conflicts that are present in the case. Exceptions to the report of the commissioner and briefs in such cases are equally time consuming.

The procedures that must be followed in a construction-engineering litigation such as I have described above are also involved in many other types of cases which come within the court's jurisdiction and the purpose of mentioning such cases here is to emphasize the vast difference which exists between the type of case which a practitioner before the Court of Claims handles and one which a lawyer in the general practice of law is accustomed to handling. After having practiced before the bar of the United States Court of Claims for more than 25 years, I believe that I am qualified to state that a docket of 25 such cases even though a substantial portion of them may be from time to time inactive, is far more than should be assigned to any conscientious attorney.

Those of us who are actively identified with the prosecution of litigation in the Court of Claims believe that the number of cases presently assigned to Government attorneys for defense before the Court of Claims is too large and that the principal reason why complicated litigation cannot move more quickly in that court is that there exists too much to be done for a staff of the size that has been assigned to do it.

It is accordingly respectfully requested that your committee give thought to the problem of providing additional moneys for the enlargement of the staff of trial attorneys in the Department of Justice with a view to enabling litigation before that court to proceed more expeditiously.

If there is any additional information which the members of our committee can supply with respect to problems which confront private practitioners and their clients before the Court of Claims because of the above situation, we will be very glad to do so upon request.

Sincerely yours,

JOHN W. GASKINS,

Chairman, Committee on Relations With the United States Court of
Claims of the Bar Association of the District of Columbia.

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

HOUSE ALLOWANCE

Chairman KILGORE. The House allowed the full budget estimate of $88 million for the fiscal year 1956. The sum is $8,618,000 over the current year's direct fund appropriations, but is found necessary to cover the costs of financing certain work formerly paid on a reimbursable basis; overtime premium pay benefits accruing to investigative personnel under section 208 (a) of Public Law 763, approved September 1, 1954, and costs for 105 additional full-year employees67 special agents and 38 clerks vitally needed to cope with the increasing investigative responsibilities of the Bureau.

Since members of the committee are well aware of the duties and responsibilities of the FBI, and the fact that quite extensive hearings were held by the House Appropriations Committee on the Bureau's 1956 fund requirements, it seems unnecessary at this time to request the appearance of Mr. Hoover and his associates. Instead the record will show pertinent excerpts of the justifications filed with the committee in support of the 1956 budget estimates.

(The material referred to follows:)

Summarization of funds, fiscal years 1955 and 1956 (direct plus reimbursements)

1 Includes $4,095.000 for work financed on "reimbursable" basis in fiscal year 1955, for which funds for fiscal year 1956 are included in "Direct" appropriation request.

The actual increase for the FBI for fiscal year 1956 is only $1,123,000 which includes provision for 105 additional full-year employees (67 agents and 38 clerks).

The amount of $1,123,000 is augmented by the following:

(a) $4,500,000 for the payment of 15 percent premium overtime pay to investigative personnel under section 208 (a) of Public Law 763, approved September 1, 1954 (fringe-benefits law).

(b) $4,095,000 due to change in method of special financing program initiated in fiscal year 1955 for which funds were obtained from reimbursement sources in that year.

Detail justification authorization: Salaries and expenses, Federal Bureau of Investigation

Mr. BURGER. I appreciate the compliments but I would prefer the

cash.

Senator DIRKSEN. Mr. Chairman, I suggested that a statement be inserted showing the amount of interest paid.

COMMUNICATION URGING SUFFICIENT FUNDS FOR COURT OF CLAIMS ATTORNEYS

Senator KILGORE. I have received a letter from John W. Gaskins, chairman, Committee on Relations with the United States Court of Claims of the Bar Association of the District of Columbia urging additional funds to enlarge the staff of trial attorneys in the Department of Justice engaged in the defense of litigation against the United States in the United States Court of Claims. This letter will be made. a part of the record.

(The letter referred to follows:)

Hon. HARLEY M. KILGORE,

WASHINGTON 6, D. C., May 3, 1955.

Chairman, Senate Appropriations Committee,
United States Capitol, Washington, D. C.

SIR: With respect to the hearings which are to begin before your committee on May 4, 1955, regarding an appropriation for the Department of Justice, I should like to make known the views of the Bar Association of the District of Columbia with respect to the possible enlargement of the staff of attorneys presently employed by the Department of Justice who are engaged in the defense of litigation against the United States in the United States Court of Claims.

The committee on relations with the United States Court of Claims of the Bar Association of the District of Columbia has long been concerned with the interval of time that is required to prosecute a suit against the United States in that court. From 3 to 4 years is not an unusual interval of time for the prosecution of the more important and complicated types of cases which come before that court. This delay is not due to the failure of the court to act with dispatch in cases that are ready for hearing, but is in a large measure due to an insufficient number of attorneys in the Department of Justice who can be assigned to the performance of this work.

In 1954 there were approximately 26 attorneys engaged in the defense of litigation against the United States in the Court of Claims. In that year there were approximately 1,335 petitions filed before the Court of Claims which asserted claims on behalf of 3,890 plaintiffs. The caseload of the 26 attorneys engaged in the defense of this mass of litigation was approximately 51.3 cases per attorney, or on a claim basis 149.6 claims per attorney.

The work of the United States Court of Claims is so varied that it is difficult to obtain an adequate idea of the responsibilities imposed upon this staff of attorneys by resorting to statistics alone. The court handles a considerable volume of so-called pay cases which involve suits filed by members of the armed services as well as civilian employees with respect to claims arising out of the construction of pay statutes. While the establishment of the legal principle which will affect such a group of claimants may be a very exhaustive and time-consuming process in itself, including the possibility of processing more than one test case, the remainder of the cases falling within the precedent ultimately established are usually disposed of with dispatch by stipulation. However, it is not cases of this type which present real problems of delay to litigants before the Court of Claims.

Many of the cases pending before the Court of Claims have arisen out of the performance of Government contracts for huge public works and the issues arising from such cases usually involve construction and engineering problems of great complexity. The adequate preparation of one of these cases for trial can and frequently does consume several months of intense work. The testimony in such cases frequently exceeds 5,000 pages of record. The "suggested findings of fact" to a commissioner is based upon an annotated analysis of such a record and may take 2 to 4 months to prepare, depending upon the number of

conflicts that are present in the case. Exceptions to the report of the commissioner and briefs in such cases are equally time consuming.

The procedures that must be followed in a construction-engineering litigation such as I have described above are also involved in many other types of cases which come within the court's jurisdiction and the purpose of mentioning such cases here is to emphasize the vast difference which exists between the type of case which a practitioner before the Court of Claims handles and one which a lawyer in the general practice of law is accustomed to handling. After having practiced before the bar of the United States Court of Claims for more than 25 years, I believe that I am qualified to state that a docket of 25 such cases even though a substantial portion of them may be from time to time inactive, is far more than should be assigned to any conscientious attorney.

Those of us who are actively identified with the prosecution of litigation in the Court of Claims believe that the number of cases presently assigned to Government attorneys for defense before the Court of Claims is too large and that the principal reason why complicated litigation cannot move more quickly in that court is that there exists too much to be done for a staff of the size that has been assigned to do it.

It is accordingly respectfully requested that your committee give thought to the problem of providing additional moneys for the enlargement of the staff of trial attorneys in the Department of Justice with a view to enabling litigation before that court to proceed more expeditiously.

If there is any additional information which the members of our committee can supply with respect to problems which confront private practitioners and their clients before the Court of Claims because of the above situation, we will be very glad to do so upon request.

Sincerely yours,

JOHN W. GASKINS,

Chairman, Committee on Relations With the United States Court of
Claims of the Bar Association of the District of Columbia.

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

HOUSE ALLOWANCE

Chairman KILGORE. The House allowed the full budget estimate of $88 million for the fiscal year 1956. The sum is $8,618,000 over the current year's direct fund appropriations, but is found necessary to cover the costs of financing certain work formerly paid on a reimbursable basis; overtime premium pay benefits accruing to investigative personnel under section 208 (a) of Public Law 763, approved September 1, 1954, and costs for 105 additional full-year employees67 special agents and 38 clerks vitally needed to cope with the increasing investigative responsibilities of the Bureau.

Since members of the committee are well aware of the duties and responsibilities of the FBI, and the fact that quite extensive hearings were held by the House Appropriations Committee on the Bureau's 1956 fund requirements, it seems unnecessary at this time to request the appearance of Mr. Hoover and his associates. Instead the record will show pertinent excerpts of the justifications filed with the committee in support of the 1956 budget estimates.

(The material referred to follows:)