[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 48 (Tuesday, March 20, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3307-S3308]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           PRESERVING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY INDEPENDENCE ACT

  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I am very proud to have supported the 
Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act we just passed in 
the Senate. This bill will go a long way toward restoring the 
independence of Federal prosecutors--an independence which has, 
unfortunately, been chipped away at in recent months and years.
  I have been disappointed to watch the drama unfolding over the past 
few weeks regarding the politicization of our justice system. Every 
day, as the Judiciary Committee continues its investigation, we see 
more revelations of how the Department of Justice may have allowed 
portions of the U.S. attorney corps to become a vehicle for political 
patronage--this despite the fact that U.S. attorneys are among the most 
powerful public officials in our country, making virtually unreviewable 
decisions about life and death, about punishment and leniency. They 
make these kinds of decisions every single day all across this country.
  The U.S. attorneys must be individuals who have integrity. They must 
be above reproach. They must be free from any kind of partisan 
political interference.
  I am disappointed the Department of Justice may have blurred the line 
between the representation of President Bush as a client and the 
representation of the people of the United States. I understand that 
distinction very well, having served both as chief counsel to the 
Governor of my State as well as attorney general for the State of 
Colorado. Those are two very different positions. One requires--in the 
case of chief counsel to the Governor or chief counsel to the 
President--a lawyer-client relationship. The other--Attorney General--
requires the representation of the people whom you represent. In the 
case of a State attorney general, you are the representative of the 
people of that State. In the case of the U.S. Attorney General, you are 
the representative of the people of the United States of America.
  If Attorney General Gonzales has, indeed, crossed this line, then in 
my view he has forfeited his right to lead the Department of Justice.
  On January 28, 2005, I received a letter from Attorney General 
Gonzales as part of his confirmation process in this U.S. Senate. In 
that letter he reflected upon his understanding of the independence of 
the Office of the Attorney General. I quote in part from that letter 
where he says the following:

       If confirmed, I will lead the Department of Justice and act 
     on behalf of agencies and officials of the United States. 
     Nevertheless, my highest and most solemn obligation will be 
     to represent the interests of the People. I know that you 
     understand this solemn duty well from your prior service as 
     Chief Counsel to the Governor and as Colorado Attorney 
     General.

  I would hope as the Senate Judiciary Committee moves forward in 
examining the facts related to the allegations that have been raised, 
the Judiciary Committee makes sure those facts are evaluated against 
the standard of independence which is at the core of the Department of 
Justice and the U.S. Attorney General. If, in fact, this standard has 
been violated, then it is my view that Attorney General Gonzales 
should, in fact, resign.
  In the meantime, the Senate has a responsibility to ensure that 
Federal prosecutors are indeed independent of partisan politics, and 
the bill we passed today is a good first step. But I believe we must do 
more. Later this week, I will introduce a bill which I believe will 
take us another important step toward restoring the independence of 
Federal prosecutors. I am hopeful it will be legislation that will have 
broad bipartisan support. My bill would simply make it a crime to 
coerce or to pressure or to attempt to influence a U.S. attorney's 
decision whether to commence the investigation or prosecution of a 
person based on that person's race, religion, sex, national origin, 
political activity, or political beliefs.
  The U.S. Attorneys Manual itself, which is given to every U.S. 
attorney as they come into office, already prohibits any Federal 
prosecutor from taking action against a person for any of those 
reasons. My bill would make sure that standard of the United States 
Attorneys Manual is included in the law of the United States. It would 
also extend the prohibitions that are set forth in that manual to 
individuals who try to influence or manipulate Federal prosecutors.
  Some may ask, why is this bill necessary? In my view, the bill is 
necessary because over the past few weeks we have seen evidence that 
the White House has politicized the appointment and termination of U.S. 
attorneys. We have also had concerns raised that individuals have tried 
to inject politics into the administration of justice.
  I do not need to rehash the particulars of this controversy right 
now, but suffice it to say many Senators on both sides of the aisle are 
concerned that the independence of our Federal prosecutors has, in 
fact, been threatened. Fixing the process for appointment of interim 
prosecutors is an important first step, no doubt. But that alone will 
not prevent individuals--whether from the Department of Justice or 
anywhere else--from attempting to influence the decisionmaking process 
of U.S. attorneys in an inappropriate manner. That is what my bill is 
designed to prevent.

[[Page S3308]]

  In 1938, almost 70 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court set forth, in 
what I believe is seminal language, a standard of conduct that should 
govern the actions and decisions of U.S. attorneys. In that decision, 
the U.S. Supreme Court said the following:

       The United States Attorney is the representative not of an 
     ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty

``but of a sovereignty''--

     whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as 
     its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, 
     therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win 
     a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a 
     peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the 
     twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or 
     innocence suffer.

``guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer.''

       He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor--indeed, he 
     should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not 
     at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to 
     refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a 
     wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to 
     bring about a just one.

  I believe these words the U.S. Supreme Court said in 1938 are equally 
as applicable today; that is, we are a nation of laws and we must 
understand that no person is above or below the law. If we are going to 
be a nation of laws, we must make sure those individuals in whom we 
repose the authority to prosecute and to enforce the laws of the United 
States do so in an appropriate way that meets the standards that were 
set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1938, and also which meets the 
standards that are set forth in the manual that governs the conduct of 
the U.S. attorneys. For many of us who have watched what has happened 
in Iraq and other places around the world, what we see is a failure of 
nations to develop a rule of law. That is what sets America apart from 
many of these other countries that so struggle to create a safe and 
secure society: they do not have the rule of law which is so important 
to us in this country. Therefore, I believe the legislation I will be 
introducing will make sure that the Department of Justice and the U.S. 
attorneys within the Department of Justice are always in a position to 
uphold the rule of law for our Nation and make sure that their ability 
and their decisions are not compromised by any political influence.

  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will be 
in recess until 2:15 p.m.

                          ____________________