The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“THE VIOLENT AND REPEAT OFFENDER ACT” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Justice was published in the Senate section on pages S6876-S6877 on June 23, 1998.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
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.
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.
____________________
