“Youth Violence and Violence Against Women”
Thank you for inviting me. Thank you to the President of the National Association of Attorneys General, Wisconsin’s Jim Doyle. I would also like to recognize Delaware’s Attorney General, and a friend of mine — Jane Brady.
I would like to share with you this morning my views about two issues I hope Congress will address this year — pending youth violence legislation and new violence against women legislation I will soon be introducing.
First, the Youth Violence Bill, S.10. To put where we are on the Hill in some context, I know that many of you are closely involved in the negotiations over tobacco legislation. Well, compared to the many disputes and political “fault-lines” over the Youth Violence Bill, I am starting to think that working out the details on the very complex issue of tobacco may not be so tough after all!
Let me outline just some of these “fault-lines” holding up the Youth Violence Bill –
First, governors — as I’m sure many of you — do not like all the new federal strings attached to S. 10’s $500 million block grant. Even though most every state has enacted juvenile justice reform legislation over the past five years, the bill contains mandates instructing the states how to maintain their juvenile records, how to determine whether juveniles are tried as adults, and which juveniles should be drug tested. The greatest point of contention is the record-keeping mandate which many states have figured out is too prescriptive and too expensive.
Second, everyone from the Chief Justice of the United States to state and local prosecutors are complaining that S. 10 goes way too far toward federalizing juvenile crime. And they are right. The “anti-gang” title of the bill contains sweeping new federal crimes that turn many traditional state law juvenile offenses into federal cases.
S. 10 also repeals the law that gives state officials a “right of first refusal” to prosecute juveniles when there is concurrent state/federal jurisdiction. Under S. 10, federal prosecutors would have first crack at juvenile cases and state officials get whatever is left over.
Remarkably, both sides of the gun debate oppose S. 10. The far-right gunners — we’re talking about groups like the Gun Owners of America — are aggressively opposing provisions which make violations of serious federal gun laws RICO predicates. Since selling bootleg music videos is a RICO predicate, you would think that it should also be a RICO predicate to sell guns kids in furtherance of a violent crime.
But, there is so much opposition to these provisions that three Republican senators — all “gunners” — dropped their sponsorship of S.10.
But, even though many believe the bill is “too tough” on guns — in reality, the bill falls well short of meaningful youth gun enforcement. For example, the bill does not contain the so-called “Juvenile Brady” Proposal, which would impose a life-time gun ban on juveniles convicted of “three-strikes” crimes.
The bottom line on guns — S.10 has major problems with the gunners, the anti-gunners and everyone in between.
Next, a coalition of police, prosecutors, and crime victims are highly critical of the legislation because none of the new federal money is dedicated to after-school juvenile crime prevention.
Two of your members — Grant Woods and Jim Ryan — are on the board of directors of this coalition, which is calling on the Senate to earmark specific funds for after-school prevention. You all know the evidence — if you want to reduce juvenile crime, you have to increase both enforcement and prevention efforts.
Finally, there is a great deal of controversy over the current laws requiring separation of juvenile and adult offenders. The bill guts these requirements by permitting even the most minor juvenile offenders to be housed in adult jails for unlimited duration and placed in cells next to adult criminals. It even goes as far as permitting “intermittent” physical contact between adults and juveniles.
Again, a broad array of prosecutors, police, and corrections officials know that this is bad crime policy — the more we expose kids to grizzled adult criminals, the worse they will be once they are back on the streets.
These are just some of the key reasons why I believe that S.10 is on life-support in the Senate.
We can — and should — fix S.10 but, that the bottom line for me is the same as it is for the vast number of attorneys general. I am convinced that youth violence is a tremendously serious problem facing our nation and our nation’s prosecutors, so I think it is real simple — let’s get it done. Let’s get together, and reach compromise.
I am convinced this is possible, and let me just outline how we could resolve the outstanding issues: separation of juveniles and adult prisoners — on this issue, it seems to me that the House got it right. By a vote of 413-14 in July, 1997, the House passed H.R. 1818 — which eliminated the current prohibition on shared staff, eliminated the prohibition on inadvertent “sight & sound” contact, and I — along with Senator Grassley — got an amendment adopted in the Senate which eliminated the blanket prohibition against putting juvenile status offenders in secure detention facilities.
These are the concerns you all have raised in your June, 1996 resolution. So, it seems to me that with the overwhelming, bi-partisan vote in favor of H.R. 1818 — it is not “rocket science” to figure out that H.R. 1818’s separation standards are a fair compromise.
On the “new strings” requiring changes in state laws and practices related to trying kids as adults, record keeping and drug testing — I believe that compromise is possible if we stay away from overly prescriptive, very specific federal standards.
In other words, I believe that my friends on the other side, are convinced that they have to give the states at least some general policy direction. But, they need to listen to you, the governors and local officials and give you all some flexibility as to how you all meet the general policy directions of trying the most violent kids as adults; drug testing more kids; and getting the records of violent kids into the system.
But, let me borrow President Reagan’s adage — “trust, but verify.” Last November, at the last minute, in the dark of night, the majority put a $250 million Youth Violence Block Grant into an appropriations bill. And, despite the fact that we had made some progress in the Senate to give you all some flexibility in these “new strings” — none of that flexibility was included in the appropriations bill.
There was a general loophole — states only had to “consider” making these very specific changes. But, mark my words, unless you all remain vigilant, that general loophole will be eliminated in a heartbeat and you will have no flexibility. Again — “trust but verify.”
On taking the decision on whether to proceed in state or federal court from you all and giving it federal prosecutors — well, that is just plain silly. The federal government tries fewer than 325 juveniles each year. You all and local prosecutors try hundreds of thousands.
So, I admit, my version of compromise on this one is pretty simple — drop the provision. But, mark my words, unless you all continue to speak up, this provision will be one of those that will stay in the bill.
On prevention, in the Senate, we are down to a difference over whether prevention will be an eligible use for 40% of the block grant or a required use for some specific percentage of the block grant.
I believe that the policy argument made by cops and prosecutors from all over the nation is correct — that if prevention is not required, it simply does not happen, because an investment in prevention pays benefits which are both hard to see and usually happen sometime down the road.
But, to be candid, I believe it will be the political argument that will prevent S.10 from moving without a a specific earmark for prevention. First, because cops and prosecutors are demanding a specific earmark. And, second, because putting kids in supervised programs in the after-school hours when they are most likely to turn to drugs and crime makes so much sense to the public.
In fact, in a February poll, 73% agreed with spending money on prevention — even when asked if they favored “setting-aside money for prevention” out of a block grant for “punishment, new detention facilities, and drug testing.” It doesn’t get much clearer!
When it comes to funding for state and local prosecutors, to be candid, while I am confident that we will be able to boost the annual authorization from $50 million to $100 million — getting an actual appropriation will be very difficult because you will be in direct competition for dollars with the new youth violence block grant.
As I am sure many of you know, I think that block grants are generally bad policy — it always seems that the dollars just get lost or divided so many ways that nothing noticeable is gained.
Instead, I think we get more results if we target dollars to specific purposes — such as, support for prosecutors. But, the team that is in charge now favors block grants. So, that will be their funding priority.
And, even though the 1994 crime law has quadrupled federal support for state and local law enforcement from $900 million to $4.8 billion — it is now a zero-sum game. A game which will put your funding in direct competition with the new Youth Violence Block Grant.
The bottom line, I will support you. But, we are going to have work the appropriations process to ensure that any authorization “promise” is actually delivered upon.
Finally, guns. Frankly, this is the one area where I have great difficulty in figuring out how we forge a compromise. But, I have been through these “crime bill” fights enough to know — that if we reach compromise on the other issues, we can figure out a way to get legislation through the Senate.
At the same time, I have done this enough to know, if we do not reach significant compromises, this bill is dead.
Will we reach compromise? On that basic question, I submit that your voices will be absolutely central to the debate. I am not sure if a push from you all for compromise will definitely produce compromise. But, I am certain that if the attorneys general do not push compromise, there will be no compromise.
And, we will have lost a major opportunity to do something positive against youth violence, crime and drug abuse.
Violence Against Women Act — II
Now, let me turn briefly to the Violence Against Women Act. Frankly, because the efforts of all of you — and that of many others — the act is working. One simple fact illustrates our success — the murder rate for wives, ex-wives and girlfriends at the hands of their “intimates” has fallen to a 20-year low.
Still, there is plainly much to do — and that is why I have been working to put together new legislation: the Violence Against Women Act Two. In general terms, the act will focus on three main targets:
* First, let’s continue the successes of the original act by continuing funding for the “stop” grants to prosecutors, police and victim services; for shelter grants and other proven efforts;
* Second, there are areas where we have to improve on the original act — for example, inter-state enforcement of “stay-away” orders has proven difficult. I suggest that we provide resources, technical assistance, and most important — do what the feds do best — help disseminate the “best practices” you all are developing.
* Third, I believe there are some new areas where we must target our attention — for example, making sure that victims of abuse don’t lose their jobs when they have to testify or seek protection orders.
I am working with several other Senators, of both parties, to put together this bill. I expect we will be introducing it later this month.
But, let me stress to all of you, after introduction, there will be time for your feedback. In fact, I welcome and encourage your feedback on this legislation — and, I assure you, that I am not wedded to any particular language. If you think you have a better idea, please, let me know.
Conclusion
In closing, let me just take a step back from the specific issues of youth violence and violence against women — and talk more generally about criminal justice policy.
Over the past year, as I have taken over as the lead Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, I have noticed a fundamental difference between “foreign policy” and “criminal justice policy.” When I talk to folks about foreign policy, people listen, and usually don’t say anything unless they actually know something.
That’s a little different than on crime — because on crime, everyone’s an expert.
I think that is a great disservice to criminal justice policy — and policy makers such as you all. But, it seems to me that we are beginning to change that. In the face of absolutely astounding reductions in violent crime — after a serious effort to do everything smarter: prosecution, policing, punishment and prevention.
In both the mind of the public and the press, this is starting to translate into — “hey, if we are smart, I guess we can actually do something about crime” — in other words, maybe we ought to listen to those who know something about crime.
Due to the opportunity made available by the success you all at the state and local level have had in reducing crime — I believe we have a chance to make a most important and fundamental change: to look at crime as a serious policy issue, not a political football.
If we can make that change, you all will have changed three decades of political history, and opened the door to even more profound reductions in the level of crime and violence americans must tolerate.