[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 171 (Wednesday, November 30, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6602-S6604]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--H.R. 5963

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, soon I will offer a unanimous consent 
request with regard to a bill that would reform and reauthorize Federal 
juvenile justice programs. This bill is known as the Supporting Youth 
Opportunity and Preventing Delinquency Act of 2016. It passed the other 
Chamber last month by a vote of 382-29.
  The bipartisan House bill is modeled closely to one that I introduced 
over a year ago with the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Whitehouse. 
That legislation was titled the ``Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
Prevention Reauthorization Act.'' It has 19 Senate cosponsors and 
cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee, which I chair, without a single 
dissenting vote last year. The House companion before us today also won 
the unanimous approval of a committee in the other Chamber before 
passing the House with overwhelming support a few weeks ago.
  The two bills are remarkably similar in most respects, indicating 
their objectives. One such objective is to extend the Juvenile Justice 
and Delinquency Prevention Act for 5 more years. That Federal statute 
was last reauthorized in 2002, and it is long overdue for an update. 
Congress is still funding juvenile justice programs that expired in 
2007, nearly a decade ago.
  I think my colleagues know of the hard work of Senator Enzi, chairman 
of the Budget Committee, and a program that he has of the hundreds of 
billions of dollars of taxpayer money we are spending that has not been 
authorized by the authorizing committees. So getting a lot of bills 
that have expired reauthorized is in the spirit of what Senator Enzi is 
trying to promote among the 15, 16, or however many committees we have 
in the Senate that don't do their work on a regular basis.
  The centerpiece of the 1974 act is its core protections for youth. 
Over 40 years ago, Congress committed to making Federal grants 
available to States that observed these core protections, of which 
there are now four.
  The first core protection discourages the detention of children and 
youth for extremely minor infractions, such as truancy, underage 
tobacco use, disobeying parents, and running away. No State would ever 
jail an adult; that is an important emphasis. No State would ever jail 
an adult for this same conduct. And research shows that nothing much 
positive comes out of locking up children for conduct that isn't even 
criminal.
  The second core protection calls for juveniles to be kept out of 
adult facilities except in certain very rare instances. The third calls 
for juveniles to be separated from adults when they are held in adult 
facilities. And the fourth calls for States to try to reduce 
disproportionate minority contact in their juvenile justice system.
  That is from 1974, and those goals are still legitimate goals. Under 
our proposed legislation, as under this current law, if a State commits 
to meeting these core protections for youth, it can expect to continue 
receiving Federal grant money to support its juvenile justice 
activities.
  Our second objective for this legislation is to make reforms to 
current law so that taxpayer-supported juvenile justice programs will 
yield best possible outcomes. To that end, our bill reflects the latest 
research that works best with at-risk children and youth.
  We added provisions to promote the rehabilitation of runaways who are 
at high risk of being trafficked. We included language to discourage 
shackling of pregnant juveniles during childbirth. After learning that 
a handful of States receiving Federal grant funds are locking up 
children as young as 8 or 9 for minor infractions, such as truancy, we 
called for a phaseout of valid court orders permitting that practice. 
Last but not least, we responded to concerns voiced by whistleblowers 
by adding accountability measures to protect the taxpayers and promote 
more oversight of justice reforms.
  These accountability measures are something I have been working on 
both as ranking member of the Judiciary Committee and chairman of that 
committee for a long period of time, not

[[Page S6603]]

just on the juvenile justice program but on a lot of other programs 
where taxpayer money is being wasted by having different standards in 
some programs versus the others, particularly when the bureaucracy at 
the Justice Department is not policing what States do and they let the 
States get out. We have all kinds of GAO reports or reports from 
inspectors general that come back to us saying that this money to the 
States is not following the intent that was intended by Congress. I 
think all Senators assume a responsibility to make sure that taxpayer 
money will go as far as it can. So we worked some of those 
accountability issues into every bill I can get out of the Justice 
Department that affects these programs.
  Groups such as the Campaign for Youth Justice, the Coalition for 
Juvenile Justice, Boys Town, Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, among many 
others, endorsed the legislation and contributed input. We also 
consulted the National Criminal Justice Association, the National 
District Attorneys Association, and a coalition of roughly two dozen 
anti-human trafficking groups that endorsed the legislation as well.
  The House bill before us today includes many or most of the same 
provisions that Senator Whitehouse and I championed, and it enjoys the 
support of virtually all of the same 100-plus organizations that 
endorsed the versions we sponsored in this Chamber. The House made a 
few key changes to preserve more flexibility for States.
  Speaking of those 100-plus organizations, I feel a responsibility to 
them to work as hard as I can to get this legislation passed because 
they have worked so hard at the grass roots level.
  Let me go back to the flexibility we give to the States that the 
House put in. States that object to phasing out the detention of status 
offenders over a period of 3 years can invoke a 1-year hardship 
exception. That hardship exception is renewable every year for an 
indefinite period, and that is at the State's option.

  The House-passed measure also includes a modified version of 
legislation by Senators Inhofe, Casey, and Vitter in this Chamber. That 
language would encourage the rehabilitation of youth who are at risk 
because of involvement in gangs or the criminal justice system.
  The House bill shouldn't be controversial, which is why we are 
requesting unanimous consent to have the Senate pass it today. Again, I 
remind my colleagues that the other Chamber passed it by an 
overwhelming vote in September, after the Education Committee, under 
Chairman John Kline's leadership, reported the measure without a single 
dissenting vote.
  I also thank our cosponsors, which include the ranking member of the 
Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, as well as ranking member Senator 
Feinstein, for their support of this legislation.
  Unfortunately, when we sought to bring up the Senate version by 
unanimous consent back in February, a single Senator objected, 
preventing its passage. He has objected to the language that would 
require States to embrace one of the 42-year core principles.
  Before this Congress comes to a close, we have a great opportunity to 
pass an important piece of legislation to help some of the most 
vulnerable children and youth in the United States. But it is not only 
these at-risk children who would benefit due to the reforms we have 
included in this bill; the legislation would benefit taxpayers as well.
  I see Senator Whitehouse on the floor. Before I ask unanimous 
consent, I wish to yield to him for the purpose of his speaking on the 
bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I thank Chairman Grassley.
  The chairman and I have been working on this bill since 2014. What we 
heard from juvenile justice practitioners around the country is that a 
lot of the policies which had been in place for dealing with juvenile 
offenders were stale and ineffective and that there were better ways to 
do business than were currently being supported by this grant. So we 
have worked for years to get this program, the Juvenile Justice and 
Delinquency Prevention Act, reauthorized.
  I see Senator Cotton on the floor, and he can speak for himself, but 
I think the crux of today's concerns are that the JJDPA would phase out 
over time--over 3 years, in fact--the ability for States to take its 
money. You don't have to take the money, but if you take the money, you 
have to phase out locking up young people--kids--for status offenses, 
for offenses for which an adult could not be locked up. It is simply 
not good practice. That is one of the reasons the National Council of 
Juvenile and Family Court Judges has supported this bill--they know it 
is bad practice. Indeed, the members of the National Council of 
Juvenile and Family Court Judges from the State of Arkansas support 
this measure.
  The bill the chairman referred to that passed the House by such an 
astonishingly strong vote was voted for by every Member of the Arkansas 
delegation in the House of Representatives, and the senior Senator from 
the State of Arkansas supports this bill. We hope the junior Senator 
from Arkansas would be willing to take the legendary advice of Ben 
Franklin that perhaps we should doubt, each of us, a little bit of our 
own infallibility and give us a chance to let this bill go forward.
  If Arkansas doesn't like this, there is a provision that the House 
put in that allows any State to declare itself outside of the provision 
under a self-declared hardship provision. That is an indefinite. That 
is not a 3-year phase-in; that is indefinite. So if the Arkansas courts 
really want to lock up juveniles for status offenses that no adult 
could be locked up for, all they have to do is declare under that 
provision. They may or may not want to do that. The fact that every 
other member of Arkansas' delegation in Congress appears to support 
this and that the family court members from the council appear to 
support it suggests that may not be the case.
  In any event, we would like the ability to go forward. We are 
prepared to move this bill right now. I would be delighted to join the 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee in his motion for unanimous consent 
that the bill be adopted.
  I would add for the record that these law enforcement leaders in 
Arkansas have expressed their support for the bill: Chief Alcon of the 
Mayflower Police Department; Chief Benton of the Ward Police 
Department; Chief Coffman of the Judsonia Police Department; Chief 
Harvey of the Lowell Police Department; Chief Kizer of the Bryant 
Police Department; Chief Lane of the Benton Police Department; Chief 
Reid of the Glenwood Police Department; Chief Sims of the Dardanelle 
Police Department; and Sheriff Sims of the Lafayette County Sheriff's 
Office.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I see my colleague from Arkansas on 
the floor. He is right so many times; I am sorry that we disagree on 
this issue. I don't believe the Senator will make me wrong on that 
point, but I do want to respect his right. He is such a good 
legislator.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to 
the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 649, H.R. 5963. I further 
ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the 
motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. COTTON. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I share 
mutual esteem with the Senator from Iowa. I hate to find myself on the 
opposite side of an issue with him. We had this conversation in 
February as well, almost 9 months ago.
  There are many fine provisions in this legislation, as the chairman 
of the Judiciary Committee outlined, including his legendary work on 
holding agencies and recipients of Federal funds accountable and 
working with the GAO to ferret out fraud and abuses.
  My objection to this legislation is very specific. It is not, as the 
Senator from Rhode Island said, about the jailing of juveniles for so-
called status offenses; that is, for something a juvenile would do--
such as smoking cigarettes, running away from home, skipping school--
that wouldn't be a crime

[[Page S6604]]

if you were 18 years old. So for all these young pages down here who 
are not supposed to be smoking cigarettes, the law currently says you 
cannot put them in jail for smoking cigarettes--and you shouldn't smoke 
cigarettes regardless. However, if a juvenile goes before a juvenile 
judge and the juvenile judge issues a valid court order and tells him 
``Don't smoke any more cigarettes, don't skip school, and don't run 
away from home'' and that juvenile flaunts the authority of the judge, 
that judge needs some mechanism to enforce his orders. That is no 
longer a status offense; that is contempt of court. In my many 
conversations with Arkansans--be it judges, prosecutors, parents, or 
public defenders--they have said repeatedly that the judge needs that 
authority to get the attention of that juvenile delinquent.
  I want this legislation to pass, as I said 9 months ago in a colloquy 
with the Senator from Rhode Island. I thought we had an agreement 
worked out about a provision on the inherent authority of judges. It 
didn't work out, but we worked together in good faith on it. On 
multiple occasions, I worked with the chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee to resolve some of these issues.
  Some activists say that we shouldn't do this to kids who are so 
young, so I proposed an age floor in the teenage years. Some say they 
might be corrupted or hardened by even more hard-core juvenile 
delinquents in a detention facility. I said let's impose a separation 
requirement. Some activists have said that they could be detained 
indefinitely. I said that is fine too; let's put a time limit on how 
long they can be detained. But repeatedly we have been told this 
legislation cannot be changed.
  I would submit to the Senate that these are all small, reasonable 
changes that would allow this legislation to move forward quickly in 
the Senate here in these final couple weeks and again on the suspension 
calendar in the House of Representatives. But when Arkansans have 
specifically passed justice reform legislation in recent years in our 
legislature and they retained this authority of juvenile judges not to 
detain delinquents for their status offenses but because they disobeyed 
a valid court order, I don't think we in Washington should dictate a 
single one-size-fits-all solution for every State in the Union.
  This legislation or legislation like it has come before the Senate 
multiple times in recent years, and every time it is hung up on this 
specific issue. I want to protect Arkansas' interests. I want to ensure 
that judges can enforce their own orders. I want to do what is best for 
the people of my State and our criminal justice system. I also want to 
pass this legislation. So I would offer to both proponents of this 
legislation that we continue to try to address some of these proposals 
I have made, but until then, I am going to have to, regrettably, 
object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I am disappointed that the Senator 
from Arkansas continues to impose the only remaining roadblock to 
passage of this critical piece of legislation.
  Back in February, Senator Cotton indicated a willingness to work with 
Senator Whitehouse and me to resolve our sole point of disagreement. 
Senator Cornyn tried to resolve our differences as well. As you can 
see, we are still at an impasse.
  Our disagreement stems from a 42-year-old provision of the federal 
juvenile justice law that encourages States to phase out the detention 
of children who commit infractions, such as running away from home, 
skipping school, disobeying parents, or underage tobacco use. This 
statutory provision--which has been on the books since 1974--extends a 
``carrot'' in the form of Federal grant funds, to any State that 
commits to deinstitutionalizing juveniles who commit extremely minor 
infractions, also known as ``status offenses.''
  The reason for this core protection is simple: Locking up children 
for conduct, like running away or underage tobacco use, which could 
never, ever result in an adult's being jailed, defies logic and common 
sense.
  For example, when you lock up a child for truancy, you ensure that 
the child will miss even more school and fall even further behind in 
schoolwork. At the same time you have done little, if anything, to 
resolve the underlying issue that led to the truancy. Similarly, very 
little is accomplished by locking up a repeat runaway who is being 
abused at home.
  I urge my colleague to consider what happens when a judge sends an 
especially young child, who has committed the most minor infraction, 
known as a ``status offense,'' in juvenile detention with hardened or 
violent offenders. That young child, who has committed no crime 
whatsoever, is particularly vulnerable to abuse by older juveniles in 
detention.
  Consider, too, that some of these children come from broken homes or 
have mental health issues. They are among the most vulnerable members 
of our communities and need our help. They don't need to be dumped in a 
detention facility where they will be exposed to violent criminals who 
have committed much more serious crimes than skipping school.
  In the decades since 1974, Congress made good on its pledge to 
appropriate resources for every State that committed to fulfill the 
core requirements under the federal juvenile justice statute. About 
half of the States, recognizing that the detention of status offenders 
is mostly ineffective and tremendously costly, have made good on their 
commitment under this grant program. These States have phased out the 
practice of locking up status offenders entirely.
  In another couple dozen States, judges invoke the ``valid court 
order'' exception sparingly. The exception is just that, an exception 
to be invoked only rarely. Status offenders end up in detention only 
occasionally in these states.
  But in a tiny handful of States, some judges send status offenders to 
detention much more regularly. It has been reported that some of the 
children in detention for status offenses in one state are as young as 
8 or 9. Juvenile advocates have charged that some judges are sending 
status offenders to detention as a general practice, which has led to 
calls for reform.
  The Arkansas legislature has chosen to retain the option of jailing 
children for status offenses as a last resort option. This bill does 
not change that. This bill is not a mandate that would override the 
State's law. It merely lays out conditions for receiving Federal grant 
money. Arkansas is still free to not comply with the conditions set 
forth in this legislation.
  I want to remind my colleague that over 100 nonprofit groups, 
numerous judges, and about 1000 law enforcement officers support this 
legislation. They agree that detaining child status offenders is not 
good public policy, based on significant research that points to the 
same conclusion.
  I would also remind my colleagues that judges have multiple other 
options to hold these juveniles accountable. The other options include, 
for example, suspending the juvenile's driver's license, imposing 
fines, or ordering the juvenile into counseling, with or without 
parents. Counseling and other community-based alternatives not only 
cost much less, but are more effective than locking up children 
alongside violent criminals, research suggests.
  This one issue is holding up a bill that is vital to help the 
children in our country.
  Once again, I would like to point out that this legislation does not 
affect State law in Arkansas. We are merely imposing conditions to 
receiving Federal grant money. If this bill passes, which I hope will 
happen today, Arkansas is free to continue to invoke ``the valid court 
exception.'' So I ask that the Senator lift his hold on this critical 
piece of legislation.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.

                          ____________________