Kansas, North Dakota, and Iowa. The National Center for State Courts now provides assistance on a daily basis nationwide, whereas it was only the hope of judicial reformers 10 years ago. Technical assistance without direct cost is now available to every court in need and is a valuable asset. Judicial training is available as never before, and contributing, I feel, to the quality of justice. A substantial reduction in court delay at both the trial and appellate level may now be possible as a result of new information about the causes of court delay. A variety of new techniques that have been developed and implemented under the direction of Jim Swain through LEAA technical assistance, discretionary grant programs and through some State efforts developed with the help of the National Center for State Courts.

Early returns on some of our court delay projects are beginning to give promise that the next decade may witness dramatic improvement in our State courts, improvements which will put the State courts on a sound and enduring basis with a quality of justice delivery in which all citizens can take pride.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the proposed State Justice Institute Act of 1980 demonstrates your concern, and that of your cosponsors by requiring an adequate funding mechanism for the State courts of this country. The administration shares this concern. However, we do not think that the Federal Government should finance the institute at issue here. Substantial Federal assistance has been given to courts and further financial assistance at this time of severe budgetary constraint could impact upon other disciplines within the Federal justice system. If the State courts feel that a pressing need does exist for the services to be provided by the institute, the administration must urge them to look to the States to fund these activities. The administration is therefore unable to support a new Federal program at this time of fiscal constraint.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased to respond to ques

tion.

Senator HEFLIN. Thank you, Mr. Madden. Mr. Velde is here with us today also. I used to have to go up against you sometimes. But it is a delight to have Mr. Velde with us here today. I want him to feel free to ask any questions he would like as well as any other staff people who are here.

Of course, your testimony is centered on the idea that we are now in an era of moving toward balancing the budget by cutting down on Federal expenditures. In this regard, I suppose that the degree of your opposition would depend on the amount of Federal funds that might be involved. That is, I suppose your opposition would be a lot stronger if there were a lot of money involved than it would be if it were a smaller amount of money involved in this. I imagine that you are not in a position to answer that.

We have seen some indications in the newspaper that the President is considering a cut in the Justice Department budget of up to $165 million. If, in fact, this is the case, how much do you expect to be cut in the LEAA appropriation?

Mr. MADDEN. The President, to my knowledge, has not made any final decision regarding the LEAA budget. LEAA has been asked for comments, and the President is weighing different priorities, consulting with State and local governments, asking them for priorities, and consulting the U.S. Congress. The projected budget cuts could mean

a total elimination in 1981 of the formula, discretionary and national priority grant programs of LEAA.

Senator HEFLIN. Those would be the discretionary programs?

Mr. MADDEN. It could be the formula grants which replace block grants. There would be no new funding for that. It would be an impossibility. There would be no funding for discretionary at all, no funding for national priority, which is one of the new programs that was created by the legislation and which is in the nature of a discretionary grant program. There would be no funding for community anticrime. That would be a worst case situation given the figure you have provided.

The only official statement is that the President, in a press release on Monday, March 14, indicated that there would be substantial cuts in the LEAA program.

Senator HEFLIN. You have given us the worst that you anticipate. Do you have a judgment of what will occur?

Mr. MADDEN. I am afraid I don't.

Senator HEFLIN. There is a figure in the statement of Attorney General Civiletti of $165 million in the Department of Justice, and that most of this would come from LEAA, which I would assume mean, if he says most, would mean more than 50 percent. This would put it in the category of close to $90 million or $85 million. If that were our figure, what would you anticipate, say the President's recommendation comes up to a figure of a $90 million cut, where do you anticipate those cuts would occur in LEAA?

Mr. MADDEN. I think it is important to put that $165 million in context. I did not see the Attorney General's testimony, but I have seen the $165 million figure. That generally refers to what we call outlays, as apposed to budget authority, outlays being actual expenditures in a given fiscal year. In order to achieve a reduction in outlays of that nature, the actual new budget authority has to be decreased by many times that figurfe, because many of our outlays come from grants made in prior fiscal years that are already obligated, on which LEAA can have no effect. So in order to reduce outlays, you would have to reduce new grants.

In the block grant program, for example, outlays are only incurred at about a 20-percent rate in the first fiscal year. So you have to make a much larger decrease in budget authority to arrive at a reduced outlay. I must emphasize that the final decision hasn't been made regarding actual figures. A lot of people have expressed concern about the cuts in LEAA and CETA and revenue sharing and a whole host of other programs, as we have seen from the newspaper.

It could mean a major reduction, or as I say, a worst case situation, elimination of the block grant program and the discretionary grant program and the national priority grant program. Those are the only large budget areas that we have. When you look at the rest of the program areas, the outlays are very small. The present budget calls for $571 million for LEAA, and almost $400 million of that $571 million, I think actually $370 million, was in the formula discretionary, national priority grant area. The rest are much smaller, such as the small research fund. I am using relative terms. There is approximately $25 million for research, $20 million for statistics, and $12 million for the public safety offices program. We have about 20 different budget

categories. In order to make a large cut, though, you have to go after the formula, discretionary, national priority grant programs. Those are the large areas.

Senator HEFLIN. If that national discretionary program has no outlays in fiscal 1981, does that mean that no money would be going to institutions like the National Judicial College, American Academy of Judicial Education, the National Center for State Courts, and any other national program dealing with courts and dealing with other elements of the LEAA program? Would that happen?

Mr. MADDEN. I would say not any money, because again, No. 1, until we know what the cuts are, we can't speculate on that. In addition, LEAA will carry over into 1981, unobligated funds. We carry over in any given year as much as $70 million to $100 million in unobligated funds and in funds that revert back to us from the States. That has been the pattern over the last couple of years. So there will be some of those funds that would be available for continuations of programs. Now, when I say we carry over that much, a lot of that is in targeted areas that we can't really move into court programs. But there will be some funds that will be carried over in our discretionary and national priority programs. Then we would have to decide what priorities to establish, but they would be greatly reduced.

Senator HEFLIN. But if you were to cut out the national discretionary fund program, in effect, for a fiscal year, while you have your budget authority and that sorty of thing, it would eventually mean a year in which there would be no money, whether that year be in the precise months of a calendar year, but it would

Mr. MADDEN. If the worst possible case occurred

Senator HEFLIN. You mean in the national discretionary fund? Mr. MADDEN. In LEAA. I don't think that is going to happen, but you have a range from no cuts up to a total lack of funding in 1981. Senator HEFLIN. Are the proposed cuts from the President's previously proposed 1981 budget or are they proposed from the present appropriation to LEAA?

Mr. MADDEN. I would assume, and again, I am speculating because I really don't have the information. I would assume that we are talking about 1981, the President's proposed budget for 1981. As to what the actual figures would be, I think that we will know within the next few weeks, but we don't know now.

Senator HEFLIN. In other words, if there is $165 million that is being proposed to be cut from the Department of Justice, there has to be a base that you cut from. Is that base, as you understand it, from the President's proposed 1981 budget or is it from the budget that exists at the present time for 1980?

Mr. MADDEN. It could be from both. I just don't know at this point. If it was from 1980, it would have to be done by a rescission action, since the 1980 funds have already been appropriated. Congress would have to approve it if it was a rescission action. In effect, under rescission, one of the Houses would have to disapprove the rescission action. Senator HEFLIN. Assuming that it is from the President's proposed 1981 budget, there was an increase to allow somewhat for inflation and other matters, what $75 million

Mr. MADDEN. $84 million increase.

Senator HEFLIN. $84 million increase.

Mr. MADDEN. That's right. The President, when he proposed his 1981 budget, recognizing the inflation factor, and the new formula in the Justice Systems Improvement Act, recommended an $84 million increase in the funding. That $84 million increase, if enacted, would allow the new formulas to go into effect under the Justice Systems Improvement Act. These are the formulas that provide additional funds to some 15 or 16 States that have higher than average crime rates or higher than average criminal justice expenditures. The new discussions are based, as the President indicated in his speech, on the change in the economic picture that has occurred so rapidly in the last couple of months, since that budget was put together.

Senator HEFLIN. If the base from which the cuts are to be made is the President's proposed 1981 budget, which had $84 million more in it, and assuming that there would be a cut of around $90 million out of LEAA, then it would almost be back to where you were in 1980, you could allocate it on the same sort of basis. You have the new law with new allocations, and new variables that are involved in it. Am I also correct that the discretionary fund for 1981 was reduced to 10 percent where it had been a higher percentage?

if

Mr. MADDEN. In the Crime Control Act of 1976, the act provided that of the total amount allocated for the part C block grant area, 85 percent of it would go for block grants, and 15 percent would go for discretionary grants. It also provided in the part E corrections area, that 50 percent would go out on a formula basis and 50 percent on a discretionary basis. The new legislation combines part E and part C together for three grant programs, basically, part D, part E, and part F. The part D formula would have 80 percent going to the States on a formula basis, 10 percent on national priority, and 10 percent on discretionary. It is difficult to compare the two. Fifteen percent of the part C was titled discretionary grants, and now the new title is called the part F discretionary grant, which is 10 percent of the total for D. E, and F. But you have to look at both the old C and E programs and the new D, E, and F programs together.

Senator HEFLIN. As I understand from your testimony, your prepared testimony, your opposition to this legislation is due to the Federal appropriations at this time to the State Justice Institute. Do I correctly assume that this means that you are not expressing opposition to the concept of the State Justice Institute Act?

Mr. MADDEN. What I would like to say is given the fiscal constraints today, that we do not feel that we can support the legislation. I would like to stick to what I said in the prepared statement.

Senator HEFLIN. I don't want to put words in your mouth.

Mr. MADDEN. I would prefer to stick to the statement that I made on that issue.

Senator HEFLIN. Mr. Velde, do you want to ask some questions?
Mr. VELDE. Thank you. Mr. Chairman.

Senator HEFLIN. You had your lawyer there a few years ago when you asked questions.

Mr. VELDE. That is really the basis of my first question, Mr. Chairman.

I assume, Mr. Madden, that you are representing OMB, LEAA because of the rather delicate position of the political appointees of these various groups. Although there are acting administrators and

acting directors, I believe they are subject to a confirmation hearing this afternoon. So, discretion being the better part of valor to say, pass the buck to a career employee.

I would assume, Mr. Madden, that the comments you made with respect to funding levels for courts and for the various programs for the balance of this fiscal year and next fiscal year would be subject to final decision by the President and OMB as to what these levels will be recommended to Congress. And I would assume, also, that they would be subject to ratification of the political leadership once they are in place.

Mr. MADDEN. Absolutely. The President has submitted his budget for 1981. The President, if he proposed cuts in programs, must submit a budget amendment to the Congress. That budget amendment would then go before the various appropriations committees.

However, the discussions on budget cuts have been ongoing with the leadership in the House and Senate with the appropriations people, as I understand it, and with the budget committees. The Budget Committee in the House, even now I believe, is marking up their projections and their ceiling level. They will be discussing over the next few days LEAA and other similar programs in the Justice accounts.

Mr. VELDE. Mr. Madden, when you refer to the President's budget for fiscal 1981 and the requested increase, isn't it correct to say that this is really a restoration of cuts that have already been made in the LEAA program previously?

Mr. MADDEN. The President did propose a larger budget for fiscal year 1980 than the Congress appropriated. The President's budget for fiscal year 1980 was in the neighborhood of the 1981 budget level. But the Congress eliminated approximately $100 million in new budget authority in voting the 1980 appropriation for LEAA. It is an increase of 84 million that the President has requested for 1981, but it is also at a level very similar to the one which was requested by the President in 1980, but not approved by the Congress.

Mr. VELDE. Still a cut from the preceding 2 fiscal years, or actually several, not just 2.

Mr. MADDEN. I believe that is correct.

Mr. VELDE. Mr. Madden, I wonder would you care to contrast the funding level, perhaps Mr. Swain also, of the LEAA courts program in the past 2 or 3 years, with particular reference to the core grants to support such functions as the National Center for State Courts, and the funding level of the National Institute of Corrections? I just also wonder whether or not the National Institute of Corrections budget for fiscal 1980 or 1981 figures in any of these cuts?

Mr. MADDEN. In determining the cuts, whatever the cuts would be in 1981, the Justice Department and OMB are looking at the entire Justice Department budget: the budget for litigation division; the various bureaus; and the National Institute of Corrections, which is the only other grant program of more than a few million dollars in the Justice Department. They are looking at all of those in determining how to arrive at appropriate levels of funding to get to a balanced budget.

Mr. VELDE. Do you have any information that the National Institute of Corrections would have to take any cuts?

Mr. MADDEN. I don't have any information on that issue. We have