John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary and the past chairperson of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/4\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman). (Mr. ROTHMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, if we are truly interested in juvenile justice reform, we must begin by rejecting the amendments that have been stuck on to the very fine principles contained in H.R. 1501, a bipartisan bill that came out of the Subcommittee on Crime, and I remind the gentleman, the chairman of the committee, and I praise this bill, this is a measure that has been very carefully vetted, but all of the other amendments that have been approved, some 44, have never been in the Committee on the Judiciary. In other words, the Committee on Rules has become the original committee of jurisdiction for a juvenile justice bill, and for that reason those amendments must be rejected.

Mr. CONYERS. I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to let the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier) know that I appreciate the courtesy that he afforded me in terms of a substitute on the other bill. Had he not come forward as he did, it would have created almost a precedent in the House, that we on our side could not bring forward a substitute, and I am happy that the rethinking or rereview of that led the gentleman to his unparalleled generosity. I want the gentleman to know that I thank him for it. I also support the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules, and his two colleagues. This amendment, dealing with juvenile accountability, block grants, and dealing with a proactive program that really interacts among youngsters and gangs developed by law enforcement agencies to combat juvenile crime, is clearly on the money. I hope that it will be agreed to by all of the membership.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Wise) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I think this is an excellent amendment. I wanted to praise the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) for joining the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Wise) on it. He is one of the Members in the Michigan delegation that is standing up to incredible scrutiny and he is standing tall as we consider juvenile justice and gun safety measures here during the week and into next week. I thought that this would be an appropriate place to make that observation.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Scott amendment. In the wake of a series of tragic incidents at high schools in Colorado and Georgia, Democrats and Republicans came together to craft H.R. 1501. We put aside the politics of poll-tested sound bites--``do the crime do adult time;'' mandatory minimums; ``3 strikes you're out''--to hold thoughtful deliberations that yielded a unique piece of legislation responsive to the concerns of experts in the field and supported by all members of the subcommittee, both Democrat and Republican. This is why I am deeply disappointed to see the Republican majority abandon bipartisanship to play politics with juvenile justice; abandon orderly legislative process to pursue legislation by ambush; and abandon its commitment to the American people to follow the lead of special interests. How do we know the Republican Majority has decided to play politics with juvenile justice? They now advocate policies that just weeks ago even they acknowledged lacked merit. Listen to their own words. On March 11, 1999 Crime Subcommittee Chairman McCollum stated: ``Taking consequences seriously is not a call for locking all juveniles up, nor does it imply the housing of juveniles, even violent hardened juveniles, with adults. I, for one, am opposed to such commingling.'' On April 22, 1999 he repeated: ``I believe the bill we move today [represents] a balanced effort to strengthen juvenile justice systems so that they are able to insure appropriate measured consequences for delinquent acts of the most youthful offenders who because of their age are amendable to being directed away from later, more serious wrong doing.'' Yet today, the Majority is pushing legislation which tries more children as adults, houses more juveniles as adults, and imposes a whole slew of new mandatory minimum penalties and death penalties. What's really extraordinary about these proposals is just how meaningless they really are. Fewer than 150 prosecutions in the federal system each year, and such changes are likely to affect only a small percentage of those cases. These proposals do not represent serious attempts at legislation. Rather they are a transparent attempt to legislate by sound bite and kill a bill that they themselves agreed was the best approach to juvenile justice. Housing juveniles in adult prison facilities means more kids are likely to commit suicide, or be murdered or physically or sexually abused than their counterparts in juvenile facilities. As a matter of fact, children in adult jails or prisons have been shown to be five times more likely to be assaulted and eight times more likely to commit suicide than children in juvenile facilities in adult prisons. Judiciary Committee hearings have turned up numerous instances of such abuse. In Ironton, Ohio, a 15 year-old girl ran away from home overnight, then returned to her parents. A juveile court judge put her in a county jail to ``teach her a lesson.'' The girl was sexually assaulted by a deputy jailer on her fourth night in jail. In Boise, Idaho, 17 year-old Christopher Petermen was held in adult jail for failing to pay $73 in traffic fines. Over a 14 hour period, he was tortured and finally murdered by other prisoners in the cell. In LaGrange, Kentucky, 15-year-old Robbie Horn was confined in an adult facility for refusing to obey his mother. Soon after he was placed in jail he used his own shirt to hang himself. Repeated studies of prosecuting juveniles as adults indicates that rather than serving as a deterrent to juveile crime prosecuting more juveniles as adults merely leads to greater and more serious recidivism. This is because adult jail facilities have little capacity to offer the educational, counseling, and mental health services needed to deal with juvenile offenders. Other aspects of the Majority's juvenile justice proposals are just as misguided. For example, a Rand commission study showed that mandatory minimum sentences reduced crime less and cost much more money when compared to discretionary sentencing and release laws. Increased death penalties are also problematic--in addition to the increasing problem of prosecutor error, capital punishment diminishes the value of all life and could not begin to deter suicide killers like those at Columbine High School. The reality is that a continuum of services aimed at-risk youth--such as teen pregnancy prevention, Head Start, recreational programs, drop- out prevention programs, summer jobs, drug treatment, mental health services, and education and treatment programs during incarceration-- are needed to significantly reduced juvenile crime. This is the approach found in H.R. 1501, but is subsequently abandoned by the Majority. If we are truly interested in juvenile justice reform, we must begin by rejecting unprincipled amendments allowed by the Rule that would cut out the heart of this bill and stick to the principles of H.R. 1501. This was a bill produced by a bipartisan process and unanimously approved by the Crime Subcommittee. In the wake of the recent school yard tragedies in Littleton, Colorado and Conyers, Georgia, the American people deserve and expect reform. We cannot and should not allow false arguments about ``getting tough on crime'' and prosecuting juveniles as adults to prevent us from achieving these important goals.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) and my colleagues who have spoken here today. In a way, I think we all realize the importance and significance of this amendment offered by the Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), because it is a watershed. Either we are to overlook the existing case law, the first amendment as most of us appreciate it, and move in a very overreactive way to deal with the cultural aspects of the problem of youth violence, or we do not. And it is clear to me that this debate has put on record that in this area I can proudly associate myself with the views of the majority of the Members of this House of Representatives. Now, in addition and over and above the constitutional problems, let us not rush to judgment on this quote, Hollywood phenomenon. Let us recognize that the V chips, let parents block out television programs; that movies have ratings. Mr. Valenti has told us that he is putting the word out that the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary are not taking the cultural problem lightly. Please join us in turning back an amendment that would be unworkable and likely unconstitutional.

Mr. CONYERS. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, could I ask the gentleman that has promoted the amendment, how much time did the awful murderer of 9-year- old Matthew Cecchi get? What was his sentence?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, let me just point out two things. I think that would be pretty important in this kind of a matter because the implication is, of course, that there was an insufficient sentencing of the killer of this 9-year-old boy. The second point I would like to make is that the State handles most of these kinds of crimes, and to my knowledge these are not normally Federal issues, and finally, the U.S. Sentencing Commission is the body that we established in the Congress to make sentencing recommendations independent of the political process. Now if for some reason we were dissatisfied with them, then we may want to communicate that through the Committee on the Judiciary which regularly brings and hears reports from the Sentencing Commission. So I just want to point out that this may not be the most orderly way to pass criminal statutes raising the Sentencing Commission's levels in this way. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would begin by pointing out that we are now in the slippery slope of mandatory minimums, and there is a question about the policy wisdom of mandatory minimums that would affect this kind of an amendment. We are taking judicial discretion in individual cases away from the judge and unless there is some compelling reason that this discretion in the judiciary has been abused, or that there are more and more cases coming into the Federal system, this seems to be another emotional statement in the form of an amendment that we are now dealing with. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman. Does the gentleman appreciate that had we had a hearing in the Subcommittee on Crime, these kinds of questions might not have been raised here in a colloquy fashion which we have to research the answers on after the debate, and unfortunately, after the vote. But I see where the gentleman is coming from. He is assuring us that these would all be serious felonies that would result in a mandatory life sentence by virtue of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. To the distinguished author of the amendment, might I try to make the point that the gentleman from Virginia was discussing in a little bit different way? What the concern is, is whether or not this amendment allows a misdemeanor State offense such as a misdemeanor sexual battery as a predicate offense. And if it does, the gentleman sees the problem of some very minor offenses, a couple, that would then bring us into a mandatory life sentence. This could move us into the cruel and unusual punishment prohibition of the eighth amendment, and I ask my colleague if there has been consideration of this point. I raise it again because we have not had hearings. Could the gentleman comment on that?