SCHOOL OF LAW
                 Monday, November 25, 1996
                      Moot Courtroom
                       Houston Hall
                       School of Law
                     Howard University
                     2900 Van Ness Street, N.W.
                     Washington, D.C.

                   P R O C E E D I N G S
                                              (12:14 p.m.)
                MS. RENO:  Thank you so much, Loretta, President
       Swygert, Dean Bullock.  It's a great privilege to be here
                I love law students because you ask wonderful
       questions -- better than newspaper reporters -- so be
       thinking about questions.
                MS. RENO:  And I love the law and I love
       lawyers, but I don't like greedy and indifferent lawyers. 
       The law can be such a marvelous tool for good.  It is a
       marvelous tool for change.  You can use the law to solve
       problems, to serve people, and to bring peace.  
                So, as you contemplate your future career, don't
       become known for the law firm that you join, don't become
       known for the money that you make or the house that you
       live in, but become known for yourself and for who you are
       and for what you stand for and for what you do for others.
                Speak out against the hatred, the bigotry, the
       violence in this land.  Defend those who are victims of
       these forces.  Most haters are cowards.  When you stand up
       to them, they back down and we need to stand up.
                Don't stand on the sidelines, whether you become
       a great corporate lawyer or practice in a small, rural
       community, but instead defend and protect the rights that
       you've studied about for three years, that you've cared
       about for longer than that.  
                These rights and freedoms do not find lasting
       strength on a piece of paper, and that's what I've learned
       again and again.  They are not self-executing.  They find
       their force in the hearts and in the minds and in the
       spirit of lawyers who are willing to fight for them, who
       are willing to spend the hours going over a case to find
       the facts that can achieve justice.  Advocate for them and
       never, ever give up fighting for them.
                Sometimes these efforts are not expressed in
       highfaluting arguments, highfaluting constitutional
       arguments.  Sometimes I think lawyers think they're going
       to stand in front of the court and make the most
       persuasive argument possible.  But oftentimes they're
       found in very tedious, very factual studies of the issues.
                Recently I had occasion to review a number of
       DNA cases where DNA had been used to prove a person who
       had been wrongfully convicted innocent.  In one instance,
       a man had been convicted and sentenced to death for the
       murder of a young woman in 1984.  He maintained his
       innocence but he was convicted.  Two years later his
       conviction was overturned.  After a second trial, he was
       again convicted and this time he was sentenced to life in
                But in 1989 a new lawyer, one who would not give
       up, took on what seemed to be a hopeless case.  He
       realized at that point that forensic science had made
       advancement with DNA technology.  He filed a motion to
       preserve the evidence so that tests could be done.  The
       prosecutor's office responded appropriately, cooperated,
       and agreed to the test.  Experts at the lab concluded that
       the samples in question could not have come from this
       person and he was not the person who did it.  The state
       withdrew the charges and because a lawyer never gave up
       fighting for what was right, a man was free.
                MS. RENO:  Now, you hear about these cases and
       you read about these cases, but you think that's never
       going to happen to me.  I'm never going to be responsible
       for an innocent man walking out of the courtroom, but it
       happened to me about eight years ago.
                I was the chief prosecutor in Miami, Florida,
       and the governor of Florida appointed me as a special
       prosecutor for a county in another part of the state to go
       reinvestigate the case of a man who had been prosecuted,
       convicted, and sentenced to death for the poisoning death
       of his seven children in 1968.  He had always maintained
       his innocence, but he had spent all that time in prison as
       the Supreme Court had set aside the death penalty.
                For as long as I live, I will always remember
       standing up in that courtroom looking over at that man,
       after we had presented the evidence to the court, and
       telling the court that I as the prosecutor specially
       appointed thought that man should go free because the
       evidence was insufficient to charge him originally, it was
       clearly insufficient now, he was probably innocent.  And
       when I turned around after I had left that courthouse and
       watched that man walk out, there has never been a more
       wonderfully moving moment for me, a more rewarding moment
       for me in all my professional career.  Just never, ever
       give up.
                We are a government of the people and by the
       people and for the people.  And the people in this nation
       for 200 years have created a government that has provided
       more freedom and more opportunity than any government in
       the history of this world.  But it's not perfect.
                Despite that, there are some Americans who sit
       on the sidelines and snipe and carp at government.  They
       don't participate.  They wring their hands.  They say it's
       somebody else's problem.  But if our form of government is
       to prevail and to improve, then the very best people, the
       very best lawyers, must take part in it and contribute to
       it positively.
                I think public service is one of the most
       rewarding callings that anybody could ever have.  I've
       been in private practice.  I've been a partner in a major
       Miami law firm.  I've worked for the legislature, and none
       of my experiences in the private sector can match the
       reward I have felt in public service.  Yes, you get cussed
       at, fussed at, and beat up in the newspapers.  You
       undertake a new initiative that you think can really make
       a difference, and then you get knocked down.  But you pick
       yourself up and you keep moving.
                I collected child support in Miami as the State
       Attorney.  It was a very difficult task.  We tried to get
       the system automated.  We tried to improve the process.  I
       kept my home phone number listed, and on a Sunday night
       women would call me and say, you haven't gotten me my
       child support and I'm about to be thrown out on my ear
       with my child.  And then they'd call back the next day and
       say, it just came.  Thank you.
                MS. RENO:  But all of that hassle was worth it
       when I accompanied President Clinton to Greenville, South
       Carolina, to the dedication of a church that had been
       built following the arson destruction of a beautiful, old
       church under an oak tree.  We came down the little dirt
       road past where the old church had been to the new,
       beautiful church.  It was a wonderfully moving day.
                But after the President had finished speaking, I
       walked off the platform, and a lady said, Janet, and she
       busted through the rope line and gave me a big hug.  She
       said, I'm from Miami.  I moved up here after Hurricane
       Andrew, and I always used to see you in the Martin Luther
       King parade marching with your mother, and remember how
       they used to yell "child support" after you because you
       were so good at getting us child support.
                MS. RENO:  And she says, I want you to see what
       you did, and she pulled two young men over who towered
       above her and me and she said, you got them child support
       and they have done well for themselves.
                MS. RENO:  So, I hope you will pursue public
       service because there is nothing as rewarding,  despite
       all the criticism.
                But public service is not confined to government
       service.  Public service can be performed by people in
       their communities.  I was delighted, as I prepared for my
       remarks today, to learn of what you all are doing in
       public service, in mentoring, in adopting schools, in
       making a difference.  Every single one of us can make a
       difference.  I don't care who we are.
                One of my favorite stories was of an old
       gentleman who stood up in a meeting one day and he said,
       do you know how old I am and what I do three mornings a
       week for three hours each morning?  I said, no, sir.  He
       said, I volunteer as a teacher's aide in a public school,
       and he says, I'm 84 years old.  
                A lady stood up next to him, a young woman, and
       she said, I don't know what I would do without him.  I'm
       the first grade teacher for whom he volunteers.  And the
       gifted kids can't wait for their time with him because he
       challenges them far beyond the time I have to work with
       them, and the kids with learning disabilities can't wait
       for their time with him because he has the patience of
       Job.  It was so incredible to listen to that teacher and
       to see the difference that 84-year-old man could make in
       the life of those first-graders.  Every one of us can make
       a difference.
                It's easy to be a cynic in this day and time. 
       The cynic knows so much about what is wrong and why it
       can't be fixed.  I urge you, as you study law and as you
       leave this great law school, to go out and make sure that
       the cynics don't prevail in this land.  Believe in your
       capacity to make a difference.  Be idealistic.  It's a
       good thing to do.
                I don't mean for a moment that you should be
       naive.  The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. talked about
       the need for all of us to have a tough mind and a tender
       heart.  I can tell you that no one can come to Washington
       and ever hope to do well if they don't start the morning
       by asking tough questions and end the day getting the real
       answers, not the spin answers.
                We were founded by idealists with tough minds
       and with tender hearts, and they formed a government to
       check the worst in human nature, just as they risked their
       lives to found a country that has cherished freedom and
       liberty over repression.  They took the hard way and they
       made a difference.
                I watch wonderfully dedicated lawyers throughout
       this country in the service of their government, in their
       communities reaching out in so many different ways to make
       a difference.
                As you use the law to dispel cynicism in this
       world, use it to solve problems, to avoid conflicts, and
       to improve circumstances.  Many of us -- me -- I used to
       -- thought that the great trial lawyer was the really
       great person in the world.  They solved all the problems,
       but I've come to learn, as I grow old, that most of the
       great issues of the law, most of the great issues of the
       day are resolved on a daily basis not by lawyers in the
       courtroom, not by lawyers in argument, but by lawyers who
       know how to negotiate and to resolve issues for the mutual
       benefit of all concerned.
                Dean Bullock, I was delighted to know of all the
       work that Howard Law School is doing in dispute
       resolution, in teaching negotiation.  
                There is a new phenomenon moving out across this
       country.  Lawyers are learning how to negotiate rather
       than to try cases and waste dollars.  School children are
       learning how to resolve their disputes without knives and
       guns and fists.  Employers are learning how to resolve
       employer/employee disputes.  It is happening and I would
       urge you to use the skills you can develop in this law
       school and to apply them as you go out into practice
       thinking how do I solve this problem.
                I saw it most clearly as a prosecutor.  It used
       to frustrate me when I saw the prosecutor get a
       conviction, see the person sentenced to jail, know the
       person had a drug problem, and know that prison didn't
       have any drug treatment programs, and think, wait a
       minute, we're not solving this problem.  And the public
       defender would feel like he had won a great victory when
       he got the defendant off on a motion to dismiss, and yet
       he knew that defendant was walking out of that courtroom
       in the grips of a crack addiction that was worse than any
       prison.  And nobody was doing anything about solving the
                We tried to develop a drug court that would
       provide a carrot and stick approach that said, look, you
       can go for treatment.  We'll work with you.  We'll work
       with you in job training and placement.  We'll get you
       placed.  We'll provide support.  Or you can suffer the
       consequences.  And it has been an effective program.
                But look at how the problem should be solved,
       not who's going to win the battle in the courtroom.
                But as wonderful as the law is, too many
       Americans do not have access to the law.  If we are to
       make the law the instrument it truly can be, we must make
       the law real for all Americans.  According to the American
       Bar Association, 80 percent of the poor and the working
       poor of this country are estimated not to have access to
       lawyers or to the courtroom.  For that group of people in
       America, the law is worth little more than the paper it's
       written on.  We must devise new means to give people the
       opportunity to believe in the law and to make it real for
       all Americans.
                What you have done in this law school in terms
       of developing a spirit that supports pro bono service is
       again so critically important.
                But as you graduate from this law school, as you
       go to the community where you will have chosen to
       practice, figure out what you can do to give more people
       access to the law.  Stand up for a legal services program. 
       When you finally find a law firm that's going to hire
       you --
                MS. RENO:  -- ask them what they do in terms of
       supporting pro bono services, and if they say nothing, go
       down to the next law firm.  It will be worth it to you,
       although I know how important a job is.
                MS. RENO:  But one of the reasons people don't
       feel like they have access to the law is that the law is
       so complicated.  Lawyers can use more legalese, more big
       words, more labels to confuse the issue than any group of
       people I've ever seen, even almost doctors.
                MS. RENO:  Learn to use small, old words.  You
       can explain it in small words without using these big
       legal languages.  Explain to your clients what the problem
       was so that they can avoid it for the future.  Get rid of
       the slogans.  Get rid of the Roman numerals and talk about
       the law in the way that people can understand.
                But if we are to make the law real for all
       Americans, we have got to focus as a nation, as law
       students, as Attorney General on the most under-represented group of Americans and our most precious
       possession, our children.  
                As the prosecutor in Miami, I used to focus on
       our juvenile division because I wanted to do everything I
       could to give delinquents an opportunity to get off on a
       fresh footing.  I would pick up the presentence
       investigation, and as I read the presentence investigation
       of a 17-year-old that we had just gotten adjudicated an
       armed robber, I could see five points along the way where
       we could have intervened in that child's life to have made
       a difference, to give him a strong and positive future,
       and to avoid the tragedy of the crime both to the
       defendant, the victim, and the community.  So, we
       developed a dropout prevention program because we saw a
       direct correlation between dropouts and delinquency.  
                But then I realized if we wait until the child
       is in the sixth grade, he's already falling behind a grade
       level and beginning to act out for other reasons to
       attract attention to himself.  We had to start earlier. 
       We developed an early intervention program surrounding
       Head Start.
                But at that point the crack epidemic hit in
       Miami in 1985 and the doctors took me to our public
       hospital to try to figure out what to do about crack-involved infants and their mothers.  They taught me that
       the first three years of life are the most formative, that
       during those three years, the concept of reward and
       punishment and a conscious is developed, that 50 percent
       of all learned human response is learned in the first year
       of life.  And I said to myself, what good will all the
       prisons do 18 years from now if you don't teach the child
       the difference between right and wrong and help them
       develop a conscious?  What good are all the educational
       opportunities 15 years from now if they don't receive the
       basic foundation up front?
                And then they took me to the nursery, and you
       could begin to see the difference.  Nobody was prepared
       for this epidemic.  There were crack-involved babies that
       could not be sent home.  There was no place else to send
       them.  People were scrambling to arrange for foster care,
       and some of these babies had not been held or talked to
       except when changed and fed.  After six weeks, they were
       not beginning to respond with human emotion.  But across
       the way, there would be a child with severe birth defects
       but with parents with her around the clock and she was
       beginning to respond through the tubes and through her
       crippling effects with human emotions.
                We have got to start at the beginning, and
       whether we be the great corporate lawyer, the child
       advocate, the juvenile court judge, the Attorney General,
       the Howard law student, we have all got to figure out how
       we can reweave the fabric of community around children and
       families at risk and ensure for them true access to the
       law.  We've got to go back to our communities and see what
       we can do to make a difference.
                I'm so pleased at the fact that you're
       volunteering and that you've adopted some schools, as I
       understand it, because when I came to Washington, I
       thought I'm leaving my home.  It seems so strange.  I'm
       going to have to get used to a new community, and Eleanor
       Holmes Norton almost immediately said, I've got the school
       for you to adopt.  You can adopt Raymond Elementary.  So,
       I go out there as regularly as I can and it has been a
       wonderfully rewarding experience.
                Again, all of us can make a difference, but we
       have to look at the whole picture rather than to become
       too specialized.  We've got to make sure that parents know
       how to be good parents.  We've got to make sure that it's
       as important in this nation to collect child support as it
       is to collect income tax and that we do as good a job of
       the one as the other.
                MS. RENO:  We've got to make sure that our
       children have proper preventative medical care.  Something
       is wrong with the nation that says to a person who's 70
       years old, with Medicare you can get an operation that
       will extend your life expectancy by three years, and yet
       we turn to the child of a working poor person and say, you
       can't get preventative medical care because your father
       makes too much money to be eligible for Medicaid and he
       doesn't have insurance.  We have got to give that child a
       chance to grow in a strong and healthy way.
                Now, you're going to have to learn how to be
       persuasive because some people will be saying, you're just
       being goody two shoes.  Say that for every dollar invested
       in prenatal care, you save $3 down the line.  For every
       dollar invested in preventative medical care for our young
       people, you're going go be saving millions of dollars in
       tertiary complicated care that has to come after the
       crisis has occurred.
                Let us focus on educare.  Times have changed in
       this nation and yet we haven't kept up with it.  If those
       first three years of life are so important and yet both
       parents or single parents are having to work, we've got to
       make sure that there's safe, constructive educare for all
       our children in our law firms, in our businesses, in our
       universities.  We've got to ensure that our children are
                But then we've got to focus on our educational
       system.  Just think of the challenges in this day and
       time.  Probably the greatest burst of human knowledge in
       the last 100 years -- and our schools are trying to keep
       up with it, but there's something wrong with a nation that
       pays its football players in the six-digit figures and
       pays its school teachers what we pay them.  We've got to
       change it.
                MS. RENO:  But school is fine, but there are too
       many children in the second, the third, and the fourth
       grade walking out of the school, walking home to an
       unsupervised home because both parents or a single parent
       is working to try to make ends meet and to give that child
       a future.  We've got to develop more constructive programs
       after school and in the evening.  Each one of us can make
       a difference on that score, whether it be the community
       police officer, the Howard University law student serving
       as a mentor.  Each one of us can make a difference.
                There is so much that we can do if we just look
       at the problem in a common sense way and work together. 
       Children are so tough.  They can survive almost anything
       if they're given half a fighting chance.  I think the
       great challenge for this nation in these next years is to
       give our children their rights, give them half a fighting
       chance and they will do so well.
                But in the process of doing that, you've got to
       remember the most important possession you will ever have: 
       your family, whether it be your parents, your children, a
       loved one.  I remember my afternoons after school and in
       the evening.  My mother worked in the home.  My father
       worked downtown.  My mother taught us how to play
       baseball, to appreciate Beethoven's symphony, to bake
       sponge cake.  She taught us how to play fair.  She
       punished us, sometimes too fiercely.
                MS. RENO:  And she loved us with all her heart. 
       There is no child care in the world that will ever be the
       substitute for what that lady was in our lives.
                Yet, I watch the young lawyers in the Department
       of Justice or at my office at home struggle to get
       breakfast on the table, the children dressed and off to
       school.  They try a case all day.  They interview
       witnesses up till 7 o'clock.  They get home, get dinner on
       the table, the children bathed, the homework done.  They
       run errands on Saturdays, go to church on Sunday, start
       preparing for trial Sunday night, and the time vanishes. 
       They're going to be grown before you know it.
                When you go to the law firm looking for the job,
       when you go to the Department of Justice, ask the place
       you're seeking a job, what do you do about families?  What
       do you do about flex time?  What do you do about maternal
       and paternal leave?  What do you do to put families first
       in your law firm?
                MS. RENO:  Getting James Joseph Richardson set
       free was professionally probably the most rewarding thing
       I've ever done, but one of the most rewarding things I've
       done otherwise is to become the legal guardian of 15-year-old twins, a boy and a girl.  The girl was in love and
       I've learned an awful lot about raising children in the
       last 12 years.  It takes hard work, love, and an awful lot
       of luck, but when I put that young lady on the plane to
       send her to college and when I went to see her graduate
       three years hence cum laude and on each occasion she threw
       her arms around my neck and said, thank you, I couldn't
       have done it without you, that's as rewarding as anything
                As you enjoy the great and wonderful benefits of
       this law school, as you prepare for a career in the law,
       always remember, put your family first.  Put first the
       people you love.
                Thank you.
                QUESTION:  What are the goals that you plan to
       accomplish after you leave the Office of Attorney General?
                And my second question is, what do you think we
       can do individually as law students and as future lawyers
       and as the profession as a whole to improve the image of
                MS. RENO:  I take each day a day at a time.  I'm
       like Scarlet O'Hara, and when I have to think of what else
       I'm going to do, I'll think about that tomorrow.
                MS. RENO:  My goals generally speaking will be
       to continue for the rest of my life to use the law as much
       as I possibly can to serve others, to resolve conflicts,
       to solve problems, to bring peace, and to end division and
       bigotry and hatred.  
                How will I do that?  I swore during law school
       that I'd never be a prosecutors because I thought
       prosecutors were more interested in securing convictions
       than seeking justice.  My predecessor, when he offered me
       a job, said, you can come do something about that, and I
       discovered that prosecutors can best protect the innocent
       by not charging them.  So, I don't know what I will do for
       the rest of my life except to try to use the law the right
                Secondly, I think I've outlined some of the
       things.  I think for a long time when I graduated from law
       school in 1963, people were interested.  Oh, I've got a
       job with a Wall Street law firm.  I'm going to be making X
       dollars.  I'm going to be living in this big house.  I met
       some of the people that I went to law school with.  I
       never made near as much money as they did, but they're
       envious of the time I've had in public service and my
       opportunity to contribute.  
                Think about the law as a problem solver.  Think
       about how you help people and not the dollars that you
       make is one good way to do it.  You can be so much more
       effective rather than being an uncivil, boorish lawyer in
       the courtroom or in a negotiation setting.  You can be far
       more effective and get a lot more done by being pleasant,
       thoughtful, and reasonable.  With those challenges and
       knowing what I know about this law school and what you all
       are doing, you're going to make a major contribution to
       improving the image of the lawyer.
                QUESTION:  Good afternoon, ma'am.
                This summer the Antiterrorism Act that was
       passed in Congress included a provision which limited
       habeas corpus review to a single year.  Do you think that
       that's going to affect cases like the one that you talked
       about at the beginning of your speech involving people who
       are on death row and we have questions about their
       conviction, whether or not they were guilty of the crime
       that they're charged with?
                MS. RENO:  It would not affect that particular
       case because habeas was not the tool by which we did.  It
       was a courageous Governor of Florida who appointed me.  I
       just went back, used the law the right way, used Florida's
       procedures the right way.  So, it would not have affected
                I have concerns about that provision and I want
       to work with all concerned to try to do everything I can
       to prevent that injustice.  One of my colleagues, one of
       my former law partners and a person whom I admire a great
       deal, Sandy Dalenbert, the past President of the ABA,
       engaged in pro bono representation of a person on death
       row, and it frightens me.  Just the mere thought of a
       person who might be innocent going to death is something
       that is very important that we -- we know it could happen,
       it may have happened, and we have got to do everything we
       can to prevent it from happening.  
                So I have some concerns, but I am hopeful that
       the law will be construed to ensure prompt resolution of
       cases, but prompt, thorough, and fair resolution of cases,
       and provide for the opportunity, should new evidence be
       developed, that can ensure that innocent people are
       properly protected.
                QUESTION:  Hello.  I wondered whether you think
       that looking into the possibility of an Equal Education
       Amendment would be a worthwhile and prudent investment of
                MS. RENO:  I'm sorry.  I didn't hear the last
       part of your question.
                QUESTION:  Would be a worthwhile and prudent
       investment of our time as researchers.
                MS. RENO:  How would you describe it?  Because
       I've heard it described in different ways.  How would you
       describe an Equal Education Amendment?
                QUESTION:  How would I describe it?  I would
       have to spend three years looking into what it would mean.
                MS. RENO:  Here is my concern.  I see so many
       situations where somebody says, well, we'll get a
       constitutional amendment and fix it.  Let me give you an
                Florida passed a victim's rights amendment, but
       they didn't provide the monies to go with the
       constitutional amendment.  It said that victims shall have
       this right, that right, and the other, but it did not add
       significantly to prosecutors' staff to provide for witness
       counselors and to provide for restitution processes that
       could truly enforce it.  I think we've got to be very
       careful when we talk about amendments and talk about the
       resources that have to go behind them to really make the
       law mean what it says.  
                I think the most important thing in education is
       giving our teachers the resources they need to do the job,
       freeing them up from bureaucratic restraints, honoring
       them as some of the most extraordinary people in our
       communities, and supporting them in every way we can.  So,
       I think we're going to have to look at not just
       constitutional amendments to ensure equality, but how we
       get the resources to all our schools.
                QUESTION:  Good afternoon, ma'am.
                I have two questions.  On the Antiterrorist Act
       of 1996 as well included a clause that allowed
       immigration, INS, officers to block immigrants who are
       coming into the United States who may have been convicted
       of a crime 20 years ago or any time in the past.  It seems
       as though the act is being very effective because many
       immigrants have been caught into this without knowing that
       the law provided for this.  I wonder what is your comment
       on that and why is that allowed in terms of having the INS
       using a discretionary authority under that act to
       effectively separate families.
                My second question is, what would it take for
       your Department to appoint an independent counsel to look
       into allegations of the CIA involvement in the crack
                MS. RENO:  That issue arose in a prior
       administration, so there would be no basis for an
       independent counsel.  We are pursuing it through the
       Office of the Inspector General to review everything that
       the Justice Department might have done during that period
       of time to ensure that all the facts are made public and
       appropriate judgments are made.
                With respect to the immigration issue, I'm not
       familiar with -- if you can right afterwards give me some
       specifics on how the law might have been abused, let me
       know so that I can follow up with Immigration and
       Naturalization and find out just what the problem might
                QUESTION:  California just passed an initiative
       that would allow doctors to recommend marijuana for AIDS
       patients and cancer patients.  I'm wondering, does the
       Justice Department plan to prosecute doctors who make
       those prescriptions?
                MS. RENO:  Each case will be taken on its case-by-case basis because doctors can currently prescribe the
       ingredients of marijuana that provide for the appropriate
       treatment, and the federal law prohibiting it still exists
       because no medical group has endorsed it as an appropriate
       means of treatment.  What we will do is review each case
       on a case-by-case basis, look at the evidence, look at the
       law, look at the circumstances, and enforce it
                QUESTION:  In light of the question that my
       colleague just asked about the CIA controversy and the
       investigation that the office is doing, within your
       investigation what aspects are you looking at regarding
       the disparity in the sentencing between crack cocaine and
       powder cocaine and how it relates to --
                MS. RENO:  That review is not part of that case
       because that is a totally different issue that applies
       generally.  The Sentencing Commission is now reviewing the
       issue with respect to the disparity between crack and
       powder.  I asked the U.S. Attorneys, including Eric
       Holder, the U.S. Attorney here in the District of
       Columbia, to address the issue early on.
                Their recommendation was that crack had had a
       disparate impact on community after community across this
       country and that there should be some disparity, but the
       100-to-1 disparity is too great.  It is my hope that
       everybody involved, the administration, the executive
       branch, Congress, and the Sentencing Commission, will work
       together to resolve just what disparity should exist
       considering the impact on the community.
                With respect to any form of sentencing
       differential or disparate treatment, I constantly through
       our work with the U.S. Attorneys across the country try to
       review any pattern that might indicate that there is
       disparate treatment and try to take action to ensure
       against it.  
                One of the things that I've tried to do is to
       make sure that we use the federal resources the right way
       to go after the truly dangerous offenders, the major
       traffickers, to handle the cases that will have a real
       impact on stemming crime.  And we continue to review all
       the facts that we can pull together to ensure that there
       is no disparate treatment based on race.
                (Standing ovation.)
                (Whereupon, at 12:53 p.m., the speech was