[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 40 (Wednesday, April 1, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Page S3010]
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, the recent shootings outside a 
school in Jonesboro, Arkansas, that left four young students and a 
teacher dead and scores of others wounded in both body and mind are 
shocking. Just over the last few months, we have seen deadly shootings 
carried out by juveniles in rural communities in Kentucky, in 
Mississippi and now in Arkansas. Clearly, juvenile crime is not just an 
urban problem. These shootings leave scars on the loved ones of those 
killed and injured and on the communities involved that take a long 
time to heal.
  We may never fully comprehend how such crimes against children could 
be executed by other children. But one thing should be clear: The issue 
of juvenile crime should not be used for cheap grandstanding or short-
sighted political gain. We need to find constructive approaches to this 
problem that builds upon past successes and respects the proper roles 
of State, local and Federal authorities.
  In the last session, and again at the beginning of this session, I 
have spoken about the need to address the nation's juvenile crime 
problem on a bipartisan basis. Politicizing the juvenile crime problem 
does a disservice to the citizens in this country who want constructive 
responses.
  I have spoken about the need to address the flaws in the juvenile 
crime bill, S. 10, which the Judiciary Committee voted on last summer. 
In floor statements and in the extensive minority views included in the 
Committee report, I have outlined those areas in which this bill needs 
significant improvement.
  In short, the bill reported by the Committee to the Senate would 
mandate massive changes in the juvenile justice systems in each of our 
States, and it would invite 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. 
The bill also removes core protections that have been in pace for 25 
years to keep juvenile offenders out of adult jails and away from the 
harmful influences of seasoned adult criminals.
  The need for significant improvements to this bill is no secret. 
Virtually every editorial board to consider the bill has reached the 
same conclusion. Just in recent days, the Philadelphia Inquirer 
concluded that the bill ``is fatally flawed and should be rejected.'' 
On Monday, March 23, the Los Angeles Times described the bill as 
``peppered with ridiculous poses and penalties'' and taking a ``rigid, 
counterproductive approach.'' The Chattanooga Times, on March 14, 
labeled the bill ``misguided'' with ``flaws so far-reaching that the 
bill requires substantial surgery.'' The Houston Chronicle, on March 
10, observed that this bill ``at the very least, needs serious 
rethinking.'' The Legal Times, on March 2, called S. 10 ``the crime 
bill no one likes.'' The St. Petersburg Times, on February 23, 
described the bill as ``an amalgam of bad and dangerous ideas.'' A 
February 10 opinion piece in the Baltimore Sun described S. 10 as a 
``radical'' and ``aberrant bill.''

  The criticisms leveled at S. 10 are, unfortunately, well-deserved. 
Consequently, eight months after this bill was voted out of Committee, 
the Committee held a belated hearing on some of the new controversial 
mandates in the bill. At that hearing, on March 9, Senator Sessions 
announced a number of changes that he planned to make to the new 
juvenile record-keeping and fingerprinting mandates in the bill. I had 
recommended a number of these changes during Judiciary Committee mark-
up of the bill, and I am pleased that, finally, my cautions are being 
heeded.
  I will be glad to see removed the requirement of photographing every 
juvenile upon arrest for an act that would have been a felony if 
committed by an adult, and the new fingerprinting and record-keeping 
mandates limited to felony acts that occur in the future.
  I continue to oppose the imposition of these new requirements as 
mandates. These mandates will cost States more to implement than they 
can hope to receive in federal assistance. Those who believe that $250 
million over 5 years, or $50 million per year, will be sufficient to 
pay for the record-keeping mandates in S. 10 have not studied the 
comprehensive report recently released by the National Center for 
Juvenile Justice and that the bill, as currently drafted, would cost 
the states far more than that, especially through its new 
fingerprinting and record-keeping mandates.
  Many of the States are way ahead of the federal government in finding 
innovative ways to address juvenile crime and need resource assistance, 
and not bullying, from Washington. They need help to do what they 
decide is the right balance.
  While it is a better practice to hold hearings and examine issues 
before legislation is voted on and reported out of committee, I look 
forward to working with Senators Hatch and Sessions to improve this 
package, now that the bill has been reported but finds itself off the 
main track and stalled on a siding. I again urge the sponsors of this 
legislation not to politicize the important issue of juvenile crime but 
to work in an open, fair and bipartisan way to make S. 10 a better bill 
that will truly do what we all say we want it do to: Reduce youth 
crime.

                          ____________________