Specifically, the National Governors' Conference requests your Subcommittee to appropriate the fiscal year 1976 funding level or a sum as close to that as possible. The severe cut already voted in a House Subcommittee, coupled with earmarking of specific portions of the appropriation, will result in severe and deep cuts in the block grant portion of the program. This will disrupt innumerable ongoing efforts at the state and local level, and severely cripple the block grant concept. We urgently hope your Subcommittee will support funding for LEAA at the FY 76 level of $810 million, or as close to that figure as your Subcommittee deems appropriate. Thank you for your consideration. Kindest personal regards, Aukben Otis R. Bowen, M.D. LETTER FROM THE GOVERNOR OF PUERTO RICO Dear Mr. Chairman: As you know, the Regional Development Act of 1975 (P.L. 94-188) which amends the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, authorizes the creation of new Title V regional commissions. Accordingly, on March 11, 1976, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands submitted a joint request to the Secretary of Commerce seeking designation of the two areas as the Antillian Regional Development Commission. The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands face serious obstacles in the path to economic development: extremely high unemployment rates (18.6% in Puerto Rico, April 1976), almost non-existent natural resources, high rates of inflation, and complete dependence on imported petroleum for our energy requirements. Both our jurisdictions could benefit greatly from the creation of a regional commission which would provide a vehicle for stimulating the economy, promoting economic growth, and strengthening regional cooperation. We welcome the opportunity to foster regional economic development and are extremely interested in moving ahead with the plans to create the Antillian Regional Commission as soon as possible. However, since there are no funds for the new Title V regional commissions included in the Department of Commerce's appropriations bill for FY 77, we are at a stand-still. We would greatly appreciate your support in ensuring that sufficient funds will be provided in the State, Commerce and Justice appropriations bill for FY 77, to enable the creation and operation of the Antillian Regional Development Commission in the immediate future. On behalf of the National League of Cities and the United States Conference of Mayors, we urge the Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations for State, Commerce, Justice and the Judiciary to recommend, at a minian FY 77 appropriation of $810,000,000 for the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA). mum, We are aware of the many recent criticisms leveled at the LEAA program that have received wide circulation in the press. We too have criticized the operations of LEAA. But these statements should not overshadow the importance that the cities of our nation place upon the valuable assistance provided by LEAA. While it is true that crime has not been reduced nationwide, it also is true that LEAA funds account for only 5% of the total criminal justice expenditures. More important, LEAA funding is directed to criminal justice agencies, which can respond to crime only after it has occurred. The relationship between criminal justice system improvement and crime reduction is only marginal at best. The positive accomplishments of LEAA funding in achieving a fair, effective, humane and efficient criminal justice system in our cities and states cannot be discounted. An excerpt from a recent article in Nation's Cities, expresses these sentiments: "LEAA has allowed localities to take advantage of new technology, Strategies and programs now regarded as commonplace in A $210,000,000 reduction in FY 77 appropriations as recommended by the House Subcommittee on Appropriations for State, Commerce, Justice and the Judiciary would be devastating to our cities. Our mayors, city council members, and city managers will be forced to drop programs which are in the early stages of funding and which show promise of success. Localities do not have the resources to fully fund So many of these programs at this time. The Subcommittee should be aware, however, that local governments are assuming the costs of many projects when LEAA funds expire. We are also spending millions of dollars of local revenue to match the LEAA dollars. The National League of Cities and United States Conference of Mayors have been on record for a number of years in support of full funding for LEAA, and urge the Subcommittee to consider our position in your deliberations. I am writing to express the concern of the state legislatures with the appropriations level for the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA). As you know, the House Appropriations Committee has recommended a fiscal year 1977 level of funding at $600 million. This drastic reduction will have an enormous impact on successful criminal justice programs operated at the state and local levels of government. State legislatures are asked each year to provide matching state funds for LEAA projects and to assume the costs of successful demonstration projects. I am confident that neither state legislatures nor the U.S. Congress are interested in funding disappointing programs. However, it has been our experience that in spite of some problems, the successes of the LEAA far outweigh its failures. The state legislators who are members of NCSL's task force on Criminal Justice and Consumer Affairs annually report on numerous innovative and successful criminal justice projects in all fifty states. Successful LEAA projects funded through state block grants include: a diversion project in Missouri which channels young adults from the juvenile system into an employment training program; a courts project to improve legal services to Indians; a preventive burglary prevention project in Oregon; in Kentucky, a corrections project which coordinates job placement for ex-offenders; a juvenile delinquency project in Massachusetts which funds a series of community-based treatment facilities as alternatives to institutionalization; in Rhode Island another adult corrections project which improves educational programs at the adult correctional institutions by providing individualized educational experiences to incarcerated persons and ex-offenders; in Louisiana a white-collar crime project which handles consumer complaints and was instrumental in revising consumer protection legislation. As you can see, these projects are geared towards people--not equipment. Our criminal justice system, including police, courts and corrections, would be much less effective had LEAA funding not been available to institute these and many other projects which are vital to the reform of our criminal justice system. Not only does the House Subcommittee recommendation reduce the LEAA budget to $600 million, it also earmarks $40 million for the Law Enforcement Education Program (LEEP) add $40 million for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. The National Conference of State Legislatures has strongly encouraged the funding of both of these programs--but we have advocated adding these amounts to the budget of LEAA not deducting them from a much reduced budget level of $600 million. The state legislatures are willing to assume the costs of successful demonstration projects on a graduated basis. But when the LEAA budget is reduced from a level of $880 million in FY 1975 to $810 in FY 1976, with a possible further reduction to $600 million, it is virtually impossible for the states to assume the costs of these programs in a time of serious financial constraints. Such drastic reductions will result in the cessation of many worthwhile demonstration projects. This consitutes a waste of federal, state, and local tax dollars--to prove the effectiveness of demonstration projects which will never become institutionalized. We would appreciate your assistance in restoring these cuts in the LEAA budget. We hope Congress will realize the impact of budget reductions of this magnitude on the states. With your permission I would ask that this statement be included in the record for these appropriation hearings. Sincerely, Senator Roland Sued the STATEMENT OF FLORA ROTHMAN Mr. Chairman, this statement is submitted by the undersigned, for the Committee's consideration during its deliberation on the fiscal year 1977 funding appropriation for the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974. We strongly urge you to fund the Act for a minimum of $100 million. This is essential if we are to begin to realize the potential of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, which, as you know, is viewed by many as the most significant federal legislative attempt to address the problems of troubled youth in this country. We are You and the committee are aware of the overwhelming support that the Act received in both houses of the Congress when it was enacted. It has equally strong support among those in the public and private sectors who work with youth. deeply concerned about the increasing number of states that are withdrawing from the program, primarily because of the lack of adequate financial resources. То allow this trend to continue, for this reason, before the program has been fully implemented, is an unconscionable travesty on the youth of this country. All of the undersigned participated in a Symposium on Status Offenders, sponsored by the National Council of Jewish Women. On the basis of discussions over a 3 day period, a consensus was reached that the youth problems facing this nation today make a program of coordinated services imperative. Similarly, the participants agreed that the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 can serve as an important tool in the provision of these needed services. The legislation authorized an expenditure of funds for 1977, of $150 million. The House has appropriated only $10 million. The participants in the Symposium feel very strongly that your Committee should approve no less than $100 million for fiscal 1977. LETTER FROM HOWLL T. HEFLIN Dear Senator Pastore: May 21, 1976 I am writing to express the Conference of Chief Justices' concern over the deep cuts in the fiscal '77 appropriation of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration recommended to the House Appropriations Committee. It is my understanding that the $600,000,000 budget recommended in the House, together with earmarkings for juvenile delinquency and law enforcement education programs, will reduce LEAA's block grant and discretionary funds by as much as $170,000,000 below the President's budget request and some $270,000,000 below current funding levels. A cut of this magnitude would, without exaggeration, be a disaster for the Nation's state and local courts, effectively wiping out the long-sought gains now in sight as a result of legislation awaiting final vote in both the House and Senate. As you know, the Senate Judiciary Committee has reported S. 2212 reauthorizing LEAA through 1931. The bill includes amendments, endorsed by the Conference of Chief Justices, specifically designed to correct a serious imbalance in LEAA's past funding priorities by giving emphasis to court programs aimed at improving and speeding the processes of criminal justice. Hearings in both the House and Senate clearly established the fact that courts have not shared equitably in the allocation of state block grant funds, nor have they been adequately involved in the comprehensive criminal justice planning that is central to success of the LEAA program at the state and local levels. S. 2212 holds promise of correcting these inequities but could not do so if block grant and discretionary funds are to be reduced in the magnitude of thirty to forty percent as would occur under the pending House bill. The chance for increased block grant funding of court programs would clearly be lost. In addition, cuts of the same magnitude in discretionary funds would result in the loss or severe crippling of these small but essential national organizations serving the research, technical support, information and training needs of state and local courts, as well as prosecution and defender functions. Such institutions, now largely funded by LEAA discretionary funds, include The National Center for State Courts, The National College of District Attorneys, The Defenders' College, The National College of the State Judiciary, and The Institute for Court Management. In citing the concerns of the state chief justices I do not mean to criticize the House action in earmarking funds for juvenile delinquency and police education programs. Both, along with programs to improve the courts, are clearly among the most needed efforts of LEAA. Our concern is only that these earmarkings, together with the massive cut in total funds recommended in the House, will further reduce the level of court funding and effectively negate the intent of the Senate as now expressed by action of the Judiciary Committee in S. 2212. If the courts and their support organizations are to be funded at levels anticipated by S. 2212, it is essential that LEAA's appropriation be retained near the current annual level of $810,000,000. A reasonable funding of court programs could be achieved if the Congress would appropriate directly for the earmarked programs rather than force LEAA to wring the funds out |