[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 138 (Thursday, October 2, 2003)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1953-E1954]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   A JOB FOR THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. MARK UDALL

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, October 2, 2003

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, a recent editorial in the Denver 
Post calls on the Judiciary Committee to perform the oversight function 
of calling Attorney General John Ashcroft to account.
  The editorial evidently was prompted by the Attorney General's recent 
move to restrict plea bargaining in federal criminal cases. I think the 
editorial has it just right, and I urge the Judiciary Committee to 
promptly begin hearings on this and other Justice Department policies 
under the current administration. For the information of our 
colleagues, I am attaching the full text of the Denver Post editorial.

                          Ashcroft's Plea Ploy

       Attorney General John Ashcroft's scheme to make it tougher 
     for federal prosecutors to reach plea bargains with criminal 
     defendants is an ill-considered proposal that bespeaks an 
     unrealistic view of the capacity of the American court 
     system. Some observers say Ashcroft's plan is merely a ploy 
     to make his boss, President George W. Bush, look tough on 
     crime for the 2004 election. But all this sound-bite 
     buffoonery accomplishes is to make the Bush administration 
     look patently stupid. Even the greenest cub reporter on the 
     federal court beat learns quickly that more than 90 percent 
     of federal criminal cases are settled with plea bargains. 
     Defendants plead guilty, often to a lesser charge or fewer 
     counts, and this is taken into account at sentencing.
       Plea bargains avoid going to trial in federal courts where 
     dockets already are critically crowded. In exchange for 
     guilty pleas, defendants can get some reduction in sentences, 
     although formulaic federal sentencing guidelines adopted in 
     the 1980s give judges very little discretion. The U.S. 
     Justice Department says the new policy is intended to counter 
     dangerously lenient sentencing practices by some federal 
     judges. Utter nonsense. It's no accident our federal prisons 
     are jammed to the rafters. And Ashcroft's claim to be acting 
     in the interest of fairness is beyond laughable.
       We recall that when the late Dale Tooley ran for Denver 
     district attorney in 1972, he excoriated his predecessor for 
     plea bargaining. Once elected, though, Tooley quickly 
     realized the deals were necessary to prevent hopeless logjams 
     in court. Even former federal prosecutors told The New York 
     Times that Ashcroft's approach was too rigid. ``A check-the-
     box analysis really does mask differences,'' said a former 
     top Manhattan fed. ``Crimes are different, places are 
     different, people are different.'' Beyond being unrealistic, 
     at times it seems that Ashcroft is intent on dismantling most 
     of the traditional safeguards and liberties so venerated by 
     President Bush's conservative constituency. He is the chief 
     architect of the USA Patriot Act, which has eroded basic 
     constitutional freedoms.
       He has secretly proposed being given sweeping, arbitrary 
     powers in the name of national security while debasing 
     constitutional guarantees against illegal search and seizure 
     and seeking broad powers to tap phones and other 
     communications without court supervision. He has asked 
     Congress for greater latitude in seeking the death penalty 
     and to expand the crimes for which it can be imposed. He has 
     asked his minions in U.S. attorneys' offices to keep tabs on 
     which federal district judges mete out sentences more lenient 
     than sentencing guidelines. He has assailed the ancient 
     common-law concept of

[[Page E1954]]

     proportionality in sentencing and the concept of an 
     independent judiciary.
       Ashcroft's Machiavellian attacks on fundamental liberties 
     under the pretext of combatting international terrorism are a 
     betrayal of his oath to uphold the Constitution. President 
     Bush should jerk Ashcroft's leash. Failing that, the 
     judiciary committees of Congress should.

                          ____________________