In the wake of a bloody Spring full of suburban school shootings, the nation’s eyes were riveted on the outcome of the congressional debate over gun control. In the spotlight, the House of Representatives did nothing June 16 to address the issue of the availability of guns in the hands of youth, and instead tightened the noose around the necks of urban young people, by voting stricter penalties for juveniles as young as 14-years-old who are convicted of crimes.

Condemned by members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) as ineffectual and a waste of taxpayer dollars, the House voted new "mandatory minimums" anyway, while at the same time refused to limit the availability of guns—even semiautomatic assault weapons—to youth.

The bill passed by a 280-126 vote. Republicans railed about the need to make communities and schools safe, but again backed away from reasonable measures to help control guns. Defecting Democrats weren’t much better, many seemingly afraid of angering the National Rifle Association and white gun enthusiasts.

Rep. Bill McCollum (R-Fla.), talked about juveniles escaping any kind of punishment for crimes to defend the measure. But the high percentage of Black youths in the criminal justice system and the high proportion charged as adults in crimes clearly show that Black young people aren’t getting way with anything.

So at a critical "crossroads for our children," in the words of Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), the House Republican majority—with more than three dozen Democratic Party defectors—did not increase the legal age of handgun possession from 18 to 21; did not ban the possession or transfer of semiautomatic assault rifles to juveniles; and most critically did not fund after school services, peer mediation and conflict resolution programs.

Research shows that harsh treatment of juvenile offenders does not decrease crime, but rather contributes to an over-incarceration of non-violent offenders, and yields less rehabilitation, according to Rep. Rush. Most of the nation’s police chiefs agree, according to Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (D-Mich.), who argues that prevention programs are the most effective crime reduction strategy.

"The Wall Street Journal points out (March 21, 1996)," Rep. Kilpatrick said in remarks submitted to the speaker of the House, "that high risk youths who are kept out of trouble through intervention programs could save society as much as $2 million per youth over a lifetime."

So why then is Congress voting instead to put more money into moving young offenders into adult prison facilities where they face mandatory minimum sentences? Why then is Congress voting to put more money into police and prisons and other tactics that simply do not work without adequate prevention programs?

Most members of the CBC would answer that their House colleagues who supported the harsh provisions of the juvenile crime bill did so simply to "posture for political points, not for an effective means for public safety."