[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 118 (Wednesday, September 9, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10113-S10114]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE PROPOSED UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT FOR REPUBLICAN JUVENILE CRIME
BILL, S. 10
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last Thursday, after Senators had been
informed that there would be no more votes that day and after I had
already headed for home to Vermont, Republicans came to the floor to
propose a narrow procedural device in connection with the Republican
juvenile crime bill, S.10.
No one had advised me that the Senate Republican leadership planned
to proceed to S.10 on Thursday. After a year of inaction on this bill--
which was voted on by the Judiciary Committee in July 1997--the
Republicans did not even seek a response to their proposal. Instead,
they rushed to the floor in ambush fashion.
The failure of this Congress to take up and pass responsible juvenile
crime legislation does not rest with the Democrats, and no procedural
floor gimmick by the Republican majority can change that fact.
Over the past year, I have spoken on the floor of the Senate and at
hearings on several occasions about my concerns with this legislation.
At the same time, I have expressed my willingness to work with the
Chairman in a bipartisan manner to improve this juvenile crime bill.
I am not alone in my criticisms and in wanting to see changes in this
bill. It has been blasted by virtually every major newspaper in the
United States. The Philadelphia Inquirer concluded that the bill ``is
fatally flawed and should be rejected.'' The Los Angeles Times
described the bill as ``peppered with ridiculous poses and penalties''
and as taking a ``rigid, counterproductive approach'' to juvenile crime
prevention. The St. Petersburg Times called the bill ``an amalgam of
bad and dangerous ideas.''
The bill has also been criticized by national leaders ranging from
Chief Justice Rehnquist to Marian Wright Edelman, President of the
Children's Defense Fund.
In May, the Chief Justice criticized S.10 because it would
``eviscerate this traditional deference to state prosecutions, thereby
increasing substantially the potential workload of the federal
judiciary.'' Earlier in the year, the Chief Justice raised concerns
about ``federalizing'' certain juvenile crimes, noting that ``federal
prosecutions should be limited to those offenses that cannot and should
not be prosecuted in the state courts.''
The National District Attorneys Association (NDAA) and other law
enforcement agencies have also written me with their concerns about
this bill. In May, William Murphy, President of the NDAA, expressed
NDAA's serious concerns about parts of S.10, including the fact that
``S.10 goes too far'' in changing the ``core mandates'' which have kept
juveniles safer and away from adults while in jail for over 25 years.
Mr. Murphy also criticized S.10's new juvenile record keeping
requirements as ``burdensome and contrary to most state laws.'' He
further noted that S.10 failed to provide ``any lee way to give
juveniles a second chance by providing for the option to seal or
expunge records.''
I have also heard from numerous State and local officials across the
U.S., including the National Governors' Association, the Council of
State Governments (Eastern Regional Conference), the U.S. Conference of
Mayors, the National Association of Counties and the National
Conference of State Legislatures. All of them have expressed concerns
about the restrictions this bill would place on their ability to combat
and prevent juvenile crime effectively. Last June, the President of the
National Conference of State Legislatures cautioned that the new
mandates placed on the States by S.10 could ``imbalance the
constitutionally designed relationship between the federal government
and the states.''
He further noted that ``[s]tates handle crime in a more flexible and
more responsive manner than the federal government'' and urged the
Senate not to impose a single ``federal `fix' upon all fifty states and
the territories.''
In short, S.10 as reported by the Judiciary Committee is a bill laden
with problems--so much so that, at last count, the bill has lost a
quarter of its Republican cosponsors since introduction.
The unanimous consent agreement proposed by the Republicans would
limit debate of juvenile justice and other crime matters. Ironically,
it would permit the Republicans to offer a substitute to their own
bill, but not allow Democrats the same opportunity. The only additional
amendments in order under their plan would be five on each side.
When the Judiciary Committee Chairman indicated on the floor that the
minority has had the text of the proposed Hatch-Sessions substitute for
``well over a month,'' he was incorrect. In fact, we only got a copy of
the substitute on the same day that the Republicans proposed their
unanimous
[[Page S10114]]
consent agreement and had not had an opportunity to review it.
While I appreciate that we are short of time in this Congress and
that, consequently, the Republican leadership would like to limit the
number of amendments the Democrats may offer, I must point out that the
Hatch-Sessions substitute alone contains substantial changes to over
160 separate paragraphs of this reported bill.
While I do not believe that Democrats will have close to 160
additional amendments to the bill, I believe that we will want to offer
more than five.
We are continuing to pare down the amendments that Democrats plan to
offer to S.10 to address the substantial criticisms leveled at this
bill. We are continuing to negotiate in good faith on a unanimous
consent agreement to ensure that Senate consideration of this
legislation is fair, full and productive. The attempted ambush at the
outset of this process, however, suggests that the Republican
leadership is more interested in placing blame for its inaction than in
actually moving to consideration of the bill.
____________________