[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 83 (Tuesday, June 23, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6876-S6877]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  THE VIOLENT AND REPEAT OFFENDER ACT

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, since S. 10 was voted out of the Judiciary 
Committee almost one year ago, I have spoken on the floor of the Senate 
and at hearings on numerous occasions to urge its Republican sponsors 
to work with me in a bipartisan and open manner to improve this 
juvenile crime bill. Instead of dialogue, the sponsors of this 
legislation have played games of ``Hide and Seek'' with the revisions 
they were making to the bill.
  I am delighted to see reflected in the brief ``DRAFT'' summary 
circulated by the sponsors of the bill that they are finally and 
belatedly making certain changes that they voted down during the 
Committee's consideration of this bill. The ``devil is in the 
details'', however, so I and my Democratic colleagues are eager to see 
the full text of this revised bill.
  Unfortunately, the sponsors of this bill were not willing to work 
with me last year when we would have had a much better chance of moving 
this important legislation. Now, as we head toward the end of this 
Congress and still face a number of vital appropriations matters to 
consider, time is running out to complete action on a juvenile crime 
bill. Those who will suffer from the dilatory manner in which this bill 
was handled are the children of this country and America's law 
enforcement officers and prosecutors who are eager for the additional 
resources available in this bill.
  I am delighted to see that the legislation is being revised to 
include changes proposed by Democrats that the Republican sponsors 
previously rejected, including:
  Retention of State Presumption to Prosecute Juveniles: The revised S. 
10 will apparently preserve the ``presumption in favor of state 
prosecution'' for juveniles who face concurrent state and federal 
jurisdiction over the offense committed. This language is clearly based 
on amendments I and others proposed to avoid the federalization of 
juvenile crime that has prompted expressions of concern by Chief 
Justice Rehnquist and the Judicial Conference States have had primary 
responsibility for handling juvenile cases, and they should continue to 
do so.
  Death Penalty: The new S. 10 apparently would not subject juveniles 
to the federal death penalty, another policy which Democratic members 
of the Committee insisted upon during Committee debate. As introduced, 
S. 10 allowed the imposition of the death penalty for juveniles as 
young as sixteen.
  Increased Flexibility for the Incentive Block Grant program: The 
strict earmarks in this block grant for building more juvenile 
facilities, drug testing juveniles and enhancing State recordkeeping 
systems would have imposed a one-size-fits-all strait jacket on the 
States. The sponsors of the bill, apparently, have finally recognized 
how critical it is to provide flexibility to the States because State 
and local officials are much better able to determine how to reduce 
juvenile delinquency rates in their own communities.
  Revised Recordkeeping Provisions: For over a year, I have repeatedly 
told my colleagues that no State in the nation would be eligible for S. 
10's Incentive Block Grant, since none currently complies with the 
strict recordkeeping requirements. Moreover, at my request, the 
Department of Justice conducted a study which concluded that the 
extensive recordkeeping requirements in this bill would cost States 
``hundreds of millions of dollars.'' I urged the authors of this bill 
to narrow the focus of the recordkeeping to those juveniles who are 
most likely to be repeat offenders, namely, those who commit acts which 
would be a felony if committed by an adult. The sponsors have 
apparently finally heeded these common sense concerns and promise to 
correct these flaws--even though they voted down amendments I proposed 
to make these corrections.
  Increased Funding for Prosecutors: The sponsors have also finally 
agreed to double the funds available to prosecutors. It is unfortunate 
that they refused to work this out in Committee last year so that 
additional prosecutors could be at work right now.

[[Page S6877]]

  Improved Sight and Sound Separation Requirement: Last year, I joined 
with Senators Biden and Kohl and other Democrats to urge the adoption 
of the more protective federal standards for juveniles in State 
detention facilities but the Republican sponsors of S. 10 rejected 
these changes to the bill. I am delighted to see that this mean-
spirited provision may be modified, and that juveniles held in state 
facilities will have the same protections from adult inmates as 
juveniles in federal custody.
  Dedicated Prevention Funding: Despite being repeatedly rebuffed when 
I and my fellow Democrats insisted that prevention programs needed 
dedicated funding, I am pleased that the sponsors of S. 10 apparently 
have changed their tune and are promising to dedicate funding to 
prevention programs. A dedicated fund of $50 million per year is a 
start.
  Revisions to the Federal Firearms Code: I warned my colleagues over a 
year ago that certain provisions the ``Federal Gang Violence Act,'' 
incorporated in Title II of S. 10, would lead to the largest increase 
in the federal regulation of firearms in the history of our nation. No 
one heeded my advice then, but the sponsors of this bill have 
apparently finally realized they need to modify these provisions. The 
revised S. 10 has more than halved the number of firearm offenses that 
can serve as predicates for gang-related offenses or under the RICO 
statute.
  I remain eager to review the actual text of this revised bill. I also 
remain hopeful that the sponsors of S. 10 will commit to working openly 
with me and other Democrats to craft common sense, reasonable 
approaches to reduce juvenile crime while there is still time in this 
Congress.

                          ____________________