Judge RAO. Anyone who wants a trial, Congressman, can get a trial immediately. The only roadblock here is that we do not have sufficient help to process and dispose of the work. We need stenographers and clerks for the clerical work that needs to be done. Mr. CEDERBERG. You need more stenographers and less judges? Mr. CEDERBERG. You said that you can get a hearing any time, a hearing immediately. Judge RAO. Yes. Mr. CEDERBERG. You do not need the two judges. Maybe we ought to cut the court down and put that money over into some stenographers. Judge RAO. A request was made for an additional session in California. An additional session in California was arranged and that means there will be three California dockets this year. The point is that anyone who wants a trial can get a trial. That does not mean we can dispose of the case that quickly. There are many delays between the trial and the decision, owing to the fact that the Government does not have enough attorneys to brief the issues, and we do not have enough judges. One of the reasons we are asking for more law assistants is to expedite the decisions. They must digest the testimony and research the issues and this is one of the roadblocks in the disposition of our cases. Judge RICHARDSON. All of our opinions have to be written. That is one of the problems. We cannot decide the cases from the bench. After getting a hearing there is still a lot of research and writing to be done. Judge RAO. In fairness to the two judges who retired this year, they are rendering considerable assistance to the court. Both Judge Wilson and Judge Donlon are doing a great deal of work so actually we have the services of two extra judges and we are hoping that they will continue to work for the court even after the three vacancies are filled. We can use those law assistants if Congress will authorize them, to help with all this extra work. Mr. CEDERBERG. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ROONEY. Very well. Thank you, Judges. Judge RAO. Would you like to see any of the new work coming in here, exhibits coming in from Japan and other countries? I know that you are busy and that the judges of the Court of Appeals and from all over the country are waiting. Mr. ROONEY. How do you gentlemen feel about it? Mr. FLYNT. I hope we can do so at a later date. Judge RAO. Fine. Mr. ROONEY. Thank you, very much. Mr. ROONEY. The next item, gentlemen, is that for the Court of Claims. It appears at pages 57 through 65 of the justifications book which pages we shall insert at this point in the record. (The pages follow :) Statement relating appropriation estimate to current appropriation-Salaries and expenses, court of claims 1967 appropriation in annual act. 1967 proposed supplemental due to pay increases.. Base for 1968. Net difference, 1968 over 1967: $1,425,00 19,00 1, 444,000 1 Adjusted to reflect the proposed supplemental for pay costs ($16,300 for personnel compensation and $2,700 for related benefits). Summary of increased requirements for 1968 Nature of expense (or savings): 1. Deduction for nonrecurring expenses authorized for 1967. 4. Difference between full- and part-year cost of librarian position 5. Difference between full- and part-year cost of 2 additional judgeships created by the act of May 11, 1966, Public Law 89-425 6. To cover an increase in the volume and cost of printing required by the court.... Net increase, 1968 over 1967. JUSTIFICATION Language changes None. Objectives Amount -$4, 600 10, 600 6, 000 3, 700 28, 300 31, 000 75,000 This appropriation is for the salaries of the chief judge, six associate judges, and other officers and employees of the Court of Claims as communications, printing, and other incidental expenses. well as for travel, For data as to the functions of the Court, its jurisdiction, and basic statutory authorities, reference is made to section "I" of the Digest of Appropriations, The Judiciary, on file with the Bureau of the Budget and the Appropriations Committees of the Congress. Detailed justification An appropriation of $1,519,000 is requested for 1968, $75,000 in excess of the obligational authority for 1967, which has been adjusted to reflect the proposed supplemental for "pay costs" under the Federal Salary and Fringe Benefits Act of 1966. The increase in budgetary requirements is explained below: Deduction for nonrecurring expenses The sum of $4,000 ($3,700 compensation and $300 related benefits) representing the cost of an extra compensable day in fiscal year 1967 has been deducted in establishing the budgetary requirements for fiscal year 1968. Employees of the Court who are being paid on a biweekly basis will be compensated for 260 days in 1968, whereas, in 1967 there are 261 compensable days. The sum of $600 provided for the nonrecurring cost of installing telephone equipment in 1967 also has been deducted. Provision for within-grade salary advancements It is estimated that $10,600 will be required in fiscal year 1968 to grant officers and employees of the Court (except judges, commissioners, and the clerk of the Court) within-grade salary advancements corresponding with those provided by Title VII of the Classification Act of 1949, as amended. Of the total requested, $10,000 is to cover increases in compensation and $600 for the related Government contributions to the Retirement Fund and for Group Life Insurance. The estimate is net of anticipated savings due to turnover in personnel. Reclassification of secretaries to commissioners The Judicial Conference of the United States at its September 1966 meeting approved a change in the qualification and entrance standards for secretaries of the Court's commissioners to conform basically to the standards established for secretaries to United States circuit and district judges. As a result, certain of those secretaries are entitled to grade advancements and the sum of $6,000 ($5,600 for compensation and $400 for related benefits) is requested in order to place these advancements in effect. Difference between full- and part-year cost of librarian position authorized in 1967 The Congress for the fiscal year 1967 authorized the appointment of a librarian to supervise the operation of a library to be used jointly by this Court and the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. However, the sum appropriated represented less that the full-year cost of the new position for the reason that there would be a delay in the appointment and the position, in fiscal year 1967, would be occupied for only a part of the year. The difference between the full- and part-year cost of the position is $3,700 as follows: Difference between full- and part-year cost of two additional judgeships Two additional judgeships were created for the Court of Claims by the act of May 11, 1966, Public Law 89-425. The recurring annual cost of these judgeships was estimated at $113,600. In this connection, reference is made to House Document No. 462 and the written justification submitted to the Appropriations Committees of the Congress in support of the estimate. In anticipation of a delay 78-243-67-pt. 1- 4 in the appointment of the new judges and their supporting personnel, the Congress, for fiscal year 1967, appropriated less than the full-year cost. It is requested that the sum of $28,300, which represents the difference between fulland part-year cost of the new judgeships, be appropriated for the fiscal year 1968. The difference was calculated as follows: Increase in volume and cost of printing required by the Court It is requested that an additional sum of $31,000 be provided to meet the Court's rising printing expenses. These expenses have risen sharply during recent years because of increased costs at the Government Printing Office and increased printing requirements of the Court. The two large items involved are: first, the Court's bound volumes of its decisions which has seen the average cost per volume rise from $5,300 in 1962 to $9,300 during this past year; and second, the cost of printing the slip copies of the Court's opinions as rendered where the increase has been from $24,435 in 1962 to $53,375 during this past year. During this period, the number of bound volumes for each year has increased from four to six and the number of opinions from 156 to 195. Mr. ROONEY. These pages indicate that the requested amount is $1,519,000, which would be an increase of $75,000 over the adjusted appropriation for the current fiscal year. Do you have a statement with regard to this, Chief Judge Cowen? GENERAL STATEMENT Judge CowEN. Mr. Chairman, we have a statement which I am now handing to you, sir, and distributing copies to the members of the committee. Mr. ROONEY. What is your pleasure with regard thereto? Judge CowEN. I would suggest, as in prior years, you enter it into the record. Mr. ROONEY. Very well. GENERAL STATEMENT During the court year, from September 30, 1965, to September 30, 1966, the court disposed of 477 petitions and 12 appeals representing 2,626 claimants. Except for 83 of these cases, in which no given amounts were claimed, the total amount claimed was $232,854,818.78. Of the cases disposed of, the court rendered judgments for claimants in the sum of $24,504,634.37, of which $13,938,194.37 carried interest. A number of these judgments was based on settlements between the parties. Also, the court rendered judgments for the United States on counterclaims in the amount of $296,792.01, of which $218,055.88 carried interest. The clerk has reported to the Congress the business of the court for the above period, showing the names of the claimants, the amounts involved, the nature of the cases, and the disposition thereof. The number of petitions and appeals pending on September 30, 1966, totaled 1.208 representing 7,427 claimants. Of this total there were 66 class case petitions |