« 이전계속 »
required funding levels. These actions would mitigate somewhat the
severe impact of the House reductions and earmarking on the LEAA program
and provide enough flexibility for LEAA to develop priorities.
The following table compares the 1977 request for LEAA with the
distribution required by the House Subcommittee recommendations and the
distribution contemplated under the Department's appeal.
Law Enforcement Assistance Administration
1977 Budget Request
and Department Appeal
a/Under the Department's appeal for flexibility on these items, some
funds could be directed to other activities during 1977. b/Under the House Subcommittee recommendation, LEAA would lose 32
positions. Under the Department's appeal, the 32 positions would be restored.
The Department believes the appeal presented here is responsive to the basic concerns expressed by the Congress and protects the integrity
of the President's budget.
I have with me several of the Department's senior officials, Mr.
Chairman, and we would be pleased to respond to any questions you may
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20530
May 17, 1976
Dear Senator Pastore:
We have reviewed the actions taken by the Subcommittee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives in connection with the 1977 appropriation request of the Department of Justice. That Subcommittee allowed $2,081,356,000, which is a reduction of $69,022,000 below the $2,150,378,000 the President had requested for the Department in the fiscal year 1977 budget.
The action taken by the House Subcommittee involves certain alterations of specific items in the President's budget. The House has reordered priorities in the budget submitted by the Department; however, the final totals are within the level set by the Administration. One area of concern is the increased number of positions allocated to the Department. Thus, though no appeal is made from the Subcommittee's action on General Administration, General Legal Activities, Antitrust Division, :U.S. Marshals, Fees and Expenses of Witnesses, Community Relations Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Bureau of Prisons, (all appropriations and limitations), and the Drug Enforcement Administration, we propose careful restraints on added positions. We recognize that this committee may recommend modifications in program thrust. We respectfully urge that whatever action your committee takes not exceed the total set for the Department by the President.
The House Subcommittee reduced the request for the United States Attorneys by $2,030,000 and 91 positions. The Department of Justice requests that these amounts be restored.
This House Subcommittee reduction will seriously impair the conduct of Federal litigation. Both criminal and civil caseloads and backlogs are increasing rapidly. The civil caseload, in particular, is rising at an alarming rate. The number of civil matters received during the first half of 1976 was 26 percent greater than in the corresponding period of 1975. Similarly, the pending civil caseload in 1975 was 23 percent greater than in 1974. While the rate of increase in criminal cases is not as great, it is nonetheless a serious problem, especially because the requirements of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974 are beginning to affect most district courts. Indeed, allocation of U.S. Attorney resources between criminal and civil litigation is becoming an increasingly difficult task from both the policy and management point of view.
Not only are United States Attorneys faced with an increasing number of cases, but these cases are becoming more complex. This is particularly so because of the increased emphasis on the prosecution of "white collar" crime and large scale narcotics traffickers. Moreover, to satisfy the requirements of the Speedy Trial Act, U.S. Attorney's must hire additional lawyers, paraprofessional and administrative employees. There has already been a sharp increase in the number of cases declined by the U.S. Attorneys caused by the demands of the Speedy Trial Act. At the end of the third quarter of 1976, a total of 87,948 criminal cases had been declined, as compared with 56,355 declinations for the same period in 1975.
It should be noted that there is pending before the Senate a 1977 budget amendment to provide an additional $1,025,000 for:U.S. Attorneys.
70-425 0 - 76 - 18
This increase in funding is necessary to provide for the annualization of 100 positions contained in the Second Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1976, which was approved by the conferees last week. These positions, in effect, reduce the 1977 program increase for the U.S. Attorneys. The request was made by the Department because of the urgent need to provide additional personnel as quickly as possible to handle increasing workloads resulting from the Speedy Trial Act. Thus, in addition to the restoration of the gi positions and $2,030,000 cut by the House Subcommittee, the Department urgently requests approval of the amendment in the amount of $1,025,000.
The House Subcommittee has recommended major changes in the 1977 request for the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. The Department's request was reduced by $107,944,000, from $707,944,000 to $600,000,000. In addition, the Subcommittee is recommending the earmarking of $40,000,000 for the Law Enforcement Education Program (LEEP), which would be a $40,000,000 increase over the request, and $40,000,000 for juvenile justice programs under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, an increase of $30,000,000 over the request. However, additional funds to offset the impact of these earmarks on the balance of the LEAA program were not provided by the House Subcommittee, which intends that they be met from within the allowance. Thus, while the net reduction to the LEAA program is $108,000,000, the actual reduction against the rest of the LEAA program is approximately $178,000,000. In its deliberations, the House Subcommittee acknowledged the severity of its actions and expressed the desire to permit LEAA to set its own priorities in the context of the allowance and the earmark.
The Department of Justice believes that the House Subcommittee action was too severe and requests that $66,992,000 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 setting spending floors, toward which LEAA could work as prudence dictates. These actions would mitigate somewhat the extreme effects of the House Subcommittee action on the balance of the LEAA program and provide enough flexibility for LEAA to develop priorities. In this context, it should be noted that the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act requires that approximately $110,000,000 be spent by LEAA for juvenile justice programs from its other funds.
The appeals requested would restore the Department's 1977 budget request to the original level of $2,150,378,000 requested by the President. In addition, the Department requests approval of an Administration amendment to the budget on behalf of the U.S. Attorneys which would raise the total budget request to $2,151,403,000.
Full documentation is being prepared for the Subcommittee which provides details as to the House Subcommittee's action and the requested restorations and amendments.
Harolt R. Tyler,
POINTS OF CONTROVERSY
Senator PASTORE. You can address yourself as to the points that are in controversy.
Judge Tyler. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to appear once again before this committee.
As you have stated, although the full House and, indeed, the full House Appropriations Committee have not formally acted-as I understand it-we assume in our appearance here today that the full House will accept the recommendations of the subcommittee of the House. We respectfully urge your committee
the $2,151,403,000 total set for the Department by the President of the United States and to respect the administration's attempt to restrain significant increases in the numbers of permanent positions.
Mr. Chairman, no appeal is made from the decreases recommended for “General administration" or the “Bureau of Prisons buildings and facilities" appropriation.
Similarly, the Department of Justice is not appealing, at least not separately and in detail, the increases proposed by the House for the Antitrust Division, the Marshals Service, the Community Relations Service, the FBI, the Immigration Service, and the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration.
PROPOSED RESTRAINT ON POSITIONS
Nonetheless, I think it is important to note that the House has added approximately 1,000 positions to the number sought by the administration in its submission. We might question the wisdom of, and need for quite so many extra positions, particularly since their addition, in effect, would mean a corresponding reduction in funding for LEAA. We suggest that perhaps careful restraints might be wisely placed on any significant number of added positions.
Senator PASTORE. Aren't most of these positions for the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Immigration and Naturalization Service?
Judge TYLER. That is correct, sir.
Senator PASTORE. Isn't that really where the trouble is—a rise in crime? We are asking for more LEAA money.
Judge TYLER. That is correct.
Senator PASTORE. Why shouldn't we have more investigators in the Federal Bureau of Investigation? Do you think that would be unwise?
They have these agents chasing all over creation and only because they are shorthanded in many of the areas of the country. It can take up a lot of time in a situation like the Hearst case. They had these investigators coming from all parts of the country in order to assist in that investigation. That runs into a lot of money, sometimes even more money than putting men on locally where they can be serving
Judge TYLER. If you took these particular positions and if you took a big investigation, it would be my surmise that you would have to transport additional help in these big cases in any event.
Senator PASTORE. Not as many.
Judge TYLER. Of course, as you know, it is very difficult. We are caught really, Mr. Chairman, if I may say so, by a desire of the President-and I think many others-to reduce Federal spending but at the same time to do a legitimate job of law enforcement. This always presents problems.
So far as the FBI is concerned, we are very much in agreement with the House action in restoring administratively uncontrollable overtime, which, as you know, is a very serious problem.
Senator PASTORE. Sure.
Judge TYLER. With these agents and the FBI and DEA and some in INS.
POSITIONS ADDED BY THE HOUSE
Senator PASTORE. Of course, Judge, when you say 1,000 jobs, that sounds like a whole lot. Naturally, of course, anyone can argue if you don't need them you shouldn't have them.
Judge TYLER. I don't think some of those jobs are necessary. For example, take some of the positions that were added by the House for INS-one can question those.
My own view, which I would advance to this committee, is that we have a problem with Immigration inspectors. Under Federal law, INS is mandated, as you know, to inspect people who come into our country. We have the opening of the new bridge down in Laredo, Tex. Later this year there will be a new entry facility at Kennedy Airport in New York.
I would think 100 inspectors, for example, would be very, very wise. I am not suggesting a total wipe out. What I am suggesting is that this committee has room for a discreet review of those added positions.
SUGGESTED REDUCTIONS FOR IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION
Senator PASTORE. All right then, let's be specific. Where would you want us to take them out?
Judge TYLER. I would think you might question whether or not you want to add any more than 100 inspectors in INS.
Senator PASTORE. And how much of an increase would that be, over and above your budget request?
Judge TYLER. Mr. Chairman, my recollection is refreshed by Mr. Pommerening, who points out that originally there was a decrease proposed by the administration.
Senator PASTORE. Of 133 jobs.
Judge TYLER. Well, it did a little more than that. It increased the number of inspectors. It also added quite a number of investigators, 200 I think.
Senator PASTORE. 200 above the 133?
Judge TYLER. You see, we are dealing with different positions. They added 100 inspectors over the 133. That may be too many in the judgment of the committee, for example.
Take investigators. They were increased in the House by 200. Then there was an increase in adjudicators, I think 100 positions.