May 21, 1979
Page 11846
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I would like to comment briefly on the budgetary impact of S. 241, the Law Enforcement Assistance Reform Act.
Senator KENNEDY has informed us that S. 241 provides for a comprehensive revision of LEAA through major program reforms. We have been assured that our colleagues on the Judiciary Committee have devised solutions to the Federal Government's criminal justice assistance programs which will succeed in eliminating the abuses and inadequacies of the past.
These reforms would affect both the administration and substance of the program.
I do not dispute the Judiciary Committee's judgment in proposing these reforms. Certainly, major changes in LEAA are overdue. I do question, however, whether the committee's legislation is consistent with the Congress mandate to exercise responsible budgetary restraint.
The funding levels authorized in S. 241 as reported are more than twice the level assumed for these programs in the first budget resolution for fiscal year 1980 which has been agreed to by the conference and on which the Senate will conclude action this week. As the Senate is aware, mission 2, function 750 of that resolution provides spending targets for all Federal criminal justice assistance programs of $0.4 billion per year for fiscal year 1980 through fiscal year 1982.
The Law Enforcement Assistance Reform Act, however, provides over $0.8 billion for just those programs within the newly created Office of Justice Assistance, Research and Statistics.
Thus, even excluding consideration of authorizations for other criminal justice programs, the authorizations in this bill alone, if fully funded, would break the congressional budget targets by roughly $0.4 billion in each of the next 3 years.
The Budget Committees are faced each year with the need to balance competing national needs in their funding recommendations. This year, the conferees of the House and Senate Budget Committees have recommended the imposition of rigorous restraint, spread across the gamut of Federal activity. We were not confronted solely with the task of separating worthy Federal programs from those that are unworthy. It was also necessary to choose among the good ones and attempt to allocate funds in a manner reflecting national needs and priorities, while meeting the goal of balancing the budget as soon as possible.
The budget resolution targets would permit continued funding for LEAA, but with reasonable and responsible reductions necessitated by the need for budgetary restraint. During the Senate's debate on the budget resolution, it was noted that LEAA provides only about 3 percent of total State and local criminal justice expenditures. Because Federal grants represent such a small share of total expenditures, the funding restraint recommended by the congressional budget would not severely hinder present State and local criminal justice operations.
I would like to remind the Senate, also, that the congressional budget targets for LEAA were explicitly supported by the full Senate on April 25th. On that date the Senate sustained the function 750 spending targets recommended by the Budget Committee and defeated an amendment by Senator KENNEDY that would have increased the targets by $100 million to accommodate higher funding levels for the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration.
It is unfortunate that the committee has chosen to report legislation that carries with it the suggestion that the Congress is in a mood to provide unreasonable funding increases for the programs of the LEAA. Clearly this is not the case. And to suggest otherwise sends false signals to LEAA program beneficiaries.
I would hope, therefore, that those who have an interest in the Congress likely funding level for LEAA will take note of the spending targets in the congressional budget. I am confident that those targets provide a more accurate indication of congressional intent.
In view of this, I believe the Senate should consider that a vote for S. 241 is in fact a vote for the reorganization and reform of LEAA. The funding level for the program will be decided by the Committee on Appropriations. Further, I am confident that under the able leadership of Senators MAGNUSON and HOLLINGS, that that funding level will be consistent with the congressional budget. On this basis, we are not seeking to amend the levels authorized by S. 241.
We must be prepared, however, to vote for lower levels this summer when the State, Justice, Commerce, the Judiciary, and related agencies appropriation bill comes before the Senate.