Mr. BYAM. Yes, sir. Increased use. It is perhaps a factor in the usage at the Martin Luther King Library, which has been phenomenal. We have doubled our business.

Senator BAYH. I have had quite a number of complaints from my constituents in Indiana over the budget cuts which have been announced and how they would affect libraries. Are those going to affect my new constituents, as chairman of the District of Columbia Appropriations Subcommittee, as well?

TALKING BOOKS FOR BLIND

What about talking books and this kind of thing, for blind people? Mr. BYAM. Yes, sir, the budget cuts will affect the District of Columbia. We have just taken on the Library of Congress service for the blind and physically handicapped. That is being supported out of the LSCA funds, which have been reduced to zero funding in fiscal 1974. It is going to hit the service hard unless we can find another way to support it.

Senator BAYH. Where do those cuts fit in with the budget for the library services that you are going to submit in 1974?

Mr. BYAM. They don't show up there because we didn't know about this at the time. We do have another year going with leftover funds that will permit us to carry this program through 1973 to 1974. After that, unless we can find some alternative methods of funding, we will have to phase out these programs.

It represents about $300,000 to the District.

Senator BAYH. Would you please have prepared for us when we talk about the general 1974 budget, the programs that will be cut or eliminated; what the cut will be; how many patrons have been taking advantage of the kinds of services that will be terminated?

Could you do that for us, please?

Mr. BYAM. Yes, certainly, Mr. Chairman.
Senator BAYH. I think that's everything.
Thank you both very much.

Mr. BYAM. Thank you very much.

PUBLIC SAFETY

STATEMENT OF COMER S. COPPIE, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE MAYOR FOR BUDGET AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

D.C. COURT OF APPEALS, REIMBURSEMENT TO U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, AND DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Senator BAYH. Next, we again have Mr. Coppie, who will testify in support of three items totaling $1,569,000.

For the record, the first item is $47,000 for the District of Columbia Court of Appeals to cover the judges' retirement plan.

The second item is $1,334,000 to reimburse the U.S. Department of Justice for services provided to the District of Columbia.

The third item is $188,000 for the Department of Corrections to meet the cost of upgrading correctional officers from GS-7 to GS-8. Mr. COPPIE. That is correct.

Senator BAYH. You may proceed.

JUDGES RETIREMENT PLAN

Mr. COPPIE. I appreciate this opportunity to address you on behalf of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals requests a supplemental appropriation of $47,000 to meet mandatory increases in judicial retirement costs.

The fiscal year 1973 amount available to the court of appeals for retirement allowances is $89,500. However, the unexpected retirement of Chief Judge Hood in July 1972, plus cost-of-living increases and other statutory requirements have made the amount insufficient by $47,000.

REIMBURSEMENT TO U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

We are requesting a supplemental appropriation of $1,334,000 for an additional mandatory payment to the U.S. Treasury for 75 percent of the expenditures of the U.S. attorney and U.S. marshal for the District of Columbia. This payment is required by section 203 of the State, Justice Commerce, Judicial, and Related Agencies Appropriation Acts for fiscal year 1971 and 1972.

Funds are necessary to meet obligations for prior fiscal years. To meet the District's mandatory obligations for fiscal year 1971, an additional amount of $685,000 is requested. To meet the District's mandatory obligations for fiscal year 1972, an additional amount of $649,000 is requested.

The Department of Justice estimates for the District's reimbursement were short of actual requirements, primarily because the estimates were prepared by the Department of Justice before the full impact of a fiscal year 1971 supplemental was known. Additionally,

recent pay raise requirements and increased communications costs were not taken into account because the estimates were prepared a year before the beginning of each fiscal year concerned.

Generally, the increasing amounts required for this reimbursement are due to increases in personnel experienced by the Department of Justice as a result of a greatly expanded court system in the District of Columbia. This reimbursement is a mandatory District obligation; no control over the amount of obligations is vested in the District.

UPGRADING CORRECTIONAL OFFICES

We are requesting $188,000 to meet an unanticipated upgrading of certain correctional officers from GS-7 to GS-8. This salary action is a result of labor negotiations with the employees' union during September and October 1972.

This action has been coordinated with the U.S. Civil Service Commission. Between 200 and 250 correctional officers will be upgraded during fiscal 1973 on a selective basis after a review and evaluation of each position on its merits.

FINANCING METHODS FOR JUDGES' RETIREMENT

Senator BAYH. On the court of appeals, have you reviewed the financing methods for judges' retirement? I understand you have done this for the financing of police and firemen's retirement system.

Mr. COPPIE. Yes, sir. We are working under a 1964 law. There isn't sufficient experience with the law to do a full study. We have talked with the Treasury Department about this, but they said at this time there isn't a sufficient data base to do a significant study.

As far as the judicial retirement program is concerned, we are talking about a limited program in terms of its relationship to potential retirees. The amount of money involved here is not great, as it is in the case of the General Schedule employees, teachers, or police and fire.

UPGRADING OF CORRECTIONAL OFFICER POSITIONS

Senator BAYH. There is a narrow base, of course.

On the Department of Corrections, what stimulated the grade change for the correctional officers that necessitated the supplemental?

Mr. COPPIE. The general answer to that, Mr. Chairman, is the changing environment in our corrections system. As the populations have escalated and the tensions have mounted in the internal operations in the Department of Corrections, there has been an increasingly important and sensitive role for the correctional officers. And it is in that context that we propose the upgrading from a GS-7 to a GS-8 for approximately 250 of the correctional guards.

The general upgrading program was approved by the U.S. Civil Service Commission.

Senator BAYH. Are these the same individuals being upgraded, or new people being sought to have additional talents, or is the job description more difficult, tougher, so you upgrade it automatically?

Mr. COPPIE. Each position is being looked at in terms of its responsibility. If the responsibility justifies a GS-8, it will be reallocated to the GS-8. If an incumbent leaves or retires, then the position probably

would remain at the GS-8. The Department would recruit the appropriate talent to meet the GS-8 objective.

Senator BAYH. How does this affect the overall grade structure of the Department?

Mr. COPPIE. A representative from the Department of Corrections is here. This is Mr. Golightly from the Department of Corrections, and he could speak to that.

Mr. GOLIGHTLY. Mr. Chairman, the response to that question is that we do anticipate that it may promote some upward pressure on the structure as a whole, because you begin bucking into your 8's, 9's problem. We are looking at that particular point, and we will be taking cognizance of it and steps to deal with it.

Senator BAYH. The basis that you mentioned a moment ago, Mr. Coppie, is that same general basis that the Civil Service Commission approved the change in grades?

Mr. COPPIE. Yes, sir.

Senator BAYH. When did the change occur?

Mr. COPPIE. It's been ongoing through the review process.

Mr. GOLIGHTLY. Yes. We are back in calendar 1972 at this point, when we're talking about the increase.

Senator BAYH. When we get around to our 1974 budget, I hope you will help us get a broad picture of where the Juvenile Receiving Home and the suggestions made by Judge Greene, which were referred to in a recent letter that I sent to the Mayor-where that fits into the overall job that is being done by the Department of Corrections.

I understand they are two different departments, but certainly they are very closely correlated. And I would like to get a good picture as to what the District may be doing to be certain you have the kind of personnel that are needed today to meet the problems of the specific young people involved.

Mr. COPPIE. That will be done, Mr. Chairman.

Senator BAYH. I understand it's not the Department of Corrections technically speaking, and, hopefully, if we handle it properly under "Human resources," it won't reach the Department of Corrections. Unfortunately, all too often that isn't the case.

Mr. COPPIE. Yes, sir.

REIMBURSEMENT FOR JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SERVICES

Senator BAYH. Could you explain the request in the Department of Justice for the Department of Justice increase? Give me an example of how the District operates with the Department of Justice in this area, please.

Mr. COPPIE. Mr. Chairman, this is a reimbursement to the U.S. Treasury for the District share of the cost of operation of the U.S. attorney's office and the U.S. marshal's office in the District of Columbia.

We should be billed quarterly by the U.S. Justice Department, which is where the appropriation is placed for the two operations. We reimburse the U.S. Treasury.

It is a mandatory payment for us. It represents 75 percent of the cost of the U.S. attorney's office and the U.S. marshal's office. That 75 percent figure was arrived by analyzing the workload of the offices. It appears to be a fair share of the cost that is associated of local cases.