Purchase Card Waste Elimination Act of 2004

Mr. President, it's a privilege to join my colleagues Senator Durbin, Senator Leahy, and Senator Feingold in introducing this important legislation, the ANTI-GANG Act.

Gang violence is a serious problem in many communities across the nation, and it deserves a serious response by Congress. The key to success is an effective strategy that rejects partisanship and ``lock- em-up'' sound bites in favor of tough, targeted law enforcement; aggressive steps to take guns out of the hands of criminal gang members and other violent juvenile offenders; and heavy emphasis on prevention programs that discourage gang membership and provide realistic alternatives for at-risk youth.

The past decade saw a dramatic reduction in violent juvenile crime, in large part because of these crime-fighting strategies. Many of us remember the dire ``juvenile superpredator'' predictions that were common before that reduction took place. In 1996, William Bennett and John Walters wrote that America was a ``ticking crime bomb,'' faced with the ``youngest, biggest, and baddest generation'' of juvenile offenders that our country had ever known. Fortunately, these predictions were wrong. From 1993 to 2001, arrest rates for violent juvenile crime fell by more than two-thirds. We're still reaping the benefits of this lower crime rate today.

The decrease in crime is explained partly by the sensible measures taken by Congress on gun safety in the early 1990's, including the ban on assault weapons. In 1999, the National Center for Juvenile Justice concluded that all of the increase in homicides by juveniles between the mid-1980's and mid-1990's was firearms-related. The Surgeon General concluded that guns were responsible for both the epidemic in juvenile violence in the late 1980's and the decrease in violence after 1993. ``It is now clear,'' the Surgeon General wrote, ``that the violence epidemic was caused largely by an upsurge in the use of firearms by young people. . . . Today's youth violence is less lethal, largely because of a decline in the use of firearms.'' The current ban on assault weapons is scheduled to expire in September, and given its proven results against crime, it is reckless for anyone to oppose its continuation.

Another factor that contributed to the remarkable decrease in juvenile violent crime was the innovative, cooperative crime-fighting strategy developed in Boston and other communities across the nation. The Boston strategy was neither a ``liberal'' nor a ``conservative'' approach. It engaged the entire community, including police and probation officers, clergy and community leaders, and even gang members themselves in a united effort to crack down on gang violence, strengthen after-school prevention programs, and take guns out of the hands of juvenile offenders. This strategy was very successful-- juvenile homicides dropped 80 percent from 1990 to 1995--and it succeeded without prosecuting more juveniles as adults, without housing nonviolent juvenile offenders in adult facilities, and without spending huge sums of money on new juvenile facilities.

The call for expanding federal prosecution of juveniles as adults was already controversial in those years when juvenile violent crime was at its peak. It makes no sense today, when juvenile violent crime rates have fallen to historic lows.

Unfortunately, an expansion is exactly what is sought by the supporters of S. 1735, the Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act. Their bill responds to the problem of gang violence in the wrong way. They want the expanded federal prosecution of juveniles as adults. They want to federalize a broad range of street crimes now being prosecuted effectively at the local level. They want to create an unnecessary bureaucratic morass by duplicating law enforcement efforts now taking place on drug trafficking. They support a one-size-fits-all, Washington-knows-best approach to juvenile crime that ignores the achievements of the past decade and will only make the current problem of gang violence worse.

Our bill, the ANTI-GANG Act, avoids the most serious defects of S. 1735 by recognizing, first and foremost, the primary role of state and local law enforcement in responding to violent crime. The American Bar Association and the Judicial Conference have both called on Congress to consider the risks of federalizing offenses that have traditionally been the responsibility of state criminal justice systems. Many of us support the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act (S. 966), to deal with hate crimes. It would require the Justice Department to certify the need for federal involvement before commencing federal prosecution of a hate crime. We also oppose the enactment of federal ``concealed carry'' laws, which would undermine state and local gun-safety laws.

Instead of ignoring the primary role of state and local governments in fighting violent gang crimes in their communities, our ANTI-GANG Act strengthens that role, by giving local law enforcement and prosecutors the resources they need. It authorizes $52 million for cooperative prevention, investigation, and prosecution of gang crimes. It authorizes $20 million for technology, equipment, and training, so that state and local sheriffs, police agencies, and prosecutors can improve their identification of gang members and maintain databases with information to facilitate coordination among law enforcement and prosecutors. It authorizes $60 million for the protecting and relocation of witnesses and victims of gang crimes, and $40 million for grants for gang prevention, research, and intervention services.

The resources in our bill for witness relocation and protection are particularly important. At a Judiciary Committee hearing last September, state and local prosecutors specifically asked for Congress's help in protecting witnesses of gang crimes. Our bill responds to this need by authorizing $60 million in assistance. By contrast, the most recently revised version of S. 1735 authorizes only $12 million.

In addition, our bill amends the current law on governing federal witness relocation and protection to make clear that the Attorney General can use these provisions to support witnesses in state gang, drug, and homicide cases. We also allow states to obtain the temporary protection of witnesses in gang cases, without any requirement of reimbursement. The current complex reimbursement procedures deter state and local prosecutors from obtaining witness protection assistance from the federal government, even in emergencies. Our bill offers needed relief to state prosecutors undertaking difficult prosecutions of gang offenders, but no such relief is included in S. 1735.

The ANTI-GANG Act respects the primary role of state and local governments in fighting street crime, but it also recognizes that violent gangs can be a substantial impact on federal interests. According to the most recent National Drug Threat Assessment, criminal street gangs are responsible for the distribution of much of the cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin, and other illegal drugs being distributed in communities throughout the United States. Gang activity interferes with lawful commerce and undermines the freedom and security of entire communities.

The current provision on criminal street gangs in federal law is a seldom-used penalty enhancement. To address these legitimate federal interests, the ANTI-GANG Act replaces that provision with a stronger set of measures criminalizing participation in criminal street gangs, recruitment and retention of gang members, and witness intimidation. It also increases penalties for gang members who target minors for recruitment. It targets gang violence and gang crimes in a sensible way, avoiding the confusing and counterproductive approach taken in S. 1735. Before any federal prosecution can take place under our bill, a high-level representative from the Justice Department, after consultation with state and local prosecutors, must certify that the federal prosecution is in the public interest and necessary to achieve substantial justice.

The Act strengthens the ability of prosecutors at all levels-- federal, state and local--to prosecute violent street gangs, and it does so without increasing any mandatory minimum sentences or unnecessarily expanding the federal death penalty to include state murder offenses.

An increasing number of judges, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and other criminal justice authorities now agree that mandatory minimum sentences are, in the words of Justice Anthony Kennedy, ``unfair, unjust, and unwise.'' They are inconsistent with and undermine the sentencing guidelines that Congress established in the Sentencing

Reform Act of 1984. The supporters of S. 1735 have commendably removed some of the mandatory sentencing provisions in their original bill, but even a single increased mandatory minimum is counterproductive and unjustified.

The ANTI-GANG Act also requires the General Accounting Office to conduct a comprehensive study and report on the current treatment of juveniles by states and local governments and the capability of the Bureau of Prisons and other parts of the federal criminal justice system to take on the additional cases that would result from an expansion of the federal prosecutions of juvenile offenders as adults. This report will enable Congress to make a better informed decision on this criminal issue.

Finally, the Act encourages the recruitment and retention of highly- qualified prosecutors and public defenders by establishing a student loan forgiveness program modeled on the current program for federal employees. According to the National District Attorneys Association, this provision ``would allow prosecutors to relieve the crushing burden of student loans that now cause so many young attorneys to abandon public service.'' The provision is also strongly supported by the National Legal Aid and Defender Association and the American Council of Chief Defenders.

I commend my colleagues for their leadership in developing this important legislation to protect American communities from gang violence without undermining fundamental principles of fairness and federal-state relations. I urge the Senate to approve it.

Mr. President, today, I am joined by Senators Leahy, Kennedy, and Feinghold in introducing the American Neighborhoods Taking the Initiative--Guarding Against Neighborhood Gangs (ANTI-GANG) Act, which is a comprehensive, tailored bill that will help State and local prosecutors prevent, investigate, and prosecute gang crimes in their neighborhoods.

The National Youth Gang Center has reported evidence of resurgence in gang violence, and this is clearly reflected in Chicago, IL, where 45 percent of the homicides last year were gang-related. In Chicago, there are 98 identified gangs, with an estimated 100,000 gang members; over 13 percent of the gang members nationwide are located within Chicago's city limits.

I would like to commend the State and local prosecutors and law enforcement agencies for their work in fighting this problem. The ANTI- GANG Act would authorize $862.5 million in grants over the next 5 years to provide them with the tools they need and have specifically requested of Congress to combat violent gangs.

For example, the National District Attorneys Association (NDAA) wrote the following: ``We must find new methods of protecting those individuals brave enough to come forward as

witnesses. Our biggest problem is getting the financial help to establish, and run, meaningful witness protection programs.'' The National Alliance of Gang Investigators (NAGI) also has identified a trend in witness intimidation that is ``dramatically affecting the prosecution of violent gang offenders.'' The ANTI-GANG Act responds by authorizing $300 million over 5 years for the protection of witnesses and victims of gang crimes. This bill also would allow the Attorney General to provide for the relocation and protection of witnesses in State gang, drug, and homicide cases, and it would allow States to obtain the temporary protection of witnesses in Stage gang cases through the Federal witness relocation and protection program, without any requirement of reimbursement for those temporary services.

The ANTI-GANG Act also authorizes $200 million for grants to develop gang prevention, research, and intervention services. However, these grants should not be limited to those areas already identified as ``high intensity'' interstate gang activity areas. The NAGI also has identified a trend of gangs migrating from larger cities to smaller communities, which is fueled in large part by an increase in gang involvement in drug trafficking. This may be related to the spread of methamphetamine, which is the fastest-growing drug in the United States and, according to Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, the ``single- greatest threat to rural America today.'' In response to these trends, the ANTI-GANG Act would allow rural communities and other jurisdictions to apply for these grants, to prevent gang violence from occurring in the first place.

The ANTI-GANG Act also authorizes $262.5 million over five years for the cooperative prevention, investigation, and prosecution of gang crimes. Most of this funding would be for criminal street gang enforcement teams made up of local, State, and Federal law enforcement authorities that would investigate and prosecute criminal street gangs in high intensity interstate gang activity areas (HIIGAAs). Importantly, this bill would allow HIIGAAs to be integrated with High Intensity Interstate Drug Trafficking Areas (HIIDTAs), to avoid conflicts in those areas where the two entities would coexist.

The ANTI-GANG Act also authorizes $100 million over five years for technology, equipment, and training to identify gang members and violent offenders and to maintain databases to facilitate coordination among law enforcement and prosecutors.

In addition to these new resources, the ANTI-GANG Act will effectively strengthen the ability of prosecutors to prosecute violent street gangs, by creating a stronger federal criminal gang prosecution offense. This new offense criminalizes participation in criminal street gangs, recruitment and retention of gang members, and witness intimidation. At the same time, it responds to concerns raised by the NDAA regarding potential conflicts with local investigation and prosecution efforts, by requiring certification by the Department of Justice before any prosecution under this bill could be undertaken in federal court.

The ANTI-GANG Act also promotes the recruitment and retention of highly-qualified prosecutors and public defenders by establishing a student loan forgiveness program modeled after the current program for federal employees. Almost a third of prosecutors' offices across the country have problems with recruiting or retaining staff attorneys, and low salaries were cited as the primary reason for recruitment and retention problems. This proposed loan forgiveness program is supported by the American Bar Association, the NDAA, the National Association of Prosecutor Coordinators, the National Legal Aid and Defender Association, and the American Council of Chief Defenders.

The ANTI-GANG Act will effectively strengthen the ability of prosecutors at the local, state, and federal level to prosecute violent street gangs, and it will give state and local governments the resources they need to protect witnesses and prevent youth from joining gangs in the first place. This bill achieves these important goals without increasing any mandatory minimum sentences, which conservation jurists such as Justice Anthony Kennedy have criticized as ``unfair, unjust, unwise.'' It also does not unnecessarily expand the federal death penalty--a measure which has been included in other federal gang legislation but is opposed by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, NAACP, ACLU, and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Finally, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Coalition has raised the following concerns regarding federal gang legislation that would allow more juveniles to be prosecuted as adults in the federal system: ``[T]he fact remains that transfer of youth to the adult system, simply put, is a failed public policy. Comprehensive national research on the practice of prosecuting youth in the adult system has shown conclusively that transferring youth to the adult criminal justice system does nothing to reduce crime and actually has the opposite effect. In fact, study after study has shown that youth transferred to the adult criminal justice system are more likely to re- offend and to commit more serious crimes upon release than youth who were charged with similar offenses and had similar offenses histories but remained in the juvenile justice system. Moreover, national data show that young people incarcerated with adults are five times as likely to report being a victim of rape, twice as likely to be beaten by staff and 50 percent more likely to be assaulted with a weapon than youth held in juvenile facilities. A Justice Department report also found that youth confined in adult facilities are nearly 8 times more likely to commit suicide than youth in juvenile facilities.''

In light of these concerns, the ANTI-GANG Act provides Congress with the necessary data to decide whether to expand the federal role in prosecuting juvenile offenders, by requiring a comprehensive report on the current treatment of juveniles by the states and the capability of the federal criminal justice system to take on these additional cases and house additional prisoners. The American Bar Association has written that this study is ``the more prudent course of action at this time.''

The ANTI-GANG Act is a comprehensive, common-sense approach to fight gang violence. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, we live in perilous times. The leader of the free world's power has become so neutered he cannot, even with the support of the majority of the Senate, appoint highly qualified individuals endorsed by the American Bar to a Federal court. He cannot conduct a war without being torn to shreds by partisans with their eyes set, not on he defeat of our enemy but on the defeat of our President.

The Senate has become just one big, bad, ongoing joke, held hostage by special interests, and so impotent an 18-wheeler truck loaded with Viagra would do no good.

Andrew Young, one of the most thoughtful men in America, recently took a long and serious look at the Senate. He was thinking about making a race for it. After visiting Washington, he concluded that the Senate is composed of:

A bunch of pompous, old--

And I won't use his word here, I would say ``folks''--

listening to people read statements they didn't even write

and probably don't believe.

The House of Representatives, theoretically the closest of all the Federal Government to the people, cannot restrain its extravagant spending nor limit our spiraling debt, and incumbents are so entrenched you might as well call off 80 percent of the House races. There are no contests.

Most of the laws of the land, at least the most important and lasting ones, are made not by elected representatives of the people but by unelected, unaccountable legislators in black robes who churn out volumes of case law and hold their jobs for life. A half dozen dirty bombs the size of a small suitcase planted around the country could kill hundreds of thousands of our citizens and bring this Nation to its knees at any time, and yet we can't even build a fence along our border to keep out illegals because some nutty environmentalists say it will cause erosion.

This Government is in one hell of a mess. Frankly, as Rett Butler said--my dear, very few people up here give a damn.

It is not funny. It is sad. It is tragic. And it can only get worse-- much worse. What this Government needs is one of those extreme makeovers they have on television, and I am not referring to some minor nose job or a little botox here and there.

Congressional Quarterly recently devoted an issue to the mandate wars, with headlines blaring: ``Unfunded Mandates Add to Woes, States Say; Localities Get the Bill for Beefed Up Security; Transportation Money Comes With Strings, and Medicare Stuck in Funding Squabbles,'' et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

One would think that the much heralded Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 never passed. The National Conference of State Legislatures has set the unfunded mandate figure for the States at $33 billion for 2005. This, along with the budget problems they have been having for the last few years, has put States under the heel of a distant and unresponsive government. That is us. And it gives the enthusiastic tax raisers at the State level the very excuse they are looking for to dig deeper and deeper into the pockets of their taxpayers.

It is not a pretty picture. No matter who you send to Washington, for the most part smart and decent people, it is not going to change much because the individuals are not so much at fault as the rotten and decaying foundation of what is no longer a Republic. It is the system that stinks, and it is only going to get worse because that perfect balance our brilliant Founding Fathers put in place in 1787 no longer exists.

Perhaps, then, the answer is a return to the original thinking of those wisest of all men, and how they intended for this government to function. Federalism, for all practical purposes, has become to this generation of leaders, some vague philosophy of the past that is dead, dead, dead. It isn't even on life support. The line on that monitor went flat some time ago.

You see, the reformers of the early 1900s killed it dead and cremated the body when they allowed for the direct election of U.S. Senators.

Up until then, Senators were chosen by State legislatures, as James Madison and Alexander Hamilton had so carefully crafted.

Direct elections of Senators, as great and as good as that sounds, allowed Washington's special interests to call the shots, whether it is filling judicial vacancies, passing laws, or issuing regulations. The State governments aided in their own collective suicide by going along with that popular fad at the time.

Today it is heresy to even think about changing the system. But can you imagine those dreadful unfunded mandates being put on the States or a homeland security bill being torpedoed by the unions if Senators were still chosen by and responsible to the State legislatures?

Make no mistake about it. It is the special interest groups and their fundraising power that elect Senators and then hold them in bondage forever.

In the past five election cycles, Senators have raised over $1.5 billion for their election contests, not counting all the soft money spent on their behalf in other ways. Few would believe it, but the daily business of the Senate in fact is scheduled around fundraising.

The 17th amendment was the death of the careful balance between State and Federal Government. As designed by that brilliant and very practical group of Founding Fathers, the two governments would be in competition with each other and neither could abuse or threaten the other. The election of Senators by the State legislatures was the lynchpin that guaranteed the interests of the States would be protected.

Today State governments have to stand in line because they are just another one of the many special interests that try to get Senators to listen to them, and they are at an extreme disadvantage because they have no PAC.

You know what the great historian Edward Gibbons said of the decline of the Roman Empire. I quote: ``The fine theory of a republic insensibly vanished.''

That is exactly what happened in 1913 when the State legislatures, except for Utah and Delaware, rushed pell-mell to ratify the popular 17th amendment and, by doing so, slashed their own throats and destroyed federalism forever. It was a victory for special-interest tyranny and a blow to the power of State governments that would cripple them forever.

Instead of Senators who thoughtfully make up their own minds as they did during the Senate's greatest era of Clay, Webster, and Calhoun, we now have too many Senators who are mere cat's-paws for the special interests. It is the Senate's sorriest of times in its long, checkered, and once glorious history.

Having now jumped off the Golden Gate Bridge of political reality, before I hit the water and go splat, I have introduced a bill that would repeal the 17th amendment. I use the word ``would,'' not ``will,'' because I know it doesn't stand a chance of getting even a single cosponsor, much less a single vote beyond my own.

Abraham Lincoln, as a young man, made a speech in Springfield, IL, in which he called our founding principles ``a fortress of strength.'' Then he went on to warn, and again I quote, that they ``would grow more and more dim by the silent artillery of time.''

A wise man, that Lincoln, who understood and predicted all too well the fate of our republican form of government. Too bad we didn't listen to him.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Healthy Employees, Healthy Small Businesses Act of 2004. This legislation addresses a number of fundamental problems: the fact that millions of hard working American families have no health insurance, they live in fear that financial ruin is just one illness away, or that a family member will need medical treatment that they simply can't afford; the fact that small businesses in this country are facing health care costs that are skyrocketing far beyond the rate of inflation, and that as much as many small business owners would like to provide health benefits to their employees, it is becoming more and more difficult for them to afford these costs; and the fact that this health care dilemma is damaging our Nation's competitive position internationally.

In 2002, 44 million Americans lived without health insurance for the entire year. 85 percent of these uninsured people belong to working families.

Think about that. The vast majority of the people in the United States of America who have no health insurance work.

These uninsured workers are trapped in the middle--in fact, most of them are middle class families. They do not receive health coverage through their jobs. They are too young to qualify for Medicare. They earn too much to qualify for a public health insurance program.

Yet they cannot afford private insurance plans.

For each one of those 44 million people, and each one of those millions of families, living without health coverage causes real and serious problems.

Living without health insurance is difficult for anyone. It is especially hard for parents with children. In addition to the constant worry about whether their child will have an accident or get sick, there are serious long-term consequences for kids who grow up without health insurance.

Uninsured kids have a higher rate of acute and infectious diseases than children who are covered by health insurance, and uninsured kids actually have a higher number of hospitalizations, because their problems don't get treated until they become serious.

Uninsured children are: four times as likely to have necessary care delayed; five times more likely to use a hospital emergency room as their regular source of care; and six times as likely as other children to go without the care they need.

But having no health care is a problem even when kids are not sick. It forces parents into the kinds of choices that none of us would want to make, and that nobody in America should have to make.

When your daughter is uninsured, you have to think twice about signing her up for a youth soccer league, because she might break her arm.

When your son has no health coverage, maybe it is not safe to let him ride his bike through the neighborhood, or try out his friend's new rollerblades.

Accidents happen to everyone, especially to active children. But when your family has no health insurance, a simple fall requiring a few stitches, a broken bone, or a minor sports-related injury could result in hundreds or even thousands of dollars in emergency room fees.

In the end, in a lot of families, living without health insurance sometimes means that kids do not get to do very much living at all.

In her book The Betrayal of Work, Beth Shulman asked Flor Segunda, a working mom with no health insurance, about how her family's uninsured status affects her kids. Segunda says:

Doctors require immediate payment before they will see you,

but many times I don't have the money. Right now, [my son]

Luis has a temperature. But I try to take care of it myself

because I can't afford to take him to the doctor every time.

It is one of the reasons I don't like my children to play

outside. They will get sick and I can't afford it.

A lack of access to health care can destroy a family's financial security in a heartbeat--that is certainly true. But it can also deny uninsured kids some of the most basic and simple pleasures of being a child: going outside to play, joining a tee-ball team, riding a bike.

Surely we can do better.

Living without health insurance is a terrible problem. So why are so many families forced to do it? Who are these families trapped in the middle--earning too much to qualify for free care, but not enough to pay for private insurance?

It turns out that more than half of the uninsured people in our country live in a family supported by someone who works for a small business--meaning a company that employs fewer than 100 workers.

This is not because small businesses are less committed to their workers than larger employers. On the contrary, the small business owners in my State seem to care a great deal about their employees. Most small business owners work closely with their employees, and they understand that the success of their enterprise depends on the loyalty of the people who work for them.

The reason small businesses are less likely to provide health insurance is simply a matter of economics.

At a small business, where people are delivering a product or service with just a handful of employees, the margin between revenues and costs can be pretty slim.

That does not leave much room for error--or for rising costs. But health care costs are spiraling out of control.

Every year for the last several years, we have seen double-digit inflation in health care prices. With health care costs rising out of sight, small business owners are rightly concerned about whether these uncontrolled prices represent too much of a risk to their overall business health.

My legislation would create a Federal refundable tax credit to reimburse small employers for part of the costs they incur for providing health insurance coverage to their employees.

The HEHSB tax credit would operate on a sliding scale, providing a large tax credit to all businesses with fewer than 50 employees, but giving the greatest tax relief to the smallest enterprises.

Last year, the average health insurance plan for a single person costs $3,383, of which the employee paid an average of $508 and the employer paid an average of $2,875.

For a family policy, the average cost totalled $9,068, with the employee bearing $2,412 and the employer shouldering $6,656.

Under my bill, companies with fewer than 10 employees would be eligible to claim a credit of 50 percent of the cost of each eligible employee's policy, up to a limit of $1,500 for an individual policy or $3,400 for a family policy.

Companies with 25 to 50 employees would be eligible to claim a credit of 35 percent of the cost of each eligible employee's policy, up to a limit of $750 for

a self-only policy or $1,700 for a family policy.

I believe that this legislation will give more small business owners the ability to do what they want to do in the first place: provide their first-rate employees with first-rate benefits.

It will shield them from the worst risks associated with rising health care costs.

And I hope that it will eventually result in families like the Segundas feeling a little more security and happiness.

Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor the introduction of the ANTI-Gang Act with my good friends on the Judiciary Committee, Senators Durbin, Kennedy and Feingold.

The American Neighborhoods Taking the Initiative--Guarding Against Neighborhood Gangs Act of 2004 is a bill carefully crafted to target violent criminal street gangs whose activities extend beyond the neighborhood and have a substantial impact on Federal interests.

As a former county prosecutor, I have long expressed concern about making Federal crimes out of every offense that comes to the attention of Congress. I know that States have competent and able police departments, county sheriffs' offices, prosecutors and judges. Gangs are, more often than not, locally-based, geographically-oriented criminal associations, and our local communities are on the front lines of the fight against gang violence. We should be supplementing the work of our State and local law enforcement officers, not usurping them. This is why this bill specifically targets only those gangs where there is a provable Federal interest. This is why this bill requires consultation with our State and local counterparts before embarking on a Federal prosecution of historically State crimes. And this is why major provisions of the bill are directed toward helping State and local law enforcement officers prevent, investigate, and prosecute gang crimes in their own neighborhoods.

There are four major sections of the bill:

First, the bill gives State and local prosecutors financial resources to guard against neighborhood gangs by authorizing $72.5 million for the cooperative prevention, investigation, and prosecution of gang crimes; $40 million for grants to develop gang prevention,

research, and intervention services; and $60 million for the protection of witnesses and victims of gang crimes. Federal funds are also provided for hiring new Assistant U.S. Attorneys and to fund technology, equipment and training grants to increase accurate identification of gang members and violent offenders and to maintain databases with such information to facilitate state and Federal coordination.

The first defense in protecting our youth against gang influence is a good offense. I have long thought that programs aimed at combating gang activity must incorporate gang prevention and education--programs that would examine why our youth choose to associate in gangs and prey on others--to be effective. When Chairman Hatch appropriately targeted gang violence as a subject for a full Committee hearing last year, all agreed that we should be doing more to deter our youth from joining gangs in the first place. This bill heeds that call.

Another unifying theme of the expert witnesses at the Committee's hearing was the serious need for Federal assistance in protecting witnesses who will provide information about and testify against gangs from intimidation. Our bill not only provides funding to help protect witnesses, it also makes it a Federal crime to intimidate witnesses in certain State prosecutions involving gang activity.

Second, the bill defines a Federal criminal street gang by using well-established legal principles and providing recognizable limits. Rather than create yet another cumbersome and broad-reaching Federal crime that overlaps with numerous existing Federal statutes, this bill actually targets the problem that needs to be addressed: violent criminal street gangs. It recognizes that gangs are ongoing entities whose members commit crimes more easily simply because of their association with one another. Gangs prove the old adage: there is safety in numbers. Gang members can be sheep-like in their loyalty and allegiance to the gang. In this regard, the bill also explicitly and evenhandedly addresses the evidentiary significance of gang symbolism in gang prosecutions.

In addition to witness intimidation, other important crimes established by this bill include: One, participation in criminal street gangs by any act that is intended to effect the criminal activities of the gang; two, participation by committing a crime in furtherance of or for the benefit of the gang, and three, recruitment and retention of gang members. There are increased penalties for those who target minors for recruitment in a criminal street gang.

Third, the bill requires a comprehensive report on the current treatment of juveniles by the States, and the capability of the Federal criminal justice system to take on these additional cases and house additional prisoners, so that Congress can make an informed decision about whether or not to expand the Federal role in prosecuting juvenile offenders.

Some have suggested that the Federal Government has been unable to proceed effectively against gang crime because of Federal law's protections for juvenile offenders. I have not seen sufficient evidence to support his claim, but I think that Congressional consideration of this issue would benefit greatly from a comprehensive General Accounting Office study on this topic. We need to know both whether justice would be served by increasing the Federal role, and whether the Federal system--including both our prosecutors and the Bureau of Prisons--is prepared for such a step.

Fourth, the bill promotes the recruitment and retention of highly- qualified State and local prosecutors and public defenders by establishing a student loan forgiveness program modeled after the current program for Federal employees.

We have worked very hard in crafting this legislation not to further blur the lines between Federal and State law enforcement responsibilities or to add more burdens to the FBI as the primary Federal investigative agency. Federal law enforcement has been faced with a unique challenge since the September 11 attacks. The FBI is no longer just an enforcement agency, but also has a critical terrorism prevention mission. This mission is a daunting one, and our Federal law enforcement resources are not limitless. I, for one, do not want the FBI or U.S. Attorneys to focus these limited resources on cases that are best handled at the local level.

Combating gang violence should not be a partisan battle. The tragedy of gang violence affects too many. No community can afford to lose a single youth to the arms of a waiting gang. No gang should be allowed to flourish without consequence in our communities. I urge your support for this important bill.