[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 77 (Monday, June 15, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6347-S6348]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    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.

[[Page S6348]]

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.

                          ____________________