페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

STATEMENT OF HAROLD R. TYLER, JR., DEPUTY ATTORNEY

GENERAL

ACCOMPANIED BY:

GLEN E. POMMERENING, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR

ADMINISTRATION
EDWARD W. SCOTT, JR.,

DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY
GENERAL FOR ADMINISTRATION
JAMES F. HOOBLER, DIRECTOR, MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS

AND BUDGET STAFF
GERALD D. FINES, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, EXECUTIVE OFFICE

FOR U.S. ATTORNEYS
RICHARD W. VELDE, ADMINISTRATOR, LAW ENFORCEMENT

ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION
NORMAN A. CARLSON, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF PRISONS
LEONARD F. CHAPMAN, JR., COMMISSIONER, IMMIGRATION

AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
NICHOLAS P. CALLAHAN, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BU-

REAU OF INVESTIGATION
ROBERT T. ALBRIGHT, CONTROLLER, DRUG ENFORCEMENT

ADMINISTRATION

BUDGET REQUEST

Senator PASTORE. Our next witness is Hon. Harold R. Tyler, Jr., Deputy Attorney General, who will testify in support of the Department of Justice.

The fiscal year 1977 budget considered by the House for the Department of Justice is $2,150,378,000, a decrease of $28,699,000 below the previous year, and $69,022,000 above what the House allowed.

The House, in its action, provided increases for the Antitrust Division, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service. These increases are more than offset by a decrease of $108 million in the LEAA program.

The Justice Department is appealing for restoration for the full President's budget request. However, within that total amount, the Justice Department agrees to accept the House increases for the Antitrust Division, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and INS and is seeking restoration of approximately $67 million out of the House reduction of $ 108 million for the LEAA.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Judge, we have your statement and appeal letter which we will put in the record.

[The statement and letter follow:]

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I am pleased to have this opportunity to appear before you in support of the Department of Justice's proposed budget for fiscal year 1977 and to discuss certain recommendations of the House Subcommittee on Appropriations. As you know, neither the full Appropriation Committee of the House nor the House itself has acted on what we understand to be

the Subcommittee recommendations. The requests set forth in this statement assume that the full House will accept the Subcommittee's recommen

dations.

[ocr errors]

Although the House has reordered priorities in the budget submitted by the Department, the final totals are within the level set by the Administration. One area of particular concern is the increased number of positions allocated to the Department. We recognize that the committee may recommend further modifications in program allocations. We respectfully urge that whatever action your committee takes not exceed the $2,151,403,000 total set for the Department by the President and be consistent with the Administration's attempt to restrain significant increases in the number of permanent positions.

The budget request for the Department considered by the House totaled

$2,150,378,000. The House Subcommittee has recommended $2,081,356,000, a

reduction of $69,022,000 from the request. The Department is requesting

that the Senate restore $2,030,000 in reductions made for the U.S. Attorneys

and $66,992,000 for the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. In

addition, the President has transmitted to the Congress a budget amendment

of $1,025,000 for the United States Attorneys that requires initial con

sideration by the Senate. The amended budget request for the Department is

thus $2,151,403,000.

The action taken by the House Subcommittee involves certain alterations

of specific items in the President's budget that require comment. No appeal

is made from the decreases recommended for General Administration, or the

Bureau of Prisons', "Buildings and facilities" appropriation. Similarly,

the Department is not appealing separately and in detail the increases

proposed by the House for the Antitrust Division, the Marshals Service, the

Community Relations Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the

Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the Drug Enforcement Adminis

tration. Nonetheless, it is important to note that the House has added

approximately 1,000 more positions than sought by the Administration. We

must question the wisdom of and need for so many extra positions, particularly

since their addition would mean such a reduction in funding for LEAA. We

think that careful restraints might be wisely placed on any significant

number of added positions. The Department also is not appealing the

recommendations for the appropriations "General Legal Activities," "Fees and

Expenses for Witnesses," "Salaries and expenses, Bureau of Prisons,"

"National Institute of Corrections," and "Support of U.S. Prisoners" since

the House Subcommittee recommendations agree with the original budget request.

United States Attorneys

The U.S. Attorneys budget request for 1977 proposes an increase of 291

positions and $5,735,000 to meet an increased caseload in both the criminal

and civil areas.

The House Subcommittee recommendation would provide 200

positions and $3,705,000. The Department appeal provides for full restora

tion of the 91 positions and $2,030,000 reduction.

The reduction, if upheld, would place a serious burden on the effective

conduct of Federal litigation. Recent trends indicate that both the civil

and criminal backlogs will continue to grow even if the appeal is granted,

but the additional 91 positions would make the backlog more manageable. The

number of civil matters received during the first half of fiscal year 1976,

for example, was 26% higher than in the corresponding period of fiscal 1975.

While the rate of increase in criminal cases is not as dramatic, it is serious

and the dilemma of allocating resources between civil and criminal cases

is becoming an increasingly difficult problem. In addition to the quantitative

aspect, there is the increasingly complex nature of civil suits and the

investigative and litigative stages of a growing number of "white collar"

cases. Moreover, the early phasing-in of the requirments of the Speedy

Trial Act in a number of judicial districts will have a severe impact on

U.S. Attorney resources.

Because of the anticipated demands of the Speedy

Trial Act, there has already been a sharp increase in the number of criminal

cases declined by the U.S. Attorneys. The combination of factors--both the

increasing quantitative workload and the complexity of cases--requires that

the Department seek restoration of the full amount of the budget request.

In addition to the appeal for restoration of House reductions, the

Department requests that the Senate consider favorably a budget amend

ment for $1,025,000 contained in House Document 94-463 that was transmitted

by the President on April 22, 1976. This increase in funding is necessary

to provide continuing support for 100 positions approved in the Second

Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1976, which was recently reported by

the House and Senate conferees.

These positions, which were requested

in 1976 to handle an accelerated implementation of the Speedy Trial Act

by the courts, are included in the 200 positions approved by the House

for 1977. Their advance authorization in 1976 and during the transition

quarter requires that funds be made available to support them during

the early part of 1977 - the part of the year that the regular budget

request estimated that recruitment of employees for the new positions

would be in its initial stages.

Law Enforcement Assistance Administration

The House Subcommittee has recommended major changes in the 1977

request for the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. The budget

request of $707,944,000 was reduced by $107,944,000 to $600,000,000 and

a recommendation was made to earmark $40,000,000 for the Law Enforcement

Education Program (LEEP) and $40,000,000 for the juvenile justice programs authorized by the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act within this allowance. Since the budget contained no new funds for LEEP and only $10,000,000 for juvenile justice, the combined effect of the reduction and the earmarks produces a reduction for other programs of $177,944,000. Despite the House Subcommittee's expressed willingness to permit LEAA to set its own priorities within the remaining LEAA programs, the Department believes that the available options are all unsatisfactory if LEAA is to have a balanced program that adequately meets the needs of the law enforcement community. With an allowance

of $600,000,000, and the earmarkings proposed, LEAA would be compelled to substantially reduce its block grants under any alternative. The alternative selected by LEAA provides that State and local planning

funds would be reduced by almost 7%; Part C block grant funds would be reduced by almost 32%; High Crime Area funds would be reduced by 20%. Part E grant funds to aid correction institutions would be reduced almost 32%; research and evaluation funds would be reduced more than 15%; funds for developing and supporting State and local criminal justice data systems would be reduced more than 16%, and administrative

funds would be reduced almost 4%. Technical assistance, educational

development, internship and training funds would be unaffected. LEEP

funding, of course, would increase from none to $40,000,000 and juvenile justice funds would increase 300%. LEAA would also have to give up 32

positions.

The Department believes that the House Subcommittee action was much too severe and that $66,992,000 should be restored to the 1977 request for the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. It is also requested that the highly restrictive earmarking language be modified to establish spending ceilings, rather than the current effect of establishing

« 이전계속 »