[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1814-1818]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--S. 1169

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, soon Senator Whitehouse and I will be 
offering a unanimous consent request. It is in regard to the Juvenile 
Justice and Delinquency Prevention Reauthorization Act. It has an 
amendment at the desk. I introduced this measure last April with 
Senator Whitehouse, and it has three main goals.
  First, this measure would extend a federal law, known as the Juvenile 
Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, for 5 more years. The 
centerpiece of this 1974 law, which Congress last extended in 2002, is 
its core protections for youth.
  There are four core protections. The first calls for States to avoid 
detaining youth for low-level status offenses. The second requires that 
juveniles be kept out of adult facilities, except in rare instances. 
The third ensures that juveniles will be kept separated from adult 
inmates whenever they are housed in adult facilities. The fourth calls 
for reducing disproportionate minority contact in State juvenile 
justice systems. States adhering to these four requirements receive 
yearly formula grants to support their juvenile justice systems.
  Second, this legislation would make important updates to existing law 
in order to ensure that juvenile justice programs will yield the best 
possible estimates. The authorization for these programs expired in 
2007, but they continue to receive appropriations. Nearly 14 years have 
elapsed since the last reauthorization, and the programs are long 
overdue for an update.
  Third, this bill would promote greater accountability in government 
spending. The Judiciary Committee that I chair heard from multiple 
whistleblowers that reforms are urgently needed to restore the 
integrity of formula grant programs that are the centerpiece of our 
current juvenile justice law. The Justice Department's Office of 
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention administers this formula 
grant program.
  This grant program would be continued for 5 more years under this 
bill, but the Justice Department would have to do much more oversight 
if this bill is enacted. This bill also calls for evidence-based 
programs to be accorded priority in funding. The goal is to ensure that 
scarce Federal resources for juvenile justice will be devoted mostly to 
the programs that research shows have the greatest merits and will 
yield the best results for these young people.
  For years and years, I have been reading inspector general reports 
that

[[Page 1815]]

disclose shortcomings within the Justice Department, under both 
Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents. Money is not being 
spent according to congressional intent, and it has not yielded the 
results we should be getting. That's why we want evidence-based 
programs to be accorded priority in funding.
  A coalition of over 100 nonprofit organizations, led by the Campaign 
for Youth Justice and the Coalition for Juvenile Justice, worked 
closely with us on this bill's development. Others that have endorsed 
this measure include Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, Boys Town, 
Rights4Girls, the National Criminal Justice Association, the National 
Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, and the National District 
Attorneys Association. Senator Whitehouse and I are very grateful for 
their support.
  I also take this opportunity to thank our 15 cosponsors, who include 
not only numerous Judiciary Committee members but people off the 
committee, such as Senators Blunt, Rubio, Ernst, and other non-
committee members. This bill is a truly bipartisan effort, and many 
Senators contributed provisions to strengthen this bill since we 
introduced it last April.
  There are a few provisions of the bill that I especially want to 
highlight. First, as already mentioned, this bill calls for continued 
congressional support of existing grant programs that serve at-risk 
youth. It also incorporates new language, championed by the 
organization called Rights4Girls, which emphasizes Congress's support 
for efforts to reduce delinquency among girls. Experts tell us that 
many girls in the juvenile justice system today have experienced 
violence, trauma, and poverty.
  Second, at the urging of the National Council of Juvenile and Family 
Court Judges, this bill gives States 3 years to phase out the detention 
of children who have committed so-called status offenses. Status 
offenses are those that are low-level offenses, such as running away 
from home, underage tobacco use, curfew violations, or truancy, which 
wouldn't be crimes if committed by an adult and which would never 
result in an adult being jailed.
  Most status offenders are boys, with one exception. Girls account for 
about 60 percent of the runaway cases. Many of these girls and boys 
come from broken homes, and many have experienced trauma or mental 
health issues in childhood. Research shows that detention tends to make 
mentally ill status offenders worse. Because some detention facilities 
are crowded, violent, or chaotic, they can be very dangerous places for 
the low-risk offender. It is very expensive to lock up status offenders 
who don't pose a public safety risk. Finally, experts say that the 
status offenders learn negative behavior from high-risk offenders in 
detention, which greatly increases their risks of reoffending. 
Researchers call this peer deviancy training.
  Third, the bill incorporates new provisions designed to rehabilitate 
and protect juveniles while they are in custody. It encourages 
screenings of boys and girls who may be exploited by human traffickers, 
as well as those with trauma, mental health, or substance abuse issues. 
It includes language, authored by Senators Cornyn and Schumer, which 
would end the shackling of pregnant girls in detention. It calls for 
greater data collection, including reports on the use of isolation on 
juveniles in State or local detention facilities, and it includes 
language calling for States to ensure that juveniles will continue 
their education while in detention.
  The measure we are seeking to pass today also includes a minor 
amendment at the request of Senator Murkowski to ensure that the bill's 
definition of the phrase ``Indian tribes'' is the same as existing law. 
We also have added several new provisions to meet the better needs of 
tribal youth, who are overrepresented in the juvenile justice system. 
They include a requirement that the GAO report back to Congress on ways 
to improve prevention and treatment services, as well as provisions 
encouraging States to notify Indian tribes when tribal youth come into 
contact with their juvenile justice systems.
  I am pleased to have had the opportunity to work so closely in such a 
bipartisan manner with Senator Whitehouse, who I hope will speak 
shortly on these key reform provisions. I am pleased that we have 
revisited the authorization statute for some vitally important juvenile 
justice programs--a statute which is long overdue for an update to 
reflect the latest scientific research on what works with at-risk 
adolescents.
  At this point, would the Presiding Officer recognize Senator 
Whitehouse under the rules.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am here to show support for my 
Judiciary Committee chairman's effort to move this measure by unanimous 
consent. He has described the bill in considerable detail, so I will 
not repeat his description of the bill.
  From a point of view of process, I will say that this was a bill that 
came through Judiciary without a single voice of dissent. A great deal 
of bipartisan work was done to make sure it addressed new problems that 
young people face in all these different areas that the chairman 
described. It has a lot of enthusiasm and support in the Judiciary 
Committee. Indeed, it had such broad enthusiasm and support in the 
Judiciary Committee that we decided that we would simply hotline the 
bill because there seemed to be no objection to it. ``Hotline'' means 
you ask unanimous consent and warn people you are going to ask 
unanimous consent, and anybody who wants to object has a chance to come 
to the floor and do so.
  It is my understanding that there is one Senator of the 100 of us who 
wishes to do so, and so here we are going through that exercise. But it 
has completely cleared on our side and is ready for action.
  I would say that it is quite broadly supported. This is the list of 
law enforcement support for it. As you can see even from a chair quite 
far away, this is a fairly considerable document with a substantial 
list of hundreds of folks from across the country who pledge their 
support to this bill in law enforcement.
  I would add that from the State of Arkansas, the junior Senator from 
Arkansas is the Senator who is going to raise the one objection, I 
gather. The Arkansas State Advisory Group, the association called 
Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, and the official State 
Arkansas Division of Youth Services all support this bill.
  On the list of law enforcement supporters that I showed you are the 
following law enforcement leaders from Arkansas who support this bill. 
Robert Alcon is the chief of police of the Mayflower Police Department, 
and he supports this bill. Steve Benton is the chief of police of the 
Ward Police Department; he supports this bill. Ray Coffman is the chief 
of police of the Judsonia Police Department; he supports this bill. 
Randy Harvey is the chief of police of the Lowell Police Department; he 
supports this bill. Mark Kizer is the chief of police of the Bryant 
Police Department; he supports this bill. Kirk Lane is the chief of 
police of the Benton Police Department; he supports this bill. Randy 
Reid is the chief of police of the Glenwood Police Department; he 
supports this bill. Montie Sims is the chief of police of the 
Dardanelle Police Department; he supports this bill. Obie Sims is the 
sheriff of the Lafayette County Sheriff's Office, and he supports this 
bill.
  I would note that the senior Senator from Arkansas is not here to 
object to it.
  I would hope that since the Governor of Arkansas has appointed a 
Youth Justice Reform Board, whose purpose is to ``improve the overall 
effectiveness of the juvenile justice system'' through evidence-based 
practices, the 3-year period that this bill gives for the 
implementation of this would give Arkansas plenty of time to 
accommodate itself. If there proves to be a problem, we can always come 
back to it later. In the meantime, this effort that is being undertaken 
under the leadership of the Governor of Arkansas is being done in

[[Page 1816]]

conjunction with the Arkansas Division of Youth Services, which 
supports this bill.
  I would add one other thing, which is that the purpose of this bill 
is to prevent children from being locked up for something that no adult 
could be locked up for if they were to do it--truancy, not showing up 
for school, things like that.
  In the event, however, that a child comes under the supervision of a 
court and the court directs that child to do certain things, if the 
child then fails to comply with the court order, judges have broad 
authority to enforce compliance with their orders. It is known as the 
contempt power. It is inherent in the judicial office. It can include 
fines; it can even include detention.
  To be in violation of a court order is not, in my view or in the view 
of anybody else that I am aware of, a status offense. Therefore, in a 
particularly acute or difficult situation in which a judge feels the 
need to enforce compliance with his or her order, the contempt power 
inherent in the judiciary is not obviated or addressed in any way by 
this bill.
  So for all those reasons, I will conclude by recalling the story of 
the conclusion of the Founders' work on the Constitution, when, at the 
end, Benjamin Franklin stood up and acknowledged that there had been 
various disagreements but that he would urge that each of the Members 
of that body doubt just for one moment their own infallibility and 
allow the measure to proceed.
  In that spirit, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this is the opportunity we have been 
waiting for. I hope it is not objected to. If it is, we will have to 
take that into consideration and just hold the bill in the Senate.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
immediate consideration of Calendar No. 325, which is S. 1169; further, 
that the Grassley substitute amendment be agreed to; that the 
committee-reported substitute amendment, as amended, be agreed to; that 
the bill, as amended, be read a third time; and that the Senate vote on 
passage of the bill, as amended, with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, first, I 
want to express my appreciation for the work Senator Grassley, Senator 
Whitehouse, and others have done in crafting the Juvenile Justice and 
Delinquency Prevention Act. I agree with my colleagues--the bill 
improves the way we handle juvenile offenders. The bill properly 
focuses on rehabilitation and services that seek to turn juveniles away 
from crime and provide help to at-risk youth. I support the vast 
majority of the bill, and I hope it ultimately passes into law. 
However, I would like to take more time to discuss one specific 
provision of the bill relating to juvenile status offenders and secure 
confinement.
  Secure confinement is not and in my opinion should not be the 
preferred option for instances of alcohol possession, truancy, or other 
status offenses. In fact, current law bars judges from imposing secure 
confinement for initial status offenses. But I am concerned that the 
bill eliminates completely the ability for judges to order secure 
confinement for a short time in instances where a status offender 
flagrantly violates the judge's prior order for him to, say, enter into 
rehabilitation, counseling, or take part in other treatment services. 
In such narrow circumstances, it may be prudent to allow judges--often 
in consultation with the parents and attorneys involved--to have secure 
confinement as a means to enforce their own orders and to ensure that 
the juvenile receives the help he needs.
  Currently, many States are developing an array of options for 
treating status offenders beyond secure confinement. Yet a majority of 
States do, in fact, still choose to retain the option for judges to 
order secure confinement in narrow circumstances.
  Just last year, my State of Arkansas passed a new juvenile justice 
bill that sought to expand rehabilitation services for status offenders 
so the State could reduce the number who were subject to secure 
confinement, but in my State legislature's judgment, it chose to retain 
secure confinement as a last-resort option. I don't believe Congress 
should second-guess this choice. I have heard from Arkansans on this 
point, and I have raised it with the bill's sponsors.
  A blanket Federal mandate that bans secure confinement in each and 
every circumstance may not be the best way forward. I submit we should 
continue to entrust States with the decision to retain it as a last-
resort option and to allow judges on a case-by-case basis to use their 
discretion about the best course to enforce their prior orders. 
Therefore, with hopes we can resolve the issue promptly and pass this 
legislation, I regretfully object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, may I clarify one point?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, there are grants that the Federal 
Government makes to States to support their juvenile justice programs, 
and there are conditions that come with those grants. But I want to 
make sure that what is clear from the exchange is that this is a 
condition for receiving these Federal grants, but there is no mandate 
of any kind. The State, if it wishes, is free not to receive the 
Federal grant money and not comply with those conditions. It may be a 
technical point, but I think it is one that is important to clarify.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I understand the point the Senator from 
Rhode Island makes. I would say it poses a Hobson's choice for many 
States.
  I would also make note of his earlier comment about a court's 
inherent authority to enforce its previous order using its inherent 
power of contempt, which would include the ability to order secure 
confinement for a short period of time. Perhaps we can work together to 
include a proviso in the bill that would recognize that inherent 
authority, and this bill would not remove that inherent authority on 
the condition of accepting the grant.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Again, for the Record, I am the Senator from Rhode 
Island, not the Senator from Vermont.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I respect the Senator from Arkansas. In 
the short time he has been in the Senate, he has been an outstanding 
leader on very important issues. He is a good Senator. I have watched 
him over the period of time he has been in the Senate, and I think this 
is the first time I felt he was wrong. But he has his rights.
  Juvenile judges are the ones who originally requested that Congress 
include a valid court order, or ``VCO,'' exception in the Federal 
juvenile justice statute, and they now are asking us to repeal it. We 
accorded great weight to the opinion of the National Council of Family 
and Juvenile Court Judges because their members are the ones who invoke 
this exception.
  As further noted this week by Elizabeth Pyke of the National Criminal 
Justice Association: ``No one on the state government side is arguing 
to keep the VCO. . . . All agree that the VCO is the wrong tool to get 
a child's attention. Holding them in detention for a status offense is 
no longer considered the best practice for scaring a kid into going 
straight . . . So parsing the language to allow judges to continue to 
use the VCO for punishment doesn't really make sense. And, again, no 
one in the states has argued for that.''
  Detaining status offenders is not good public policy. We don't 
support a further language change because locking up these adolescents 
will make them worse, expose them to violent offenders who have 
committed serious crimes, and increase the likelihood

[[Page 1817]]

they will become serious offenders themselves.
  Remember that we are talking about juveniles who have committed 
infractions that would not be crimes if committed by adults. Curfew 
violations. Truancy. Underage tobacco use.
  Status offenders often come from broken homes or homes with family 
conflicts. Many have had traumatic childhoods or suffer from mental 
health issues.
  Strikingly, girls are 16 percent of the detained population but 
comprise 40 percent of status offenders. In the case of girls, the root 
cause for commission of a status offense may be severe forms of child 
abuse, including child sex trafficking.
  In truancy cases, placing a status offender in detention only ensures 
that the juvenile will miss even more school without ever resolving the 
issue motivating the truancy. Even a brief time in detention may make 
it harder for the child to keep up with school work. Yet truancy is one 
of the status offenses that frequently results in a status offender's 
detention in Arkansas. We need to resolve the issues that lead these 
children to skip school so that they can succeed.
  Judges have more effective and less costly tools at their disposal to 
ensure these juveniles' accountability. For example, they can suspend 
their driver's license; impose fines; send the juvenile to live with 
another family; order the juvenile into counseling. Judges also may ask 
parents to undergo counseling or take parenting classes.
  Finally, as already noted, locking up status offenders costs the 
taxpayers a lot of money, even though these juveniles typically don't 
pose a public safety risk. In Arkansas, housing a child in detention 
costs hundreds of dollars per day. Community-based programs cost a lot 
less, but they ensure the judge receives periodic status updates and 
enable the judge to increase sanctions if the child remains unstable.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
some of the letters we have received in support of the bill's passage.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                 National Criminal


                                          Justice Association,

                                    Washington, DC, July 27, 2015.
     Hon. Charles Grassley,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Sheldon Whitehouse,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Grassley and Whitehouse: We are pleased to 
     support S. 1169, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
     Prevention Reauthorization Act (JJDPA) of 2015. Members of 
     the National Criminal Justice Association (NCJA) include the 
     state, territorial and tribal chief executive officers of 
     criminal justice agencies charged with managing federal, 
     state, and tribal justice assistance resources. About half of 
     these administer the programs authorized by the JJDPA.
       NCJA members applaud the goals of S. 1169 to preserve and 
     strengthen the prevention, youth development and 
     rehabilitation purposes of the JJDPA, and are committed to 
     achieving the reforms envisioned by the bill. In particular, 
     the bill focuses on employing evidence-based and promising 
     practices to promote alternatives to detention and provide 
     for the diversion from, and the safe and effective treatment 
     for, youth in confinement. It also would further the progress 
     we have made as a nation in keeping youth out of contact with 
     adult offenders, from the time of arrest through confinement.
       The promise of the JJDPA is federal support for innovative 
     state approaches to reforming the juvenile justice system and 
     improving the treatment of juveniles under the state's care. 
     S. 1169 will add to states' responsibilities by substantially 
     expanding the activities under the core requirements, 
     increasing data collection, and potentially requiring states 
     to establish new facilities to house youthful offenders and 
     increase the number of facilities states are required to 
     monitor. Yet, since the last reauthorization in 2002, funding 
     for JJDPA programs has dropped by more than 60 percent. This 
     means that the resources available to states for juvenile 
     delinquency programming and compliance with the core 
     requirements are substantially dropping at a time when the 
     requirements on states are substantially increasing.
       It is for this reason that NCJA members appreciate the 
     flexibility and spirit of partnership embedded in the bill 
     which will help all states reach a common standard of 
     protection and service for children in the juvenile justice 
     system even when resources are scarce.
       NCJA members also believe the bill will help continue to 
     rebuild the partnership between OJJDP and the state agencies 
     responsible for carrying out the purposes of the Act. The 
     bill includes new training and technical assistance 
     opportunities for state agency administrators, offers a new 
     opportunity for state agencies to partner with OJJDP in 
     research and the sharing of best practices, and holds the 
     promise of improving transparency.
       We are effusive in our praise and thanks for Evelyn Fortier 
     and Lara Quint. Throughout the bill development process, 
     Evelyn and Lara have been thoughtful, professional, 
     welcoming, patient, collaborative, and kind. They have 
     listened to our concerns and worked hard to craft language 
     that supports the role of the state administering agencies 
     while keeping pressure on the states to strengthen our 
     juvenile justice systems.
       Thank you for your leadership, for your commitment to 
     improving the outcomes for youth, and for supporting state 
     efforts to prevent and reduce juvenile crime.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Jeanne Smith,
     President.
                                  ____



                                       Act 4 Juvenile Justice,

                                 Washington, DC, January 25, 2016.
     Hon. Chuck Grassley,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Sheldon Whitehouse,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Grassley and Senator Whitehouse: We, the 
     undersigned--representing more than 200 national, state, and 
     local organizations and hundreds of thousands of 
     constituents--thank you for your leadership in sponsoring S. 
     1169, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 
     Reauthorization Act of 2015. The bill strengthens and updates 
     the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA), 
     which has provided States and localities with federal 
     standards and supports for improving juvenile justice and 
     delinquency prevention practices and contributed to 
     safeguards for youth, families and communities for more than 
     40 years, and we are grateful that you have made it a 
     priority this Congress.
       Despite a continuing decline in youth crime and 
     delinquency, more than 60,000 young people are held in 
     detention centers awaiting trial or confined by the courts in 
     juvenile facilities in the U.S. For these confined youth, and 
     the many more kids at-risk of involvement in the justice 
     system, the JJDPA and programs it supports are critical. 
     Youth who are locked up are separated from their families, 
     and many witness violence. These youth struggle when they get 
     out, trying to complete high school, get jobs, housing, or go 
     to college. Aside from the human toll, the financial costs of 
     maintaining large secure facilities have also made it vital 
     to rethink juvenile justice in every community.
       Premised on research-based understandings of juvenile 
     justice and delinquency prevention, S. 1169 reaffirms a 
     national commitment to the rehabilitative purpose of the 
     juvenile justice system; one that supports developmentally 
     appropriate practices that treat as many youth as possible in 
     their communities. It advances important improvements to the 
     JJDPA, its core requirements and its central purposes, 
     provides enhanced safeguards for youth in the system, 
     increases community safety, and ensures progress toward 
     racial fairness.
       Since the last JJDPA reauthorization was approved in 2002, 
     there have been many developments in the field of juvenile 
     justice that significantly impact practitioners' work. S. 
     1169 recognizes and addresses many of these developments in 
     several key ways. Specifically, we are pleased that the bill:
       1. Strengthens the Deinstitutionalization of Status 
     Offenders (DSO) core requirement by calling on states to 
     phase-out use of the Valid Court Order Exception that 
     currently causes non-offending youth/status offenders to be 
     locked up.
       2. Extends the adult Jail Removal and Sight and Sound 
     Separation core requirements to apply to juveniles held 
     pretrial, whether charged in juvenile or adult court.
       3. Gives States and localities clear direction on the 
     Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) protection to plan 
     and implement approaches to ensure fairness and reduce racial 
     and ethnic disparities, and to set measurable objectives for 
     reduction of disparities in the system.
       4. Encourages States to eliminate dangerous practices in 
     confinement and to promote adoption of best practices and 
     standards.
       5. Recognizes the impact of exposure to violence and trauma 
     on adolescent behavior and development.
       6. Encourages investment in community-based alternatives to 
     detention; encourages family engagement in design and 
     delivery of treatment and services; improves screening, 
     diversion, assessment, and treatment for mental health and 
     substance abuse needs; allows for easier transfer of 
     education credits for system-involved youth; and calls for a 
     focus on the particular needs of girls either in the system 
     or at risk of entering the justice system.
       7. Promotes fairness by supporting State efforts to expand 
     youth access to counsel and

[[Page 1818]]

     encouraging programs that inform youth of opportunities to 
     seal or expunge juvenile records once they have gotten their 
     lives back on track.
       8. Reauthorizes the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant 
     (JABG) program which helps states and localities reduce 
     juvenile offending by providing judges and other juvenile 
     justice officials with a range of age/developmentally-
     appropriate options to both hold youth accountable and get 
     them back on track so they are less likely to reoffend.
       9. Encourages transparency, timeliness, public notice, and 
     communication on the part of OJJDP, its agents and the 
     States.
       10. Increases accountability to ensure effective use of 
     resources, to provide greater oversight of grant programs, 
     and to ensure state compliance with federal standards.
       Given the significant gains reflected in S. 1169, we are 
     pleased to endorse the bill and look forward to continuing to 
     work with you and your colleagues toward final passage in the 
     114th Congress.
                                  ____



                               Human Rights Project for Girls,

                                 Washington, DC, January 30, 2016.
     Hon. Chuck Grassley,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Grassley: Rights4Girls is a human rights 
     organization focused on gender-based violence against young 
     women and girls here in the U.S. We write to thank you for 
     your leadership and commitment to our youth in sponsoring the 
     Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Reauthorization 
     Act (JJDPA) this Congress. We believe this bill strengthens 
     the existing law by providing critical updates needed to 
     protect youth, families, and communities.
       We write to express our support for the JJDPA, which has 
     not been reauthorized in over a decade. Despite an overall 
     decline in youth crime and delinquency, more than 60,000 
     children are held in detention centers across the United 
     States. We also know that girls are now the fastest growing 
     segment of the juvenile justice population, requiring a more 
     gender-responsive lens when looking at issues related to 
     delinquency and justice-involvement. The research shows that 
     the vast majority of girls in the justice system enter with 
     extensive histories of sexual and physical abuse. Nationally, 
     over 70% of girls in the justice system report histories of 
     sexual and physical violence, but in some states it can range 
     anywhere from 80-93%. For youth and especially young girls in 
     the system or at-risk of involvement in the system, the JJDPA 
     and the improvements in this year's language are vital.
       For example, we know that each year more than 1,000 
     American children are arrested for prostitution, despite not 
     being old enough to consent to sex and despite the existence 
     of federal laws that define them as victims of trafficking. 
     The JJDPA protects child trafficking victims by providing for 
     the screening of youth upon intake for child trafficking and 
     promoting services and alternatives to detention for such 
     victims. The JJDPA will also grant greater protection for 
     pregnant girls behind bars by restricting the use of 
     shackles. Because shackles can greatly increase the 
     likelihood of falls, the JJDPA limits the use of restraints 
     on pregnant girls in the system, which will better protect 
     the life and health of both these young women as well as 
     their unborn children. Another critical way in which the 
     JJDPA will benefit young girls is in phasing out the Valid 
     Court Order (VCO) exception. Since girls are 
     disproportionately charged with and detained for status 
     offenses, closing this loophole would particularly benefit 
     girls--many of whom are arrested and detained using the VCO 
     exception for offenses that are directly correlated with 
     suffering abuse and trauma.
       We are grateful for your commitment to this issue and to 
     these youth. As a human rights organization dedicated to 
     protecting the rights of vulnerable young women and girls, we 
     urge the Senate to swiftly take up and pass this critical 
     piece of legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Rights4Girls,
     Washington, DC.
                                  ____



                                  Fight Crime: Invest in Kids,

                               Washington, DC, September 17, 2015.
       To All Members of Congress: We are members of Fight Crime: 
     Invest in Kids, a national organization of nearly 5,000 law 
     enforcement leaders nationwide, including chiefs of police, 
     sheriffs, prosecutors, and other law enforcement executives. 
     We write to express our strong support for S. 1169, the 
     bipartisan reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and 
     Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA). This reauthorization 
     supports proven programs that can prevent youths from 
     engaging in criminal activity or rehabilitate youths starting 
     to offend. These programs provide a critical support for law 
     enforcement and an important investment in those young 
     people. We urge your support for this important 
     reauthorization.
       Recidivism remains a serious problem, draining law 
     enforcement resources and damaging public safety. Past 
     studies have shown that if a youth 14 years old or younger 
     becomes a second-time offender, their likelihood of future 
     run-ins with law enforcement spikes to 77 percent; and 
     nationwide, almost half of youths who come before juvenile 
     court (40 percent) will come before the court at least one 
     more time. More needs to be done to ensure that if a youth 
     offends, their first contact with the justice system is also 
     their last.
       The bipartisan Senate bill to reauthorize JJDPA would 
     provide federal support for evidence-based programs to combat 
     youth recidivism. Many states have expanded the use of these 
     intervention programs in recent years, and additional support 
     through the JJDPA reauthorization would help states continue 
     this work. Research has shown that effective community-based 
     intervention programs for youths and their families can 
     significantly reduce the likelihood that the youth will get 
     into trouble again. By reasserting family and personal 
     responsibility, and coaching parents and children in the 
     skills they will need to change the youths' behaviors, 
     juvenile offenders are much more likely to engage in more 
     pro-social behavior and avoid future run-ins with the law.
       This reauthorization strengthens the evidence-based 
     standard, ensuring the federal investment will go to programs 
     that have demonstrated significant effectiveness. It also 
     encourages continued growth in the anti-recidivism field by 
     allowing a small portion of funds to go to promising 
     programs, thus encouraging innovation and yielding the 
     greatest results for the community.
       A study of one intervention program that works with 
     troubled youth and their families, Functional Family Therapy 
     (FFT), found that youth whose families received FFT coaching 
     were half as likely to be rearrested as those whose families 
     did not. Another study found FFT reduced subsequent out-of-
     home placements by three quarters. Further, because of the 
     reduced costs associated with crime and contact with the 
     justice system, FFT was found to save the public $27,000 per 
     youth treated. Another intervention that works with the 
     families of serious juvenile offenders, Multisystemic Therapy 
     (MST), found juvenile offenders who had not received MST were 
     62 percent more likely to be arrested for another offense, 
     and more than twice as likely to be arrested for a violent 
     offense.
       One effective, research-based program, Multidimensional 
     Treatment Foster Care (MTFC) provides specially selected and 
     trained foster parents for seriously troubled youth who 
     cannot stay with their parents. While the youth are in foster 
     care learning crucial skills, their parents are receiving 
     coaching so they can continue the process of directing their 
     children's behavior in more positive ways once the youths 
     return home. In studies, MTFC has been shown to cut juvenile 
     recidivism in half and save the public an average of $9,000 
     for every juvenile treated. Each of these programs can be 
     used successfully either in place of residential facilities, 
     or as after-care upon leaving a facility.
       As these programs help to reduce youth recidivism, there 
     also needs to be a clear sense of the progress being made and 
     areas for continued improvement. We support the National 
     Recidivism Measure within this reauthorization that instructs 
     the Administrator to establish a uniform measure of data 
     collection that states can voluntarily adopt, or not, as 
     another tool to evaluate data on juvenile recidivism. The 
     option of measure some re-offending outcomes in the same way 
     could help states compare results and share best practices.
       Law enforcement nationwide remain committed to doing what 
     is necessary to protect public safety, and we know that 
     families and communities have an important role to play. We 
     support the reauthorization of JJDPA, which will provide 
     support for family-centered and community-based 
     interventions, like FFT, MST, and MFTC. This is a strategic 
     investment in public safety. Changing the behavior of a 
     teenager is more likely than changing the behavior of an 
     adult career criminal. This not only benefits those youths, 
     but also law enforcement, the taxpayer, and the community.
       We urge Congress to pass the reauthorization of JJDPA that 
     will prioritize evidence-based programs to get troubled kids 
     back on track and improve public safety.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I share in the mutual admiration for the 
Senator from Iowa, and I appreciate his work on this and many other 
pieces of legislation. I commit to work with both him and the Senator 
from Rhode Island to try to resolve this as promptly as possible so we 
can move this piece of legislation forward.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the 
conclusion of my remarks, the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn, be 
recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________