[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.

       ``(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.

     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.

       ``(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); and
       ``(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

[[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

  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. 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

  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 191, 
noes 227, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [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.

       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. 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

       ``(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) Terms 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.

[[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.

       ``(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.

     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.

       (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.

  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.

                          ____________________