[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 3 (Thursday, January 29, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S239-S240]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            VIOLENT AND REPEAT JUVENILE OFFENDER ACT OF 1997

 Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to speak briefly about 
juvenile crime legislation pending before the Senate. The ``Violent and 
Repeat Juvenile Offender Act,'' S.10, was reported by the Judiciary 
Committee last year and may be among the bills we consider early in 
this session. While the measure was improved during the course of the 
Judiciary Committee markup, unfortunately, as explained more fully in 
the minority views to the Committee report, there is much work that 
still needs to be done and much that still needs to be improved.
  The bill reported by the Committee to the Senate would mandate 
massive changes in the juvenile justice systems in each of our States, 
and would allow an influx of juvenile cases in Federal courts around 
the country. The repercussions of this legislation would be severe for 
any State seeking federal juvenile justice assistance.

[[Page S240]]

  I look forward to the Senate taking up these matters and to a full 
and open debate on exactly what this bill will do. Those aspects that 
will do more harm than good ought to be rejected. Those aspects that 
can be improved, should be. Those aspects that fail to respect the role 
and judgment of the States, their legislatures and their people ought 
be changed. This can only be done if the Senate is willing to do the 
work still unfinished and do so in our greatest tradition of full, fair 
and open debate.
  Washington Does Not Know Best. I am very concerned about the 
stringent mandates with which States must comply before they qualify 
for the $500 million per year in new funding under S.10. This new block 
grant program sounds great until you look closely. The extensive new 
requirements created by this program make this money inaccessible to 
the States. In fact, no State currently qualifies for the new grant 
money. Consequently, while this bill is touted as helping the nation's 
juvenile justice systems, States that accept the help will have to 
surrender their State legislative judgment and change their laws to 
comport with Washington mandates.
  For example, to qualify for this new source of funds, States would 
have to change their laws to ensure, for example, that they make 
accessible to the FBI all juvenile disposition or adjudication records, 
whether the juvenile was brought in for shoplifting, graffiti or more 
serious felonies. In addition, the States must make sure they make 
those records available, not only to elementary or high schools in 
which the juvenile is enrolled, but also to any college to which the 
juvenile may later apply. Many of our home States will find these 
requirements too intrusive and costly to make it worth their while to 
change their laws.
  We Should Avoid the ``Federalization'' of Juvenile Crime. By imposing 
on the States a one-size-fits-all approach to juvenile crime, this bill 
turns federalism on its head. As reported, S.10 would repeal the 
presumption in current Federal law that the State has primary 
responsibility for dealing with juvenile offenders. Changing that 
presumption to get the federal government and the federal courts 
involved is neither necessary nor wise.
  Chief Justice Rehnquist and the Administrative Office of the U.S. 
Courts have expressed serious concerns about the efforts in S.10 to 
shift juveniles to the federal court system. As the Chief Justice noted 
in his 1997 Year-End Report:

       The Judicial Conference of the United States has raised 
     concerns about legislation pending in Congress to 
     `federalize' certain juvenile crimes, maintaining its 
     longstanding position that federal prosecutions should be 
     limited to those offenses that cannot or should not be 
     prosecuted in state courts.

  The Chief Justice clearly recognizes what so many other law 
enforcement and court personnel know: The federal courts are not 
equipped to handle the expected increase in federal juvenile cases if 
S.10 is not modified.
  We should preserve the core protections for juveniles in custody. 
Regrettably, S.10 would gut the core protections that have been in 
place for over 20 years to protect children who come in contact with 
the criminal justice system and to keep abused, neglected and 
mistreated children out of detention altogether. Every Vermonter who 
has contacted me about this issue has said the same thing: dismantling 
these core protections is an ill-conceived move.
  Back-sliding on the protections against putting children in adult 
jails flies in the face of research showing that children who spend 
time around bad influences, like adult criminals, have a higher 
recidivism rate. The co-chair of Vermont's Children and Family Council 
for Prevention Programs has explained: ``If even intermittent contact 
is allowed, youth will certainly learn more and better ways to act out 
inappropriately and aggressively.''
  We should focus on prevention. Right now, S.10 lacks balance. The 
bill is chock full of punitive measures to prosecute and lock-up 
children, but skimps on efforts to stop children from getting into 
trouble in the first place. Focusing on the back end of the juvenile 
justice system--after children get into trouble--is short-sighted. Any 
police chief or cop-on-the-beat will tell you that. We should also 
focus efforts on preventing kids from getting into trouble and 
intervening at the first warning signs before they enter into criminal 
activity.
  I have heard from numerous law enforcement officials who support a 
clear earmark for juvenile delinquency prevention programs. They know 
that prevention programs are key to reducing our Nation's juvenile 
crime rates. This bill earmarks new federal grant money for a number of 
enforcement uses, including increasing sanctions, improving juvenile 
record keeping, mandating drug testing, and juvenile prison 
construction. No earmark is made for prevention. This is a mistake and 
will turn out to be a costly one unless we can modify the bill to bring 
it into balance. If we are going to have earmarks, we must dedicate 
money for prevention. Prevention programs enhance the skills and 
competency of troubled juveniles. Such programs help teenagers stay in 
school and stay out of trouble. Without an earmark, in the competition 
for dollars, prevention programs will surely lose out.
  I urge my colleagues to talk to the police and prosecutors in their 
home states. I am confident you will hear, as I have, that well-crafted 
crime prevention and youth development programs do make a difference. I 
am also sure that you will hear how critical it is to keep juveniles 
separate from adult inmates and to allow teenagers who have committed a 
minor offense a real chance to improve their lives.
  We should work together in an open and bipartisan manner to consider 
and improve this juvenile crime legislation.

                          ____________________