that identify and intervene with at-risk
youth on a case-by-case basis;
``(I) establishing drug prevention, drug treatment, or drug
education programs;
``(J) establishing intensive delinquency supervision
programs;
``(K) implementing a structured system of wide ranging and
graduated diversions, placements, and dispositions that
combines accountability and sanctions with increasingly
intensive treatment and rehabilitation services in order to
induce law-abiding behavior and prevent a juvenile's further
involvement with the juvenile justice system; that integrates
the family and community with the sanctions, treatment, and
rehabilitation; and is balanced and humane; and
``(L) establishing activities substantially similar to
programs described in subparagraphs (A) through (K).
``(c) Required Use.--A unit of local government which
receives funds under this part shall use not less than 50
percent of the amount received to carry out the purposes
described in subsection (b)(12).''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 143, the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Lofgren] and a Member opposed will each control 5
minutes.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren].
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like to offer this amendment to the body, although it is not
as strong as the substitute that was just narrowly defeated. It
certainly does commit some of our taxpayers' funds to not just
prevention, but intensive supervision, early intervention and
rehabilitation for young people who are at risk of becoming involved in
crime or who are already starting down the path in this behavior.
I am pleased that I have just received a letter from the Department
of Justice indicating that they support this amendment and urge its
adoption, and I would urge my colleagues to do so.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I must oppose strongly this amendment by the
gentlewoman, even though I understand that what she is trying to do is
with honorable intention. She believes deeply that we should have
prevention moneys in this bill. But what she is doing is forgetting a
couple of things. One is that we have another bill coming along that is
designed to do that out of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce. This bill is not designed for that.
The gentlewoman is going to take 50 percent of the money in this bill
and divert it to prevention programs when we need every penny in this
bill to go for what its intended purpose is, and that is for probation
officers and juvenile judges and juvenile detention facilities and
those things which are important to the juvenile justice system itself,
not simply to prevent juvenile crime, which is a separate bill.
I wish they both were out here today. In fact, I had wanted in my
manager's amendment to be able to offer, if the Committee on Rules
allowed me, a great big $500 billion a year crime block grant program
that would have allowed any amount of money that the local community
wanted to spend on prevention to be used for that purpose, but that did
not happen and we are not out here with it today.
But the fact is that, if we designate 50 cents and tell the States
and the local communities, that is what the gentlewoman is doing with
her amendment, that they must spend 50 cents of every dollar they get
on prevention, then they are not going to have the flexibility. They
are being mandated by the gentlewoman's amendment to spend 50 cents on
every dollar on prevention when a local community may very well need to
have more money than they are getting even for probation officers, for
judges and so on, if we are going to begin to do what we need to do.
And that is sanction every juvenile for the very early delinquent acts
that they are committing and they are not being sanctioned for with
community service or whatever when they vandalize a store or home or
spray paint a building or whatever.
The only way they can do that is if they get more resources, more
social workers, caseworkers, more probation officers, more juvenile
judges, more detention space. That is what this bill is all about.
Therefore, the gentlewoman's amendment really guts this bill, and we
ought to wait until the Committee on Education and the Workforce bill
comes along for the other type of prevention programs. It is apples and
oranges, and I urge a no vote on the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
One of the problems with the amendment is that it does nothing about
the preconditions for the allocation of funds. Currently we believe
only six States qualify.

Request for Modification to Amendment No. 5 Offered by Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to amend the
amendment in the following way: To amend section 1802, the
applicability section, to provide that the requirements of that section
shall not apply to the provision of these funds, that would be the
prevention intervention funds, that has been suggested by the Justice
Department.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:

Modification to Amendment No. 5 offered by Ms. Lofgren:
Page 2, after line 25 of amendment No. 5 insert ``(D)
Section 1802 Applicability.
The requirements of Section 1802 shall not apply to the
funds available under this section.''

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from California?

{time} 1345

Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I do not
understand what this amendment does. I heard the gentlewoman, but could
she explain it again?
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, as the author of
the bill, in order for States to qualify for the funding in the final
section of the gentleman's bill, four conditions must be met by State
law.
The Justice Department has suggested, and I concur, that as to the 50
percent of the funds that would be dedicated under this amendment to
prevention, intervention, rehabilitation, and the like, as outlined in
the amendment, those preconditions would not apply for these
prevention, intervention, rehab funds to flow to States.

[[Page H2380]]

Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, at this point I must
object, I am sorry, to the unanimous consent request.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Schumer], my colleague on the Committee on the Judiciary.
(Mr. SCHUMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in support of the Lofgren
prevention amendment. This amendment is not about prevention versus
punishment. It has always been my belief we can do both. We have to do
both.
I am speaking as someone who believes in tough punishment. I wrote a
whole series of tough punishment laws. But punishment is only half of
the solution. We have to make sure that today's second- and third-
graders do not become the violent gang members of tomorrow. That is
every bit as important in fighting crime as punishing those who,
unfortunately, have become violent.
The overwhelming majority of kids, and I emphasize this is true in
every neighborhood in this country, want to lead honest, decent lives.
We know. We have had hard evidence from communities across the country.
What this amendment does is it provides for kids growing up in
desperate circumstances a place to go after school, volunteering as a
Big Brother. These little things which we might take for granted can
help kids go into the mainstream of society.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the
gentlewoman from California, Mrs. Ellen Tauscher.
Ms. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my fellow
Californian and the amendment of the gentlewoman from California [Ms.
Lofgren] to H.R. 3, the Juvenile Crime Control Act. Juvenile crime has
become an epidemic in our country. We are losing our children to crime
at a more rapid rate and at an earlier age than ever before. Tougher
laws for juvenile criminals are essential to solving the problem.
However, it is only part of the answer to preventing our children from
falling into a life of crime.
After-school programs, drug prevention programs, community youth
organizations offer our children alternatives to criminal activity.
Effective community-based programs can and will keep our kids off the
streets and out of trouble. Federal funding for proven, effective
prevention programs is one of the most powerful commitments we can make
to ending juvenile crime in this country. Early intervention through
juvenile crime prevention programs helps put our kids back on the right
track.
The amendment of the gentlewoman from California would permit grant
funds under H.R. 3 to be used for proven and effective juvenile crime
prevention programs. I support this bill and its tough approach to
juvenile crime. I believe it will be a better bill with this amendment.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Georgia [Mr. Barr], a member of the subcommittee.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I think what we are debating here
today really needs to be put in the context of what the Government is
currently doing and what remains undone, which is what this bill, H.R.
3, aims to do.
Mr. Chairman, lest anybody be left with the impression that the
Federal Government is not expending tremendous sums of taxpayer money
on prevention, at-risk, and delinquent youth programs, I have here two
charts that list in summary form various of the 131 current programs
administered by 16 different departments and other agencies totaling $4
billion, that is $4 billion, that are currently being used of Federal
taxpayer money in communities all across America for prevention
programs involving the youth of our country.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to see those on the other side that
believe so strongly in prevention work with us to determine if any of
these programs are not working, so that we can reconfigure the Federal
moneys, change these programs, perhaps consolidate some of them,
perhaps so they work better, because they are not working
comprehensively now.
A case in point, and this is the chink in the armor that H.R. 3 must
fill, just a couple of months ago in Atlanta, GA, in my home State, a
13-year-old youth, a drug gang wanna-be, was walking down the streets
of Atlanta in broad daylight, and shot to death a father walking with
his two children. That murder took place by a 13-year-old, who
apparently feels no remorse, from the stories I have read, for what he
did because it was part of a gang initiation.
All of these prevention moneys, $4 billion worth, did not prevent
that. What we are trying to do, what the people of this country are
demanding that we do as reflected in H.R. 3, is to develop programs
that provide the States and the Federal Government the flexibility to
stop that type of violent crime.
All the prevention moneys in the world are not working. There is a
place for prevention. There is a place for this $4 billion, and perhaps
more. But let us not lose sight of the forest for the trees. There is a
serious problem on the streets of America with violent youth, and we
must stop it. H.R. 3 will do that. The amendment will gut the ability
of this bill to be effective in meeting those needs. I urge the defeat
of the amendment and support of H.R. 3.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to my colleague, the
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Ford].
Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, let me briefly say to my colleague, the
gentleman from Georgia, what the American people are demanding we do on
this issue of crime is to prevent crime, not lock up kids after they
have committed the crimes.
Mr. Chairman, and Chairman McCollum, I applaud the gentleman for his
leadership and interest and certainly his convictions on this issue,
but let us give these kids a chance. Let us prevent this crime, provide
them with meaningful opportunities, show some national leadership on
that front, instead of building cell after cell after cell. Tell these
young people in this Chamber and in Florida and Tennessee and
throughout this Nation that we care. Show them we care about doing the
right thing. Support the Lofgren amendment.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to comment on the frequently
repeated claim that we are already spending $4 billion on prevention
programs. The YMCA, the Young Men's Christian Association, did a good
analysis of that assertion, and concluded that it is actually about $70
million, based on the GAO report. There are a number of other
initiatives that actually have very little to do with prevention, and
even though the $70 million is really for postcrime intervention, the
programs have very little to do with preventing kids from getting into
trouble.
I think it is important that we stand up for our future. We all know
that there are young people who have done awful things. They need to be
held to account for their crimes. Some of them need to be tried as
adults. We acknowledge that. But if we do only that, if we do only
that, we will never get ahead of the problem of youth violence and
crime that besets our communities.
I have heard much about the amendment that will reach us or the
prevention bill from the Committee on Education and the Workforce. The
authorization available to that committee is $70 million for the entire
United States. We are talking here about $1.5 billion. Our priorities
are all wrong if we look at only reacting to problems, and never to
taking the longer view and preventing problems from occurring.
Mr. Chairman, I recently read a statement from Mark Klaas, whose
daughter Polly Klaas was brutally murdered, and I am glad that her
murderer received the death penalty which he so richly deserved, but
that will not bring back Polly. Mr. Klaas said that building prisons
prevents crime about as much as building cemeteries prevents disease.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I must oppose the amendment, again. As the gentlewoman
knows, there is a bill coming out of the Committee on the Judiciary
that is going to provide at least $150

[[Page H2381]]

million a year for prevention. There are many other programs we heard
demonstrated out here for prevention, and we may have a $500 million a
year general block grant program, as we had last year, that could be
used for that purpose.
But by the gentlewoman's amendment, she guts the underlying effort of
this bill to address an equally important problem, and that is what do
we do about the violent youth of this Nation. We have to have the money
for juvenile justice and probation officers and detention facilities
for them. That is what this bill would provide.
She would require 45 cents on every dollar from this bill to go to
something else. We need every penny in this bill for the purpose of
juvenile justice, and I urge a no vote on her amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. All time on this amendment has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Lofgren].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, on that I demand a recorded vote, and
pending that I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 143, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California [Ms.
Lofgren] will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 143, proceedings will now
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed
in the following order: amendment No. 4 offered by the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Scott]; amendment No. 5 offered by the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Lofgren].
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

Amendment NO. 4 Offered by Mr. Scott

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott] on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 101,
noes 321, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 114]

AYES--101

Ackerman
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Berry
Bishop
Blumenauer
Bonior
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Carson
Clayton
Clyburn
Conyers
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
Dellums
Ehlers
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Goodling
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hooley
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E.B.
Kanjorski
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Martinez
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McNulty
Meek
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Rangel
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Slaughter
Stark
Stokes
Stupak
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates

NOES--321

Abercrombie
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Etheridge
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fazio
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kildee
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Meehan
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanchez
Sandlin
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--11

Clay
Costello
Diaz-Balart
Filner
Hefner
Johnson, Sam
Kaptur
McKinney
Northup
Pickering
Schiff

{time} 1416

The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:

Mr. Filner for, with Mr. Diaz-Balart against.

Ms. DeLAURO, Mrs. TAUSCHER, and Messrs. DAVIS of Florida, PALLONE,
NADLER, MATSUI, FAZIO of California, HOYER, WEXLER, and WEYGAND changed
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

personal explanation

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 114, I was inadvertently
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Announcement by the Chairman

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Ms. LOFGREN

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on amendment No. 5 offered by the gentlewoman from California [Ms.
Lofgren] on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.

[[Page H2382]]

The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 115]

AYES--191

Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boyd
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Goodling
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E.B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates

NOES--227

Abercrombie
Aderholt
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--15

Archer
Blagojevich
Boucher
Buyer
Clay
Costello
Cox
Diaz-Balart
Filner
Hefner
Hooley
Johnson (CT)
McKinney
Pickering
Schiff

{time} 1424

The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:

Mr. Filner for, with Mr. Diaz-Balart against.

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

personal explanation

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 115, the
Lofgren amendment, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''

personal explanation

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, during the vote on the Lofgren
amendment to H.R. 3, rollcall vote No. 115, I was unavoidably detained
in a meeting. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted
``aye.''

Announcement Regarding Amendments to Foreign Policy Reform Act

(Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to speak out of order for
1 minute.)
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Rules will be meeting
early next week to grant a rule which may limit the amendments to be
offered to H.R. 1486, the Foreign Policy Reform Act. Among other
things, this bill contains authorizations for the State Department and
various foreign aid programs.
Subject to the approval of the Committee on Rules, this rule may
include a provision limiting amendments to those specified in the rule.
Any Member who desires to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies
and a brief explanation of the amendment by noon on Tuesday, May 13, to
the Committee on Rules, at room H-312 in the Capitol.
Amendments should be drafted to the text of a bill as reported by the
Committee on International Relations. The bill and report are to be
filed tomorrow, and until such time as the text is available in the
document room, it will be available in the Committee on International
Relations, if Members want to get the bill there.
Just summarizing, Mr. Chairman, Members should use the Office of
Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are properly
drafted and should check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be
certain that their amendments comply with the rules of the House.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 printed
in House Report 105-89.

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Meehan

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Meehan:
Add at the end the following:

TITLE --SPECIAL PRIORITY FOR CERTAIN DISCRETIONARY GRANTS

SEC. . SPECIAL PRIORITY.

Section 517 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968 is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(c) Special Priority.--In awarding discretionary grants
under section 511 to public agencies to undertake law
enforcement initiatives relating to gangs, or to juveniles
who are involved or at risk of involvement in gangs, the
Director shall give special priority to a public agency that
includes in its application a description of strategies,
either in effect or proposed, providing for cooperation
between local, State, and Federal law enforcement authorities
to disrupt the illegal sale or transfer of firearms to or
between juveniles through tracing the sources of crime guns
provided to juveniles.''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 143, the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan] and a Member opposed will each control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan].

[[Page H2383]]

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment states that once the Director of the
Bureau of Justice Assistance decides to make Byrne discretionary grants
available on a competitive basis to public agencies for antigang law
enforcement initiatives, she must give special priority to those
agencies that have proposed, in their applications already implemented,
strategies tracing the sources of those guns provided to juveniles.
We all know too well the problem of juvenile gun violence.
Specifically, virtually all of the striking increase in the juvenile
homicide rate between 1987 and 1994 was associated with guns. A 1993
survey of male students in 10 inner city public schools revealed that
65 percent of those surveyed thought it would be no trouble at all to
get their hands on a gun. An ex-gang member from Minnesota recently
stated that for teenagers, acquiring guns is as easy as ordering pizza.
The evidence is clear, thanks to both big-time interstate gun runners
and small-time black market dealers, juveniles have easy access to guns
and are using them to kill one another. Over the past few years, the
city of Boston has shown us a way to make a serious dent in the illicit
gun sales to juveniles and thus cut down on deadly youth violence.
The Boston gun project began with a simple idea: If we want to stop
kids from shooting each other, we have to get the guns out of their
hands.

{time} 1430

This meant that when police recovered guns from juveniles during or
after the commission of a crime, they could no longer afford to lock
these guns away as evidence and forget about them. Instead, the police
were called upon to work with State and Federal law enforcement
agencies to trace the source of these guns. This commonsense policy
yielded striking results.
For example, in their gun tracing efforts, police found guns being
used by gang members in one Boston neighborhood all originated from
Mississippi. They were purchased there by one neighborhood student who
transported those guns to Boston for illegal sales in the neighborhood.
When that student was arrested, the shootings in the neighborhood
declined from 91 in 5 months to the arrest of 20 in the following 5-
month period. Indeed, the Boston gun project was a critical component
that has achieved once unthinkable results.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment seeks to encourage the widespread adoption
of a law enforcement strategy that clearly works. My amendment requires
that when the BJA decides on its own to do this, it should give special
priority to the applicants, the public agencies, where they have
implemented these proposals pursuant to a crime gun tracing in
cooperation with State and Federal law enforcement officials.
Mr. Chairman, crime gun tracing will keep guns out of the hands of
our children. If we want to stop kids from shooting one another, we
have to attack the supply of the gun market. I urge my colleagues from
both sides of the aisle to assist in this amendment.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MEEHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I want to support the gentleman's
amendment, and I want to make sure that I am right about a couple of
things so my colleagues understand it.
I am correct, am I not, that this amendment does not criminalize any
activity nor does it propose to create any new crimes; is that correct?
Mr. MEEHAN. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Also, my understanding is all the gentleman is really
doing, and I think it is a very important thing, is instructing the
Bureau of Justice Assistance to give priority for Byrne discretionary
grants to those public agencies which propose cooperative strategies to
disrupt the illegal sale of firearms to juveniles; is that correct.
Mr. MEEHAN. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. McCOLLUM. That is what it does. It is a very simple measure, but
I think it is a very important one. The purpose is good. We ought to
have a bipartisan, cooperative, a full ``aye'' vote for the Meehan
amendment. I strongly support it. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. MEEHAN. I thank the gentleman from Florida for his cooperation on
this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 printed
in House Report 105-89.

Amendment No. 7 Offered by Ms. Dunn

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 7 offered by Ms. Dunn:
Add at the end the following new title:

Title --GRANT REDUCTION

SEC. 01. PARENTAL NOTIFICATION.

(a) Grant Reduction for Noncompliance.--Section 506 of
title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of
1968 is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(g) Information Access.--
``(1) In general.--The funds available under this subpart
for a State shall be reduced by 20 percent and redistributed
under paragraph (2) unless the State--
``(A) submits to the Attorney General, not later than 1
year after the date of the enactment of the Juvenile Crime
Control Act of 1997, a plan that describes a process to
notify parents regarding the enrollment of a juvenile sex
offender in an elementary or secondary school that their
child attends; and
``(B) adheres to the requirements described in such plan in
each subsequent year as determined by the Attorney General.
``(2) Redistribution.--To the extent approved in advance in
appropriations Acts, any funds available for redistribution
shall be redistributed to participating States that have
submitted a plan in accordance with paragraph (1).
``(3) Compliance.--The Attorney General shall issue
regulations to ensure compliance with the requirements of
paragraph (1).

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 143, the gentlewoman from
Washington [Ms. Dunn] and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott] will
each control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn].
Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, today I and my colleagues from New Jersey and
California offer the Dunn-Pappas-Cunningham amendment to the Juvenile
Crime Control Act of 1997. This week as the trial of Megan Kanka's
accused killer begins, we are reminded how important it is to have a
process in place that will ensure that communities will be notified
when a violent sexual predator is released.
We offer today, Mr. Chairman, an amendment to take Megan's Law one
prudent step further. Our amendment will require States to submit a
plan to the U.S. Attorney General describing a process by which parents
will be notified when a juvenile sex offender is released and
readmitted into a school system.
Some of our colleagues may wonder why notification under Megan's Law
is not enough. Mr. Chairman, sometimes our schools include students
from a variety of communities. Community notification, therefore, will
not reach some of the parents of these children. Without this
knowledge, parents would not be able to take the necessary precautions
to protect their children from being victims of a possible reoffense.
It would be wrong and very possibly tragic, Mr. Chairman, to put
juvenile sex offenders back into the school system without notifying
the parents of the other students. We offer this amendment to H.R. 3 to
complement Megan's Law and empower parents whose children attend
schools outside their communities, as well as those whose children go
to neighborhood schools.
We simply cannot let what happened to Megan Kanka happen again, not
in any community and especially not on a playground during recess.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I want to read portions of a letter from the National
Center for Missing and Exploited Children. They indicate in their
letter, as Congress is well aware, juvenile offenses

[[Page H2384]]

are increasing and the current means of addressing these offenders is
inadequate for public safety purposes.
However, it is also consistently demonstrated by treatment clinicians
and research academics that juvenile offenders, if given the proper
treatment and supervision, are the most amenable to long-term
rehabilitation efforts. NCMEC has always supported the efforts of the
treatment community to identify and contain these individuals at an
early age, in an effort to assist these young offenders to turn their
lives around and become positive, participating members of society.
This legislation fails to recognize that not all offenders are the
same. A violent 17-year-old serial rapist is a different character from
a confused, perhaps abused 10-year-old involved in weekly therapy
sessions. I might point out, Mr. Chairman, that 17-year-old serial
rapists are already treated as adults in every State, and they would be
covered by Megan's Law.
This proposal would no doubt interfere with the treatment of these
young and most amenable offenders. The more violent repetitive
offenders must be addressed, but not at the cost of the less dangerous
youths.
Mr. Chairman, they go on to say that this proposed legislation would
make no distinction between violent, repetitive youthful offenders and
first-time, confused, treatable offenders, and raises constitutional
considerations.
They also say that it would make school situations more difficult for
victims of abuse. Since most juvenile offenders offend against members
of their own nuclear or extended family, the schoolhouse spotlight
would further implicate the victims as questions are raised and
accusations are made. Furthermore, many families would not report
offenses committed by children they knew or were part of their family
if it meant automatic notification of the entire student body.
For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I think we should oppose this
amendment.
Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SCOTT. I yield to the gentlewoman from Washington.
Ms. DUNN. I do want to answer the gentleman's question, Mr. Chairman,
and be very clear that this amendment neither sets the scope of
notification nor the degree of risk that would necessitate
notification. What we request is a report to the U.S. Attorney General
on how the State intends to notify. It would give the States the
flexibility to determine that process, which students would be
potential threats as they return into the school system and how to
notify parents of that threat.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would point out that
those who are serious offenders are routinely treated as adults in
every State. If it is a juvenile conviction, Mr. Chairman, we have no
idea what they may have been convicted for, even a 10-year-old kissing
a classmate. Those are the kinds of things that would get wrapped up in
it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Cunningham] who has been very involved in the community
notification for sexual predators beginning with our successful effort
to get Megan's law into the crime bill of 1994.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, one minute on a subject like this that
is so critical, I think, to the future is by far not enough and we
spend two days on an open rule on housing and in something like this
that affects our children.
I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Washington. We have just
seen two little girls, sisters, that were dumped in a river. We just
saw a little girl last month that was found under a pile of rocks. And
Megan in New Jersey, and in California. The highest recidivism rate
they have, whether it is a juvenile or a senior, is in the sexual abuse
area.
I have two daughters. I do not care if it is a date rape, if they are
on a college level or if it happens, God forbid, what happened to these
little girls. It is about time, Mr. Chairman, that we support the
victims instead of quit trying to protect the guilty and the
lawbreakers.
Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. Pappas] who represents the county in which Mr. and Mrs.
Kanka, parents of Megan Kanka, live and who has contributed a great
deal to this debate.
Mr. PAPPAS. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, New Jersey has been witness to the tragic results of a
judicial system that failed to adequately protect its citizens. The
tragedies of Megan Kanka and Amanda Weingart are daily reminders that
no community is safe from the scourge of sex offenders.
Amanda Weingart was killed by a convicted juvenile sex offender who
was her neighbor. She was left alone with this man because no one was
aware of his juvenile sex offense record, a record that was kept
private, part of a system that is more concerned about protecting
criminals' rights than children's rights. The entire State of New
Jersey was devastated by this murder and the tragic murder of Megan
Kanka a few months later.
I wholeheartedly support the gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn]
and her continued leadership on tough crime legislation that cracks
down on sex offenders. This amendment puts children first. Parents have
the right to know how best to protect their children. We need to pass
this amendment so that no family has to endure the tragedies that have
been suffered by the Kankas and the Weingarts.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Colorado [Ms. DeGette].
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I must say I am a little puzzled about
this amendment, because I support notification when sex offenders are
released. I was the original cosponsor of Megan's law in Colorado.
My concern, though, is when we have a requirement that the parents be
notified directly in this situation rather than the school officials. I
am concerned about innocent people mistakenly being identified and
neighbors or parents having some kind of vigilantism.
So I guess I would have a question for the sponsor: If States
promulgated laws which notified school officials and then they could
decide how to notify the parents, would that be acceptable and make the
States eligible for the Byrne grant funding under this amendment?
If so, I will support the amendment. If not, I think it could
encourage vigilantism which could even be worse for students, innocent
students, if the parents were directly notified and a student had
erroneously been identified as a sex offender.
Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. DeGETTE. I yield to the gentlewoman from Washington.
Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, we believe, to answer the gentlewoman's
question, that juvenile sex offenders present a unique danger to other
youth. First of all, in a school, juvenile offenders are in constant
contact with other children who are potential victims on a daily basis.
In a community, individuals and families can avoid all contact.
Second, a system to prevent sexual crimes against children must be
developed immediately. As I have said previously to the gentleman from
Virginia, this notification is up to the freedom of the State. All they
have to do is submit the plan and let the U.S. Attorney General know.

{time} 1445

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. McCollum], the subcommittee chairman, who has been a great
supporter.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I want to say I strongly support the
gentlewoman's amendment, and I applaud her efforts to assure the
communities are notified when convicted sexual predators move into
neighborhoods. She has done it with Jacob Wetterly, she has done it
with the Megan's Law, she is doing it here again today.
I do have some reservations of a technical nature which I think we
can correct in conference, which the gentlewoman and I have discussed.
The amendment is a good amendment though. It should be supported today.
It further improves the laws on notification, and I do not think the
objections I have heard deserve a no vote. I

[[Page H2385]]

think she deserves a yes vote, and I encourage it.
Ms. DUNN. I yield myself the balance of the time, Mr. Chairman. How
much time do I have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn] has 1 minute
remaining, and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott] has 30 seconds
remaining.
Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
A few additional facts:
According to the Department of Justice, the total number of arrests
of juvenile offenders in 1995 was over 16,000 in this Nation, and I
believe we are compelled to put a system in place that will prevent
possible reoffense.
Let me offer some facts from a study that was published by the
Washington State Institute for Public Policy. It is very deeply
disturbing.
Juveniles who recommitted sexual offenses continue to offend against
children. The sexual recidivists were arrested for new offenses very
soon after they had been let out of institutions. In Washington State
alone 716 juveniles are registered as sex offenders and are under State
or county supervision. These juveniles either attend school or work.
This number, moreover, does not reflect the number of juveniles who are
no longer under supervision. These two studies and the statistics alone
give us reason enough to implement immediately a process of parental
notification.
Mr. Chairman, the whole intention behind all our work on Megan's Law
was to protect innocent women and children from sexual predators. All
this amendment does is require each State to submit the method by which
it will notify parents, a simple refinement of the work we have done.
I encourage Congress to pass this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer].
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 30
seconds.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr.
Scott] for yielding this time to me.
I have grave reservations about this. I applaud the gentlewoman for
all of her work on child notification, but I find myself involved in
investigation of sexual misconduct in the military and now sexual
misconduct, fraternization and sexual harassment in the VA. The victims
are very real here.
Let us not get lost in the high weeds. The juvenile justice system is
about rehabilitation, also. So when my colleagues talk about the
exploration of sex and first-time experiences, let us not forget about
victims of potential sexual offenses while they are also juveniles and
the further exploitation and the fear of these now children victims in
being able to come forward.
So I have some very strong concerns, and I think the letter that was
referred to from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
in not supporting the legislation as written should be taken with great
notice and this should be corrected in conference.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Washington [Ms. Dunn].
The question was taken; and the chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 143, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn]
will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 printed in House
Report 105-89.

Amendment No. 8 Offered By Mr. McCollum

Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. McCollum:
Page 4, line 21, strike ``public safety'' and insert
``justice''.
Page 22, beginning in line 4, strike ``Director of Bureau
of Justice Assistance'' and insert ``Attorney General''.
Page 24, beginning in line 12, strike ``Director'' and
insert ``Attorney General''.
Page 24, line 14, strike ``Director'' and insert ``Attorney
General''.
Page 27, lines 10, 12, and 16, strike ``Director'' and
insert ``Attorney General''.
Page 28, beginning in line 7, and in line 19, strike
``Director'' and insert ``Attorney General''.
Page 31, lines 5, 12, 16, 19, 22, strike ``Director'' each
place it appears and insert ``Attorney General''.
Page 32, lines 4, 10, 11, 13, beginning in line 15, and on
line 19, strike ``Director'' and insert ``Attorney General''.
Page 34, line 2, strike ``Director'' and insert ``Attorney
General''.
Page 36, strike lines 3 through 4 and insert the following:
```(7) The term `serious violent crime' means murder,
aggravated sexual assault, and assault with a firearm.
Page 36, lines 15 and 19, strike ``Director'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
Page 22, line 14, after ``expanding'' insert ``,
renovating,''.
Page 22, line 16, before the semicolon insert ``, including
training of correctional personnel''.
Page 32, line 1, strike ``90'' and insert ``180''.
Page 32, line 24, strike ``one'' and insert ``10''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 143, the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. McCollum] and a Member opposed will each control 5
minutes.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, as a Member of the committee I will ask for
the time in opposition, although I am not in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott] will be
recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
This manager's amendment contains small but helpful changes to H.R.
3. Most of them have been requested by the administration.
The first change, requested by the Justice Department, modifies the
basis for a Federal prosecutor's determination not to prosecute a
violent juvenile as an adult in the Federal system. Currently, Title I
of H.R. 3, which strengthens the Federal juvenile justice system,
provides that a juvenile alleged to have committed a serious violent
felony or a serious drug offense does not have to be prosecuted as an
adult if the prosecutor certifies to the court that the interests to
public safety are best served by proceeding against the juvenile as a
juvenile. This is why those who say that H.R. 3 mandates prosecution of
14-year-olds for certain crimes are mistaken.
This amendment would change the basis for such a determination from
the interests of public safety to the interests of justice. This change
will provide the prosecutor with even more flexibility in making this
important determination while ensuring that considerations of public
safety are still included.
The second change that this amendment would make to H.R. 3 has also
been requested by the Department of Justice. It would assign
responsibility for administering the accountability incentive grant
program to the Attorney General rather than to the Director of the
Bureau of Justice Assistance. This change would provide the Attorney
General greater flexibility in determining which office within the
department should administer the program. This change would enable the
department to insure that the program is expeditiously implemented and
efficiently managed.
The third change made by this amendment is to define the term
``serious violent crime'' as it appears in title III of the bill. One
of the requirements of the accountability incentive grant program of
title III is that States allow prosecutors to make the decision of
whether to prosecute a juvenile who has committed a serious violent
crime as an adult. This amendment would define the term ``serious
violent crime'' narrowly so as to include only murder, aggravated
sexual assault and assault with a firearm. By explicitly limiting the
term to these serious offenses, the likelihood of any problem
associated with different State definitions is kept to a minimum.
This amendment also includes a provision that my friend from Indiana
and a member of the committee, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Pease],
has worked on. This provision would explicitly provide that grant funds
received under title III could be used not merely to build, expand or
operate juvenile correction detention facilities,

[[Page H2386]]

but also to renovate such facilities and to train correctional
personnel to operate such facilities. This provides additional
flexibility to States and localities seeking to increase and make
better use of their juvenile facilities.
Finally, the amendment increases the period of time provided for the
Department of Justice to make grant awards from 90 to 180 days as
requested by the Department. This establishes a more realistic
timeframe for grants, for getting the grant funds out to the States and
localities.
In my view, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is noncontroversial and
makes a better bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very
much for yielding this time to me and appreciate the vigorous debate
that we have had and his leadership on these issues.
I simply want to acknowledge that this manager's amendment is one
that obviously, with the corrections that are being made, those of us
who attempted first to have a bipartisan bill in H.R. 3 are glad for
these particular technical corrections, and I thank the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. McCollum] for them.
If he would allow me, I do want to acknowledge before asking to enter
into a colloquy with him, and if he would suffer my disagreement on
some aspects, if he would, that I was hoping that we might have been
able to add a very important provision dealing with requirement on
trigger locks. This I know the gentleman from Florida does not agree
with, and I am not certainly asking him to respond to this. This would
have been an appropriate place to add the Federal requirement that
federally licensed firearm dealers provide a child safety lock with
each firearm sold. I say that because 80 percent of Americans have
agreed with that policy. It is only the National Rifle Association that
disagrees.
Having said that, let me thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
McCollum], as I said, for these manager corrections and particularly
thank him for working with me on protecting those youth who may be
housed in an institution that may have adults. We have discussed the
fact that this bill in fact does not change current law, which does
allow children and adults be housed together. Amendments that were
proposed and were not accepted would have eliminated that danger. But I
do appreciate the gentleman's interest in an amendment that I offered
that had to do with the penalty for an adult that rapes a juvenile who
may be incarcerated in the vicinity or in the facility of that adult.
I would like to engage the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] in a
colloquy on two points, and that is the penalty for rape of juveniles
in prison, and I would ask the gentleman the ability to work together
with him to ensure that this provision might work its way into this
legislation.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, would the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman knows I tried to put this
in the manager amendment. I think having this penalty for rape by a
corrections guard in a prison is a very important amendment, and
enhances the penalties for that, but unfortunately the Committee on
Rules determined that that would open the scope of the whole bill if it
were adopted to a lot more amendments than would otherwise be permitted
on a variety of subject matters.
So I will work with the gentlewoman in conference. Hopefully, we can
get this into this bill and maybe into an other piece of legislation,
but I strongly support that provision, and I hope we can get it
through, and we will work for it.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Florida, and let me just quickly say that, unfortunately, we had a
situation where a young person was put in for a truancy offense. This
goes to my housing juveniles with adults, existing law that I would
like to change, and this bill does not, and that individual ultimately
committed suicide. I hope that we prospectively can look at those
issues, but moving from that let me also raise with my colleague very
quickly:
As the gentleman well knows I filed the Hillory J. Farias Date Rape
Prevention Act. I appreciate the discussion we had in the committee. We
were not able to get this legislation in this particular bill. In fact,
I think that is good, because it is important to have this issue aired.
This young lady would have graduated this year. She is now dead for the
DHB drug. We have determined that there is no medically redeeming
quality to this drug and DEA has confided, or at least affirmed that is
the case. I would like to engage the gentleman in a very brief colloquy
about the opportunity to have hearings and to see the devastating
impact of the DHB so that this can pass.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman would yield, I fully
intend to hold hearings on this and a number of other Members' bills.
It is my intent as the chairman of the subcommittee to hold a number of
our bills before hearings that Members have, including the one the
gentlewoman has proferred here tonight that she is talking about, and
that will occur over the next few months as we get to Members'
individual bills.
So I look forward to the hearing on it. I do not know my position on
the bill yet, but I will certainly anticipate holding a hearing on it
and giving the gentlewoman every opportunity to convince me and others
that this is the measure we should adopt. I understand it is a serious
problem, and we certainly should look at the bill.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I think the Hillory J. Farias
bill will get the gentleman's attention, and I thank him very much as
chairman.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman I yield myself the balance of the time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 30
seconds.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, as the gentlewoman from Texas has indicated,
we would have liked other amendments, but these amendments are clearly
technical and clarifying, and I would ask the House to support this
manager's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire what amount of time I have
left?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] has 2 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott] is out of time.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time,
and I appreciate very much, I want to take this opportunity to say
this, I appreciate very much the opportunity to work with the gentleman
from Virginia [Mr. Scott] as well as the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Schumer] and all of the members of the subcommittee on both sides of
the aisle.
In crafting the bill that is before us today, the manager's amendment
I know is not controversial. I do not expect a recorded vote on it. We
have outlined it already. But I would like to take the remaining few
seconds to finally express and summarize what is in this bill, and I
know the bill does not contain everything everybody wants. There are a
lot of other things we need to do to fight juvenile crime that are not
in this bill, and it has been understood from the beginning by me and
by those of us who support it. But the bill is a solid good product and
it deserves my colleagues' support.
It is a bill that will go a long way to correcting a collapsing,
failing juvenile justice system in this Nation. Unfortunately, one out
of every five violent crimes in the country are committed by those
under 18, and we only put in detention or any kind of incarceration 1
out of every 10 juveniles who are adjudicated or convicted of violent
crimes.
Now we have an overwhelming number coming aboard as the demographics
change. The FBI estimates doubling the number of teenage violent crimes
if we do not do something about them in the next few years. Most of
this is State. We are dealing with both Federal and State in this bill,
and we are encouraging through an incentive grant program States to
take those steps, including sanctions from the

[[Page H2387]]

very early, very first delinquent act, that are necessary to try to
keep some of these kids through the juvenile justice system from
progressing further and committing these violent crimes ultimately.
We want them to understand there are consequences to their acts and,
even when they throw a brick through a window, run over a parking meter
or spray paint a building, they should get at least community service
or some kind of sanction. It is terribly important. That is what this
bill would encourage States to do and provide a pot of money for the
States to improve their juvenile justice systems by hiring more
probation officers, juvenile judges, building more detention facilities
and the like.
It is not a comprehensive juvenile crime bill. There are other pieces
of this to come later, but it is a very comprehensive approach to
correcting a broken, flawed, failed juvenile justice system throughout
the United States, and I urge my colleagues in the strongest of terms
to vote for the final passage of H.R. 3.

{time} 1500

The CHAIRMAN. All time on the amendment has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. McCollum].
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 7 Offered by Ms. DUNN

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn]
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

recorded vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 398,
noes 21, not voting 14, as follows:

[Roll No. 116]

AYES--398

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boyd
Brady
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Deutsch
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fazio
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryun
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Torres
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--21

Becerra
Buyer
Campbell
Conyers
Dingell
Fattah
Foglietta
Gilman
Greenwood
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
McDermott
Rangel
Sabo
Scott
Stark
Stokes
Towns
Waters
Watt (NC)
Yates

NOT VOTING--14

Boucher
Capps
Clay
Costello
Diaz-Balart
Fawell
Filner
Hefner
Kasich
McKinney
Paxon
Pickering
Schiff
Spratt

{time} 1518

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. GIBBONS, HOEKSTRA, and McDADE changed their vote from ``no''
to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

personal explanation

Mr. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, earlier today the House voted on rollcall
No. 116, the Dunn amendment to the Juvenile Justice Act. Because of a
voting machine malfunction, my vote was not recorded. I wish the record
to reflect that I attempted to vote in favor of this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3, the
Juvenile Crime Control Act of 1997. H.R. 3 gets tough on the No. 1
public safety problem in America--juvenile crime. It attacks the key
problem with the juvenile justice system in America--its failure to
hold all juvenile criminals accountable for their offenses.
Our Nation's juvenile justice system is completely dysfunctional and
badly in need of reform. Remarkably, most juveniles receive no
punishment at all. Nearly 40 percent of violent juvenile offenders who
come into contact with the system have their cases dismissed--and only
10 percent of these criminals receive any sort of institutional
confinement.
By the time the courts finally lock up an older teen on a violent
crime, the offender often has a long rap sheet with arrests starting in
the early teens. Juveniles who vandalize stores and homes--or write
graffiti on buildings--rarely come before a juvenile court. Kids don't
fear the consequences of their actions because they are rarely held
accountable.
How did we let this happen? First, there isn't enough detention space
for juvenile criminals. Second, there are not enough alternative
punishments. And third, there are still too many well intended but
mistaken judges who view juvenile criminals as merely children in need
of special care.
Now, here's the really bad news. Experts say that juvenile arrests
for violent crimes will

[[Page H2388]]

more than double by 2010. The FBI predicts that juveniles arrested for
murder will increase by 145 percent; forcible rape arrests will
increase by 66 percent; and aggravated assault arrests will increase by
129 percent. In the remaining years of the decade and throughout the
next, America will experience a 31-percent increase in the teenage
population--as children of baby boomers come of age. In other words, we
are going to have a surge in the population group that poses the
biggest threat to public safety.
H.R. 3 would establish a Federal model for holding juvenile criminals
accountable through workable procedures, adult punishment for serious
violent crimes, and graduated sanctions for every juvenile offense. The
bill directs the Attorney General to establish an aggressive program
for getting gun-wielding, repeat violent juveniles off the streets.
H.R. 3 also encourages the States, with incentive grants for building
and operating juvenile detention facilities, to punish all juvenile
criminals appropriately. Punishing juvenile criminals for every offense
is crime prevention. When youthful offenders face consequences for
their wrongdoing, criminal careers stop before they start. H.R. 3
encourages States to provide a sanction for every act of wrong doing--
starting with the first offense--and increasing in severity with each
subsequent offense, which is the best method for directing youngsters
away from a path of crime while they are still amenable to such
encouragements.
I should emphasize that H.R. 3 is part of a larger legislative effort
to combat juvenile crime. The prevention funding in the
administration's juvenile crime bill falls under the jurisdiction of
the Committee on Education and the Workforce. That committee will be
bringing forth a juvenile crime prevention bill within the next several
weeks. It is my hope that a bipartisan agreement will be reached that
funds $70 to $80 million in new prevention block grants to the States--
these grants will target at-risk and delinquent youth. In addition,
that bill will be a small but significant part of the more than $4
billion that the Federal Government will spend this year on at-risk and
delinquent.
Accountability and prevention are not mutually exclusive. We need to
restore the foundation of our broken juvenile justice system by holding
young offenders accountable for their crimes, and we need to invest in
prevention programs that work. I believe that this dual approach will
put a real dent in juvenile crime across the Nation.
H.R. 3 addresses the crisis of juvenile crime in America today by
establishing model procedures for prosecuting juveniles and by giving
significant incentives to the States to fix their juvenile justice
systems.
I urge you to support this bill and begin the process of repairing
America's collapsed juvenile justice system.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this Democratic
amendment to the Juvenile Crime Control Act because it accomplishes
what the Republican bill does not: It heeds the cry of law enforcement
officers who are asking for help at the local level, in the precinct
and on the beat, and it adheres to the values that make our communities
safe and our families strong. It provides the resources to those who
are on the front lines of law enforcement, at the local level: the
police officer, district judges, and DA's and community leaders who are
rallying together to stop the scourge of gang violence and drugs in
their streets. It confronts the tragedy of juvenile crime through a
balanced approach of tough enforcement and smart intervention and
prevention.
The Republican bill is weak on crime because it starts at the jail-
house door. The bill that Republicans present to us today fails on
several accounts: It is extreme in treating children as adults in the
Federal juvenile justice system--it offers no assistance to local law
enforcement unless they get in line with the new federalism forced on
local jurisdictions as proscribed by Republican criteria--and, finally,
it is unbalanced because it ignores what law-enforcement officials have
been telling us for years: if you want to curb juvenile crime, you've
got to be tough, you've got to be fair, and you've got to be hands-on,
child-by-child to intervene before they experiment with drugs and join
gangs and prevent them from becoming another fatality of a justice
system that has been designed by political sound-byte rather than a
smart and effective anticrime strategy.
The first question we have to ask ourselves, as a society, as
parents, as human beings, is this: Do we want a system of justice that
places the highest premium on warehousing juvenile offenders, in jails
which propagate further criminal behavior, or do we want to provide
local communities and law enforcement with the ability to put in place
the mechanisms to help us as a society, deal with the reasons that lead
our kids to use drugs and join gangs, because they have grown up in a
situation where they have nowhere else to turn?
It ignores what is going on with our kids. Every day in America,
5,711 juveniles are arrested--more than 300 children are arrested for
violent crimes. Every day, more than 13,000 students are suspended from
public schools and more than 3,300 high school students drop out
altogether. Drug use is on the rise for 13 to 18-year-olds, violent
gang-related crimes are being committed by hardened juvenile criminals,
and teen pregnancy is still a major problem. But I would argue that
these are indirect social costs of something deeper and more pervasive
that is going on. When you consider what is happening to our
communities and the family, when you consider that there are no safe
havens for many kids who are literally growing in communities that are
under fire from gang activity and drug trafficking, you come to a
different place in this debate.
At a time when child care experts are telling us that the formative
years of a child's life determines whether that child will be well-
balanced or emotionally challenged for the remainder of his or her
life, we need to pay attention to the environment in which our children
are growing up in: Kids go to schools shadowed by hunger because they
haven't had a proper breakfast, they are sent to second-rate, crumbling
schools that are dangerous to their health and contrary to a positive
learning environment, they go home each night in many cases without
adult supervision are left to fend for themselves. And the younger kids
are often left in understaffed day-care facilities that operate like
kennels.
Our kids need to learn responsibility and respect. They need to learn
how to make smart, good choices in a world full of bad ones. But how
can they when all of the odds are stacked against them? We can't afford
to play these odds any more--our children, our futures are at stake.
This is not about codding hardened criminals that lack a conscience
and who take it out on innocent people who happen to be in the wrong
place at the wrong time. This is not about giving a break to children
because they are children, when they are killing other children. This
is about giving the people who must apprehend, prosecute, and sentence
these juveniles--the ability to hold these children accountable for
their actions, and giving them a choice in how they will do that. This
gives communities the ability to get to these kids before they ruin
their lives and the lives of those around them. This gives families the
means to prevent their kids from becoming both the victims of as well
as the perpetrator of crimes, this gives kids the opportunity to choose
another path.
We call for a zero-tolerance policy toward gang activity. We taught
juvenile delinquents who commit violent crimes and crimes involving
firearms. We provide resources for local communities to hire more
police to prevent juvenile crime, more drug intervention efforts to
provide drug treatment, education, and enforcement. And we provide
resources to localities to set up antigang police units and task
forces.
When Democrats first designed this approach in our families first
agenda last year, we talked to the people who are most affected by
crime: Average working families in neighborhoods all across this great
Nation. They told us this is what they wanted to help them deal locally
with the threats that face them and their children. Let us give the
people what they are asking for today, let us give them a balanced
approach to juvenile justice, give us your vote on the Stupak-Stenholm-
Lofgren-Scott substitute.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to qualify my vote for
Representative Dunn's amendment to H.R. 3, the Juvenile Crime Control
Act of 1997. Representative Dunn has advised me that it is her
intention that her amendment would allow States to develop plans which
provide for the notification of school officials of the presence of
juvenile sex offenders, and for those officials to appropriately inform
parents. States with plans such as this would qualify for the Byrne
grant funds.
I support appropriate notification of communities when sex offenders
are released but I

[[Page H2389]]

am also concerned that direct notification of parents could cause
vigilantism. The rationale behind notification is to provide for the
safest environment to the community. Providing this information,
without context or supervision by school officials, could undermine the
intended results.
An example of the unfortunate circumstances that this amendment could
lead to happened quite recently. In Manhattan, KS, the completely
innocent Lumpkins family was unfairly victimized by their community
when a list of sexual offenders in the area included their address.
People threw rocks at their home and their daughter was harassed by
neighbors. The Kansas Bureau of Investigation admitted it was an easy
mistake to make.
In schools, similar vigilante action would be prevented by
notification of official and development by the school of guidelines
for the method and details of parents suitable to the situation.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3, the
Juvenile Crime Control Act of 1997. Let me state from the beginning
that I recognize the challenge we face in curbing crime in our Nation.
In fact, I have been a longstanding advocate for strong congressional
action to reduce and prevent violence and crime. Nonetheless, I cannot
support crime control measures which compromise our commitment to
preventative or rehabilitative strategies for our Nation's most
valuable resource, our children. Therefore, I must oppose this measure
before us today.
Mr. Speaker, the stated objective of the Juvenile Crime Control Act
of 1997 is to revise provisions of the Federal criminal code to permit
Federal authorities to prosecute juveniles, as young as 13 years of
age, as adults. It is my belief that our judicial system's major focus
should be to protect its children from harm, not to throw them into our
society as hardened criminals without any attempt to reform them.
H.R. 3 would essentially give up on America's juvenile justice system
and ultimately give up on America's troubled youth. The bill would
allow State and Federal courts to try and imprison children in
facilities with adults. Instead of improving the current system of
rehabilitating underage offenders, or funding proven and cost-effective
prevention programs, this legislation would have the courts give up on
at-risk youth.

In addition, H.R. 3 is based on assumptions proven to be ineffective.
Studies have shown that children who are housed in juvenile facilities
are 29 percent less likely to commit another crime than those jailed
with adults. In addition, the danger to children housed with adults is
real. In 1994 alone, 45 children died while they were held in State
adult prisons or adult detention facilities.
Mr. Speaker, there can be no doubt that the draconian measures
mandated by this legislation will have a disproportionally unfair
impact on African-American young people. A Washington-based advocacy
group, known as the ``Sentencing Project,'' confirmed this fact when it
reported that a shocking one-third, or 32.2 percent of young black men
in the age group 20-29 is in prison, jail, probation, or on parole. In
contrast, white males of the same age group are incarcerated at a rate
that is only 6.7 percent.
As the Nation experiences a slight overall decline in the crime rate,
5,300 black men of every 100,000 in the United States are in prison or
jail. This compares to an overall rate of 500 per 100,000 for the
general population, and is nearly five times the rate which black men
were imprisoned in the apartheid era of South Africa. America is now
the biggest incarcerator in the world and spends billions of dollars
each year to incarcerate young people.
Mr. Speaker, the number of African-American males under criminal
justice control is over 827,000. This figure exceeds the number of
African-American males enrolled in higher education. The Juvenile
Justice Act of 1997 is a step in the wrong direction. We need to do all
that we can to promote crime prevention measures to ensure that our
children never start a life of crime. Furthermore, we must not give up
on our Nation's most valuable resource, our young people. I urge my
colleagues to protect our youth, and vote down this unconscionable
measure.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, due to previously scheduled commitments in
my district, I am unable to make the final two votes on H.R. 3, the
Juvenile Crime Control Act. I strongly support the bill, and have voted
today for many amendments to strengthen the bill. I oppose the motion
to recommit with instructions because such a move would strip the bill
of the very provisions which make it good legislation. Thus, I support
final passage of the bill. I hope that the Senate will take up this
measure quickly and that the President will sign the Juvenile Crime
Control Act as soon as possible. Unfortunately, there are cases of
juvenile crime where Federal prosecutors need the authority to try
juvenile offenders as adults. This legislation would grant that
authority and make available block grants to restore the effectiveness
of State and local juvenile justice systems. This is good legislation
which all Members of the House should support.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of H.R. 3, the
Juvenile Crime Control Act of 1997. This highly focused bill deals with
violent juvenile offenders on the Federal level. H.R. 3 addresses the
issue of incarcerating violent juvenile offenders at the Federal level
by lowering the age at which a judge may waive a violent juvenile
offender into adult court; treats juvenile records the same as adult
records; and increases accountability for juveniles adjudicated
delinquent and their parents. The measure also encourages placing
juveniles younger than 16 in suitable juvenile facility prior to
disposition or sentencing. For juveniles 16 and older, it provides for
their detention in a suitable place designated by the Attorney General.
This by no means requires that juvenile offenders on the Federal level
be housed with adults. In addition, H.R. 3 provides that every juvenile
detained prior to disposition or sentencing shall be provided with
reasonable safety and security.
H.R. 3 provides incentives for States to emulate this new approach.
The grant program in H.R. 3 would be authorized at $500 million for 3
years. States must meet certain requirements if they are to obtain
money from grants authorized by H.R. 3--e.g., they must try violent
juvenile felons as young as 15 as adults; they must treat juvenile
records like adult records; and they must permit parent-accountability
orders. States which meet all the criteria could use the money for
various initiatives such as establishing and maintaining
accountability-based programs that work with juvenile offenders who are
referred by law enforcement agencies, or which are designed in
cooperation with law enforcement officials, to protect students and
school personnel from drugs, gangs, and youth violence.
Although I support H.R. 3, I realize it does not address the issue of
nonviolent offenders on the State and Federal level, nor does it
provide prevention and rehabilitation programs for juvenile offenders.
These issues should be addressed when Congress reauthorizes the
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974. That is the
appropriate time and the correct venue to aid our communities in
developing programs to help youth stay away from crime, gangs, drugs
and guns. Juvenile justice officials in Hawaii have asked for help in
funding prevention programs, substance abuse programs, support programs
for children who have little or no family life, and programs that would
give State court judges an alternative program to deal with certain
juvenile offenders instead of sending them to correctional facilities.
I am sure my colleagues have heard similar requests from juvenile
justice officials in their districts.
Sending children to jail and throwing away the key while ignoring
prevention and rehabilitation programs will not effectively reduce
juvenile crime or be cost-effective. A 1996 study by the RAND Corp.
found that early intervention and prevention programs are, indeed,
cost-effective solutions for reducing the juvenile crime rate. The
study indicates that prevention programs which focus on early
intervention in the lives of children who are at greatest risk of
eventual delinquent behavior are effective in reducing arrest and
rearrest rates.
We need to send a message to juveniles: If you commit a violent
offense you will be punished accordingly. However, at the same time we
must continue our attempt to reach kids, to get them involved in their
communities, and to prevent them from taking part in dangerous
activities in the first place. I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 3
and to strongly support a debate occurring this year on reauthorization
of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in opposition to
H.R. 3, the Juvenile Crime Control Act or what I call the Anti-Florida/
Anti-Juvenile Justice Act.
Although the author of this bill is from my home State of Florida,
this bill does nothing to assist Florida's juvenile justice system.
As a former Florida State representative, with a degree in
criminology, and a longstanding member of the State Corrections
Committee, I can say that Mr. McCollum's proposal is anti-Florida and
does nothing to address crime prevention.
According to the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, H.R. 3
should not be mandatory and connected to purse strings. The proposed
Federal mandate will eliminate the State's attorney's discretion to
prosecute adolescent offenders in juvenile court.
In fact, the bill will have the opposite effect of what it is
intended to do. With the discretion of the Florida State's attorney,
the majority of 15-year-olds receive tougher sentence in a juvenile
correctional facility. If tried as an adult, H.R. 3 will actually give
Florida's 15-year-olds lighter sanctions. I thought Mr. McCollum wanted
to increase juvenile punishments, not reduce them.
Under H.R. 3, 75 percent of the funding formula will be given to
county governments.

[[Page H2390]]

Florida has a State-financed and operated juvenile justice system.
Instead of providing money for existing State programs, this bill will
create yet another level of bureaucracy. I don't understand why the
author of such legislation would want to bypass his own State's
juvenile justice system.
Now let's talk about the children. Under H.R. 3, juveniles as young
as 13 can be tried and jailed as adults, their records will be opened
to public scrutiny, and they will live side by side with society's most
violent criminals. To punish these young children as adults is severe,
to say the least.
This so-called juvenile justice bill doesn't care much for children.
H.R. 3 will put more 15-year-olds in jail with violent adults than ever
before. I don't think child abuse, rape, and suicide of jailed children
is a justifiable punishment for simple misdemeanors and property
crimes.
As leaders of our country, we should give our children opportunities
to excel and reasons to turn away from crime and delinquency. It is
proven that focus on prevention and early intervention are most
effective at deterring juveniles from committing crimes.
H.R. 3 does nothing to prevent crime or offer solutions to juvenile
crime. If you're in favor of putting these children with child abusers,
rapists, and murderers, vote for H.R. 3. If you want to contribute to
the problem of overcrowded correctional facilities, which is our
Nation's fastest growing industry, vote for H.R. 3.
Instead of increasing the prison population and encouraging our
children to become career criminals, let's spend our time and resources
finding ways to contribute to our children's future, not destroying it.
Vote against H.R. 3, the Anti-Florida/Anti-Juvenile Justice Act.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer my best wishes and
support to the Lima-Allen County, OH, branch of the NAACP, as its
members make their final preparations for their annual radiothon. The
event, planned for May 24 at the Bradfield Community Center in Lima,
will join the Lima-Allen County branch with other branches of the NAACP
from across the Nation in an effort to attract new members from the
Lima-Allen County community, as well as to inspire old members to renew
their commitment.
The chapter president, Rev. Robert Curtis, and my friend Malcolm
McCoy, deserve special recognition for their work with the
organization. I wish them success in their upcoming radiothon and
particularly commend their positive influence on the young people of
Lima and Allen County.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, this bill holds out a false hope. It may
reduce some juvenile crime by forcing States to impose longer sentences
on young offenders. But in return, it will guarantee that many of those
young offenders will become career criminals. We should not pay that
price. Nor should we force the States to forfeit their freedom and
ingenuity in how they handle juvenile offenders as the price for
Federal assistance in preventing and punishing juvenile violence.
Very few Federal crimes are committed by juveniles. Rather, almost
all juvenile crime--including almost all violent crime--is State crime.
So what this bill really intends is to require the States to prosecute
more juveniles as adults. In fact, for most heinous crimes, the States
already prosecute most juvenile offenders as adults.
I'm somewhat surprised that so many of my colleagues think that we in
the House of Representatives know better than the States how to deal
with juvenile crime. We've heard for the last several years that State
and local officials know best about other problems. What makes this
subject so different?
Let the States decide how to handle the complex problems associated
with juvenile crime. We have supported the States in their juvenile
justice efforts, and we don't need to impose our views about when to
prosecute children as adults. Nor do we need to push the States to ease
States restrictions on incarcerating juveniles separately from adult
offenders.
What happens when you incarcerate children with adult violent
offenders? You get eight times as many suicides; you get dramatic
increases in acts of sexual assault and brutality against those
children; and you increase the likelihood that the children will become
career criminals.
Unfortunately, this bill would push the States to mix violent adult
offenders not just with violent convicted juveniles but also with
nonviolent offenders and even with children awaiting trial who've never
been convicted. William R. Woodward, who is the director of the
Division of Criminal Justice in the Colorado Department of Public
Safety, and Bob Pence, who is chair of the Colorado Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention Council, agree that H.R. 3's provisions on
incarcerating children with adults would be counterproductive.
It's tough enough to try to steer juvenile offenders away from a life
of crime. H.R. 3 would make it much tougher.
H.R. 3 also unwisely intrudes on State authorities requiring that
State judges be stripped of their power to determine whether young
people charged with crimes should be tried as adults. How far do the
bill's supporters want to meddle in State matters? What does this
legislation do to encourage the States to deal with the prevention of
Juvenile crime? Nothing. We should be supporting State efforts to
prevent young people from getting into criminal behavior, efforts such
as mentoring programs and after-school programs. Instead, this bill
would direct resources from these efforts.
The Democratic substitute contains the ounce of prevention that
deserves our enthusiastic support. H.R. 3 is punitive and misguided,
and it should be defeated.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in reluctant opposition to
the Juvenile Crime Control Act currently before the House. I firmly
believe we must be tough on repeat juvenile offenders. Juvenile crime
is not only continuing to grow, but it is one of the most troubling
issues facing law enforcement officials and the communities they seek
to protect. This bill doesn't make productive changes in this area.
Rather, it preempts State authority, imposes a one-size-fits-all
solution, and has a discriminatory impact on native American youth. I
would like to elaborate on my concerns at this time.
First, this bill takes extreme steps to preempt State authority in
determining how prosecutors will deal with those who violate State
laws. North Dakota communities, including those on our four Indian
reservations, need additional resources to build, expand, and operate
juvenile correction and detention facilities. But in order to get this
help, they must sign off lock-stock-and-barrel on the Federal
prescriptions contained in H.R. 3 about the prosecution of State
crimes. I have the utmost confidence in the sound judgment of North
Dakota prosecutors, judges, parents, and community leaders to determine
how best to deal with juvenile crime in our State.
Second, this bill imposes a Washington one-size-fits-all solution to
the problem of juvenile crime. North Dakota is not similar to downtown
Los Angeles. While the problem of juvenile crime in my State is
significant and growing worse, it bares no relationship to what is
happening in our Nation's urban centers. North Dakota law enforcement
officials take this issue seriously and are taking steps to address the
problem.
One example of the overly prescriptive nature of this bill that I
would like to cite, is the requirement that each U.S. attorney's office
establish a task force to coordinate the apprehension of armed violent
youth with State and local law enforcement. This may be an urgent
problem in New York or Los Angeles; it is not a problem currently
facing our communities. Law enforcement officials need to be given the
resources and then be allowed to determine how best to deal with
juvenile crime.
Third, I have serious concerns about this bill's impact on native
American youth. The only real arena in my State where Federal courts
are the primary courts for addressing juvenile crime are crimes that
occur on Indian reservations. By modifying Federal law to treat
juveniles--as young as 13--as adults, this bill has a discriminatory
impact on youth living on our Nation's reservations. I don't believe it
is fair for these kids to be singled out for tougher punishment than
their classmates who are non-Indians.
As a whole, this bill represents a flawed strategy for dealing with
juvenile crime. While I believe incarceration of violent youth
offenders should be used as a tool to combat teenage crime, it should
not be the only tool. H.R. 3 completely ignores the possibility that
these juvenile offenders--as young as 13--can be rehabilitated. Rather
than allow some of the funds contained in the bill to be used for
programs to turn these kids around, this bill limits the funding
strictly to incarceration of these youths. If we have no hope of
rehabilitating 13-year-olds, then by passing this bill, we are making a
very sad statement about the future of our country.
The substitute I supported, embodied a more balanced approach to this
serious problem. It required that 60 percent of the $500 million annual
authorization be given to local communities for prevention programs.
Funding could also be used to establish comprehensive treatment,
education, training, and after-care programs for juveniles in detention
facilities; implementing graduated sanctions for juvenile offenders;
and for juvenile courts to implement intensive delinquency supervision
efforts.
These concerns were paramount in my consideration of this bill. An
additional factor that led me to oppose the bill is the fact that North
Dakota does not currently qualify for the 3-year funding included in
H.R. 3. Even if my State were to decide to abide by the Federal
prescriptions over violations of State laws in order to gain additional
resources, our legislature does not meet again until 1999. I am hopeful
that when H.R. 3 reaches the Senate, reasonable modifications can be
made to

[[Page H2391]]

make the bill both tough and smart in dealing with juvenile crime.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong
opposition to H.R. 3, the Juvenile Crime Control Act. This piece of
legislation is too extreme in its treatment of juveniles in the system,
both in its insistence on prosecuting more juveniles as adults and in
allowing juveniles to be housed with adults, and because it fails to
include any measures aimed at preventing juvenile crime. Moreover, as
written, the bill fails to include provisions crucial to the fight
against crime including real prevention funding, drug control efforts,
gun control efforts, and provisions aimed at targeting gang activity.
Mr. Chairman, it is in my opinion that we need to foster a
relationship between communities, law enforcement, schools, social
services, business communities, and government agencies in order to
create partnerships that thwart juvenile violence. Initiatives that
target truants, dropouts, children who fear going to school, suspended
or expelled students, and youth going back into school settings
following release from juvenile correctional facilities, are needed to
keep the minds of our youth on the path of righteousness instead of
destruction.
Mr. Chairman, another one of my primary concerns with the majority's
legislation is that it allows juveniles to be housed with adults.
First, the bill allows juveniles and adults to be housed together in
pretrial detention. Perhaps most disturbingly, this provision would
permit children who have not been accused of violent crimes to be held
in adult jails. Children charged with petty offenses like shoplifting
or motor vehicle violations could be held with adult inmates.
Mr. Chairman, most significantly, H.R. 3 fails to include a
meaningful prevention program. The Federal Government should give local
governments money to assist them in finding ways to stop the children
in their communities from getting involved in crime in the first place.
Money should be available for boys and girls clubs, mentoring programs,
after school activities, and other programs that are researched-based
and have been proven to work and are cost effective. In the same vein,
money should also be spent on early intervention for youth at risk of
committing crimes and intervention programs for first offenders at risk
of committing more serious crimes.
Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we can work in a more bipartisan
manner when it comes to juvenile crime. We all know and understand that
crime, on any level, is not partisan--it affects us all--so let us try
to bring forth legislation that is both fair and sensible to all.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the
Gephardt-Stupak-Stenholm substitute to H.R. 3. The substitute places
the focus where it belongs--on prevention of youth violence and crime.
The majority's attempt to get tough on crime is not tough, it is cruel,
and it lacks a basic understanding or caring for youth violence
prevention.
Prevention and early intervention are effective solutions to youth
violent crime. Yet the block grant provided in H.R. 3 does not provide
funds for prevention programs. Mentoring and after school programs can
be successful in deterring youth violence. But this bill focuses only
on tougher punishment.
Trying young offenders as adults is not proven to deter crime. In
fact, the Department of Justice reports that children tried as adults
have a higher rate as repeat offenders than children tried as
juveniles. Juveniles charged in the Federal adult or juvenile Justice
systems should be placed in juvenile facilities, where they can receive
counseling and rehabilitation.
What is the purpose of H.R. 3. Will it reduce crime? No. It treats
youth as adults in detention, which diminishes the chance for their
rehabilitation. This will not deter young people from violence. It will
just eliminate the opportunity for first time youth offenders to change
their lives for the better.
We can already charge violent juveniles as adults. Our emphasis must
be on prevention if we really want to get tough on youth violence and
crime. I urge my colleagues to support the Gephardt-Stupak-Stenholm
substitute. Our focus and our efforts must be expended on preventing
the increase of violent young criminals, not on increasing their
hopelessness.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 3,
the Juvenile Crime Control Act. The problem of juvenile crime is so
intricate that is defies easy solutions. However, in the drive to
increase public safety and reduce juvenile crime, the measure reported
to the House has lost sight not only of the complexity of the juvenile
crime problem but also the success of existing local enforcement
agencies and community initiatives in keeping juveniles out of gangs
and crime free. There is a richness of policy choices that we could
implement to combat juvenile crime and delinquency if Congress chooses
to provide funds and help. H.R. 3, however, does not capitalize on the
proven success of early intervention and prevention programs, but
rather relies on get tough measures that do little to reduce crime or
address its root causes. It favors reactionary measures rather than a
proactive approach.
Let me be clear that there is a need for swift and effective
punishment for incarceration and according adult treatment for the
juveniles that commit violent crimes. However, the emphasis to make
real progress does not rest solely on providing $30,000.00 per year for
each youth held in juvenile detention facilities; rather it is in
changing the outcome by earlier intervention.
Given the alarming rate of crime and the disproportionate amount
committed by juveniles, punitive provisions and get tough provisions
are widely attractive and politically appealing. Yet, such punitive
measures repeatedly fail to deliver the results promised by their
proponents. Evidence suggests that routinely trying juveniles as adults
actually results in increased recidivism. States with higher rates of
transferring children to adult court, as a glaring example, do not have
lower rates of juvenile homicide. Finally, children in adult
institutions are five times more likely to be sexually assaulted, twice
as likely to be beaten by staff, and 50 percent more likely to be
attacked with a weapon than children in a juvenile facility. Treating
more children as adults in the criminal justice system does not move us
any closer to our common goal--it does not create safer communities.

On the other hand, several studies have highlighted the long-term
positive impact of prevention programs. Prevention works--it is the
most effective and cost-efficient crime deterrent. According to a
recent Rand Corp. study, prevention programs stop more serious crimes
per dollar spent than incarceration. H.R. 3 ignores these findings and
travels down a shortsighted policy path that cuts social spending to
fund prison construction suggesting that another measure will address
this issue, as if we can afford to spend these funds irrationally and
let the prevention matters rest with traditional education and
recreation programs.
H.R. 3 poses ineffective gang and gun violence solutions. Because
youth gangs and guns play a disproportionate role in ascending juvenile
violence, any strategy to reduce youth crime must contain sound
provisions that combat the spread and growing violence of gang and gun
violence nationwide. Between 1992 to 1996 the number of gang-related
crimes has increased a staggering 196 percent. Juvenile gang killings,
the fastest growing of all homicide categories, rose by 371 percent
from 1980 to 1992. Despite this reality, H.R. 3 contains no provisions
to curb gang violence.
This measure reflects a failed policy path, not a break with the past
but a radical untested or inappropriate response to the needs of our
youth juvenile crime circumstance.
I think that Members on both sides of the aisle should agree with the
common facts, that when it comes to addressing the unique public safety
concerns of our districts, the programs and responses must be built on
the unique situations within the community. Different problems and
populations require specific solutions. However, H.R. 3 prescribes
inflexible Federal solutions to what is uniquely a problem of State and
local jurisdiction. Currently there are only 197 juveniles serving
Federal sentences. Local governments, on the other hand, are fighting
the crime problem on many fronts, including innovative policing and
social programs. By exercising air-tight controls over the grant money
that is offered to States and local communities, H.R. 3 denies them the
flexibility required to respond to situations on the ground. Local
governments need more flexibility, not Federal mandates. Federally
imposed strategies which limit the ability of local governments to
respond to community needs, ensure that the war on crime is not fought
with the efficiency or effectiveness that is necessary to reduce the
incidence of crime and attain the safe environment our constituents
seek.
Mr. FAZIO of California. I rise today in support of the Juvenile
Offender Control and Prevention Act, the Democratic substitute to H.R.
3. This substitute addresses a serious problem that affects all of
America. That problem is juvenile crime. House Democrats have worked
long and hard during the 105th Congress to develop an approach to
juvenile crime that is both tough and smart.
Our proposal includes elements that crack down on violent juvenile
offenders and juvenile gangs along with provisions to support
prevention and intervention initiatives that keep kids out of trouble.
We believe in strengthening the juvenile justice system to reduce
crime, while at the same time working to prevent juveniles from
becoming delinquents.
No one disputes the fact that we must be tough on youth who commit
crimes, particularly those crimes that are violent in nature. However,
study after study shows that prevention efforts are the best way to
permanently reduce juvenile crime. The RAND Corp., a conservative think
tank, concluded in a recent

[[Page H2392]]

study that cost-effective crime reduction can be achieved through
prevention strategies. The study found that incarceration without
prevention and intervention does not go far enough in reducing crime.
H.R. 3, the McCollum bill, contains not a single provision for
prevention efforts. The Democratic substitute is a balanced approach
that includes enforcement and prevention. The prevention initiatives
that could be funded through our proposal are community-based,
research-proven, and cost-effective.
Notice that I said community-based. We believe that local communities
know best how to deal with the juvenile crime that affects their
neighborhoods. Our proposal would provide funding for prosecutors to
develop antigang units and other such mechanisms to address juvenile
violence in their communities. The needs of one city or town may be
vastly different from the needs of another. The Democratic substitute
would allow one town to obtain funding to build a much-needed juvenile
detention facility, while a larger city nearby might hire additional
juvenile court judges. This flexibility is an essential part of our
proposal.
The Republican juvenile crime bill is extreme, and would undoubtedly
prove ineffective in reducing and preventing crime. Our substitute
combines enforcement with prevention for a tough and smart approach to
fighting juvenile crime. I urge your support for the Democratic
substitute to H.R. 3.
Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, the time has come to address the issue of
juvenile crime in our country. Teenagers are committing more crimes
than ever. Over one-fifth of all violent crimes committed in America
are committed by individuals under the age of 18.
This statistic is alarming, and clearly signals that we need to take
action. young people must be held accountable for their actions.
Currently, only 10 percent of violent juvenile offenders--those
convicted of murder, rape, robbery, or assault--receive any sort of
confinement outside the home. What kind of a deterrent is that? And
what does it say to these young people about accountability? Not must.
I believe that accountability, combined with stepped-up prevention
efforts, is the key to reducing juvenile crime; and the Juvenile Crime
Control Act of 1997 is a great start toward reaching that goal. This
bill lets young people know that if they are going to behave like
adults, they will have to take on personal responsibility of adults--
and face the consequences of their actions.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3, the Juvenile Crime Control
Act of 1997.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3, the Juvenile
Crime Control Act.
While the overall crime rate in the United States has fallen in
recent years, violent juvenile crime has increased drastically. And
what is more shocking and more alarming, is that violent crime can be
perpetrated by 12-year-olds. Instead of playing baseball or fishing,
many of today's juveniles are engaging in mayhem. Between 1965 and
1992, the number of 12-year-olds arrested for violent crime rose 211
percent; the number of 13- and 14-year-olds rose 301 percent; and the
number of 15-year-olds arrested for violent crime rose 297 percent. We
are not talking about shoplifting or truancy, or petty thievery. We are
talking about violent crime: murder, rape, battery, arson, and robbery.
Older teenagers, ages 17, 18, and 19, are the most violent in
America. More murder and robbery are committed by 18-year-old males
than any other group.
We have seen this increase in juvenile crime occur at a time when the
demographics show a reduced juvenile population overall. Soon we will
see the echo boom of the baby boomers' children reaching their teenaged
years. If the current trend in juvenile crime is left unchanged, the
FBI predicts that juvenile arrests for violent crime will more than
double by the year 2010. That results in more murder, more rape, more
aggravated assault, and unfortunately, more victims of crime.
I salute the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] for his hard work
to head off the coming crime wave. H.R. 3 would provide resources to
States and local communities to address their juvenile crime needs, to
get tough on juvenile offenders, and to provide fairness to the victims
of violent juvenile crime.
Individuals must be held accountable for their actions. Juveniles
particularly need to get the message that actions have consequences.
Unfortunately, today nearly 40 percent of violent juvenile offenders
have their cases dismissed. By the time a violent juvenile receives any
sort of secure confinement, the offender has a record a mile long. We
need to change the message from one of ``getting away with it'' to one
of accountability. States and localities who enforce accountability
will be able to get Federal resources to help.
Law-abiding citizens, young and old alike, need assurance that
violent criminals, even if they are teenagers, will be held accountable
and sanctioned and that the victims will receive justice.
I urge the adoption of H.R. 3.
Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in defense of our children.
The crime bills under consideration by this Congress all seek to
reduce the age and increase the likelihood that children as young as 13
would be tried as adults.
They further lessen restrictions on housing them with generally more
hardened adults, and increases mandatory sentencing for this age group.
I strongly object all of these provisions.
First, while children who commit crimes must be punished, they should
be treated and sentenced as the children that they are. We must
remember that regardless of the crime, they have not yet achieved the
degree of insight, judgment, or level of responsibility attributable to
adults. They are also open to rehabilitation.
Trying them as adults and housing them with adults have never been
shown to reduce crime. Instead we have been shown time and time again
that if it does anything at all, it increases criminal behavior rather
than reduces it.
We must not forget that young people of 13, 14, 15, and 16 are still
children, and understand how they think. Because adolescents are
notorious for their feeling of invulnerability, we have to recognize
that they will never be motivated or respond to stiffer penalties.
From our own experience as parents, when our small child plays with
an electrical outlet, or near a stove, we don't ignore it until he or
she burns themselves, but early on we rap them on their hands to send
them a clear and strong behavior changing message.
This is what we need to do in the case of our young people, who we
must also remember ended up in the courts because we as a society have
neglected their needs for generations. We have funded programs that
reach them early and deal with them in an immediate and tangible manner
that redirects their behavior in a more positive way.
And we must reach them before they get to the despair that juvenile
delinquency represents, not only by funding after school activities,
but by improving their in-school experience, by reinstating school
repair and construction funding in the 1998 budget, by equiping those
schools and by providing meaningful opportunities for them when they do
apply themselves, and as our President likes to say, play by the rules.
Communities across America have found successful ways of dealing with
this issue. Prosecutors, correction facility directors, policemen and
women, attorneys, doctors, crime victims, community organizations, and
others have come together to ask that we pass meaningful and effective
legislation, and they stress that the focus must be on prevention.
We must stop crime, and we must save our children
I ask my colleagues to support the Democratic bill because it employs
strategies that have been proven to effectively achieve both of these
goals.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Juvenile
Crime Control Act of 1997. This bill, if passed, will further expand
the authority of this country's national police force. Despite the
Constitutional mandate that jurisdiction over such matters is relegated
to the States, the U.S. Congress refuses to acknowledge that the
Constitution stands as a limitation on centralized Government power and
that the few enumerated Federal powers include no provision for
establishment of a Federal juvenile criminal justice system. Lack of
Constitutionality is what today's debate should be about.
Unfortunately, it is not. At a time when this Congress needs to focus
on ways to reduce the power of the Federal Government and Federal
spending, Congress will instead vote on a bill which, if passed, will
do just the opposite.
In the name of an inherently-flawed, Federal war on drugs and the
resulting juvenile crime problem, the well-meaning, good-intentioned
Members of Congress continue to move the Nation further down the path
of centralized-Government implosion by appropriating yet more Federal
taxpayer money and brandishing more U.S. prosecutors at whatever
problem happens to be brought to the floor by any Members of Congress
hoping to gain political favor with some special-interest group. The
Juvenile Crime Control Act is no exception.
It seems to no longer even matter whether governmental programs
actually accomplish their intended goals or have any realistic hope of
solving problems. No longer does the end even justify the means. All
that now matters is that Congress do something. One must ask how many
new problems genuinely warrant new Federal legislation. After all, most
legislation is enacted to do little more than correct inherently-flawed
existing interventionary legislation with more inherently-flawed
legislation. Intervention, after all, necessarily begets more
intervention as another futile attempt to solve the misallocations
generated by the preceding iterations.
More specific to H.R. 3, this bill denies localities and State
governments a significant

[[Page H2393]]

portion of their autonomy by, among other provisions, directing the
Justice Department to establish an Armed Violent Youth Apprehension
program. Under this program, one Federal prosecutor would be designated
in every U.S. Attorney's office and would prosecute armed violent
youth. Additionally, a task force would coordinate the apprehension of
armed violent youth with State and local law enforcement. Of course,
anytime the Federal Government said it would ``coordinate'' a program
with State officials, the result has inevitably been more Federal
control. Subjecting local enforcement officials, the result has
inevitably been more Federal control. Subjecting local enforcement
officials, many of whom are elected, to the control of Federal
prosecutors is certainly reinventing government but it is reinventing a
government inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution.
This bill also erodes State and local autonomy by requiring that
States prosecute children as young as 15 years old in adult court. Over
the past week, my office has received many arguments on both the merits
and the demerits of prosecuting, and punishing, children as adults. I
am disturbed by stories of the abuse suffered by young children at the
hands of adults in prison. However, I, as a U.S. Congressman, do not
presume to have the breadth and depth of information necessary to
dictate to every community in the Nation how best to handle as vexing a
problem as juvenile crime.
H.R. 3 also imposes mandates on States which allow public access to
juvenile records. These records must also be transmitted to the FBI.
Given the recent controversy over the misuse of FBI files, I think most
citizens are becoming extremely wary of expanding the FBI's records of
private citizens.
This bill also authorizes $1.5 billion in new Federal spending to
build prisons. Now, many communities across the country might need new
prisons, but many others may prefer to spend that money on schools, or
roads. Washington should end all such unconstitutional expenditures and
return to individual taxpayers and communities those resources which
allow spending as those recipients see fit rather than according to the
dictates of the U.S. Congress.
Because this legislation exceeds the Constitutionally-imposed limits
on Federal power and represents yet another step toward a national-
police-state, and for each of the additional reasons mentioned here, I
oppose passage of H.R. 3, the Juvenile Crime Control Act of 1997.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Kingston, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3) to
combat violent youth crime and increase accountability for juvenile
criminal offenses, pursuant to House Resolution 143, he reported the
bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of
the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the Committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.

The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Conyers

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. CONYERS. I am, in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Conyers moves that the bill be recommitted to the
Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report the
bill back to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

TITLE I--TREATMENT OF JUVENILES AS ADULTS

SEC. 101. TREATMENT OF JUVENILES AS ADULTS.

The fourth undesignated paragraph of section 5032 of title
18, United States Code, is amended by striking ``an offense
under section 113(a), 113(b), 113(c), 1111, 1113, or, if the
juvenile possessed a firearm during the offense, section
2111, 2113, 2241(a) or 2241(c),'' and insert ``any serious
violent felony as defined in section 3559(c)(2)(F) of this
title,''.

SEC. 102. RECORDS OF CRIMES COMMITTED BY JUVENILE
DELINQUENTS.

Section 5038 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``Throughout and'' and
all that follows through the colon and inserting the
following: ``Throughout and upon completion of the juvenile
delinquency proceeding, the court records of the original
proceeding shall be safeguarded from disclosure to
unauthorized persons. The records shall be released to the
extent necessary to meet the following circumstances:'';
(2) in subsection (a)(3), by inserting before the semicolon
``or analysis requested by the Attorney General'';
(3) in subsection (a), so that paragraph (6) reads as
follows:
``(6) communications with any victim of such juvenile
delinquency, or in appropriate cases with the official
representative of the victim, in order to apprise such victim
or representative of the status or disposition of the
proceeding or in order to effectuate any other provision of
law or to assist in a victim's, official representative's,
allocution at disposition.''; and
(4) by striking subsections (d) and (f), by redesignating
subsection (e) as subsection (d), by inserting ``pursuant to
section 5032 (b) or (c)'' after ``adult'' in subsection (d)
as so redesignated, and by adding at the end new subsections
(e) through (f) as follows:
``(e) Whenever a juvenile has been adjudicated delinquent
for an act that if committed by an adult would be a felony or
for a violation of section 922(x), the juvenile shall be
fingerprinted and photographed, and the fingerprints and
photograph shall be sent to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation. The court shall also transmit to the Federal
Bureau of Investigation the information concerning the
adjudication, including name, date of adjudication, court,
offenses, and sentence, along with the notation that the
matter was a juvenile adjudication.
``(f) In addition to any other authorization under this
section for the reporting, retention, disclosure, or
availability of records or information, if the law of the
State in which a Federal juvenile delinquency proceeding
takes place permits or requires the reporting, retention,
disclosure, or availability of records or information
relating to a juvenile or to a juvenile delinquency
proceeding or adjudication in certain circumstances, then
such reporting, retention, disclosure, or availability is
permitted under this section whenever the same circumstances
exist.''.

SEC. 103. TIME LIMIT ON TRANSFER DECISION.

SEC. 104. INCREASED DETENTION, MANDATORY RESTITUTION, AND
ADDITIONAL SENTENCING OPTIONS FOR YOUTH
OFFENDERS.

Section 5037 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to
read as follows:

``Sec. 5037. Dispositional hearing

[[Page H2394]]

``(d) Term of Supervised Release.--The term for which
supervised release may be ordered for a juvenile found to be
a juvenile delinquent may not extend beyond 5 years.
Subsections (c) through (i) of section 3583 shall apply to an
order placing a juvenile on supervised release.
``(e) Custody of Attorney General.--
``(1) In general.--If the court desires more detailed
information concerning a juvenile alleged to have committed
an act of juvenile delinquency or a juvenile adjudicated
delinquent, it may commit the juvenile, after notice and
hearing at which the juvenile is represented by an attorney,
to the custody of the Attorney General for observation and
study by an appropriate agency or entity.
``(2) Outpatient basis.--Any observation and study pursuant
to a commission under paragraph (1) shall be conducted on an
outpatient basis, unless the court determines that inpatient
observation and study are necessary to obtain the desired
information, except that in the case of an alleged juvenile
delinquent, inpatient study may be ordered with the consent
of the juvenile and the attorney for the juvenile.
``(3) Contents of study.--The agency or entity conducting
an observation or study under this subsection shall make a
complete study of the alleged or adjudicated delinquent to
ascertain the personal traits, capabilities, background, any
prior delinquency or criminal experience, any mental or
physical defect, and any other relevant factors pertaining to
the juvenile.
``(4) Submission of results.--The Attorney General shall
submit to the court and the attorneys for the juvenile and
the government the results of the study not later than 30
days after the commitment of the juvenile, unless the court
grants additional time.
``(5) Exclusion of time.--Any time spent in custody under
this subsection shall be excluded for purposes of section
5036.
``(f) Conviction as Adult.--With respect to any juvenile
prosecuted and convicted as an adult pursuant to section
5032, the court may, pursuant to guidelines promulgated by
the United States Sentencing Commission under section 994 of
title 28, determine to treat the conviction as an
adjudication of delinquency and impose any disposition
authorized under this section. The United States Sentencing
Commission shall promulgate such guidelines as soon as
practicable and not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act.
``(g)(1) A juvenile detained either pending juvenile
proceedings or a criminal trial, or detained or imprisoned
pursuant to an adjudication or conviction shall be
substantially segregated from any prisoners convicted for
crimes who have attained the age of 21 years.
``(2) As used in this subsection, the term ``substantially
segregated''--
``(A) means complete sight and sound separation in
residential confinement; but
``(B) is not inconsistent with--
``(i) the use of shared direct care and management staff,
properly trained and certified to interact with juvenile
offenders, if the staff does not interact with adult and
juvenile offenders during the same shift.
``(ii) incidental contact during transportation to court
proceedings and other activities in accordance with
regulations issued by the Attorney General to ensure
reasonable efforts are made to segregate adults and
juveniles.''

TITLE II--JUVENILE OFFENDER CONTROL AND PREVENTION GRANTS

SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Juvenile Offender Control
and Prevention Grant Act of 1997''.

SEC. 202. GRANT PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--Part R of title I of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796 et seq.)
is amended to read as follows:

``PART R--JUVENILE OFFENDER CONTROL AND PREVENTION GRANTS

``SEC. 1801. PAYMENTS TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.

``(a) Payment and Uses.--
``(1) Payment.--The Director of the Bureau of Justice
Assistance may make grants to carry out this part, to units
of local government that qualify for a payment under this
part. Of the amount appropriated in any fiscal year to carry
out this part, the Director shall obligate--
``(A) not less than 60 percent of such amount for grants
for the uses specified in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of
paragraph (2);
``(B) not less than 10 percent of such amount for grants
for the use specified in paragraph (2)(C), and
``(C) not less than 20 percent of such amount for grants
for the uses specified in subparagraphs (E) and (G) of
paragraph (2).
``(2) Uses.--Amounts paid to a unit of local government
under this section shall be used by the unit for 1 or more of
the following:
``(A) Preventing juveniles from becoming envied in crime or
gangs by--
``(i) operating after-school programs for at-risk
juveniles;
``(ii) developing safe havens from and alternatives to
street violence, including educational, vocational or other
extracurricular activities opportunities;
``(iii) establishing community service programs, based on
community service corps models that teach skills, discipline,
and responsibility;
``(iv) establishing peer medication programs in schools;
``(v) establishing big brother programs and big sister
programs;
``(vi) establishing anti-truancy programs;
``(vii) establishing and operating programs to strengthen
the family unit;
``(viii) establishing and operating drug prevention,
treatment and education programs; or
``(ix) establishing activities substantially similar to
programs described in clauses (i) through (viii).
``(B) Establishing and operating early intervention
programs for at-risk juveniles.
``(C) Building or expanding secure juvenile correction or
detention facilities for violent juvenile offenders.
``(D) Providing comprehensive treatment, education,
training, and after-care programs for juveniles in juvenile
detention facilities.
``(E) Implementing graduated sanctions for juvenile
offenders.
``(F) Establishing initiatives that reduce the access of
juveniles to firearms.
``(G) Improving State juvenile justice systems by--
``(i) developing and administering accountability-based
sanctions for juvenile offenders;
``(ii) hiring additional prosecutors, so that more cases
involving violent juvenile offenders can be prosecuted and
backlogs reduced; or
``(iii) providing funding to enable juvenile courts and
juvenile probation offices to be more effective and efficient
in holding juvenile offenders accountable;
``(H) providing funding to enable prosecutors--
``(i) to address drug, gang, and violence problems
involving juveniles more effectively;
``(ii) to develop anti-gang units and anti-gang task forces
to address the participation of juveniles in gangs, and to
share information about juvenile gangs and their activities;
or
``(iii) providing funding for technology, equipment, and
training to assist prosecutors in identifying and expediting
the prosecution of violent juvenile offenders;
``(I) hiring additional law enforcement officers
(including, but not limited to, police, corrections,
probation, parole, and judicial officers) who are involved in
the control or reduction of juvenile delinquency; or
``(J) providing funding to enable city attorneys and county
attorneys to seek civil remedies for violations of law
committed by juveniles who participate in gangs.
``(3) Geographical Distribution of Grants.--The Director
shall ensure that grants made under this part are equitably
distributed among all units of local government in each of
the States and among all units of local government throughout
the United States.
``(b) Prohibited Uses.--Notwithstanding any other provision
of this title, a unit of local government may not expend any
of the funds provided under this part to purchase, lease,
rent, or otherwise acquire--
``(1) tanks or armored personnel carriers;
``(2) fixed wing aircraft;
``(3) limousines;
``(4) real estate;
``(5) yachts;
``(6) consultants; or
``(7) vehicles not primarily used for law enforcement;

unless the Attorney General certifies that extraordinary and
exigent circumstances exist that make the use of funds for
such purposes essential to the maintenance of public safety
and good order in such unit of local government.
``(c) Repayment of Unexpended Amounts.--
``(1) Repayment required.--A unit of local government shall
repay to the Director, by not later than 27 months after
receipt of funds from the Director, any amount that is--
``(A) paid to the unit from amounts appropriated under the
authority of this section; and
``(B) not expended by the unit within 2 years after receipt
of such funds from the Director.
``(2) Penalty for failure to repay.--If the amount required
to be repaid is not repaid, the Director shall reduce payment
in future payment periods accordingly.
``(3) Deposit of amounts repaid.--Amounts received by the
Director as repayments under this subsection shall be
deposited in a designated fund for future payments to units
of local government. Any amounts remaining in such designated
fund after shall be applied to the Federal deficit or, if
there is no Federal deficit, to reducing the Federal debt.
``(d) Nonsupplanting Requirement.--Funds made available
under this part to units of local government shall not be
used to supplant State or local funds, but shall be used to
increase the amounts of funds that would, in the absence of
funds made available under this part, be made available from
State or local sources.
``(e) Matching Funds.--The Federal share of a grant
received under this part may not exceed 90 percent of the
costs of a program or proposal funded under this part.

``SEC. 1802. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

The appropriations authorized by this subsection may be made
from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund.

[[Page H2395]]

``(b) Oversight Accountability and Administration.--Not
more than 3 percent of the amount authorized to be
appropriated under subsection (a) for each of the fiscal
years 1998 through 2000 shall be available to the Attorney
General for studying the overall effectiveness and efficiency
of the provisions of this part, and assuring compliance with
the provisions of this part and for administrative costs to
carry out the purposes of this part. The Attorney General
shall establish and execute an oversight plan for monitoring
the activities of grant recipients. Such sums are to remain
available until expended.
``(c) Availability.--The amounts authorized to be
appropriated under subsection (a) shall remain available
until expended.

``SEC. 1803. QUALIFICATION FOR PAYMENT.

``(a) In General.--The Director shall issue regulations
establishing procedures under which a unit of local
government is required to provide notice to the Director
regarding the proposed use of funds made available under this
part.
``(b) Program Review.--The Director shall establish a
process for the ongoing evaluation of projects developed with
funds made available under this part.
``(c) General Requirements for Qualification.--A unit of
local government qualifies for a payment under this part for
a payment period only if the unit of local government submits
an application to the Director and establishes, to the
satisfaction of the Director, that--
``(1) the chief executive officer of the State has had not
less than 20 days to review and comment on the application
prior to submission to the Director;
``(2)(A) the unit of local government will establish a
trust fund in which the government will deposit all payments
received under this part; and
``(B) the unit of local government will use amounts in the
trust fund (including interest) during a period not to exceed
2 years from the date the first grant payment is made to the
unit of local government;
``(3) the unit of local government will expend the payments
received in accordance with the laws and procedures that are
applicable to the expenditure of revenues of the unit of
local government;
``(4) the unit of local government will use accounting,
audit, and fiscal procedures that conform to guidelines which
shall be prescribed by the Director after consultation with
the Comptroller General and as applicable, amounts received
under this part shall be audited in compliance with the
Single Audit Act of 1984;
``(5) after reasonable notice from the Director or the
Comptroller General to the unit of local government, the unit
of local government will make available to the Director and
the Comptroller General, with the right to inspect, records
that the Director reasonably requires to review compliance
with this part or that the Comptroller General reasonably
requires to review compliance and operation;
``(6) the unit of local government will spend the funds
made available under this part only for the purposes set
forth in section 1801(a)(2);
``(7) the unit of local government has established
procedures to give members of the Armed Forces who, on or
after October 1, 1990, were or are selected for involuntary
separation (as described in section 1141 of title 10, United
States Code), approved for separation under section 1174a or
1175 of such title, or retired pursuant to the authority
provided under section 4403 of the Defense Conversion,
Reinvestment, and Transition Assistance Act of 1992
(division D of Public Law 102-484; 10 U.S.C. 1293 note), a
suitable preference in the employment of persons as
additional law enforcement officers or support personnel
using funds made available under this title. The nature
and extent of such employment preference shall be jointly
established by the Attorney General and the Secretary of
Defense. To the extent practicable, the Director shall
endeavor to inform members who were separated between
October 1, 1990, and the date of the enactment of this
section of their eligibility for the employment
preference;
``(d) Sanctions for Noncompliance.--
``(1) In general.--If the Director determines that a unit
of local government has not complied substantially with the
requirements or regulations prescribed under subsections (a)
and (c), the Director shall notify the unit of local
government that if the unit of local government does not take
corrective action within 60 days of such notice, the Director
will withhold additional payments to the unit of local
government for the current and future payment periods until
the Director is satisfied that the unit of local government--
``(A) has taken the appropriate corrective action; and
``(B) will comply with the requirements and regulations
prescribed under subsections (a) and (c).
``(2) Notice.--Before giving notice under paragraph (1),
the Director shall give the chief executive officer of the
unit of local government reasonable notice and an opportunity
for comment.
``(e) Maintenance of Effort Requirement.--A unit of local
government qualifies for a payment under this part for a
payment period only if the unit's expenditures on law
enforcement services (as reported by the Bureau of the
Census) for the fiscal year preceding the fiscal year in
which the payment period occurs were not less than 90 percent
of the unit's expenditures on such services for the second
fiscal year preceding the fiscal year in which the payment
period occurs.''.
(b) Technical Amendment.--The table of contents of the
title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of
1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796 et seq.) is amended by striking the
matter relating to part R and inserting the following:

``Part R--Juvenile Crime Control Grants

``Sec. 1801. Payments to local governments.
``Sec. 1802. Authorization of appropriations.
``Sec. 1803. Qualification for payment.''.

SEC. 203. MODEL PROGRAMS TO PREVENT JUVENILE DELINQUENCY.

The Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention shall provide, through the
clearinghouse and information center established under
section 242(3) of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5652(3)), information and
technical assistance to community-based organizations and
units of local government to assist in the establishment,
operation, and replication of model programs designed to
prevent juvenile delinquency.

TITLE III--IMPROVING JUVENILE CRIME AND DRUG PREVENTION

SEC. 301. STUDY BY NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE.

Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order on the motion
to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] is
recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion to recommit.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit is essentially the
Conyers-Schumer substitute which we will now offer as the motion to
recommit. It is both smart and tough. We have almost brought juvenile
justice law to the point where the only thing left on the other side
was to offer an amendment abolishing the distinction between juveniles
and adults in our system. Because of a determination on germaneness
made by the Speaker and the leaders, we have taken out the child safety
lock provision. Sixteen children are killed every single day in the
United States of America, and that provision now cannot be debated or
voted on in any provision, neither the base bill or the substitute.
The funding, great, $1.5 billion; but only five States meet the
qualifications. Five States. It will be years before anybody will ever
receive any

[[Page H2396]]

money at the State and local level in this regard. Then, of course, we
take the question of whether juveniles should be prosecuted as adults
out of the judge's discretion and given to the prosecutors; great day
in America in fighting juvenile crime.
We have, most importantly, the only meaningful prevention in a
juvenile justice bill, meaningful prevention based on research, which
is cost-effective and which provides States and local governments
maximum flexibility. It rejects the Washington-knows-best approach. It
is smart and tough and compassionate, and I urge Members to join us in
the motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter from the National
Conference of State Legislatures expressing opposition to H.R. 3.
The letter referred to is as follows:
National Conference of

State Legislatures,

Washington, DC, May 7, 1997.
Dear Member of Congress: We are writing to express our
opposition to mandates in H.R. 3, the Juvenile Crime Control
Act of 1997. Mandates in existing law require that states
deinstitutionalize status offenders, remove juveniles from
jails and lock-ups, and separate juvenile delinquents from
adult offenders. Under H.R. 3, the federal government would
apply new rules nationwide relating to juvenile records,
judicial discretion and parental and juvenile responsibility.
These present new obstacles for states that need federal
funds.
States are enacting many laws that attack the problem of
violent juvenile crime comprehensively. Many have lowered the
age at which juveniles may be charged as adults for violent
crimes; others have considered expanding prosecutors'
discretion. Without clear proof that one choice is more
effective than the other, Congress would deny funding for
juvenile justice to states where just one element in the
state's comprehensive approach to juvenile justice differs
from the federal mandate.
The change of directions ought to make Congress wary of
inflexible mandates. For example, until federal law was
changed in 1994 states were forbidden to detain juveniles for
possession of a gun--because possession was a ``status''
offense. The federal response was not merely to allow states
to detain children for possession, but to create a new
federal offense of juvenile possession of a handgun. (Pub. L.
103-322, Sec. 11201). The advantage of states as laboratories
is that their choices put the nation less at risk. This bill
would make the nation the laboratory.
NCSL submits that the proposed mandates, however well-
intentioned, are short-sighted and counter-productive. We
urge you to strike the mandates from H.R. 3.
Sincerely,
William T. Pound,
Executive Director.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York Mr. Charles
Schumer, former chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee
on the Judiciary.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, I urge a vote for recommital. Let me say,
Mr. Speaker, on the issue of crime, this body has made great progress
in the last several years because we have been both tough on punishment
and smart on prevention. We have said to violent repeat offenders, you
will pay a severe price. But we have also said that we are going to do
our darnedest to prevent and decrease the number of violent severe
offenders.
The Conyers-Schumer substitute is really the only, only proposal that
has been out there today that is both tough on punishment and smart on
prevention. It is where America is, it is where this body ought to be,
and it is what we all should vote for.
Mr. Speaker, the crime issue had long been a political football.
Everyone was talking values; no one was getting anything done. Several
years ago this Congress changed that and started looking at programs
that work on both the punishment and the prevention side. As a result,
in part, our crime rate has decreased. Let us not forget that. Let us
not go back to either a policy that just punishes and throws away hope
or a policy that forgets that there are violent criminals among us, at
whatever age, and they must be punished. The only proposal on the floor
that really does that is Conyers-Schumer, and I urge a vote for it.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of a point of
order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] is
recognized for 5 minutes in opposition to the motion to recommit.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, this amendment that would be adopted by
the motion to recommit, if we were to vote for it, has a big problem.
The amendment is not either tough or smart. The fact of the matter is
that what we are about in this bill, underlying bill today, is to try
to help the States correct the juvenile justice systems of this Nation
that are broken.
As I said many times today in the debate on this bill, unfortunately
we have one out of every five violent crimes in America committed by
those who are under the age of 18, and less than 1 out of every 10 who
are adjudicated guilty of those violent crimes who are juveniles are
ever incarcerated for a single day. The FBI predicts that by the year
2010, which is just a few years away, we will have more than double the
number of violent crimes committed by juveniles if we keep on this
track; part of that because of demographics.

{time} 1530

All of us will agree that the solution to a violent juvenile crime is
a comprehensive thing that takes a lot of different components. This
bill today before us is not designed as a prevention bill. It is
intended to be in the traditional sense of prevention, although
certainly putting consequences back into the law of this Nation for
juveniles.
It says that, if you commit a simple delinquent act such as a
vandalization of a home or spray painting a building, you ought to get
community service or some kind of sanction, which is what we are
encouraging by the bill. It is not very important to prevention, but
there are going to be other traditional prevention programs that are
going to out here on the floor from other committees.
This bill is designed to repair a broken juvenile justice system. In
the motion to recommit is an offering of another amendment that
replicates several that have already been offered today. What it does
is a couple of things.
One is, it mandates that 60 percent of all the spending in this bill
go to prevention programs, says that is what you have to spend it on,
States and local governments. It is more than the Lofgren amendment
that was overwhelmingly defeated just a few minutes ago.
In addition to that, it strips from this bill the very effective
provisions that we have in the bill to fix the juvenile justice system
and the whole program of incentive grants. And equally important, on
the tough side, it strips out the toughest provisions that we have in
this bill for repairing the Federal juvenile justice system that the
administration wants repaired.
If this amendment that is offered by the motion to recommit were to
pass, the tough antigang provisions in this bill would disappear where
we would permit Federal prosecutors in limited cases to go in and help
take apart the gangs in big cities where we have to take juveniles and
spread them across the Nation.
This motion to recommit, the underlying amendment is neither smart
nor tough. We need a no vote on it. We need a yes vote on the
underlying bill, H.R. 3, on final passage to give us a chance to
revitalize and rebuild and repair a completely broken juvenile justice
system, to not only correct the problems with violent youth today in
this Nation but let the juvenile justice systems of this Nation in the
various States finally get the resources that they so vitally need to
repair that system and begin sanctioning from the very beginning
delinquent acts so kids will understand there are consequences to their
acts.
And if they understand there are consequences to the less serious
crimes they commit, maybe, just maybe some of them will not pull the
trigger when they get a gun later, as they do now, thinking there are
no consequences.
This may be the most important criminal justice bill many of us in
the years we have served here ever had a chance to vote on, because it
really does repair a broken justice system. We will have another day
for other measures, but this is the day for repairing the juvenile
justice systems in the Nation. A no vote is absolutely essential on the
motion to recommit, it guts the underlying bill; and a yes vote for
final passage for juvenile justice system.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Without objection, the previous
question is ordered on the motion to recommit.

[[Page H2397]]

There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.

recorded vote

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 174,
noes 243 not voting 16, as follows:

[Roll No. 117]

AYES--174

Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hooley
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates

NOES--243

Abercrombie
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Dickey
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastert
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
Mascara
McCollum
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Paul
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--16

Calvert
Clay
Costello
Diaz-Balart
Filner
Gutierrez
Hastings (WA)
Hefner
Istook
Matsui
McCrery
McKinney
Moakley
Paxon
Pickering
Schiff

{time} 1549

The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:

Mr. Filner for, with Mr. Calvert against.

So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

personal explanation

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 117, had I been present, I
would have voted ``yes.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the passage
of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 286,
noes 132, not voting 15, as follows:

[Roll No. 118]

AYES--286

Abercrombie
Aderholt
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
Ensign
Etheridge
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kildee
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Manzullo
McCollum
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanchez
Sandlin
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Walsh

[[Page H2398]]

Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--132

Ackerman
Allen
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Berman
Berry
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Clayton
Clyburn
Conyers
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
Dellums
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Ehlers
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hostettler
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kilpatrick
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Mollohan
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Rahall
Rangel
Rivers
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shadegg
Skaggs
Slaughter
Snyder
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates

NOT VOTING--15

Calvert
Clay
Costello
Diaz-Balart
English
Filner
Gutierrez
Hastings (WA)
Hefner
McCrery
McKinney
Moakley
Paxon
Pickering
Schiff

{time} 1605

The Clerk announced the following pairs:
On this vote:

Mr. Diaz-Balart for, with Mr. Filner against.
Mr. Calvert for, with Mr. Moakley against.

So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________