Analysis by objects 01 Personal services: 1948___ Additions_ $1, 800, 000 61, 000 50,000 1,789, 000 Mr. STEFAN. I notice that your appropriation for 1948 was $1,800,000 and that the appropriation requested for 1949 is $1,789,000. Judge Biggs is here to testify in connection with this. He has a statement to make to the committee on the miscellaneous salaries of the officials and employees of the United States courts. If you will look at the committee print there, at the proviso in the third line, you will see that it is subject to a point of order. Will you explain that? Judge BIGGS. Yes. Everything that I have to say outside of that is covered in my general statement, Mr. Chairman. If I might submit this statement, then I will refer specifically to that. GENERAL STATEMENT Mr. STEFAN. The statement may be inserted in the record at this point. (The statement referred to is as follows:) STATEMENT OF JOHN BIGGS, JR., UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE, CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE SUPPORTING PERSONNEL OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS These items cover principally the salaries of law clerks and secretaries to United States district and circuit judges. There are a few other items involved, such as salaries of the personnel of the offices of Veterans, Assignment, Motions, and Domestic Relations Commissioners for the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia, the clerk and other employees of the Emergency Court of Appeals, and miscellaneous clerical and custodial employees of the courts not provided for in other appropriation items. A statement relating the appropriation estimate to the current appropriation is set out on page 127 of the justifications prepared by the administrative office; and certain language changes, consisting of deletions of provisos in the appropriation act for the fiscal year 1948, have been effected as appears on page 128. To sum up, the 1947 appropriations amounted to $1,750,000, the 1948 budget estimates consisted of $1,833,500, and the 1948 appropriations in the annual act amount to $1,800,000. The deductions amount to $61,000. These consist of the aggregate of reductions in salaries of law clerks to judges in 1949 required to conform with the maximum limits fixed by the basic acts providing for such employees. I will deal with these at a later point in this statement. The subtotal amounts to $1,739,000. The additions are as follows. The sum of $43,000 is necessary for withingrade salary advancements and the sum of $7,000 is necessary for the regular pay in excess of the 52-week base pursuant to the provisions of 5 United States Code, section 944.1 These additions amount, therefore, to $50,000 and the total estimate for 1949 is $1,789,000. The language shown as deleted on page 128 of the Administrative Office estimates has been stricken out pursuant to the direction of the Judicial Conference of Senior Circuit Judges at its meeting in September 1947, to the end that the salaries of law clerks for district and circuit judges shall conform respectively with the provisions of section 118b of the Judicial Code (28 U. S. C. 128), and with section 118a of the Judicial Code (28 U. S. C. 222a). The section of the Judicial Code first referred to provides that each United States district judge is authorized to appoint a law clerk when he deems it 1 This is the act of June 30, 1945 (59 Stat. 303, 304), establishing the basic workweek. 69335-48-6 necessary and the senior circuit judge of his circuit shall certify to the need of such appointment, but that the salary of each law clerk appointed shall not be in excess of $2,750 per annum. The section of the Judicial Code referred to in the second place provides that each United States circuit judge "with the approval of the Attorney General" may appoint a law clerk whose salary, however, shall not be in excess of $3,000 per annum. The functions of the Attorney General in this respect have of course been taken over by the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts pursuant to the provisions of the Administrative Office Act (28 U. S. C. 444-450). The maximum pay allowed respectively for salaries of law clerks to distric and circuit judges with the benefits of the Pay Increase Acts is $3,585.30 and $3,898.80. It is estimated that on the basis of present employment there will be 21 law clerks to circuit judges and 55 law clerks to district judges whose rate of compensation will have to be lowered. The total amount of the reduction, as has been stated, is estimated at $61,000. The Judicial Conference of Senior Circuit Judges, in passing upon the estimates submitted by Mr. Chandler to the Congress and to the conference, regretted exceedingly the necessity for this reduction. It seems unavoidable, however, if the appropriation is to rest on statutory authorization. It will be remembered that the plan under the preceding appropriation acts of 1946, 1947, and 1948 consisted of having the sum of $7,500 available for the employment of the office employees (law clerks and secretaries) of each senior district judge of a court consisting of five or more district judges and of each senior circuit judge; while the office employees of all other district and circuit judges were to be compensated at a rate not to exceed $6,500. The plan had been carefully considered by the Conference of Senior Circuit Judges and in the past has worked efficiently and well. It will continue to be effected by the Administration Office insofar as the reduced funds available and the basic acts which I have referred to will permit. If the statutory obstacles are removed we hope that the original plan may be restored in full force. It provides, as I have tsated to this committee on several other occasions, a method of selection :similar to that employed by Congress and promotions analogous to those provided for under civil service. DISCUSSION OF STATUTORY SALARY LIMITATION FOR LAW CLERKS Judge BIGGS. This plan was put into effect 3 years ago, whereby each senior district judge and each senior circuit judge should have $7,500 for allocation to his employees; that is to say, each senior district judge of a court of five or more judges and the senior circuit judge should have $7,500 and all other judges have $6,500. After it had worked out and has been working out very well, Mr. Chandler, as was his duty, called the attention of the Senior Circuit Judges' Conference and my self to the provisions of the section 118 (b) of the Judicial Code and section 118(A) of the Judicial Code, which put a top limit of $2,750 per annum on the salary of law clerks for district judges and $3,000 per annum on the salary of law clerks for circuit judges; so, if you take the benefits of the Pay Increase Acts, the maximum allowable to each district judge's law clerk is $3,585.30 and to each circuit judge's law clerk is $3,898.80. There are at the present time 21 law clerks to circuit judges and 55 law clerks to district judges whose rates of compensation will have to be lowered if the current appropriation is reduced, and the total amount of that reduction, as has been stated, is $61,000. The base of the current appropriation for miscellaneous salaries has already been reduced by that sum in the estimate which is before you. I want to state perfectly frankly that, if we can secure the necessary .statutory amendment to the basic law, I hope to be able to return, and maybe we can put the amount back in; but at the present time the basic act just does not justify its inclusion. Mr. STEFAN. How do you propose to proceed in getting those statutes amended? Judge BIGGS. Well, I do not know. There is a phase of it that I think I should deal with perfectly frankly. There are two ways of doing it. One would be by changing the basic act so you might put a larger upward limit on it within the terms of the basic acts. Then, of course, in addition to that, there is at the present time certain matter in the revised Judicial Code which might take care of it, because that Code would Mr. STEFAN. Give us an explanation as to how the revised Judicial Code would take care of it. Judge BIGGS. There is a provision in the Code to the effect that the salaries might be set by the Administrative Office under the supervision and direction of the Judicial Conference of Senior Circuit Judges. Now, I am not immediately informed as to the status of the Judicial Code, but this plan that we worked out so carefully 3 years ago will be stopped in that the basic acts will prevent, as I say, some 21 circuit judges and some 55 district court judges from keeping their present law clerks at their present salaries. You will remember there was a provision for $6,500 for all district or circuit court judges other than district court judges of courts of five or more judges, or senior circuit judges who were to have $7,500. They could select their own employees who had to meet certain standards rather analogous to civil-service standards. These employees were given ratings analogous to civil service ratings, and they could be worked from class to class by their in-grade promotions and the plan has worked out splendidly. I hate, if I can be frank about it, to see this particular obstacle put in its way. Mr. STEFAN. Do you expect to effect this statutory change before the beginning of the next fiscal year? Judge BIGGS. Well, I have a bill drafted. I have not done anything more than draft it. I have not even sent it around to members of the Conference. In that I have tried to work out some method of trying to eliminate this new obstacle, but it is purely in the draft stage and I am not at all sure that it can be passed. Usually, as you know, it takes time to get these things through. You remember that was the obstacle to the basic act for the appointment of secretaries to judges, and it took a long time to get that through. I am hoping perhaps if the Judicial Code passes, that will eliminate this obstacle. If there is a good chance of its passing-and I believe there is-it may well come to a situation whereby we could still keep the plan in effect. STATEMENT OF EMPLOYMENT BY CLASSES OF EMPLOYEES Mr. STEFAN. Will you give us the total employment as of November 30 for law clerks, secretaries and secretary-law clerks? Judge BIGGS. I will get that information for you. (The matter referred to is as follows:) Statement showing employment as of Nov. 30, 1947, by classes of employment under the appropriation “Miscellaneous Salaries, United States Courts” Mr. STEFAN. I would like to call the attention of the witnesses here today to the fact that time and time again members of the Appropriations Committee have been criticized for perhaps writing too much legislation in appropriation bills. At one time the committee that wrote the authorizing legislation also did their appropriating, but that has been subsequently changed, and we have a Committee on Appropriations. This committee has been very careful in endeavoring to justify appropriations in which there is no legislation and appropriations authorized by law. Mr. ROONEY. Why is it that almost always a point of order comes from the committee on Appropriations when we get to the floor with a bill rather than from members of legislative committees? Mr. STEFAN. That may be true. Mr. ROONEY. Why not go to the floor and have someone from a legislative committee make a point of order. You saw what we went through last year with regard to the item for the secretaries to judges. We wasted a lot of time by taking it out of the bill in the first place. Mr. STEFAN. Is your 1949 estimate based on salaries permitted under the present statute? Judge BIGGS. Yes. SALARIES OF COURT REPORTERS, UNITED STATES COURTS STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES W. MORRIS, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Mr. STEFAN. We will now take up the item of the salaries of the court reporters. It appears on page 30 of the committee print and page 167 of the justifications. SUMMARY OF REQUIREMENTS We will put page 167 of the justifications in the record at this point. (The justification table referred to is as follows:) Statement relating appropriation estimate to current appropriation-Salaries of court reporters, United States Courts 1947 appropriations (including suplementals) $815, 000 1948 budget estimates___ 874,500 1948 appropriation in annual act__. 865,000 Additions: Regular pay in excess of 52-week base, 5 U. S. A. 944_ 3, 200 Total estimate for 1949. 868, 200 01 Personal services: Analysis by objects 1948___ 1949_. Mr. STEFAN. I notice that you had $865,000 last year asking for $868,200, or an increase of $3,200. Mr. CHANDLER. Mr. Chairman, the appropriation which is sought for 1949 is the identical appropriation that we had last year plus $3,200 which is the estimated cost of the extra day's pay. DISCUSSION OF EARNINGS OF COURT REPORTERS Mr. STEFAN. If you will remember, on page 35 of our report we had something to say about miscellaneous salaries. We also had something to say about the court reporters. We had this to say: It is recommended that the appropriation for this item remain at the present level, that is, $800,000. Information brought to the attention of the committee would indicate that some downward salary adjustments might be effected in cases where the total earnings are extraordinary high, and perhaps an elimination of a number of positions for those courts that meet only a few weeks out of every year and where a full-time court reporter does not seem to be justified. While it was testified that, generally, the court reporter system recently inaugurated was working efficiently and economically, continued improvements should and must be made if the system is to survive. Can you say something about that? Mr. CHANDLER. Well, Mr. Chairman, I can tell you that that statement in the report of the committee was considered very carefully by a committee on court reporting and by the Judicial Conference, but with deference to the committee, the Conference did not see its way clear to conclude that the salaries were too high. Bear in mind you have a statute which says that all salaries may be fixed anywhere between $3,000 and $6,000. The maximum salary fixed by the Judicial Conference is $5,000. It has not gone to the limit. At the last meeting of the Judicial Conference the reporters were present by a delegation to urge that inasmuch as they had not received any benefit under the pay-increase acts, their salaries should be increased 15 percent. But the Conference declined to grant any general increase. Mr. STEFAN. Do you set the transcript fees? Mr. CHANDLER. Yes; that is, the Judicial Conference does. The courts fix them with the approval of the Judicial Conference. Mr. STEFAN. There was some complaint by one of the agencies of Government, the Department of Justice, that the Attorney General was not furnished a transcript. Mr. CHANDLER. There have been complaints from time to time. It is almost inevitable when a new system is established that there will be. I spoke with Mr. Andretta the other day before the hearings began about this matter, and I said, "We are shortly going before the committee. I should like to get your judgment about the reporting service that you are getting, the cost of transcripts, and so forth.” He said, "It is all right. I do not have any complaint. We did have some difficulties, but we are satisfied." Mr. STEFAN. It was felt by some, perhaps, that if the Attorney General wanted a transcript he should get one without having to pay for it. |