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.
“NOMINATION OF JAMES K. ROBINSON” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Justice was published in the Senate section on pages S6347-S6348 on June 15, 1998.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
NOMINATION OF JAMES K. ROBINSON
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, on August 31, 1995, some 1019 days ago, the head of the Department of Justice's Criminal Division, Assistant Attorney General Jo Ann Harris, resigned. Since that time, the Department of Justice has lacked a confirmed leader for this critical post. Indeed, the Acting Assistant Attorney General has had to recuse himself from one of the most important matters to come before the Department: the Clinton Administration's fund-raising abuses. The failure of the Clinton Administration to fill this crucial position has had, in my mind, a serious impact both on the performance of the Criminal Division and the credibility of its decisions. Over two and a half years later, I am glad to support the nomination of James K. Robinson to be Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division. This nomination was reported out of the Judiciary Committee in April by a unanimous vote, and I believe should receive the support of all Senators.
The Criminal Division represents the front line of the federal government's commitment to fight crime. We rely on the Criminal Division to enforce over 900 federal statutes and to develop enforcement policies to be implemented by the 94 U.S. Attorneys around the country. Within the division are sections that carry out national responsibilities crucial to protecting our citizens and property, including: Asset Forfeiture/Money Laundering, Child Exploitation and Obscenity, Fraud, Computer Crime and Intellectual Property, Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, Organized Crime and Racketeering, Public Integrity, Terrorism and Violent Crime, and the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force. The importance of each of these sections cannot be overstated.
I believe that this nominee is up to this demanding task. James Robinson has compiled an impressive record of achievement. Following graduation from Wayne State University Law School, he clerked on the Michigan Supreme Court and then for Judge George Edwards of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. He served with distinction as United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan during the Carter Administration. Both before and after his service as U.S. Attorney, Mr. Robinson was a member of the Detroit law firm of Honigman Miller Schwartz & Cohn, first as an associate and then as a partner. Since 1993, he has been Dean and Professor of Law at his alma mater, Wayne State University Law School. Finally, Mr. Robinson has served on and often chaired numerous bar and civic associations, many of which related to his expertise in the law of evidence. He will need all of this experience and more to fulfill such a demanding position.
One of the most important duties assigned the head of the Criminal Division is to advise the Attorney General on the appointment of independent counsels. In my mind, Attorney General Reno was very poorly served by the Criminal Division over the past year while considering whether to appoint an independent counsel related to the fund raising efforts made by the President and Vice President in conjunction with the 1996 elections. While I was pleased to see the Department secure the indictments of Johnny Chung and Charlie Trie, I believe both the Division and the Attorney General misapplied the independent counsel statute by taking into consideration factors which the law does not allow. There are many both inside and outside Congress, including this Senator, who believe that the statute has many flaws, but so long as the law is on the books it must be applied fairly and consistently. This Department of Justice has not done so, and I place a large part of the blame on the Criminal Division.
Congress has responded to the unacceptable levels of crime by increasing the Department of Justice's budget: in fact, the Department's budget has skyrocketed since 1994, rising from under 11 billion dollars in FY 1994 to over 20 billion dollars in FY 1998. However, I am concerned about the decline in federal prosecutions in several critical areas despite this increased funding. First, at a time when the administration is calling for more gun control, I am concerned that the Department of Justice is not adequately enforcing current gun laws. The annual number of weapons and firearms prosecutions brought by this Administration has plummeted. For example, federal weapons and firearms prosecutions are down 18.7 % since 1992.
More importantly, I am concerned that the Department of Justice is not enforcing current laws meant to punish gun-toting criminals. Specifically, the number of prosecutions made under Project Triggerlock has collapsed. Initiated by the Bush Administration, Project Triggerlock targets federal prosecution and tough federal sentences on the worst violent offenders committing crimes with guns. In its first year, FY 1992, the program worked remarkably well: 4,353 federal cases were brought against 7,048 defendants for violations of federal law involving the use of a firearm. Yet, the number of these cases has fallen throughout the Clinton Administration, and in FY 1997 the Department of Justice reported only 2,844 cases under Project Triggerlock, a stunning 34.6% decrease since 1992. Through the effective use of federal powers and resources, U.S. Attorneys can greatly assist state and local law enforcement in keeping the most dangerous offenders off the streets. Unfortunately, this extremely effective program has lost priority in the Clinton Administration.
I have been concerned about the performance of the Criminal Division and the United States Attorneys in a number of additional areas over the past several years. Whether it has been the intentional failure of U.S. Attorneys in California to enforce Indian gaming laws, the unfortunate surrender of our borders to drug trafficking, the recent decision to distort the Controlled Substances Act to allow doctors to use drugs to assist suicides, or the repeal of a memorandum by Attorney General Richard Thornburgh which ensured federal prosecutors did not settle with charging defendants with lesser violations while more serious offenses were ignored, the administration's crime fighting decisions have, in some areas, not met the high standard the public deserves. These concerns, however, do not diminish my recognition of the work of the thousands of federal law enforcement officials who ably carry out the responsibility of enforcing our federal laws.
As I pointed out at his confirmation hearing, Mr. Robinson has been nominated to a position of great trust. If confirmed, he will play a key role in advising the nation's chief law enforcement officer on matters of serious national concern. Mr. Robinson assured the Judiciary Committee that although he naturally would feel loyalty to the administration which selected him, he would stand above politics and serve the public.
During his confirmation hearing, I raised many of these important issues with Mr. Robinson. Although he was not in a position to have formed concrete opinions on some issues which have been debated between the Congress and the administration, I was heartened by his promise to work with the Congress and to bring fresh approaches to tough issues. By moving this nomination without further delay, the Congress will ensure that the Criminal Division once again will have the leadership it sorely needs to play a leading and effective role at the vanguard of federal law enforcement.
____________________
