Q: The Information Security Oversight Office's annual report for 1989 detailed a 35% decrease in government decisions to classify information. During that same time period, the Justice Department increased original classification decisions by 43%. What accounts for this increase? I recognize that some of your investigations involve classified information, but that is also true for the State Department and the CIA both of which decreased the number of original classifications last year. How would you explain that difference? A: The Department of Justice (primarily FBI) original classification decisions in Fiscal Year (FY) 1989 jumped by 43% compared to the 1988 Information Security Oversight Office Report due to a more accurate counting system. The main reason for the FBI increase in original classification decisions in FY 1989 is due to the implementation in FY 1989 of an automated system which accurately counts the classification decisions made on FBI documents. Previously, original classification decisions were ascertained each FY by the FBI through a weekly survey of each field office and Headquarters Division and the results of the survey were projected for an annual figure. In addition to the automated counting of classification decisions, the FBI's increased involvement in international terrorism and drug investigations has also contributed to this significant rise in original classification decisions. I am writing to you regarding my concern over termination of the Bureau of Justice Assistance's Structured Sentencing Program. As you know, the program, funded at less than $400,000 per year, provides technical assistance and grants to states currently developing their own sentencing guidelines. States requesting such assistance seek to provide a means of imposing uniform punishment for similar offenses and to provide truth in sentencing. Support for this change from the existing parole systems is found in law enforcement and corrections officials at both the state and federal levels. In addition to the positive law enforcement aspects of guideline sentencing, these systems allow states to plan for future prison construction, such planning is very speculative under the current parole system. At a time when the Department of Justice reports that states will need to build 800 new beds per week (at roughly $75,000 per bed), long term planning ability is essential for state governments. For these and other reasons, many states have expressed great interest in the Structured Sentencing Program. Most recently the state legislatures of Kansas and South Carolina have passed sentencing guidelines and are seeking assistance from the Federal Government. The legislatures of Oklahoma, North Carolina and Massachusetts are also on the verge of passing or considering legislation. (235) Because of the important assistance this program provides to states, I urge you to reconsider the matter and to continue the program as it is now constituted.. I appreciate your prompt attention to this matter and I look forward to hearing your views. Sincerely, Dennis De Concini DENNIS DeCONCINI United States Senator DDC/mc ! Personal and Urgent Honorable Richard L. Thornburgh Attorney General of the United States Department of Justice Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Dear Mr. Attorney General: I have enclosed a copy of a letter from Associate Justice I would urge you to comply with the request of Justice Harwell's letter and continue to provide assistance to South. Carolina in its efforts to implement effective sentencing guidelines, if at all possible. It appears that the program is Working and that South Carolina has benefited greatly from the funding it currently receives. With kindest regards and best wishes, |