The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“MORE EXPLANATIONS NEEDED FROM ATTORNEY GENERAL” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Justice was published in the Extensions of Remarks section on pages E1881 on Sept. 24, 2003.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
MORE EXPLANATIONS NEEDED FROM ATTORNEY GENERAL
______
HON. MARK UDALL
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 24, 2003
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I continue to have serious concerns about the activities of the Justice Department under the current Administration.
So, I agree completely with an editorial in today's Rocky Mountain News regarding the recent directive by the Attorney General instructing U.S. Attorneys to limit use of plea bargains and to pursue the most serious possible charges in most cases.
As the editorial notes, ``if there is a problem with overly lenient sentences and go-easy prosecutors, the Justice Department has yet to prove it. Ashcroft might be trying to fix a system that isn't broken. The order also could have the dangerous effect of diminishing the discretion of federal judges and prosecutors, a critical point now that more and more offenses that were once purely state law are now federal crimes.''
The editorial concludes by saying ``Congress should insist that Ashcroft more thoroughly explain why this order is necessary.'' On that point, I fully concur, and urge the Judiciary Committee to seek such an explanation without delay.
For the benefit of our colleagues, here is the full text of the editorial:
What Problem Is Ashcroft Solving?
Attorney General John Ashcroft is becoming a prolific writer of memos to the 94 U.S. attorneys.
His latest instructs them to pursue the toughest possible charges and seek the severest sentences possible. And he also ordered them to limit the use of plea bargains. The goal, he said, was to bring uniformity and consistency to federal criminal prosecutions.
By itself, the order is not unreasonable. It reflects the Bush administration's stand on law enforcement, and it returns to a similar order the department issued in 1989 during the administration of Bush senior. The order was relaxed during the Clinton administration. And Ashcroft's order has reasonable exceptions on plea bargaining, for example, to reward cooperation and clear overcrowded dockets.
But if there is a problem with overly lenient sentences and go-easy prosecutors, the Justice Department has yet to prove it. Ashcroft might be trying to fix a system that isn't broken.
The order also could have the dangerous effect of diminishing the discretion of federal judges and prosecutors, a critical point now that more and more offenses that were once purely state law are now federal crimes.
Ashcroft also has told the U.S. attorneys to report judges who impose lighter sentences than called for by federal sentencing guidelines. Yet seeking the toughest charges with the maximum sentences could also increase the federal judiciary's already backlogged workload. With little possibility of a plea bargain, more defendants now have an incentive to go to trial and then continue the fight through the appeals process.
Congress should insist that Ashcroft more thoroughly explain why this order is necessary.
____________________
