No one would be aggressively defending AUSAs
No organization or individual would be aggressively defending the professionalism of AUSAs against the defense bar or unfair disciplinary actions by the Office of Professional Responsibility.
Beginning in 2000, all AUSAs would have been appointed for two-years
In 1999, NAAUSA derailed Senate plans, included in the Senate's 2000 Department of Justice appropriation bill, that would have required all future AUSA appointments to two-year terms.
AUSAs would not be protected against false liens and the public disclosure of restricted personal information.
NAAUSA convinced Congress to extend these protections to AUSAs in 2007 court and judicial security legislation, P.L. 110-177, as well as to require DOJ to report to Congress on the adequacy of current measures, including personal security training, secure parking, and the role of the U.S. Marshals Service in protecting AUSAs.
The FY 2009-2012 USAO budgets would be smaller
NAAUSA lobbying focused the Senate's attention of the severe budget crisis and its impact on the United States Attorney's Offices, resulting in detailed NAAUSA testimony at a September 2006 Senate hearing and increases in the FY 2008 thru FY 2012 budgets.
AUSAs would not be reimbursed for the cost of professional liability insurance.
NAAUSA successfully persuaded Congress in 1999 to include AUSAs in legislation, P.L. 106-58, that authorizes federal agencies to pay half the cost of professional liability coverage.
AUSAs and other DOJ attorneys would not be entitled to comp time for off-duty official travel
NAAUSA challenged a 2005 DOJ decision to deny attorneys comptime for off-duty official travel and ultimately secured Congressional reversal of DOJ’s decision in remedial legislation, P.L. 109-425.