as against the first 6 months of fiscal year 1961 on the workload of the U.S. attorneys offices. You will notice there is quite an improvement there in the last 6 months of the calendar year preceding. That is, the first 6 months of this fiscal year. That is an indication that the minute you get your staffs up to strength, you begin to show some production and some work output. Mr. ROONEY. There is quite a dropoff in the number of criminal cases, and in civil cases, too? Mr. ANDRETTA. But you do not develop cases on these office matters that soon. That is, they grow out of matters filed earlier in the year. Mr. ROONEY. We shall insert this chart at this point in the record. (The chart follows:) WORK OF U.S. ATTORNEYS 1st 6 months fiscal year 1961 compared with 1st 6 months fiscal year 1962 1 Excludes land condemnation cases filed in December 1961 since reports have not been received from Lands Division, normally an average of 62 cases of this type were filed in each of the 1st 5 months and an average of 60 cases per month were closed. 22,929 land condemnation cases pending as of Nov. 30, 1961, were used in lieu of Dec. 31, 1961, figures. 3 Includes $5,171,829 reported by U.S. attorney's office in southern California for December 1961. Mr. ROONEY. This chart shows a substantial dropoff in cases terminated; is that right? Mr. ANDRETTA. Yes, this shows what a depleted staff will do. Mr. ROONEY. On criminal trials, the difference between the first 6 months of 1962 and the first 6 months of 1961 is negligible. Mr. ANDRETTA. Again, in that first 6 months, you have the court slack season; July, August, and September. Mr. ROONEY. And you have the same thing applied to the year before, to which you are making the comparison? Mr. ANDRETTA. That is right, but I told you about the year before, the fact that we had a depleted staff and they were all leaving the U.S. attorneys' offices. Mr. ROONEY. Proceed, if you will. NONSALARY INCREASES REQUESTED Mr. ANDRETTA. We are also asking for an increase of $20,000 in printing, an increase in other services, reporting, and so forth, $28,300; equipment and higher cost of law books and additional office machines, and so forth, $31,900. Mr. ROONEY. Does the $28,300 apply to reporting services? Mr. ANDRETTA. Mostly reporting, yes, and litigation expenses. That is the cost of taking depositions, reporting, and so forth, and that is to bring us up to pretty much the current expenditure for these litigation expenses. As you know, Mr. Chairman, litigation expenses are uncontrollable items of expenditure in the U.S. attorneys' offices. We have to meet these expenses as they arise in connection with the cases and the litigation in the various courts and the districts. In the justifications you put in the record, there is a breakdown on the equipment items. Actually, that is a net reduction because there is a nonrecurring item of furniture we purchased for new Federal buildings which item was in the 1962 estimate, and we are not asking for that in 1963. Mr. ROONEY. Do you have a statement similar to the one at page 326 of last year providing general information by district on U.S. attorneys in fiscal year 1961? Mr. ANDRETTA. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I would like to mention in connection with these litigation expenses or to put in the record a statement of our obligations and expenditures for the first 6 months of this fiscal year, as compared with the same time last fiscal year, which shows the area of increase in certain objects of expenditure and decreases. OBLIGATIONS AND ALLOTMENTS Mr. ROONEY. We shall insert this document headed "Obligations and Allotments" at this point in the record. (The document follows:) Mr. ROONEY. It occurs to me that when one compares some of the figures I have looked at in the workload chart handed us across the table a moment ago, and the chart which was published in last year's hearings, beginning at page 326, there is practically no increase in work at all; is that a fair statement, and where there is any, it is negligible? Mr. ANDRETTA. There was an increase in office matters, as I said; those matters come in and they have to be considered and handled and do not develop into cases until later in the fiscal year. ADDITIONAL POSITIONS Mr. ROONEY. Well, if we were to go along on some of this very substantial request for 157 additional positions, what can we do with the request for beefing up the Criminal Division and what can we do with regard to the request for the Tax Division? You want to build up both here in Washington? Further, you have a plan to decentralize by trying out an experiment of locating attorneys. Where are you going to locate them? Mr. ANDRETTA. In the Fort Worth area. Mr. ROONEY. In the Fort Worth, Tex., area? Mr. ANDRETTA. That is right. Two lawyers and up to six later. Mr. ROONEY. Why do you want to concentrate people at that level? Mr. ANDRETTA. What do you mean, "at that level"? Mr. ROONEY. That is practically at the level of the U.S. attorneys? Mr. ANDRETTA. That is out in the field, yes, but they do not duplicate the U.S. attorneys' work, nor do they take away work from the U.S. attorneys. The Tax Division work, as you know, such as tax refund suits, are handled by the Tax Division exclusively. They are handled out of Washington and the whole idea is to have these lawyers out in a collector's region to save travel expense. Mr. ROONEY. Do not the U.S. attorneys' offices handle tax cases? Mr. ANDRETTA. Some-they only handle some criminal tax cases and lien cases. Mr. ROONEY. The files are then sent back to the U.S. attorneys for indictment or trial? Mr. ANDRETTA. On some criminal cases, yes, but we are talking about the refund cases. Mr. ROONEY. If it is a civil case, it is also turned back to the U.S. attorney; is that right? Mr. GEOGHEGAN. No, sir; that is, except for New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. The U.S. attorneys' offices do not handle any significant amount of civil tax cases. Mr. ANDRETTA. Some U.S. attorneys handle some tax lien cases, but they are not significant for the Tax Division, like those refund cases are. The big volume and bulk of work in the Tax Division, besides these national and important criminal cases that they handle, are the tax refund cases. They handle those exclusively. The impact of their recent increase in staff has been directed to that civil litigation and that is where they show the big increase. As for the Criminal Division, the Organized Crime and Racketeering Sec tion, which is where the bulk of that increase has been, again that is a central operation which is, sure, working with the U.S. attorneys and using them where possible, but it is a centrally controlled and a nationwide operation, really. The U.S. attorneys in some of the largest districts are going to have units of the Organized Crime Section in their offices, but that is other than this basic increase which goes with the number of new judges. RATIO OF ASSISTANTS TO JUDGES In the past, Mr. Chairman, we figured the basic organization of the U.S. attorney's office to service a single Federal judge would require two assistants and one clerk. In one-judge districts the average personnel in the U.S. attorney's office ranges from 10 to 12 persons in some of the smaller districts. When you multiply the number of judges in the district, of course you do not go up in the same ratio, because the whole impact is not on the U.S. Government alone, but a part of it sloughs off onto private litigation. With that in mind and with what we think will be required of the Department of Justice, we have come up with a ratio of 2 to 1. The Bureau of the Budget, in evaluating our estimates, came up with 11⁄2 per judge. You might ask, "How can you put a half of an assistant in a district?" You cannot. But in the larger metropolitan districts where they have put in a number of new judges, we would have to go better than the 12 and perhaps put two assistants per judge or, say, if there were three new judges, we would put five assistants or four assistants, depending on the need and the justification for them in that particular district. That averages out 94 assistant positions for the 63 judges. Mr. ROONEY. Have you taken away the circuit court judges? Mr. ROONEY. I thought the total was 73 additional judges. Mr. ROONEY. How many in circuit courts? Mr. ANDRETTA. Ten. We have not done that with the marshals, either, have we, Mr. Palmer? We have a deputy for each circuit. No, we have not. We are applying the formula only to the district judges, 63 of them. Mr. ROONEY. If I understand this correctly, you want 157 people because you have added 63 judges. Mr. ANDRETTA. That is correct. Mr. ROONEY. How do you fit that into the statement that I read a while ago? In many districts the U.S. attorneys and their assistants have been ready, willing, and able to try a large number of cases, but they have been unable to do so because of the shortages of judges. Mr. ANDRETTA. I'm not responsible for that one. Mr. ROONEY. In other words, you had enough people ready to go and you could not go because you did not have enough judges. Now that you have the judges and should be able to go with the people you have, you seek to have 157 people on top of that. This sounds illogical. |