Mr. Chairman, the Stupak-Stenholm-Lofgren-Scott substitute takes the approach that juvenile crime can best be battled at the local level. In our bill we set aside the same $1.5 billion over 3 years for local initiatives. Our Crime Task Force went to the communities around this Nation and they asked us, give us the flexibility and give us local control. We need help from the Federal Government. We do not need mandates. Unfortunately, the majority legislation here, the majority bill, puts down four mandates that each State must follow. In those mandates, if we do not follow those mandates, our State is denied any access to the $1.5 billion. In the most recent list that has been compiled, in reviewing the majority's bill, only six States may be eligible. Forty-four other States would be denied access to any funds in fighting juvenile crime. Mr. Chairman, the Democratic substitute is a balanced approach to the problem of juvenile crime. It is an approach that includes enforcement, intervention, prevention, and we reform the juvenile justice system to target violent kids, and they would be locked up underneath our bill. We allow the local community approach and not the federalism approach.
Bart Stupak: “Mr. Chairman, the Stupak-Stenholm-Lofgren-Scott substitute takes the approach that juvenile crime can best be battled at…”
On the recordMay 8, 1997
Said by
Bart Stupak
Source
govinfo.govEditor's note · Context
Discussing the Stupak-Stenholm-Lofgren-Scott substitute for juvenile crime legislation.
Share
More from Bart Stupak
Jun 24, 2008
Mr. Speaker, today the U.S. House of Representatives has an opportunity to vote on my legislation, the Federal Gas Price Gouging Prevention Act, H.R. 6346. Every Member of the House will face a simple choice: Vote to stand up for…
Jun 24, 2008
I agree with him, we need to have a short-term and long-term strategy. And as the former chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, my friend Mr. Barton knows that this is my third bill we have had on price gouging. And the reason why…
Jun 29, 2010
Yes, it did. We were shocked that they would even bring it up in like the first meeting and then in the second meeting we had with them.