Forwarded by The Word Warriorette
"Will forward - You decide"
08-10-99 04:31 PM
God save the Republic and the Constitution of the united States of America!
=============================================================
BEGIN FORWARDED MESSAGE:
<<#1
Tuesday August 10 11:05 AM ET
Reno Urges More Resources For Judges
By Gail Appleson, Law Correspondent
ATLANTA (Reuters) - U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno said Tuesday there is
``something magic'' about judges and they should have greater resources so
they can help stop repeat offenses and restore public confidence in the
criminal justice system.
Speaking at the American Bar Association's annual meeting, Reno said the
success of specialized drug courts shows there are ways in which judges can
be given broader authority to help make sure offenders get training and jobs
so they do not repeat their crimes.
``You say somebody else can do that. Ladies and gentlemen, there's something
magic about a judge...that black robe can make a difference,'' Reno said.
She said that from the late 1970s, the criminal justice system found itself
in the ``front line'' as crime rose and drugs increased across America.
``Crack destroyed communities and crack dealers put guns in the hands of
kids.''
Reno said children were unsupervised more often than any other time in
history and the mentally ill were turned out of institutions and forced onto
to the streets.
``They have faced human problems of dimensions barely known in history. They
faced them after institutions, family, the school, the neighborhood have
failed. The criminal justice system is at the end of the line. There is no
other place to go.''
However, she said the response to the onslaught on the criminal justice
system had been to limit judges' authority to deal with problems. But at the
same time there has been no reduction in caseloads. Federal sentencing
guidelines have raised prison terms but there are no additional resources to
deal with inmates and their return to communities.
``The offender finishes a sentence, returns to the neighborhood, has the same
problem with no resources to solve it,'' Reno said. ``They can't get a job,
they haven't finished school, they do it again and the people don't think the
criminal justice system works.''
``Let's give our courts, our judges what it takes to do justice, what it
takes to solve the human problems,'' she said.
Reno suggested that specialized courts, such as those dealing with particular
problems like drugs, domestic violence, juvenile crime and mental illness,
would help improve the system. She said there might also be the creation of
``reentry'' courts in which judges might help oversee a defendant's return to
the community.
``Let's give our judges tools to do the job. A case load can be managed,
investigators can find out the correct situation as to what is happening at
home and make recommendations to courts for treatment and follow-up,'' she
said.
``If we use the model of drug courts and other types, if we manage our case
load, if we give judges authority, we can make a difference.''
#2
Tuesday August 10, 1:25 pm Eastern Time
Company Press Release
SOURCE: U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Commerce
Bliley Blasts Reno, Administration for Failure To Address Bio-Terrorism
Threats
WASHINGTON, Aug. 10 /PRNewswire/ -- The Administration's inaction on the
threat of bio-terrorism is ``as inexplicable as it is unacceptable,''
according to a letter sent yesterday by Commerce Chairman Tom Bliley (R-VA).
Bliley's letter to Attorney General Janet Reno notes the Justice Department's
failure to provide Congress with specific views on the adequacy of federal
laws relating to dangerous biological agents such as anthrax, the ebola
virus, and the plague. The letter calls on the Justice Department to provide
a detailed response to a number of questions by August 16, 1999. A copy of
the letter is attached.
``As I noted in my very first letter to you, more than four months ago, you
pledged to Congress back in April of 1998 that the Department would...
'respond very quickly' with specific suggestions as to how the current
regulatory scheme for transfers of biological agents could be strengthened...
Nearly 16 months later, your Department has not proposed to Congress a single
specific legislative or regulatory change in these areas, which is as
inexplicable as it is unacceptable,'' Bliley wrote.
``I am concerned that we will have to wait until the actual new millennium
(2001), and a new Administration, before we see some concrete action on this
front,'' Bliley continued. ``The threat to our national security from the
current system of unregulated access to such deadly agents as anthrax, the
ebola virus, and the plague should not be underestimated.''
The Commerce Committee began investigating the adequacy of regulations
governing the possession and use of biological agents in January, 1999.
Chairman Bliley has sent a number of letters to the President and the Justice
Department on the matter. On May 20, 1999, the Committee's Oversight and
Investigations Subcommittee held a hearing on ``The Threat of Bio-terrorism
in America: Assessing the Adequacy of Federal Laws relating to Dangerous
Biological Agents.''
United States House of Representatives Committee on Commerce Chairman Tom
Bliley sent the following letter dated August 9, 1999 to United States
Attorney General Janet Reno, with copies also being sent to Ranking Member,
The Honorable John D. Dingell, and Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, The Honorable Louis J. Freeh:
Thank you for the Department of Justice's August 3, 1999 response to my March
26 and June 29, 1999 letters seeking the Department's views on the adequacy
of current statutory and regulatory measures governing biological agents and
toxins. Unfortunately, this much-delayed response fails to answer many of the
specific questions I asked of you, and does not indicate when we can expect
your Department to propose remedial legislation to close the huge gaps that
currently exist in Federal laws and regulations governing who can possess or
have access to deadly biological agents.
As I noted in my very first letter to you, more than four months ago, you
pledged to Congress back in April of 1998 that the Department would have a
legislative proposal cleared within the Administration ``within the next
several months'' to tighten up Federal criminal laws in this area, and would
``respond very quickly'' with specific suggestions as to how the current
regulatory scheme for transfers of biological agents -- now run by the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) -- could be strengthened.
Nearly 16 months later, your Department has not proposed to Congress a single
specific legislative or regulatory change in these areas, which is as
inexplicable as it is unacceptable.
While the Department continues to talk in general terms about what the
Administration plans to do in its ``21st Century Crime Bill,'' I am concerned
that we will have to wait until the actual new millennium (2001), and a new
Administration, before we see some concrete action on this front. The threat
to our national security from the current system of unregulated access to
such deadly agents as anthrax, the ebola virus, and the plague should not be
underestimated. I cannot imagine what higher priority the Department possibly
could have than trying to prevent the acquisition of weapons of mass
destruction by terrorists or others with criminal intent. Yet the
Department's lack of aggressiveness to date, and its apparent unwillingness
to answer questions from this Committee in a timely or straightforward
manner, paints exactly the opposite picture.
Accordingly, once again, I am requesting that the Department provide a
detailed response to each of the following questions, and that you do so
promptly -- by August 20, 1999:
1. While the Department's August 3 response speaks in generalities about
changes the President plans to submit to Congress in the future, it does not
answer the question, first posed in my March 26, 1999 letter to you, of what
specific legislative changes the Department has proposed to The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). Please provide the Committee with a copy of the
bioterrorism legislation as originally submitted by the Department to OMB, as
well as the latest draft version of such legislation. In addition, please
provide the following information:
a. The date such legislation was initially submitted to OMB for review;
b. The current status of that review, and the date by which you expect
to submit the proposal to Congress;
c. The reasons for the delay between your Senate testimony and the
submittal of this legislative proposal to Congress; and
d. The reasons for each substantive change to the draft legislation
since it was originally submitted to OMB, and the identity of the
individual or office that suggested or ordered the change.
2. In the Department's August 3 response, it states that the President's
proposal will include a provision which provides for ``special scrutiny'' of
certain categories of individuals who seek to possess or have access to
biological agents. However, the Department does not indicate whether such a
provision would be implemented through the current CDC regulatory scheme or
through some separate law enforcement process. Nor does the Department
indicate what this ``special scrutiny'' would entail, whether questionable
individuals would actually be denied access, and how the scheme would operate
and be enforced. Please provide additional detail on this particular
Department proposal, including the specific changes, if any, that the
Department would recommend to CDC's regulations and processes in this regard
-- as requested in my March 26, 1999 letter.
3. While the Department's August 3 response to the Committee's question on
the adequacy of CDC's inspection and site security requirements indicates
that the Department is a proponent of ``strong site security requirements and
a vigilant inspection regime,'' the Department fails to specify any specific
changes it would like to see in those CDC requirements and processes
(although it does offer a change to Federal criminal law that would
criminalize reckless handling of these agents). Again, does the Department
believe that the current CDC regulations or guidelines regarding facility
security and on-site inspections are adequate to ensure the safety and
security of select biological agents? If not, please explain what specific
changes you would recommend in CDC's regulations or processes in this regard
-- as requested in my March 26, 1999 letter.
4. The Department's August 3 response failed to address at all the questions
posed in my March 26, 1999 letter concerning the role of the Department and
the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Again, is the Department or the
FBI routinely involved in the CDC process of approving registration of
facilities and transfers of biological agents -- for example, by conducting
criminal background checks? If not, is the Department or the FBI routinely
notified of approvals or transfers after the fact?
If the Department's answer to either question above is no, please state
whether the Department believes that it should be so involved or notified
(either under the current regulatory scheme or an expanded one), and whether
the Department has ever expressed such a belief to CDC or other
Administration officials.
5. In its August 3 response to the Committee, the Department states that
current law requires the government to prove that someone in possession of a
deadly biological agent actually intended to use it as a weapon before a
conviction could be sustained. In response, the Department appears to be
proposing to make it unlawful to be in possession of such an agent without
any ``peaceful purpose.'' Yet it would appear that there is little practical
difference between these two standards, given that any colorable claim of
legitimate or peaceful use likely would have to be rebutted with evidence
indicating criminal intent. Does then Department believe that this proposed
change will significantly improve prosecutions, and if so, why?
Has the Department considered alternative versions that would better enhance
the power of the law enforcement community, such as a ban on all unauthorized
possession of such agents outside of a registered, legitimate laboratory -- a
provision for which representatives of the academic, scientific, and research
communities already have indicated their support?
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. If you have any questions,
please have your staff contact Mr. Tom DiLenge or Mr. Marc Wheat of the
Committee staff at 202-225-2927.
SOURCE: U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Commerce
>>
END OF FORWARDED MESSAGE
=============================================================
DK: Word Warriorette comments, if any appear here. DK
=============================================================
<A HREF="http://in-search-of.org/">Click here to Email US Representatives &
US Senators and White House</A>
If hyperlink doesn't work, type in -- http://in-search-of.org/
=============================================================
If you wish to subscribe to The Word Warriorette's free e-mail network and/or
Taking America Back©, A Weekly Newsletter and Action Alert, please e-mail a
note to <A HREF="mailto:WordWarrio">WordWarrio</A> [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word SUBSCRIBE [plus the name of the list WW or TAM or BOTH] on the
Subj. line-box. If you wish to unsubscribe at any time, please write a note
with the word UNSUBSCRIBE on the Subj. line-box [plus the name of the list WW
or TAM or BOTH]. If you only wish to subscribe to Taking America Back©, A
Weekly Newsletter and Action Alert (and not the daily e-mailings of The Word
Warriorette), please write TAM SUBSCRIBE ONLY in the Subj. line-box. If you
wish to "UNSUBSCRIBE ONLY TO THE DAILY EMAIL WORD WARRIORETTE" and desire to
continue to receive the weekly newsletter, Taking America Back©, A Weekly
Newsletter and Action Alert, put "UNSUBSCRIBE WW ONLY" on the Subj. line. If
you wish to UNSUBSCRIBE TO BOTH, put "UNSUBSCRIBE BOTH" ON THE Subj. line.
=============================================================
(Disclaimer - While I would not intentionally pass on false information, what
is contained herein is for your information only. Source and credibility not
verified.)
=============================================================
This message is sent in compliance of the new e-mail bill: SECTION 301. Per
Section 301, Paragraph (a) (2) (c) of S.1618Further transmissions to you by
the sender of this e-mail may be stopped at no cost to you by sending a reply
to the e-mail address with the word "remove" in the subject line.
©~©~©~©~©~©~©~©~©~©~©~©~©~©~©~©~©~©~©~©~©~©~©~©~©~©~©~
**COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any
copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit
or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
<A HREF="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml">Click here for more
information about copyright notice</A>
©~©~©~©~©~©~©~©~©~©~©~©~©~©~©~©~©~©~©~©~©~©~©~©~©~©~©
GENERIC SUPPORT DISCLAIMER: PLEASE NOTE, I DO NOT ADVOCATE FOR FINANCIAL
SUPPORT OR TO PURCHASE ANYTHING, NO MATTER HOW MUCH I PERSONALLY APPROVE
THEIR ORGANIZATION.
=============================================================
