[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 17]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 23238]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             MORE EXPLANATIONS NEEDED FROM ATTORNEY GENERAL

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. MARK UDALL

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                     Wednesday, September 24, 2003

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I continue to have serious 
concerns about the activities of the Justice Department under the 
current Administration.
  So, I agree completely with an editorial in today's Rocky Mountain 
News regarding the recent directive by the Attorney General instructing 
U.S. Attorneys to limit use of plea bargains and to pursue the most 
serious possible charges in most cases.
  As the editorial notes, ``if there is a problem with overly lenient 
sentences and go-easy prosecutors, the Justice Department has yet to 
prove it. Ashcroft might be trying to fix a system that isn't broken. 
The order also could have the dangerous effect of diminishing the 
discretion of federal judges and prosecutors, a critical point now that 
more and more offenses that were once purely state law are now federal 
crimes.''
  The editorial concludes by saying ``Congress should insist that 
Ashcroft more thoroughly explain why this order is necessary.'' On that 
point, I fully concur, and urge the Judiciary Committee to seek such an 
explanation without delay.
  For the benefit of our colleagues, here is the full text of the 
editorial:

             [From the Rocky Mountain News, Sept. 24, 2003]

                   What Problem Is Ashcroft Solving?

       Attorney General John Ashcroft is becoming a prolific 
     writer of memos to the 94 U.S. attorneys.
       His latest instructs them to pursue the toughest possible 
     charges and seek the severest sentences possible. And he also 
     ordered them to limit the use of plea bargains. The goal, he 
     said, was to bring uniformity and consistency to federal 
     criminal prosecutions.
       By itself, the order is not unreasonable. It reflects the 
     Bush administration's stand on law enforcement, and it 
     returns to a similar order the department issued in 1989 
     during the administration of Bush senior. The order was 
     relaxed during the Clinton administration. And Ashcroft's 
     order has reasonable exceptions on plea bargaining, for 
     example, to reward cooperation and clear overcrowded dockets.
       But if there is a problem with overly lenient sentences and 
     go-easy prosecutors, the Justice Department has yet to prove 
     it. Ashcroft might be trying to fix a system that isn't 
     broken.
       The order also could have the dangerous effect of 
     diminishing the discretion of federal judges and prosecutors, 
     a critical point now that more and more offenses that were 
     once purely state law are now federal crimes.
       Ashcroft also has told the U.S. attorneys to report judges 
     who impose lighter sentences than called for by federal 
     sentencing guidelines. Yet seeking the toughest charges with 
     the maximum sentences could also increase the federal 
     judiciary's already backlogged workload. With little 
     possibility of a plea bargain, more defendants now have an 
     incentive to go to trial and then continue the fight through 
     the appeals process.
       Congress should insist that Ashcroft more thoroughly 
     explain why this order is necessary.

                          ____________________