THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents
Typically, state statutes seal juvenile criminal records and expunge those records when the juvenile reaches age 18. Today's young criminal predators understand that when they reach their eighteenth birthday, they can begin their second career as adult criminals with an unblemished record. The time has come to discard the anachronistic idea that crimes committed by juveniles must be kept confidential, no matter how heinous the crime.
Our law enforcement agencies, courts, and school officials need improved access to juvenile records so that they have the tools to deal with the exponential increase in the severity and frequency of juvenile crimes.
The current state of juvenile record keeping is simply unacceptable. As part of the message that juvenile crime is something less than real crime, many jurisdictions have kept inadequate juvenile records or kept records sealed and inaccessible. What is more, whatever juvenile records they did keep were expunged when the juvenile turned eighteen. A judge sentencing a fresh-faced nineteen-year-old would sentence him like a first-time offender, blissfully ignorant of his prior record of similar incidents. These problems are made worse by the absence of any system to provide for the nationwide sharing of juvenile records. This is not a problem that any one State can solve alone. Even if a State treats juvenile criminal records like any other criminal record, it is still vulnerable to violent juveniles who move into the State. The problem we face is that although juveniles frequently cross state lines, their records do not follow them.
For too long, law enforcement officers have operated in the dark. Our police departments need to have access to the prior juvenile criminal records of individuals to assist them in criminal investigations and apprehension.
According to Police Chief David G. Walchak, who is past president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, law enforcement officials are in desperate need of access to juvenile criminal records. The police chief has said, ``Current juvenile records (both arrest and adjudication) are inconsistent across the States, and are usually unavailable to the various programs' staff who work with youthful offenders.''
Chief Walchak also notes that ``If we [in law enforcement] don't know who
[Page: S2315] GPO's PDF
Chief Walchak is not the only one saying this. Law enforcement officers in my home State have told me that when they arrest juveniles they have no idea who they are dealing with because the records are kept confidential.
School officials, as well as courts and law enforcement officials, need access to juvenile criminal records to assist them in providing for the best interests of all students and preventing more tragedies.
The decline in school safety across the country can be attributed to a significant degree to laws that put the protection of dangerous students ahead of protecting the innocent--those who go to school to learn, not to maim or murder.
While visiting with school officials in Sikeston, Missouri, a teacher told me how one of her students came to school wearing an electronic monitoring ankle bracelet. Can you imagine being that teacher and having to turn around--back to
the class--to write on the chalk board not knowing whether that student was a rapist, or even a murderer?
The proposed bill solves these problems by providing a nationwide system of record sharing. What is more, the bill provides block grants to the States for the purpose of establishing improved juvenile record keeping. To qualify for these block grants, States must keep records for juveniles that are equivalent to those they keep for adult criminals. The States must then make those records available to the FBI, law enforcement officers, school officials and sentencing courts. These provisions allow those who have to deal with these violent juveniles to do so based on full information. That is the only basis on which those decision should be made.
In addition to requiring that federal and state prosecutors try violent juvenile offenders as adults and increasing record keeping and sharing capabilities, this bill enhances the federal criminal penalties for those adults who seek to lure juveniles into criminal activity or drug use.
For example, any adult who distributes drugs to a minor, traffics in drugs in or near a school, or uses minors to distribute drugs would face a minimum three year jail sentence (as compared to the 1 year minimum under current law).
This bill also doubles the maximum jail time and fines for adults who use minors in crimes of violence. The second time the adult hides behind the juvenile status of a child by using him to commit a crime, the adult faces a tripling of the maximum sentence and fine.
The fact that our current system treats juvenile crime lightly has not been lost on young people. Not has it been lost on hardened adult criminals. If the system is going to let young people off with a slap on the wrist and then give them a clean slate when they turn eighteen, why should any adult criminal risk serious jail time by committing a crime themselves. Why not, instead, just use a juvenile and have the youth commit the crime for them. This use of juveniles is deplorable. But, sadly, our current treatment of juveniles gives adults an incentive to exploit children in this way. If a store sold candy for $5 to adults, but for $1 to children, there would be a lot of adults sending a kid in to buy them a candy bar. So too, with the criminal justice system. Our light treatment of juveniles has led adults to corrupt children in order to escape the penalties imposed by the adult system. It is no wonder that a 20-year old in Poplar Bluff has her 16-year old accomplice take the lead in the armed robbery. We cannot continue to encourage this intolerable behavior. Those who would corrupt our children should received our stiffest and swiftest sanction. To this end, my bill imposes enhanced penalties on adults who use juveniles to commit violent offenses, and also will encourage the States to adopt similar provisions.
Furthermore, the Protect Children from Violence Act elevates to a federal crime the recruiting of minors to participate in gang activity. Under this legislation, those gangsters who lure our children into gangs will face a federal prosecutor and a federal penitentiary.
A 1993 survey reported an estimated 4,881 gangs with 249,324 gang members in the United States. Those figures are disturbing enough. But a second study, conducted just two years later, found that the number of gangs had increased more than four-fold, with 23,388 gangs claiming over 650,000 members. We need legislation to stem this rising tide.
Let me quickly recap the highlights of this legislation. In order to qualify for incentive grants, States would be required to try juveniles as adults if they commit certain violent crimes such as rape and murder. States also would have to fingerprint and keep records on juveniles who commit crimes that would be felonies if committed by adults, and States mut allow public access to juvenile criminal records of repeat juvenile offenders. These same provisions would apply to federal law enforcement officials. To protect our children from adults who prey on the, this bill doubles and triples the jail time for those convicted of using a juvenile to commit a violent crime or to distribute drugs. Anyone caught dealing drugs to minors or near a school will face three times the penalty under current law.
This bill is a reasonable and prudent response to the threat that violent youth, and the adults that lead them into a life of crime, pose to our children. the monies authorized will be used to deter and incarcerate violent juvenile criminals, not just to provide for more midnight basketball and prevention programs--the situation, and our future, demands more than that. We need to take into account the needs of the innocent children--not sacrifice their protection in the name of privacy for violent juvenile perpetrators.
For too long now we have treated juvenile crime as something less than real crime. Even the language we use--referring to adult crimes, but to acts of juvenile delinquency--suggests that juvenile crime is not real crime. But we are not talking about throwing spit-balls or juvenile horseplay. We are talking about murder and assault and rape. And I assure you that for the victims of these crimes, the crimes are all too real--no less so because the perpetrator was under eighteen. The time has come to take juvenile crime seriously and protect our children from violence.
By Mr. BROWNBACK:
S. 539. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the maximum taxable income for the 15 percent rate bracket, to replace the Consumer Price Index with the national average wage index for purposes of cost-of-living adjustments, to lessen the impact of the noncorporate alternative minimum tax, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
TAX LEGISLATION
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today, I have introduced a proposal for a tax cut which I think answers a number of questions that people have been putting forward. I hear both sides of the aisle talking about a tax cut and the willingness to have a tax cut. Some are saying we need it to be targeted; some say we need to do it with the marriage penalty; others say we need a broad-based tax relief to take place.
The proposal I am putting in today would expand the 15-percent tax category over a period of 10 years and raise that to the level of the maximum amount at which we tax Social Security. What it does is, we broaden that 15-percent tax bracket. We make it such that it will take care of most of the marriage penalty. It will be economically simulating in that it will be a great relief for a number of people that grow into that 15-percent category, then, as we expand it. And it will be middle-income targeted because it will be that category of people making in the 15-percent rate and growing it up to $72,000 over a period of 10 years.
I think this answers a lot of questions on what we have been putting forward. We set aside every dime of Social Security money for Social Security, period. We do that. All those funds flowing into Social Security will remain and stay with Social Security. Not a dime of that is touched.
With the other resources that we have coming in that are building the surplus, let's do this sort of tax cut that moves to the middle-income category and addresses the marriage penalty problem. That is economically stimulating and is one that I think can be fair and helpful to our growth.
[Page: S2316] GPO's PDF
This is the final point I will make, as I intend to be brief about this. We are at a period of being able to talk about solving Social Security and paying down debt and providing tax cuts and dealing with education problems because we have a strong growing economy. We have a growing economy that is producing these sorts of revenues. We have to maintain that, and the lead thing that we can do to maintain that is to provide for economically stimulating tax cuts like what I am proposing here, and broaden that 15-percent tax rate, target it for people there, and have an economically stimulating benefit from that occurring. I think that is the way that we need to go to be able to maintain what we have in place now in this healthy economy and to be able to deal with these sorts of issues, to stimulate education reform, and to have the funds for education, as well.
; Mr. President, that is the proposal I have introduced today. I urge my colleagues to look at it, and I would appreciate their support for this bill as we press forward on this broad-based debate on what we are going to do about this budget and how we continue the strong economy.
By Mr. JOHNSON (for himself, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. CONRAD, Mr. KERRY, Mr. DASCHLE, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. WELLSTONE, Mr. SARBANES, Mr. KERREY, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. DORGAN, Mr. REID, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. BRYAN, and Mrs. BOXER):
S. 540. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that housing assistance provided under the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 be treated for purposes of the low-income housing credit in the same manner as comparable assistance; to the Committee on Finance.
LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT EQUITABLE ACCESS FOR INDIAN TRIBES
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation which will correct an unintended oversight in the federal administration of Native American housing programs, allowing Indian tribes to once again access Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTCs) for housing development in some of this nation's most under-served communities. Joining me as original cosponsors of this bill are Senators INHOFE, CONRAD, KERRY, DASCHLE, INOUYE, WELLSTONE, SARBANES, KERREY, KENNEDY, DORGAN, REID, BAUCUS, BRYAN and BOXER.
In the 104th Congress, the Native American Housing Assistance and Self Determination Act (NAHASDA) was signed into law, separating Indian housing from public housing and providing block grants to tribes and their tribally designated housing authorities. Prior to passage of NAHASDA, Indian tribes receiving HOME block grant funds were able to use those funds to leverage the Low Income Housing Tax Credits distributed by states on a competitive basis. Unfortunately, unlike HOME funds, block grants to tribes under the new NAHASDA are defined as federal funds and cannot be used for accessing LIHTCs.
The fact that tribes cannot use their new block grant funds to access a program (LIHTC) which they formerly could access is an unintended consequence of taking Indian Housing out of Public Housing at HUD and setting up the otherwise productive and much needed NAHASDA system. The legislation I am introducing today is limited in scope and redefines NAHASDA funds, restoring tribal eligibility for the LIHTC by putting NAHASDA funds on the same footing as HOME funds. With this technical correction, there would be no change to the LIHTC programs--tribes would compete for LIHTCs with all other entities at the state level, just as they did prior to NAHASDA.
This technical corrections legislation is a minor but much needed fix to a valuable program that will restore equity to housing development across the country. The South Dakota Housing Development Authority has enthusiastically endorsed this legislation out of concern for equitable treatment of every resident of our state and to reinforce the proven success of the LIHTC program for housing development in rural and lower income communities.
I have joined many of my colleagues in past efforts to preserve and increase the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program which benefits every state, and I ask my colleagues to recognize the importance of maintaining fairness in access to this program emphasized through this legislation and encourage my colleagues to support passage of this vital legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CERTAIN NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING ASSISTANCE DISREGARDED IN DETERMINING WHETHER BUILDING IS FEDERALLY SUBSIDIZED FOR PURPOSES OF THE LOW-INCOME HOUSING CREDIT.
(a) IN GENERAL.--Subparagraph (E) of section 42(i)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to determination of whether building is federally subsidized) is amended--
(1) in clause (i), by inserting ``or the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4101 et seq.) (as in effect on October 1, 1997)'' after ``this subparagraph)'', and
(2) in the subparagraph heading, by inserting ``OR NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING ASSISTANCE'' after ``HOME ASSISTANCE''.
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall apply to periods after the date of the enactment of this Act.
By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. MURKOWSKI, and Mr. ROBERTS):
S. 541. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security
Act to make certain changes related to payments for graduate medical education
under the medicare program; to the Committee on Fin ance. ; M s. COLLI NS. Mr. Pr esident, I am pleased to be
joining my colleague from Alaska, Senator MURKOWSKI, in introducing the
Graduate Medical Education Technical Amendments Act of 1999, which is intended to addr ess some o f the problems that small
family practice residency programs in Maine and elsewhere are experiencing as a
result of provisions in the Balanced Budget Act (BBA) of 1997 that were intended
to control the growth in Medicare graduate medical education spending.
Of specific
concern are the provision s in the BBA that cap the
total number of residents in a program at the level included in the 1996
Medicare cost reports. Congress' goal in reforming Medicare's graduate medical
education program was to slow down our nation's overall produ ction of physician s, while still protecting the
training of physicians who are in short supply and needed to meet local and
national health care demands. While the BBA's provisions will indeed curb growth
in the overall physician supply, they do so indiscriminately and are thwarting
efforts in Maine and elsewhere to increase the supply of primary care physicians
in underserved rural areas.
Because Maine has only one medical school--the University
of New England, which trains osteopathic
physi cians--we depend on a number of small family practice residency
programs to introduce physicians to the practice opportunities in the state.
Most of the graduates of these residency programs go on to establish practices
in Maine, many in rural and underserved areas of the state. The new caps on
residency slots included in the BBA penalize these programs in a number of ways.
For instance, the current cap is based on the number of
interns and residents who were ``in the hospital'' in FY 1996. Having a cap that
is institution-specific rather than program-specific has caused several
problems. For example, the Maine-Dartmouth Family Practice Residency Program had
two residents out on leave in 1996--one on sick leave for chemotherapy
treatments and one on maternity leave. Therefore, the program's cap was reduced
by two, because it was based on the number of actual residents in the hospital
in 1996 as opposed to the number of residents in the program.
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents