Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, there is nobody in this body who has fought harder for a balanced budget amendment and for controlling Federal spending than the distinguished Senator from Utah, Senator Hatch. His leadership has been terrific on that. I respect that. I guess we just have a disagreement. I think it is really unusual that a judge would cite a 12th seat as frivolous and note in his own letter that it was frivolous because of a declining caseload. Even though Judge Silberman himself said he felt they ought to go ahead and fill the 11th seat, we, after full study of it and in the course of careful deliberations, had the opportunity to hear from two other chief judges from two other circuits that indicated, even though they have much higher caseloads, 575 to 378 cases per judge, that they did not need a new circuit judgeship. So, therefore, I concluded that a circuit with 124 cases per judgeship did not need to be filled, and that the $1 million per year, if it is not justified, would be a ripoff of the taxpayers. I feel that we can spend that money more efficiently on trial judges in circuits and districts that are already overwhelmed with heavy caseloads and not on the D.C. circuit that is overstaffed already. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. SESSIONS. Thank you very much. I am here today to speak on a subject that is most important to all of us in America, the Federal judiciary. I had the honor for 12 years to serve as a U.S. attorney, and during that time I practiced in Federal court before Federal judges. All of our cases that were appealed were appealed to Federal circuit courts of appeals. And that is where those final judgments of appeal were ruled on. I think an efficient and effective and capable Federal judiciary is a bulwark for freedom in America. It is a cornerstone of the rule of law, and it is something that we must protect at all costs. We need to be professional and expeditious in dealing with those problems. I must say, however, I do not agree that there has been a stall in the handling of judges. As Senator Hatch has so ably pointed out, there were 22 nominations last year, and 17 of those were confirmed. We are moving rapidly on the nominations that are now before the Judiciary Committee. There is one today I want to talk about, Merrick Garland, because really I do not believe that that judgeship should be filled based on the caseload in that circuit, and for no other reason. But I think it is important to say that there is not a stall, that I or other Senators could have delayed the vote on Merrick Garland for longer periods of time had we chosen to do so. We want to have a vote on it. We want to have a debate on it. We want this Senate to consider whether or not this vacancy should be filled. And I think it should not. Senator Hatch brilliantly led, recently, an effort to pass a balanced budget amendment on the floor of this Senate. For days and hours he stood here and battled for what would really be a global settlement of our financial crisis in this United States. We failed by one vote to accomplish that goal. But it was a noble goal. That having slipped beyond us, I think it is incumbent upon those of us who have been sent here by the taxpayers of America to marshal our courage and to look at every single expenditure this Nation expends and to decide whether or not it is justified. And if it is not justified, to say so. And if it is not justified, to not spend it. In this country today a circuit court of appeals judge costs the taxpayers of America $1 million a year. That includes their library, their office space, law clerks, secretaries, and all the other expenses that go with operating a major judicial office in America. That is a significant and important expenditure that we are asking the citizens of the United States to bear. And I think we ought to ask ourselves, is it needed? I want to point out a number of things at this time that make it clear to me that this judgeship, more than any other judgeship in America, is not needed. Let me show this chart behind me which I think fundamentally tells the story. We have 11 circuit courts of appeal in America. Every trial that is tried in a Federal court that is appealed goes to one of these circuit courts of appeal. From there, the only other appeal is to the U.S. Supreme Court. Most cases are not decided by the Supreme Court. The vast majority of appeals are decided in one of these 11 circuit courts of appeal. Senator Grassley, who chairs the Subcommittee on Court Administration, earlier this year had hearings on the caseloads of the circuit courts of appeals. He had at that hearing the just recently former chief judge of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which has the highest caseload per judge in America. Total appeals filed per judge for the year ending September 30, 1996, was 575 cases per judge. He also had testifying before that committee Chief Judge Harvey Wilkinson from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. They are the third most busy circuit in America. They have 378 cases filed per judge in a year's time. Both of those judges talked to us and talked to our committee about their concerns for the Federal judiciary and gave some observations they had learned. First of all, Judge Tjoflat, former chief judge of the eleventh circuit, testified how when the courts of appeals get larger and those numbers of judges go up from 8, 10, 12, to 15, the collegiality breaks down. It is harder to have a unified court. It takes more time to get a ruling on a case. It has more panels of judges meeting, and they are more often in conflict with one another. It is difficult to have the kind of cohesiveness that he felt was desirable in a court. Judge Wilkinson agreed with that. I think what is most important with regard to our decision today, however, is what they said about their need for more judges. Judge Tjoflat, of the eleventh circuit, said even though they have 575 filings per judge in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, they do not need another judge. Even Judge Harvey Wilkinson said even though they have 378 filings per judge in the fourth circuit, they do not need another judge. He also noted, and the records will bear it out, that the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has the fastest disposition rate, the shortest time between filing and decision, of any circuit in America, and they are the third busiest circuit in America. That is good judging. That is good administration. That is fidelity to the taxpayers' money, and they ought to be commended for that. When you look at that and compare it to the situation we are talking about today with 11 judges in the D.C. circuit, they now have only 124 cases per judge, less than one-fourth the number of cases per judge as the eleventh circuit has. What that says to me, Madam President, is that we are spending money on positions that are not necessary. The former chief judge of the D.C. circuit, with just 123 cases per judge, back in 1995 said he did believe the 11th judgeship should be filled but he did not believe the 12th should be filled. As recently as March of this year, just a few weeks ago, he wrote another letter discussing that situation. This is what he said in a letter addressed to Senator Hatch: You asked me yesterday for my view as to whether the court needs 11 active judges and whether I would be willing to communicate that view to other Senators of your committee. As I told you, my opinion on this matter has not changed since I testified before Senator Grassley's committee in 1995. I said then and still believe that we should have 11 active judges. On the other hand, I then testified and still believe that we do not need and should not have 12 judges. Indeed, given the continued decline in our caseload since I last testified, I believe the case for the 12th judge at any time in the foreseeable future is almost frivolous, and, as you know, since I testified, Judge Buckley has taken senior status and sits part time, and I will be eligible to take senior status in 3 years. That is why I continue to advocate the elimination of the 12th judgeship. So that is the former chief judge of the D.C. circuit saying that to fill the 12th judgeship would be frivolous, and he noted that there is a continuing decline in the caseload in the circuit. Madam President, let me point out something that I think is significant. Judge Buckley, who is a distinguished member of that court has taken senior status. But that does not mean that he will not be working. At a minimum, he would be required as a senior-status judge to carry one-third of his normal caseload. Many senior judges take much more than one-third of their caseload. They are relieved of administrative obligations, and they can handle almost a full judicial caseload. It does not indicate, because Judge Buckley announced he would be taking senior status, that he would not be doing any work. He would still be handling a significant portion of his former caseload. I think that is another argument we ought to think about. Finally, the numbers are very interesting with regard to the eleventh circuit in terms of the declining caseload mentioned by Judge Silberman in his letter to Senator Hatch. We have examined the numbers of this circuit and discovered that there has been a 15 percent decline in filings in the D.C. circuit last year. That is the largest decline of any circuit in America. It apparently will continue to decline. At least there is no indication that it will not. If that is so, that is an additional reason that this judgeship should not be filled. I think Senator Leahy, the most able advocate for Mr. Garland, indicated in committee that it would be unwise to use these kinds of numbers not to fill a judgeship, but it seems to me we have to recognize that, if you fill a judgeship, that is an appointment for life. If that judgeship position needs to be abolished, the first thing we ought to do is not fill it. That is just good public policy. That is common sense. That is the way it has always been done in this country, I think. We ought to look at that. So what we have is the lowest caseload per judge in America, declining by as much as 15 percent last year, and it may continue to decline this year. The numbers are clear. The taxpayer should not be burdened with the responsibility of paying for a Federal judge sitting in a D.C. circuit without a full caseload of cases to manage. Let me say this about Mr. Garland. I have had occasion to talk with him on the phone. I told him I was not here to delay his appointment, his hearing on his case. I think it is time for this Senate to consider it. I think it is time for us to vote on it. Based on what I see, that judgeship should not be filled. He has a high position with the Department of Justice and, by all accounts, does a good job there. There will be a number of judgeship vacancies in the D.C. trial judges. He has been a trial lawyer. He would be a good person to fill one of those. I would feel comfortable supporting him for another judgeship. Based on my commitment to frugal management of the money of this Nation, I feel this position should not be filled at this time. I oppose it, and I urge my colleagues to do so.

Mr. SESSIONS. I would like to be recognized.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise to send a resolution to the desk on behalf of myself and my home state colleague Senator Shelby. Mr. President, this concurrent resolution we are introducing today expresses the sense of the Congress that the display of the Ten Commandments in government offices and courthouses should be permitted. This resolution is identical to House Concurrent Resolution 31, sponsored by my good friend, Representative Aderholt, which passed the House of Representatives on March 5, 295 to 125. The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion. This resolution does not endorse any one religion but, rather, states that a religious symbol which has deep-rooted significance for our Nation and its history should not be excluded from public display. Mr. President, the Founders wisely realized that in a free society, it is imperative that individuals practice forbearance, respect, and temperance. These are the very values taught by all the world's major religions. The Founders devised a Constitution that depended on religion serving as a civilizing force in societal life. John Adams, our second President, and one of the intellectual forces behind the formation of our Nation, said that ``our Constitution was designed for a moral and religious people only. It is wholly inadequate to any other.'' But strangely today, there are those who seem determined to drive all trace of religion from the public sphere. They ignore the religious traditions on which this great Nation was founded and work to drive religion and religious people out of public life. Many of my colleagues are aware Judge Roy Moore, circuit court judge in Gadsden, AL, has been ordered to take down a two-plaque replica of the Ten Commandments displayed in his courtroom. The irrationality of the action is highlighted by the fact that the judge's display is consistent with other displays involving religious symbols and art in our public property. In fact, a door to the U.S. Supreme Court bears two tablets numbered one to ten, which we interpret to represent the Ten Commandments. And yet a judge in a small Alabama town cannot hang a simple display of the Ten Commandments on the wall without being sued? Mr. President, this resolution is not just about Judge Moore and it is not just about the display of the Ten Commandments in Gadsden, AL. This resolution provides a good opportunity to discuss this curious governmental hostility towards the display of these plaques that are important to our law, our Nation, and our culture. The Ten Commandments represent a key part of the foundation of western civilization of our legal system in America. To exclude a display of the Ten Commandments because it suggests an establishment of religion is not consistent with our national history, let alone common sense itself. This Nation was founded on religious traditions that are an integral part of the fabric of American cultural, political, and societal life. Mr. President, it is time for common sense. No member of this body, on either side of the aisle, should oppose the simple display of documents that are important to our law, to our Nation, and to our culture.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. It troubles me greatly. I have read that language in this proposed amendment. I consider it frightening. That is the reason I felt obligated to come and express my opinions today, not for any other reason. I think we should not amend the Constitution in this fashion, and I want to be on record opposing it.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am honored to be here today with two great Senators who have been leading the discussion on a very important matter to this country. During my campaign last fall, I was involved in a campaign in which I had two opponents spend over $1 million of their own money on a primary election, two others spent over half a million dollars--$5 million was spent really against me in the primary, which I eventually won, and we had a very contested race in the fall. I know how difficult it is to raise money, how distasteful it is, how frustrating it is to have to deal with that problem. I came here with an idea that I would be quite willing to consider whatever reforms we could undertake to improve that system. I have given it thought. The results of my thoughts are that I have concluded that we are at a point where we have to admit the primacy of the first amendment and free speech and I have come down on that side. We had in my general election campaign the trial lawyers association that spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, maybe over $1 million, opposing my candidacy. That frustrated me. Some of it was not properly reported. It was not required to be reported in a timely fashion to the public. So it was difficult to know where that money was coming from, and I do not think that was correct. I ask, after having given it a lot of thought, how can we say that a group of trial lawyers, a group of business people, a group of union people cannot get together and go on television and speak at the time of an election about candidates or issues in which they believe deeply. This is so fundamental. Some say, well, you can talk about issues; you just cannot do it at the election cycle. Well, when else do we want to talk about it? When is it more important than when we are trying to decide the direction this country is going, when we are facing it during an election cycle. I do not see how we can avoid that. The amendment of the Senator from South Carolina I think is an honest attempt to deal with the problem because I do not believe under the present constitutional structure we can make many of the changes that have been suggested to date. So I respect him for that. But I consider that it would be an astounding, a thunderous, a remarkable change of policy for America to adopt this proposed amendment. It says Congress shall have the power to limit expenditures made by a candidate in an election. That is a remarkable thing to say, that a person cannot go out and say to the people, through their own resources or the resources of others, why they ought to vote for them or against their opponent. I think that is a fundamental alteration of the great democratic trends or tendencies of this Nation. I do not think it is a complicated case. We can have professors and scholars, and they can write briefs and all this stuff, but look at this. This is a restriction on free debate in America. It is a fundamental issue that this country is dealing with, and I must say that I do not believe we should support it. I think it would be one of the most regressive actions, one of the greatest retreats from the democratic ideal that would have occurred in my lifetime, maybe in the history of this Nation. I just wanted to take a few minutes to share those comments. I yield the floor. Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. SESSIONS. I think that is a very realistic possibility, and it is so incapable of enforcement or definition. Do you say that a private group that believes deeply in interests like pro-life or pro-choice cannot raise money and say don't vote for John Doe because he is opposed to our views? I think that is what America is all about. We have to be able to take the heat and defend our positions as best we can, and we should not turn that over just to the news media to do so.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator from Kentucky. I agree with the Senator, the statement as printed behind him there on that chart is an astounding and very troubling statement. I think it reflects accurately, though, what thicket we get into when we attempt to pass laws to regulate speech in the campaign. I do not see how we can get out of this. I think we need to make sure people report what they give so the public can know who is supporting whom. But I think this would be a historic retreat, the greatest retreat from free speech since the founding of this Nation, if we were to adopt it. It is bad policy, and I must speak in opposition to it. I thank the Senator from Kentucky for his leadership in this effort.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I have been asked to chair the subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee on juvenile violence. It is an issue and a problem that I have dealt with for many years. I have been a Federal and State prosecutor for 17 years. I know juvenile judges, I know sheriffs, I know police chiefs, I know juvenile probation officers and those who work with them. I have been involved in organizations that have dealt with youth crime for many, many years. I think it is a rare opportunity to have the possibility of contributing to an issue as important as this one. I am particularly pleased that we have a bipartisan interest in real reform of juvenile justice in America. Not long ago, the Republican conference of this body listed juvenile violence as one of its top 10 priorities. The President has made it so in his remarks and in his recent address to the Nation. Just a few weeks ago, the majority leader, Trent Lott, met with the President, and they agreed to work to pass a good and effective juvenile reform bill. Senator Lott had the occasion to talk with me about that, and his instructions to me were: ``Jeff, we want the best crime bill that we can get, something that will effectively reduce juvenile violence in America.'' Mr. President, let me discuss with you what our problems are. Understanding the situation we are in is important. The incidence of adult crime in America, since the early 1980's, has essentially been flat. During that time, we have doubled, tripled, and in some areas of the country, quadrupled the prison capacity for adult offenders in America. Many States have quadrupled their capacity. We have effectively targeted these repeat and dangerous offenders. Those offenders are not now out on the street, committing additional crimes, and we have, at great cost and at great pain, and I regret to say great loss of productivity, incarcerated people who needed to be incarcerated. But we have maintained more safety on our streets than would have been the case. During this same period of time we have observed that juvenile violence has increased rapidly. We have not dealt with that in any effective way. Since 1982, violent crime committed by juveniles in America has doubled. Murder rates have increased 128 percent since 1982. This violent crime rate has been projected by the Department of Justice to double again by the year 2010. Indeed, by the year 2000 we will have 500,000 more crime-prone males, age 14 to 17. Many experts predict that these numbers alone will drive the juvenile violence rate even higher. I think we must systematically and deliberately confront this problem, find real solutions to it, and deal with what I consider to be the real problem, which is a juvenile justice system that is simply not working. Those who have seen it, who have worked in it, who have been a part of it, know that. We care about it. We want to improve it. But we have to be honest: It is simply not working. Let me tell you what is happening in America today. Recently, in Montgomery, AL, a night watchman was killed. I had one of my staff check to see about the three juveniles who had been arrested for that offense. One had 8 prior arrests, another had 8 prior arrests, and the third had 15 prior arrests. That is the kind of thing that is happening all over America. We do not effectively deal with juvenile violence and serious juvenile crime. We act as if it is the same kind of crime that existed 30 or 40 years ago when juvenile crime primarily involved vandalism or petty theft. Can we do anything about it? Can we, as a nation, effectively deal with these instances of ever increasing violence by young offenders, and make the system work better? As somebody who has been in it, I believe sincerely that we can. It strikes me that we have a system which is so badly constituted that we have great opportunities to make it more productive and work better. Mr. President, let me give you an outline of some of the proposals that will be in our bill and I think will be supported by the Department of Justice and the President. Senator Joseph Biden, the ranking Democratic member on our subcommittee, and others should be in general agreement with the proposals I am going to make. I certainly hope they will be. First, we do have to make the Federal system work better. It is as a practical matter impossible at this time to effectively prosecute a juvenile offense in Federal court. The prosecutor must certify that the offender cannot be prosecuted in State court. Then the prosecutor must certify the offender as an adult. Then the offender has a right, at that point, to appeal the certification, to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which delays the trial as much as a year while the public waits on the results of that appeal. That is not necessary. We believe that our bill, with the support of the President, and the Department of Justice, can eliminate those problems and allow the Federal prosecutors to effectively be engaged in prosecuting appropriate violent juvenile cases. But we have to be honest with ourselves: 99.9 percent of juvenile crime cases--99.99 percent--are being tried in State court. Overwhelmingly, those cases ought to continue to be in State court. We do not need to have the Federal bureaucracy, here in Washington, DC, taking over the prosecution of juvenile crime in the States. What we need to do in this Nation, and what this Senate needs to do, and what our Federal Government needs to do, is develop ways to assist the juvenile systems throughout America to be more productive in prosecuting cases within their own counties, cities and localities. This is the most important thing. First, we need to fix the Federal system, but we do not need to ever think for one moment that that is going to be a serious detriment to the overall growth and threat of violence in our young offenders. How do we improve the States' systems? We have to deal with it systemically, addressing the day-to-day things that are happening there. I would like to share with you some proposals that will be included in our bill, and share with you some of the problems that we face. First, let me tell you what is happening today all over this country, when young offenders are arrested. Let us take this example. A young offender in a stolen car is arrested at 2 a.m. by a local deputy sheriff, caught flat-footed. What typically happens is, if there is not a juvenile facility nearby--and normally there are only a few approved juvenile facilities within the State--that offender cannot be kept overnight in a separate part of a local or city jail. Those offenders cannot be kept at the local jail because Federal mandates say they cannot be housed in any institution in which adults are housed. They cannot even be in an institution that shares the same dining facility. So they either have to be released that night, or they have to be taken to a juvenile facility that may be in a distant locality and may be at full capacity. So, routinely what happens is that young offender, caught flat-footed in a stolen automobile, is released that night to his parents. He is back on the street that night. It is not just bad for him, that he receives a horrible message, but it is also bad for his younger brothers, perhaps, or his running buddies, his would-be criminal associates, because they know Billy got caught. They know the police caught him in a stolen car. They see him back on the street that very night or the next morning. They see him laughing about it. They do not respect the system, and that procedure undermines the moral authority of the police and the legal system in America. It encourages crime and it does not deter crime, and we have to deal with that fundamental problem. We can do so, and I have some ideas I would like to share with you. As a matter of fact, as I traveled the State of Alabama as attorney general, talking to local police, that is the single most frustrating situation for local police officers throughout Alabama, and I think the Nation, in juvenile crime, because these officers say to me over and over, ``Jeff, they are laughing at us. They don't think we can do anything to them, and we can't.'' This creates crime by sending a clear message to all involved that these young offenders are getting away with their crimes. How do we deal with that? We need to end these irrational Federal mandates that require total separation. We do not need to have young offenders in the same cell with hardened criminals. Nobody proposes that. But on separate floors, in separate wings, separate parts of jails can be carved out where young offenders can be kept, at least for short periods of time, totally apart from adult offenders. That can and should be done, and it is the only sane and logical thing to do. I believe there is a growing consensus in America to do that, and our bill will do that. I think we can have bipartisan support to end these regulations. This will free up, at little or no cost, significant amounts of bed space for juvenile offenders. In addition, we need to put some money into juvenile facilities. Adult facilities, as I have said, have doubled and tripled and quadrupled in America, but facilities for young offenders have not increased. In fact, in some States, their jail space for juveniles has decreased. Florida, after decreasing juvenile jails for a number of years, has now recognized the need to increase their available space. Our bill will provide financial support to State and local governments who need to undertake to expand their existing facilities, such as by putting on a separate wing for juvenile offenders. That way, at a reasonable cost, we can add jail capacity. A sheriff in Alabama told me just a few weeks ago that he was arresting and incarcerating people under a new Alabama law that our Attorney General's office helped get passed, but he did not realize he was also in violation of Federal mandates and he was called on the carpet by Federal officials who forced him to stop. His policy was to hold young offenders for several days when the charges were serious, taking them promptly to court, and having prompt hearings. As a result of that tough approach, his juvenile crime rate dropped significantly. He was just furious that he could no longer carry out that policy, because he was absolutely convinced that if he was given the capacity to identify the serious offenders, take them to court, and detain them, then he could make progress in reducing crime. That is what we want. We want to deter criminal conduct. We want to have a system that does, in fact, cause juveniles to think about the consequences of their actions before they are tempted to commit a crime. I am convinced that our plan will do that. Some of these matters I will be talking about on the floor in the future in more detail, but I want to mention several other parts of this program that I think will have bipartisan support and which will be effective in thousands of everyday criminal cases in juvenile court, so that we can deter these young offenders from going further along. We need to make that first brush with the law their last. Drug testing. I have always thought it was virtually irrational or insane for us to arrest offenders, when we know statistically as high as 60 and 70 percent of serious offenders test positive for an illegal substance in their body at the time of their arrest, and not drug test them to determine whether or not they have a drug problem. They will say they do not. Routinely, they will deny it, but through regular drug testing, we can identify those young offenders who are using drugs. We can identify those who can, through their own willpower and the discipline of the court get off drugs, and those who are seriously addicted and need treatment. We can involve their families, if they have families, in that process. We can give the judge the kind of information he needs to know. When he is crafting an appropriate sentence, he needs to know whether or not this person standing before him, the one he is about to sentence, has a serious drug problem, and the sure way to do that is drug testing. It is relatively inexpensive. So we will be proposing legislation that will provide money for State and local juvenile courts to test young offenders. If they test positive, they can put them on a very intensive drug-testing program, and if they continue to flunk, they will either go to jail or some serious treatment facility. We need to stay on them. We do not do them a favor to act as if their drug problem does not exist and allow them to continue life as usual. We need to work on that very hard. Another matter that is extremely important is recordkeeping. For years, we have had in the National Crime Information Center the capacity to put every adult person's criminal history in our national computer system, so when they are arrested, a law officer can call up the National Crime Information Center from any police department in America, and, indeed, many police officers have today in their vehicles the capacity to tap into that system to find out if the person they just stopped out on the highway is a fugitive from justice for a serious offense. It is one of the most worthwhile, productive criminal justice innovations this Nation has ever implemented. It is not being done for juveniles. The greatest predictor of adult violence is a history of violence and crime as a youngster. We know that. That makes common sense. Yet, with regard to the young people who are being arrested, because of the secrecy laws around the country and an aversion for putting these records in the NCIC, the judges may not know about a history of violence and crime. They may know it if the offender committed a crime in their local community, but they will not know it if they committed it in another community. Additionally, in the case of a 24-year-old, for example, who the judge is about to sentence, that judge would need to know, in crafting an appropriate sentence, whether that offender standing before him had committed two armed robberies as a juvenile in a distant city. We have made a serious mistake over the years in not putting those records in the National Crime Information Center, and our bill will end that policy. I think it is something long overdue. I think it is appropriate for the Federal Government to provide training for State and local officials. It would be good to provide a national center, that no one State could afford to put together, to train probation officers who will be working with young offenders, to train sheriff deputies and police officers who will be working with young offenders, to train prosecutors who will be working with young offenders and, yes, provide the latest and finest training for juvenile judges so that they can be effective. I would love to see us establish training centers and scholarship programs so that virtually every young prosecutor, every new probation officer for juvenile offenders could have 1 week or 2 or 3 weeks in intensive training on what it means to have their job and how to best conduct themselves in it. We also need, and it is appropriate for the Federal Government who has all 50 States under its jurisdiction, to provide a research center to study what programs work and what programs don't work, to give authoritative data to local officials as they struggle to decide what to do about juvenile violence in their community. I sense, as I travel Alabama--and I know this is true nationally-- that people in local communities are very concerned about juvenile crime, and they want to develop programs to do something. They are willing to invest money in that. They are just not certain what to do. For example, a number of years ago, Congress developed a boot camp program in America. We had one of those in my hometown of Mobile. I was involved in helping to get it established. We had great expectations for it. The U.S. Department of Justice did an intensive study of the boot camps around and the studies produced, unfortunately, mixed results. The studies concluded that whereas many young offenders appear to be quite changed when they finish their short-term incarceration and intensive military-like discipline and really seem to be better, once they were released and went back into the community from which they came, they developed the same friends and same associates and the recidivist rates, the rearrest rates, did not change very much. So since then, boot camps, because of that study and others, have adopted an aftercare program where the graduates have to come back to the training center with their parents or parent and go through a counseling and intense monitoring program. This has helped expand the productivity of the boot camp system and has helped keep more of these people from going back into a life of crime. That is the kind of thing that is difficult for a State to do on its own. It is appropriate for the Federal Government to do that. That is not a Federal takeover of juvenile justice, but a Federal helping hand to give States the information that they need. So, Mr. President, I would just say that we are dealing with an issue of great national importance. I cannot tell you how delighted I am that the President, that the Department of Justice, that the Democratic leadership of this body and the Republican leadership of this body are united in being committed to developing a workable plan that will actually and realistically improve our ability to deal with this juvenile crime problem, because if we don't, it will get worse. And I am excited about our prospects. This proposal that I have outlined for you today will provide more jail space so that when young offenders violate their probation, so that when they commit crimes, they can be immediately incarcerated and disciplined by their judge. If the judge has no capacity to do that, then that judge is losing control of his courtroom; and the police officers who went out and made the arrest, their moral authority is undermined. We need drug testing to find out which ones of these young people are addicted to dangerous drugs which may be the accelerant to their criminal activity. We need better recordkeeping to identify serious dangerous offenders throughout this Nation as they move throughout this Nation. We need a training center to train local and State law enforcement. And we need a research center to identify the greatest and best ways to fight juvenile crime so that we can assist Federal and State activity in improving that effort. Mr. President, I am excited about the potential for doing something good for America, for making our streets safer. I must point out that in some areas of this country almost the leading, if not the leading, cause of death of young people is murder. That is a horrible thing to say, because it is not just the young people who are committing crimes, they are also the victims of young criminals. It is something we have to put an end to if we care about our country. It is a core function of government that we make our streets safe. This bill will help take us a long way toward that goal. I thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator from Utah. I appreciate the leadership he has given to this effort. I think that this issue is very, very important to our Nation. I think, fundamentally, it is one of integrity. It is integrity in spending. We have to deal with those issues day after day. How do we get an unbalanced budget? What happens? Senators and Congressmen get together and each have their own priorities. Each believes deeply that some project ought to be funded, and they cannot agree on which ones should be funded and which ones should not. So, they get together, they fund them all, and they pass on the debt to our children. Some say we don't need a balanced budget--that we should not amend the Constitution. We have a series of 33 out of 34 years where we have failed to balance the budget. We have a systemic problem, and we need a systemic solution. This amendment will bring integrity to the finances of the United States. I think it is absolutely crucial that we pass it. I can't believe anything more important will come before this body than this amendment, and I am in support of it.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am honored to rise to address this Chamber and I am reminded of the responsibility given to me by my fellow Alabamians. It is both an honor and privilege to represent the people of Alabama, and I will devote all my resources toward ensuring that their best and most honest instincts are well served in this institution. I am also delighted to have heard the remarks of the senior Senator from Florida. Those remarks are most pertinent and important for us all. I think, also, I should note the great respect that I have for Senator Hatch and the work he has done on building a balanced budget amendment that is sound and that will be a good addition to our Constitution. It is a well-written amendment and it ought to be passed in its present form. I think it is, indeed, appropriate that the first bill under consideration on the floor of the U.S. Senate, is the balanced budget amendment. The people of Alabama have made their support for this legislation clear, and I intend to do all I can to ensure that they have the opportunity to have this amendment placed before them for their ratification. Americans know through experience that Washington cannot be trusted to keep its financial house in order. This has been demonstrated to them by Washington's failure to balance more than one budget in the last 28 years. The 28 years of unbalanced budgets stacked right here before us demonstrate Congresses past history of failure. Americans know the burdens of Washington's excesses are going to fall primarily on their children, a result which is unjust and unconscionable. They have reached the same conclusions that I have: Enactment of the balanced budget amendment is the only way Washington's tax-and-spend mentality can be curbed and provides the only way for integrity and accountability in Government spending. It will force us to honestly confront the issues and to make choices. Someone has suggested we really don't need to amend the Constitution, the budget deficit is dropping. But in Judiciary hearings last week, Senator Biden, a senior Democratic Senator from Delaware, discussed that very point. He noted at the time that the only reason, in his opinion budget deficits have been dropping is because of the fear that this body and the House, along with the President, would pass a balanced budget amendment. Without discipline, budget deficits will increase again at an alarming rate. That is why Senator Biden supported a balanced budget amendment. The arguments in favor of a balanced budget amendment are not new. In fact, the concerns Americans raise today were advocated by our Founding Fathers, and none more vocal than Thomas Jefferson. Where today's families worry about the crushing debt that is being passed onto their children, Jefferson warned, and I quote, ``Each successive generation ought to be guaranteed against dissipations and corruptions of those preceding.'' And corruption it is. It is irresponsibility. It is a corruption of the highest duties and responsibilities of office in this Government that we fail to make the hard choices when confronted with competing priorities and simply adopt both priorities and pass that debt to our children. During the first Judiciary Committee hearing on this bill, Senator Orrin Hatch placed a debt clock before us. It graphically illustrated the point. Each second that passes sees another $4,500 being added to our national debt. Think about that. The national debt is growing at the rate of $4,500 a second, $270,000 a minute, $16,200,000 an hour, $388,800,000 a day. This is in addition to the current national debt of $5.2 trillion. At this moment, our current debt is equal to a $20,000 obligation being placed on every man, woman, and child in this country, and it is our children who will face the brunt of this problem. Make no mistake, the increases in today's debt will be funded directly by taxes levied on our children and grandchildren, limiting the opportunity for them to enjoy the same standard of living we enjoy. By continuing these practices, we are mortgaging their right to participate in the American dream. Having paid no heed to Jefferson's advice, we have failed to protect our Nation from the dissipations and corruptions of the present generation. Indeed, we have violated the very principle of our founding: taxation without representation. We are, in effect, taxing future generations without their consent as a result of our own irresponsibility. I would like to take a moment to reflect upon the tragic waste of resources that the interest on this debt is causing us. We lose $800 million a day simply on interest payments. In fact, over the course of a fiscal year, we spend nearly as much money on interest payments as we do on the Nation's defense. For example, in the year 1995, we spent $232 billion on interest on the debt and $273 billion on defense. The money we use to pay the interest on the debt is money that could be diverted to other areas or simply returned to the American taxpayer. This is an intolerable waste of our resources. A balanced budget amendment would offer protection against a continued waste of our revenue resources. A balanced budget amendment would also afford protection against another evil Jefferson foresaw: the inability of Congress to restrain its spending with any degree of self-discipline. When Jefferson warned, ``Public debt is the greatest of dangers to be feared by a republican government,'' he did so because he could foresee that self-interested politicians could be expected to choose spending over restraint and responsibility. Our $5.2 trillion national debt is a sad testament to that fact. Our inability to live within our means on the national level is unacceptable and adds to the increasing lack of confidence the American public--who must live within its budgets--feels for its Federal Government. On this point, I am reminded of a story arising at the time I served as U.S. attorney and attended a Federal Judiciary Conference. The attending judges were complaining because Congress was requiring sentencing guidelines that would restrict their ability to sentence. In fact, the guidelines mandated certain sentences for certain types of offenses. At one point, a senior judge stated to the entire conference: ``Gentlemen, the plain fact is, the U.S. Congress no longer trusts you to sentence.'' The fact today is that the American people no longer trust the President or the Congress to bring their spending in order. They are insisting upon a balanced budget amendment to end the deficit, because it is a people's initiative. A constitutional amendment is needed, I submit to you, because we have a systemic weakness. We have observed in the last 28 years, by these budget deficits here before us, that this Congress cannot be trusted. Our system is weak without fiscal discipline, and it is proper and appropriate for this body and the people of the United States to amend that Constitution and fix that systemic weakness. A balanced budget amendment is needed to regain the people's trust, because the people know that there has not been a balanced budget since 1969, and they know that we are continuing to run budget deficit after budget deficit. They are skeptical of our ability to keep our promises, because they do not believe that we have the political will to keep them without a law requiring it. And they are right. When Treasury Secretary Rubin testified before the Judiciary Committee, I asked him about the current administration's commitment to a balanced budget. I specifically asked him how he could commit to achieving a balanced budget in 2002 when neither he nor President Clinton would even be in office at that time, because under the Constitution, President Clinton will leave office in the year 2000. They cannot give an answer to that, and that is the point. Mr. President, I was pleased to hear the President speak of the need for a balanced budget in his address to the Nation. But what needs to be remembered in this debate is that while the President may offer visions of a balanced budget, and he may offer timelines for achieving that goal, he will not be in office when the target date for the balance arrives and therefore cannot be held accountable. In essence, the promises of a balanced budget are nothing more than illusory commitments. Simply offering a vision of balance will not guide this Nation to its goal. An efficient enforcement mechanism needs to be in place in order to ensure that a commitment to a balanced budget becomes a reality. This is especially true when an administration proposes a budget in which much of the budget savings are backloaded with the supposed balance to be occurring in the years after they leave office. Such ``out-of-sight, out-of-mind'' proposals are a shunning of responsibility and reflect the same business-as-usual thinking that has led us to the fiscal trouble we now face. In truth, the only instrument capable of creating the kind of binding discipline needed to bring our budgets in balance is this amendment. While ending deficits may be tough for pork-addicted politicians and for inefficient Government agencies and departments, it will become much easier, once the people speak, with this amendment. Remember, there will be economic benefits from balancing the budget, such as increased savings and lower interest rates. The American public would also be the recipient of another important benefit--that of greater political independence. On this issue, former Senator Paul Simon, a Democrat from Illinois, and a supporter of the balanced budget amendment, has raised a significant and often overlooked point. During testimony before the Judiciary Committee, Senator Simon noted that limiting our ability to increase our debt will necessarily mean that we reduce the amount of our Nation's debt held by foreign governments. He recounted a jarring story in which he was once approached by a Treasury official before an important pending vote on a Saudi Arabian arms sale. The official told him that if the vote failed to pass, the Saudis might stop buying bonds which finance our debt. This sort of economic extortion is intolerable. American policymaking is and should always remain the sole province of the American people's representatives, not foreign bondholders. As most people know, it is not a good idea to get into a fight with your banker. The time to restore the American people's trust is now. We simply cannot afford to let this opportunity pass us by. As I campaigned throughout Alabama last summer I was struck by the unanimous and universal support this amendment enjoyed. Whether I was meeting peanut farmers in Dothan or teachers in Mobile, small businessmen in Huntsville or police officers in Birmingham, the support for this amendment remained constant and strong. The broad-based support is not confined simply to Alabama but is also reflected nationally. Survey after survey shows that over 80 percent of the American public supports enacting a balanced budget amendment. In fact, support for this concept has already been powerfully demonstrated on the State level with 48 States having enacted provisions which restrict each State's ability to incur debt, including my home State of Alabama. And it works well. Support for this amendment is so wide ranging that it transcends party lines. I note with some interest that my predecessor, former Senator Howell Heflin of Alabama, and a Democrat, introduced a balanced budget amendment as his very first piece of legislation in 1979. Further, bipartisan support was evidenced in last year's vote on the issue, a vote which saw Republicans and Democrats in both Houses come together to fall just one vote short of passage. The reason for this bipartisan support is clear: The American people demand and deserve an opportunity to consider and vote on this amendment. I trust in the judgment of the American people to assess this amendment's merits as well as its defects, and I encourage my fellow Members to trust in the American people's collective wisdom as well. As I began this speech by quoting Thomas Jefferson, I would like to finish it by quoting another of our Founding Fathers, George Washington. I believe his words are applicable to our current debate. In his words: * * * whatsoever is unfinished of our system of public credit can not be benefited by procrastination; and as far as may be practicable we ought to place that credit on grounds which can not be disturbed, and to prevent that progressive accumulation of debt which must ultimately endanger all governments. Mr. President, the balanced budget amendment does place our credit on ``grounds which can not be disturbed'' and would prevent future accumulations of debt. It has been 200 years since Washington uttered these sentiments. We have procrastinated long enough. The time to pass the balanced budget amendment is now. Thank you very much. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I have listened with growing concern and really anger at the remarks of the Senator from Texas. I agree with him. It is a cause of great concern to me. I served 15 years in the U.S. Department of Justice. I have served in the Army Reserve as a judge advocate. My responsibilities in that capacity were to protect the rights of servicemen and all their responsibilities, enforcing the Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act so that those service people can maintain their rights in their communities and not be abused while they were serving their country on active duty. To me, this is a very unhealthy action. It outrages me for three particular reasons. First of all, taxpayers' money was used for it. Legal Services Corporation lawyers actually going into court and seeking to deny soldiers, sailors and airmen the right to vote. It is fundamentally wrong, it is offensive to me, and I am glad the Senator has spoken out aggressively about it. The Legal Services Corporation has had a history of abusing its charter. Time and time and time again, they are caught and held to account, and they back off and say, ``Oh, we're sorry, we made a mistake, it won't happen again.'' But it has happened again and again and again, in my experience, and I think we ought not to forget that. I also want to say it is particularly galling to me that the votes they seek to cancel are those of soldiers, sailors, and airmen and airwomen who are serving our country abroad and throughout this Nation. I firmly and strongly believe they ought to be able to vote in the location they choose as their residence and be able to participate in the votes at that time. Finally, as an individual who served for 15 years in the U.S. Department of Justice, a tenure I treasure greatly, I think it is incumbent upon the Attorney General to take firm and quick action to join the side of those service men and women who are entitled to vote and have their vote counted. I think they ought to intervene in this case on the side of the servicemen and help make sure that justice is done. I thank Senator Gramm for his remarks and for calling this to the attention of the country. I think it is an important issue.