[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.
____________________