madam chairman , in february of this year , i introduced bipartisan legislation with the gentlewoman from california ( mrs. bono ) xz4000390 , the gang prevention and effective deterrence act of 2005 . 
the schiff-bono bill represents a comprehensive effort to increase gang prosecution and prevention efforts in order to crack down on criminal street gangs . 
the bill is virtually identical to bipartisan legislation that was reported out of the senate judiciary committee in the 108th congress and has since been reintroduced by senators feinstein , hatch , kyl , cornyn , and grassley . 
madam chairman , the bipartisan schiff-bono anti-gang bill had three core objectives . 
first , it created a rico-like statute specifically tailored to street gangs in order to bring these networks down in the same way we bring down organized crime through rico . 
second , our legislation increased a host of gang and violent crime penalties in order to deter and punish illegal street gangs . 
and finally the schiff-bono bill included important funding for prevention and intervention efforts in order to attack the gang problem at its roots . 
the sponsor of the bill before us today has spent much time on highlighting the groups that have supported his bill . 
the schiff-bono and feinstein-hatch bills are also endorsed by these groups and a host of other law enforcement organizations . 
with all due respect to my colleague from virginia on the opposite side of the aisle , the most significant difference between the bill i introduced prior to the bill that is now before us is that all of the prevention funding in the senate bill and in my own bipartisan bill has been stripped out of the anti-gang measure , and all we are left with is the deterrence . 
unfortunately , madam chairman , the committee leadership rejected the opportunity to address this national problem in a bipartisan fashion . 
instead , the majority introduced the bill before us today after our bill was introduced that essentially increases the same penalties that our bill increases , but instead via mandatory minimums . 
the bill also remarkably cuts out the bipartisan provisions devoted to expanding and enhancing community-based and law enforcement prevention and intervention programs targeting criminal street gangs , gang members , and at-risk youth . 
these prevention and intervention provisions are largely law enforcement in nature . 
and , madam chairman , i want to point out these provisions that have been stripped out of my bill that are in the present form in this bill have the support of law enforcement . 
law enforcement does not support removing those from the legislation . 
they are also part of the bipartisan bill in the senate sponsored , as i mentioned , by senators hatch , feinstein , cornyn , grassley , and kyl . 
members from both sides of the aisle recognize that a complete approach to addressing the problem of criminal street gangs must include prevention and intervention measures that attack the problem at its roots . 
yes , we need deterrence as my bill provided . 
but we need prevention as well . 
and , unfortunately , i think it is quite clear that this body is no longer in the business of legislating , but rather of leveraging . 
the legislation before us today is merely an attempt to leverage the senate . 
it will not come back in this form , and i intend to oppose it today in the hopes that we will get a better bill coming back from the senate , as i am confident we will . 
madam chairman , when i took office in the california state senate , i introduced a host of anti-crime measures as , indeed , i have done here . 
at the same time , i realized then , as i realize now , that we also have to take steps to intervene immediately and address juvenile crime at its roots and try to prevent young people from getting into trouble . 
and this , i think , is the fundamental issue before us . 
we can pay now , or we can pay later . 
a small amount to preventive funding that we invest now saves us a lot on the back end . 
madam chairman , in my home state of california , when we incarcerate a juvenile , it costs us $ 90 , 000 a year . 
investing a small amount on the front end in time-tested and true programs that keep kids out of trouble makes infinite sense , both in terms of dollars saved and in terms of lives saved . 
and my hope , madam chairman , because my amendment to restore this funding was not allowed by the rules committee , we were not allowed to put it to my colleagues on the house floor for a vote , i hope , madam chairman , it comes back from the senate in a form that we can both support on both sides of the aisle . 
