[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 101 (Wednesday, July 16, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H5384-H5385]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      AMERICA NEEDS A BALANCED APPROACH TO FIGHTING JUVENILE CRIME

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the issue of 
juvenile justice in this country. Everyone knows that juvenile justice 
and juvenile crime is a growing concern in this country. But with the 
majority party, it seems that they cannot make up their mind on how 
they want to approach this issue.
  Yesterday, in a bipartisan approach, we suspended the rules and we 
passed H.R. 1818, the Juvenile Crime Control and Delinquency Prevention 
Act, sponsored by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott], the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez], and the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs]. The bill reauthorized the Office of Juvenile 
Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and made several changes to that 
office to refocus the Federal effort to prevent juvenile crime before 
it occurs.
  The bill contained four core requirements which States must comply 
with: deinstitutionalization of status offenders, separating juveniles 
from adults in prison, limiting the time that juveniles spend in adult 
facilities, and addressing efforts to reduce disproportionate minority 
confinement.

[[Page H5385]]

  It is a solid bill, and I was proud to support the bill. The bill 
further emphasized prevention and intervention through local 
initiatives, through local programs and projects which will address 
concerns in the local community, not something mandated by the Federal 
Government. It is our hope that these programs will discourage dropouts 
from high schools, reduce school violence, and prevent suspensions and 
expulsions.
  However, the bill failed to identify and appropriate money for this 
Federal effort to prevent juvenile crime. Yet earlier this year the 
majority party on basically a very partisan vote did appropriate $1.5 
billion over the next 3 years in a juvenile justice bill that was named 
H.R. 3, which takes an entirely different approach to juvenile crime 
and juvenile offenders.
  H.R. 3 that was passed in May rewards States that implement the most 
harsh new mandates against juvenile offenders. States would be required 
to adopt a controversial mandate that many children as young as 
15 would be tried as adults. It requires automatic transfer of 14-year-
old children to adult court, and prohibits judicial review of these 
juvenile transfers. It would reward these States with $1.5 billion to 
punish kids and to treat them as adults, something that ensures that 
more 15-year-old children will end up housed with convicted adult 
criminals and convicted adult felons, greatly increasing the chances of 
rape, abuse, and suicide in our prison system, and increasing their 
chances of committing violent crime sooner upon release.

  Mr. Speaker, having been a law enforcement officer, and we have dealt 
with many law enforcement officers throughout this debate on juvenile 
justice in the last few months, prosecutors, judges, teachers, 
counselors, and parents all agree that there is another, better 
approach, a better way to prevent kids from even becoming criminals in 
the first place. Intervention and early prevention programs in schools 
and communities and recreation centers have proven to be the most 
effective way to prevent juveniles from getting involved in illicit 
behavior.
  In communities that employ prevention programs, the juvenile crime 
rates have fallen. Since an aggressive prevention program went into 
effect in Boston, not a single juvenile murder has occurred there since 
July 1995. It is a system that works. Let the local communities decide, 
give them the flexibility to do their job, and we should seek to 
encourage the development of these prevention programs in every 
community across America.
  In fact, the alternative bill to H.R. 3, the Democrat bill I 
sponsored is exactly the approach it takes. As the other body prepares 
to consider the juvenile justice bill and is currently working on it at 
this time, I urge them to look at the facts. When it comes to dealing 
with children, you get tough on crime by preventing criminal behavior, 
not by trying to lock up every juvenile offender.
  On May 8, I offered, along with the majority of Democrats, a 
substitute to H.R. 3 which stated that over 60 percent of the funding 
should go to communities for their local prevention programs. Two 
hundred Members of this House voted for this substitute, rejecting H.R. 
3, the majority party's punishment-only approach. We need a balanced 
approach to fighting juvenile crime. We need a bill that is tough and 
is smart.
  Mr. Speaker, I just happened to receive in my office today this 
week's Time magazine. If Members look at the Time magazine this week, 
this debate that I just mentioned is highlighted in Time magazine 
starting on page 26, Teen Crime. ``Congress wants to crack down on 
juvenile offenders. That is H.R. 3, the majority party approach. But is 
throwing teens into adult courts with adult prisoners the best 
approach?''
  As we go through it they cite the Boston case that we as Democrats 
relied on, and how to start a cease-fire to reduce juvenile crime to 
make people safe and secure in their communities and their homes.
  Then, unfortunately they show what a tragedy happened in Michigan 
here in the past few weeks. The bottom line of these three articles was 
basically there is an approach for juvenile offenders. There is a smart 
choice and a substitute for H.R. 3 that is the best way to go.

                          ____________________