madam chairman , i rise in opposition to the bill , and i yield myself such time as i may consume .  madam chairman , it is unfortunate that we are again debating how to reduce juvenile crime and violence .  rather than following through on the proven crime and violence prevention techniques that work , we are back to tough-talking sound byte policies that have been proven to not only fail to reduce crime but actually increase crime , waste taxpayers ' money and discriminate against minorities .  seven years ago , it was the violent youth predator act .  now it is the `` gang busters '' bill , with the same array of poll-tested sound bytes : trying more juveniles as adults and mandatory minimum sentences .  the bill includes mandatory life or death penalties , even for unintentional acts .  this bill is in no way like the bill we developed a few years ago on a bipartisan basis to address youth crime and violence following the dark days following the columbine school shootings .  that bill was cosponsored by all of the members of the subcommittee on crime and was based on combined wisdom and expertise of law enforcement , juvenile court judges , administrators , researchers , criminologists and juvenile justice advocates along with the entire political spectrum .  all of the hastert-gephardt task force members called witnesses to let us know what we should do to reduce crime and violence amongst juveniles .  not a single one of those witnesses said we needed to add more federal mandatory minimum sentences .  not one mentioned the death penalty .  not one said anything about trying more juveniles as adults .  not one .  the fully bipartisan bill we developed from recommendations of those experts was full of collaborative efforts between federal , state , and local officials aimed at addressing the problems caused by young people and addressing them early , focused on prevention and keeping them out of trouble to begin with .  and when they first get in trouble , intervene early and provide sufficient sanctions and services to get them back on the straight and narrow .  further , if they do come back , hit them with graduated so make no mistake about it : the children affected by this bill will be those children whose roles in gang crimes are minor or fringe , because we are already trying youth who commit serious violent offenses as adults and locking them up for long periods of time .  it is the lesser offenders , the children who get in fist fights , committing misdemeanors , who will be subject to the 10-year , mandatory minimum numbers in this bill .  those who commit murder or rape or chop off hands with machetes or even conspire to do that are already subject to life sentences .  so the 10-year mandatory minimums will be the friends who get in fights .  madam chairman , we already lock up more people than anywhere on earth : 714 per 100 , 000 , way above whatever is in second place , way above the national average of 100 per 100 , 000 .  in fact , whereas there is 1 out of 63 white youth 25- to 29-years old in jail today , we lock up one out of every 8 african-american youth in jail today .  this bill , with all of its discriminatory policies , will only add to that disparity .  and for what ?  a long line of studies conducted by the department of justice and crime researchers have consistently told us that treating more juveniles as adults will increase crime and violence .  the coalition of juvenile justice study , `` childhood on trial , '' coincidentally released the same day as this bill was introduced , covers thousands of cases over a long period of time and confirmed that adult treatment of more juveniles increases crime and violence and is discriminatory in its application .  that is primarily because if the judge finds a person guilty in adult court , his only possibilities are lock the child up with adults or let them walk on probation or parole .  if they get locked up with adults , they will obviously come out worse than they went in .  and so the studies show that if we increase the number of juveniles tried as adults we will not only increase crime , but we will increase violent crime .  now , this bill not only includes provisions to try more juveniles as adults .  it also includes more mandatory minimums .  we know from all of the credible research , mandatory minimum sentences are the most costly and least effective way to address crime .  as compared to intelligent approaches , like having the worst offenders get the most time and lesser offenders get less time , or drug treatment for drug-addicted offenders , mandatory minimum sentences have been shown to waste money and discriminate against minorities .  that is why the federal judicial conference has told us time and time again that mandatory minimum sentences violate common sense .  we also know that the death penalty is not only flawed , but is disproportionately applied to minorities and the poor .  it also does not reduce crime .  some 199 people have been freed from death row over the last 10 years because they were innocent of the crimes for which they received the death penalty .  now , until we fund the innocence protection provisions we passed last year , we should not be passing new death penalties .  but unfortunately , despite all of our agreement and progress , we have failed in the most important aspect of our prior work , and that is to provide adequate funding for the initiatives that we passed .  the most money we have ever been able to get appropriated for the juvenile justice bills was $ 55 million a year , about one-tenth of what was necessary .  we are , in fact , cutting funding for these programs in our budget , and also cutting money for local law enforcement .  and this bill provides nothing for prevention , nothing for early intervention , and virtually nothing in the bill goes to local law enforcement .  it all goes to federal prosecution and incarceration .  instead , almost $ 400 million in the bill will go to the federal prosecutors and possibly billions to locking up people under the long mandatory minimum sentences .  madam chairman , we have a choice in crime policy .  we can play politics , or we can reduce crime .  and we know what to do to reduce crime .  all the researchers have told us .  in fact , a few weeks ago i met with some students at monument high school in south boston , massachusetts , and i told them about this upcoming hearing we were having on the gang bill , and i asked them what did they think needed to be done to keep kids out of gangs .  they said , kids join gangs for reputation , protection , to feel wanted , to have friends , and to get money .  and what is needed to prevent them from joining gangs was ample recreation for boys as well as girls , jobs and internships for training and money , and assistance to allow their families to live in decent homes .  recently , i met with law enforcement officials in my district , and they had similar advice .  neither group said anything about the need for more mandatory minimums , trying more juveniles as adults , or new death penalties .  none of them asked us to waste money on these programs .  but we took their advice a few years ago and actually started the process for doing what was necessary to reduce crime : prevention and early intervention .  but we did not finish the job of funding the programs .  we should fund juvenile justice prevention programs , early intervention programs , and local law enforcement instead of passing this bill .  madam chairman , i reserve the balance of my time .  