[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 147 (Thursday, October 15, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12644-S12645]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               FAILURE TO PASS JUVENILE CRIME LEGISLATION

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last Friday, the Chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee, my good friend from Utah, spoke on the floor about juvenile 
justice legislation. He indicated that he will be urging the Majority 
Leader to make this issue one of the top legislative priorities in the 
106th Congress. It is indeed unfortunate that the Senate has failed to 
consider legislation in this important area.
  Improving our Nation's juvenile justice system and preventing 
juvenile delinquency has strong bipartisan support in Congress and in 
the White House. That is why I and other Democrats have introduced 
juvenile crime legislation both at the beginning and the end of this 
Congress. Within the first weeks of the 105th Congress, I joined 
Senator Daschle in introducing the ``Youth Violence, Crime and Drug 
Abuse Control Act of 1997,'' S. 15, and last month introduced, with the 
support of Senators Daschle, Biden and other Democratic members, the 
``Safe Schools, Safe Streets and Secure Borders Act of 1998,'' S. 2484. 
That is why the Administration transmitted juvenile crime legislation, 
the ``Anti-Gang and Youth Violence Control Act of 1997,'' S. 362, which 
I introduced with Senator Biden on the Administration's behalf in 
February 1997.
  Given the strong interest in this issue from both sides of the aisle, 
the failure of the Senate to consider juvenile crime legislation would 
appear puzzling. Indeed, the House passed juvenile justice legislation 
three times this year, when it sent to the Senate H.R. 3 on May 8, 
1997, H.R. 1818 on July 15, 1997, and both these bills again attached 
to S. 2073 on September 15, 1998. The Senate juvenile crime bill, S. 
10, was voted on by the Judiciary Committee in July 1997, and then left 
to languish for over a year.
  The Republicans have never called up S. 10 for consideration by the 
full Senate. Instead, in early September they rushed to the floor with 
no warning and offered terms for bringing up the bill that would have 
significantly limited debate and amendments on the many controversial 
items in the bill. For example, although the substitute juvenile crime 
bill that the Republicans wanted to debate contained over 160 changes 
from the Committee-reported bill, the majority wished to limit 
Democratic amendments to five. This offer was unacceptable, as the 
Republicans well knew before they ever offered it.
  We should recognize this offer for what it is: a procedural charade 
engaged in by the Republicans in a feeble effort to place the blame on 
the minority for the majority's failure to bring up juvenile justice 
legislation in the Senate. Nevertheless, I suggested a plan for a full 
and fair debate on S. 10. On September 25, 1998, I put in the record a 
proposal that would have limited the amendments offered by Democrats to 
the most controversial aspects of the bill, such as restoring the core 
protection for juvenile status offenders to keep them out of jail, 
keeping juveniles who are in custody separated from adult inmates, and 
ensuring adequate prevention funding.
  I never heard back from the Republicans. They simply ignored my 
proposal, and failed to turn to this issue again on the floor of the 
Senate. These facts make clear that assertions about Democrats refusing 
proposals to limit the number of amendments to S. 10, and refusing to 
permit a conference on House-passed legislation, could not be farther 
from the truth. Indeed, no proposal to agree to a conference was ever 
propounded on the floor of the Senate.
  During the past year, I have spoken on the floor of the Senate and at 
hearings on numerous occasions about my concerns with S. 10, including 
on November 13, 1997, January 29, 1998, April 1, 1998, June 23, 1998, 
and September 8, 1998. On each of those occasions, I expressed my 
willingness to work with the Chairman in a bipartisan manner to improve 
this bill. Since Committee consideration of the bill, I have continued 
to raise the areas of concern that went unaddressed in the Committee-
reported bill. Specifically, I was concerned that the bill skimped on 
effective prevention efforts to stop children from getting into trouble 
in the first place.
  Second, I was concerned that the bill would gut the core protections, 
which have been in place for over 20 years to protect children that 
come into contact with the criminal justice system and keep them out of 
harm's way from adult inmates, to keep status and nonoffenders out of 
jail altogether, and to address disproportionate minority confinement.
  Third, I was concerned about the federalization of juvenile crime due 
to S. 10's elimination of the requirement that federal courts may only 
get involved in prosecutions of juveniles for offenses with which the 
federal government has concurrent jurisdiction with the State, if the 
State cannot or declines to prosecute the juvenile.
  Finally, I was concerned the new accountability block grant in S. 10 
contained onerous eligibility requirements that would end up imposing 
on the States a one-size-fits-all uniform sewn-up in Washington for 
dealing with juvenile crime. I know many States viewed

[[Page S12645]]

this bill as a straight-jacket, which is why it was opposed by the 
National Governors' Association, the National Conference of State 
Legislatures, the National Association of Counties and the Council of 
State Governments.
  Unfortunately, productive negotiations on this bill did not commence 
in earnest until the final days of this Congress. The fact that 
negotiations began at all is due in no small part to the efforts and 
leadership of Representatives Bill McCollum, Charles Schumer, Frank 
Riggs, Bobby Scott and John Conyers. They and their staffs have worked 
tirelessly on this issue and to address many of the concerns that were 
raised about the juvenile crime legislation.
  Over the past week, I have worked with Senators Hatch, Sessions, 
Biden, Kennedy, Kohl, Feingold and Bingaman, and our House 
counterparts, to craft bipartisan legislation that could be passed in 
the final days of this Congress. While our last-minute efforts to 
complete action on this bill were unsuccessful, I appreciate the good 
faith in which these bipartisan, bicameral negotiations took place and 
recognize the important compromises that were offered on all sides. 
Time ran out in this Congress to get our job done on this legislation.
  I appreciate the frustration of many of my Republican colleagues 
about our inability to achieve consensus on juvenile justice 
legislation because I know that those frustrations are shared by me and 
my Democratic colleagues. It is unfortunate that the majority did not 
chose to begin these negotiations, and did not chose to start 
addressing the significant criticisms of this bill, until the last 
minutes of this Congress.
  When the 106th Congress convenes, and we again turn our attention to 
juvenile justice legislation, my hope is that the good work we have 
accomplished over the last week is the starting point. If not, I fear 
that the 106th Congress will end up at the same place we are today: 
with no juvenile justice legislation to show as an accomplishment for 
all of us. I thank all who have been willing to make the effort in the 
final days, and look forward to completing this work early next year.

                          ____________________