Representative Roscoe Bartlett

    Terrorism is a very real threat. National security is a fundamental obligation of the federal government. Americans are emboldened and strengthened by our Constitution. It is a great privilege and responsibility for me to serve our country and I took an oath to uphold our Constitution. I strive to make decisions that will ensure our physical security and preserve and protect the rights that make us so proud to live in this country. During our Civil War and previous conflicts against sovereign nations, some of Americans’ civil liberties were sacrificed and restored afterward. Radical Islamic terrorists, such as al Qaeda, are not sovereign nations, so no one can predict how or when this war will end. I am unwilling to support broad-ranging new powers without checks and balances that could forever erode our citizens’ civil liberties under our Constitution. That is why I voted against the passage of the PATRIOT Act reauthorization bill.

    I sympathize with your concern that police agencies, under certain circumstances, may have the ability to spy on protected activities without a reasonable suspicion of illegal activity. I also understand your concern that personal information be protected from abusive and unregulated use. The federal government must practice prudence and careful discretion in establishing federal laws that might infringe upon such privacy.

    Whenever our country is drawn into conflict, there is a tendency amongst the Legislative, Judicial, and Executive branches to limit “civil liberties” in order to defend the country against those who would take advantage of them to attack us. History has shown, time and again, that these efforts result in harm to the people of the United States--far beyond any harm that an aggressor could cause for us. For this reason, I will jealously guard against further federal encroachments upon the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

    Controversy has arisen regarding U.S. treatment of enemy combatants and terrorist suspects detained in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other locations, and whether such treatment complies with U.S. statutes and treaties such as the U.N. Convention against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) and the 1949 Geneva Conventions. I do not condone or support torture of criminal suspects or prisoners of war. For me, it is a matter of morality. I believe in treating captives as we would want our enemies to treat American soldiers abroad. I respect the President’s position, but because I feel strongly that we should stand up against torture.


    Additionally, I have pursued eliminating the disparity in sentencing between crack and cocaine powder with regard to trafficking, possession, importation, and exportation. I recognized in 2002 that this 100-1 Crack vs. Powder Cocaine Disparity that had been adopted in haste and driven by fear was not justified by the facts. I recognized that this disparity which discriminated against lower income individuals who more often use crack was not justified by the effects of crack compared to powder cocaine and I introduced a bill to address it. Since then, more evidence has accumulated to strengthen my conviction. I hope that Congress will follow the recommendations of numerous authorities and approve reducing this ratio.

    This past December, the U.S. Sentencing Commission unanimously voted to reduce retroactively lengthy sentences meted out to thousands of people convicted of crack cocaine-related offenses over the past two decades. That same month, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a federal judge hearing a crack cocaine case “may consider the disparity between the Guidelines’ treatment of crack and powder offenses.” Both of these decisions reflect a growing concern that there should not be a 100:1 ratio in the amounts of powder cocaine and crack cocaine that trigger mandatory minimum sentences. We now have more and better information than we did in the past in order to assess the ratio and make adjustments.