Many offices were closed, and many more had to reduce their professional and support staffs, cut back on the number and kinds of cases accepted, and in other ways reduce legal services to the poor.

The increase for fiscal year 1976 was most welcome, but it allowed the Corporation to provide no more than essential funding to keep the programs going. They are still operating on budgets well below the level needed to meet the congressional mandate.

A decrease to $80 million at this time would force additional curtailments in existing programs as well, of course, as precluding establishment of even a single new program in an area now unserved. Beyond those obvious effects, a reduction would be devastating to the morale of those working in legal assistance to the poor as well as to the poor themselves.

At the level of $110 million, the Corporation would be able to provide the support needed for existing programs to fulfill their responsibilities. Our first obligation is to meet that goal.

With fiscal year 1976 funds, including the supplemental appropriation, the Corporation is able to fund about 300 legal assistance programs, serving areas in which 17.5 million poor persons live. At their current operating levels, however, these programs can handle only 1 out of 4 legal problems of eligible clients. At a level of $110 million in fiscal year 1977, we could strengthen these programs and increase their capacity to serve their clients.

The tasks we could not undertake with $110 million are more numerous. Without reductions in other vitally needed items, we could not: expand services to new areas; strengthen services in those areas that are only technically "covered"; or continue the congressionally mandated alternative delivery system study.

In addition, we would have to cut back on training, evaluation, and the staff-attorney study.

Even at $110 million, we would hope that the Corporation could support at least a few new programs in areas that are totally unserved. We could do so, however, only by cutting back the additional support to existing programs.

An appropriation of $130 million would extend the date when we could meet our goal of minimum service throughout the country. But it would allow us to bring legal services within reach of an additional 2.3 million poor, adding the equivalent of 580 attorneys capable of handling some 260,000 legal problems each year. And this level would, of course, also allow the Corporation to fulfill its commitment to the existing programs.

CURRENT SERVICES

Senator HUDDleston. Do you have a current services figure for the Legal Services Corporation for 1977, that is, do you know what it would cost just to provide the same amount of services as currently provided?

Mr. EHRLICH. The base figure would be about $94.5 million. However, this would not include any adjustment to current program grants to help offset inflation. Nor would it allow any additional assistance to those programs that are most severely underfunded. To maintain

current services at an adequate level would require the additional $13.48 million the Corporation has requested to strengthen existing programs.

Senator HUDDLESTON. Are most of your existing local programs operated through grantees who were grantees of the Community Services Administration or have you added a number of other grantees?

Mr. EHRLICH. All of the programs funded through the 1976 fiscal year appropriation were formerly grantees of the Community Services Administration. The 1976 supplemental appropriation will enable us to continue support at existing levels for section 221 community action programs formerly funded through CSA, and 10 programs for migrants, formerly funded through the Department of Labor. The Corporation had had no funds to add any new grantees—although the demands for such help are great.

Senator HUDDLESTON. Do you have grant applications pending from non-CSA agencies?

Mr. EHRLICH. The Corporation regularly receives requests for funding of new programs. These requests come from Members of the Congress, from the private bar, from State and local agencies, and from groups of concerned citizens, including the poor themselves. For several years now-given the budgetary freeze I have described— there has been no formal application process, because there has been no money for new programs. Still, the requests keep coming. While some of these are general inquiries about how to start program or apply for funds, many are formal requests by communities that have organized themselves, formed a board, obtained the support of the client community, local bar associations, and other groups-in short, communities that are ready today to begin assisting the poor.

UNMET NEED

Senator HUDdleston. You have indicated that there are 12 million persons in this country eligible for legal services but unserved. What types of services do these persons need most?

Mr. EHRLICH. The same types of services that are now being obtained by clients in areas served by legal assistance programs. On a national basis, the most recent study indicates that about 42 percent of matters handled by legal services programs concern domestic relations, 18 percent consumer problems, 11 percent housing problems, 9 percent welfare issues, with the remaining 20 percent covering a variety of problems. These problems are all of the day-to-day variety, the kinds of sudden and pressing crises that may seem routine or trivial to the outsider but often involve matters of economic survival to those affected.

Senator HUDDLESTON. Is there any pattern as to the location of these persons?

Mr. EHRLICH. The map that accompanies my prepared testimony gives some idea of the pattern, to the extent one exists. Clearly, the most heavily underserved or unserved areas are in the southern tier of States across the country; coverage in the Midwest, too, is very sparse. But even in areas that appear on the map to be entirely "covered"-the State of Georgia, for example-the current level of funding allows only for the most minimal coverage. The effort to expand services is, quite literally, a nationwide effort.

Senator HUDDLESTON. How many of them could you cover with a $110 million and a $130 million appropriation?

Mr. EHRLICH. As I indicated in response to your earlier question, we could not expand service significantly with a $110 million appropriation; perhaps by cutting some existing areas of activity we might be able to support a few new programs. At $130 million, we believe we can reach some 2.3 million poor.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

STATEMENT OF JOHN M. THOMAS, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ADMINISTRATION

ACCOMPANIED BY:

SAMUEL W. LEWIS, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION AFFAIRS

DON C. ELLER, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF BUDGET

LOREN E. LAWRENCE, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, BUREAU OF SECURITY AND CONSULAR AFFAIRS

MISS FRANCES G. KNIGHT, DIRECTOR, PASSPORT OFFICE

BUDGET REQUEST

Senator PASTORE. The next witness is Mr. John M. Thomas, Assistant Secretary of State for Administration, who will present testimony regarding the fiscal year 1977 State Department budget.

The total budget budget request considered by the House is $1,049,134,000. The House reduced this amount by $7 million. The Department of State is not appealing for restoration of any of the House reduction. However, the House report includes some restrictive language which would allow the State Department to fill only one out of every five American positions that become vacant because of retirement or resignation.

We understand that the State Department finds this language especially troublesome and is prepared to discuss this matter before the Senate committee.

In addition, the State Department also wishes to discuss two relatively minor budget amendments in the amount of $5.5 million which were received by the Congress too late for consideration by the House committee.

Mr. Thomas, you may proceed.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I have a prepared statement. I will be very happy to submit it for the record.

Senator PASTORE. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[The statement follows:]

(219)