Senator MUNDT. What is the House position on this?

Mr. GRIFFITH. That was not brought up in the House this session. I brought it up here because of the correspondence from the Senators in connection with the summaries of committee hearings. The one on home rule in the District of Columbia was the one that was presented.

Mr. CLAPP. The question came up, Mr. Chairman, since we submitted our estimates.

Senator MUNDT. Will you tell us about that for the record?

STUDY OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HOME RULE

Mr. GRIFFITH. We have here a number of letters from Members as the result of Dr. Gordon Fulcher showing some of the Members of both Houses a study he had prepared on home rule in the District of Columbia. It is my opinion that Dr. Fulcher, who is not a member of my staff, was entirely disinterested in such a presentation. He is a retired scientist of some distinction who has concerned himself with ways by which the issues before Congress shall be presented in condensed and impartial form.

As a result of this, we have received a number of letters requesting the Legislative Reference Service to make this type of study, but we believe we are not authorized to do so unless the ban on publications is lifted.

Senator MUNDT. Assuming that you were given the authority to make it, to whom would you distribute it?

Mr. GRIFFITH. To those members who would request it. It was our thought that we would then take the matter up with the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and the Committee on House Administration, and ask their guidance as to a distribution policy.

Senator MUNDT. I can see how that kind of analysis would be in great demand by newspapers and women's clubs, and so forth, and unless put on some compensatory basis would run to quite an expenditure.

Mr. GRIFFITH. The expenditure for the paper is negligible.

Senator MUNDT. I mean if you are going to go into the mail-order business, you would get letters from all over the country. Mr. GRIFFITH. This would be for Congress only.

Senator MUNDT. That would authorize you then to make a summary of the arguments on both sides of a case and make them available to Members of Congress? You might do that, for example, in the hearings on this highly controversial discussion between the Air Force and Department of Defense concerning the number of wings, which is very interesting and very important. Most of us have not had an opportunity to follow it. Is that what you have in mind? Mr. GRIFFITH. Yes; I think we would in practice do most of this in between the two sessions.

Senator MUNDT. You would know pretty well what the important hearings are and what the controversial issues are?

Mr. GRIFFITH. Those issues in which hearings have been held in the first session and which have not yet been acted upon by one or both of the Houses.

FURTHER DISCUSSION OF LANGUAGE CHANGE

Senator MUNDT. Would we be doing what you have in mind if we put that language in and then put something into the report saying that this is not to be used as a means for returning to Congress next year for additional appropriations for more personnel to give a wholly new service to Congress, but is to be used instead to give the personnel that you do have an opportunity to render a constructive service if time permits?

Mr. GRIFFITH. That would be satisfactory.

Mr. CLAPP. The Legislative Reference Service has to have this material in its files anyway, and this would merely provide the authority for making the information more generally available.

Senator MUNDT. I think it would be a very helpful service to Members of Congress, but I think that it should be limited to that. If it goes out under the imprimatur of the Library of Congress to editors, it would make you a protagonist.

Mr. CLAPP. I think it would be well if that sentiment were placed in the report also. That would give us a clear directive.

Senator MUNDT. Probably we could do it on paper which carries an outline of the prospectus of the New York Stock Exchange; that you are not responsible for any position indicated.

Mr. GRIFFITH. The positions indicated refer to the pages of the published hearings on the bills in question, and therefore are given only the authority of the published hearings.

Senator MUNDT. Will you make a note, Mr. Smith. I would like to present that to the committee and recommend its adoption, and recommend that that kind of language be discussed in the report. Whether we will accept it or not is a matter on which your guess is as good as mine. Personally, I think it would be worthwhile. I would suggest that you try it on a limited scale as a pilot operation for a while before we get in too deeply, and to see how it works.

Mr. GRIFFITH. We would expect, if this were in the language of the act, to take the matter up with the Rules and Administration Committee or the House Administration Committee and have them thrash it over from a policy standpoint also. That is why we are suggesting that there be a restriction written into the act that we can go on.

Senator MUNDT. You can get carefully developed language in the report and then, of course, it has to be presented to the full committee and to the Senate. It is legislation on an appropriation bill; so, if there are any violent objections, it probably will not pass, but we can try it.

Have you anything else?

Mr. GRIFFITH. No, sir.

Senator MUNDT. Thank you very much.

Mr. CLAPP. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for giving us this hearing on the day before the Fourth of July.

THE JUDICIARY

UNITED STATES COURTS

STATEMENTS OF JOHN BIGGS, JR., CHIEF JUDGE, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD CIRCUIT; HENRY P. CHANDLER, DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, UNITED STATES COURTS; ELMORE WHITEHURST, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, UNITED STATES COURTS; AND JOHN C. BROWN, BUDGET AND ACCOUNTING OFFICER

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE

Senator MUNDT. We are having a part of the hearings in connection with our Appropriations Committee and, since we had this special meeting for Dr. Griffith and I understood that Mr. Chandler was going to be away next week, we thought that we would call you in and you could give us a brief report of what you have in mind as to your request, what was done in the House, and whether what was done in the House was essentially satisfactory and whether or not we should maintain the same position here on the Senate side.

Mr. Chandler, you are Administrative Officer of the United States Courts, so we will start with you and, if Judge Biggs, Mr. Whitehurst, or Mr. Brown want to add anything, they may add that later.

Mr. CHANDLER. Mr. Chairman, the House passed appropriations for the courts of appeals and the district courts, concerning which I am here, which are in the amounts requested except for two reductions of a minor nature which we suggested ourselves. Consequently, all that we desire is that the appropriations made by the House be sustained.

In all earnestness, Senator, I would say that there has been a very great increase in the work of the courts, particularly of the district courts, in the last 2 years. That is in the general statement in my testimony before the subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee; and, in view of the increase in the business of the courts, we really consider that, while we can carry on the operations of the courts on the present basis with the appropriations which the House granted, there is really not any spare money in them. We hope, therefore, that the appropriations as made by the House may be sustained.

Senator MUNDT. Which courts are involved?

Mr. CHANDLER. The courts of appeals and the United States district courts, and I should speak also for the United States Customs Court.

The special courts-namely, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, the United States Customs Court, and the Court of Claimspresented their own estimates before the subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee. The estimates for the appropriations for the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals were made in the amounts requested. That is a small court in point of staff. The appropriation for 1954 is approximately the appropriation for 1953, and that sum is necessary.

PERSONNEL INCREASE

Senator MUNDT. The only court in which you are asking for more people is the Customs Court. You are asking for four more people there?

Mr. CHANDLER. That is correct, sir.

Senator MUNDT. Why is that?

Mr. CHANDLER. Judge Oliver, the chief judge of that court, explained that the number of stenographers for the court at the present time, which constitute a kind of pool, was not adequate, and that the judges were handicapped by the fact that frequently when they needed stenographers they were not available, and he consequently asked for an increase in the number of stenographers.

Senator MUNDT. Did the House allow those four?

Mr. CHANDLER. The House allowed somewhat more money for stenographers, not for all that he asked, but for some. Will you explain that, Mr. Brown?

Mr. BROWN. The action of the House is not clear from its report just what the increase allowed is for. It may be that they allowed the four additional employees requested. On the other hand, there were other items requested of a new nature; that is, certain reclassifications that amounted to substantially the same sum, and it could be said that they have allowed the latter and only a portion of the additional personnel.

Senator MUNDT. Mr. Smith, would you confer with someone on the House side before we come to mark up the bill to see what they had in mind?

Are you involved in the Court of Claims?

Mr. CHANDLER. We are not involved in the Court of Claims. The Court of Claims has requested a hearing, as I understand it, on the item for improvement of the building, and they will explain that. Senator MUNDT. There seems to be a split opinion down there. Mr. CHANDLER. That may be so.

Senator MUNDT. Then, in summary, what you would like to have us to do is follow the action of the House?

Mr. CHANDLER. That is right, sir, as to the courts of appeals and the district courts; and I would only say, unless you wish me to go into detail, that the estimates on which the appropriations were based were carefully considered as to a number of the items by a Committee on Supporting Personnel of the Judicial Conference, and carefully considered as to all of the items by the Judicial Conference, in the light of the mounting business of the courts of appeals and the district courts, one reflection of which is the bill for additional judgeships which is pending in Congress.

The amounts appropriated by the House are really needed, sir, I.

can assure you.

INCREASING WORKLOAD

Senator MUNDT. Has the work of the Customs Court been increasing more rapidly than the work of these other courts? They seem to be the only ones that require additional help?

Mr. CHANDLER. It is a little hard to say but the work of the Customs Court is increasing.

Senator MUNDT. I understood you to say that the work of all the courts was increasing.

Mr. CHANDLER. Yes. But the great increase and the momentous increase is in the work of the United States District Courts. The work of the Customs Court is increasing without question.

Senator, as to the need for the additional stenographers for that court, let me say that, as far as I am concerned, inasmuch as the budgets of the special courts are presented and justified by those courts, I have considered that it was the prerogative of the representative of the Customs Court, Chief Judge Oliver, to give the explanation. I have a high regard for Judge Oliver. My own judgment is that the allowance of stenographic help for the judges is pretty small.

Senator MUNDT. Did Judge Oliver testify before the House committee?

Judge BIGGS. Yes; he did.

Senator MUNDT. Ábout the matter of these stenographers?

Judge BIGGS. Yes, he did.

Senator MUNDT. It will not be necessary for us to hear him. We will explore his testimony there and consult with the House as to what they had in mind, and make a recommendation to the committee on the basis of those findings.

Do any of you other gentlemen have anything to add?

Judge BIGGS. I would like to make a brief statement, if I may, Mr. Chairman, for the record. Mr. Chandler has mentioned the conference committee. That is the committee appointed by the Judicial Conference of the United States which is comprised of the Chief Justice and the 11 chief judges of the respective circuits. I am the chairman of that committee. We have carefully considered all of these items to which Mr. Chandler has referred, and they were presented to the Judicial Conference.

The Judicial Conference approved the recommendations of the committee en toto, the committee considerations having extended" over a period of years and the amounts recommended by the committee being very substantially less than those which had been requested. We really whittled them down to very basic needs, we felt.

SALARY INCREASES

Senator MUNDT. May I ask you, are there any increases of salary involved?

Mr. CHANDLER. There are.

Senator MUNDT. Are those for judges?

Mr. CHANDLER. Not for judges.

Senator MUNDT. Are they purely clerical?

Judge BIGGS. They all relate to supporting personnel, Mr. Chairman. The Judicial Conference approved them and we submitted them to the House committee. Today, as a representative of the Judicial Conference of the United States, and I am a member of that conference as one of the chief judges, the chief judge for the third judicial circuit, I merely want to go on record as endorsing everything which Mr. Chandler has said, and adding to it my own recommendation that the allowances made by the House are well justified and I hope they will be upheld.

35754-53--3