Supporters of the legislation, which include the Senator and Congressman that introduced the legislation and a representative of the Justice Department, argue that it will enhance local and State efforts to deal with serious and habitual 'street' criminals by providing certain and severe sanctions at the Federal level for chronic property offenders. Supporters, however, advise that any authorization for Federal jurisdiction should make clear that the primary responsibility for robbery and burglary cases will remain with State and local authorities, with a strong standard for the declination of Federal jurisdiction being essential. A representative of the National District Attorneys Association affirms this organization's opposition to the legislation, arguing that the specified crimes have traditionally been the responsibility of local jurisdictions and that such an expansion of Federal jurisdiction as proposed in the legislation, in the absence of compelling reasons, threatens the delicate balance between Federal and local governments. Further, it is argued that it is unreasonable to create a Federal crime for burglary and robbery when the U.S. attorneys cannot cope with their present caseload of serious offenders. While the representative of the Justice Department argues for the constitutionality and appropriateness of the bills, concern is expressed about the bills' attempt to dictate the precise manner in which the States and the Federal Government are to consult to decide which sovereign will prosecute an offense which is a violation of the new statute and also of State law. Various studies associated with career criminal programs and the possibility of introducing such a program at the Federal level are included. For individual documents, see NCJ 92900-02.