They estimate that there would be about 3 volumes of work of the size of, maybe, those 3 red volumes over there [indicating]. Normally, in the lawbook field, as you know, that would be about a $45 or $50 work according to the way publishing goes now. So, if you had 500 made, and you received $50 a set, you would have some recoupment, of $22,500 or $25,000. Mr. GARY. It appears to me that although a digest might not be profitable, considerable revenue could be obtained from the sale of the digest, and therefore you might do 1 of 2 things: Either arrange for the Government itself to sell a number of volumes to recoup a part of the cost, or arrange with a publisher to publish the digest, and sell them and have the Government subsidize the publisher to the extent necessary to make the venture possible. Judge MOLLISON. Could I say one thing there, Mr. Gary? Judge MOLLISON. I do not think they want to have the publication subsidized, because in such a situation they would have to take some risk of some of the expenditure of money. They, frankly, will not spend any money of theirs. We have investigated it and they will not spend any money. They want the court or the Government to pay for it outright for work and services performed, and then it belongs to us. It would belong to the Government. The books would either be given to Mr. Chandler's office, or they could be given to the Superintendent of Documents, and everyone could purchase the books like they purchase any other publication. Of course, that would bring about some recoupment, and that is the point I am making. Mr. GARY. Your initial outlay would not be completely lost. Judge MOLLISON. I would say that we certainly ought to get back almost 25 to 40 percent of the expenditure. The only thing that would remain thereafter is something that we could probably take care of out of our own budget, because it would not cost much, and in fact the publisher might do that, and that would be the question of supplements, which would not involve tremendous expenditures on their part, after the original volumes are published. We then could arrange for supplements, and if necessary subsidize that a little out of our regular funds. May I have leave to file a typewritten summary of reasons for the grant of funds for the Customs Digest? Mr. HORAN. Yes. (The following information was subsequently supplied:) SUMMARY OF JUSTIFICATION FOR FUNDS REQUESTED FOR DIGEST OF CUSTOMS COURT DECISIONS 1. It is a nonrecurring item. 2. No comprehensive digest of customs decisions of this court and its appellate courts exists. 3. Customs Court is the only Federal court without a digest of its decisions. 4. Approximately 4,000 written opinions of Customs Court now are undigested, growing at the rate of 200 to 300 each year. 5. Legal research in customs law is badly hampered by the lack of a comprehensive digest. 6. Existence of customs digest would aid not only bench and bar of the Customs Court, but also other Federal courts, departments, bureaus, and the congressional committees dealing in tariff matters. It would also aid all persons and businesses dealing in foreign and domestic trade and commerce. 7. Because of limited sales prospects, a customs digest is not commercially feasible; hence refusals of law publishers to publish at their risk. 8. Because of need and desirability, cost of customs digest should be borne by the Government, just as many States bear the cost of compilation, codification, revision, and publication of State statute and session laws, where sales of work are relatively small. 9. There will be some recoupment of cost through sale of copies, possibly 20 to 40 percent of total cost. 10. Decisions and opinions not included or digested in a well-edited modern digest with modern research features are in a real sense lost decisions because they are not readily available for use either by judges or lawyers 11. Quality of judicial administration of customs laws would be considerably improved and risk of impairment of quality of decisions would be avoided. Mr. HORAN. Are there any further questions on this particular item? OBLIGATIONS What have been the total obligations of the Customs Court up to the present time from the appropriation of last year in the amount of $488,000? Mr. BROWN. Mr. Chairman, I have that information. Through March 31, 1954, they have obligated a total of $310,708 out of the appropriation of $488,000. Mr. HORAN. What is your estimate for the balance of the fiscal year? Mr. BROWN. It looks like the total for the year will go to around $425,000. That indicates a considerable savings, and it is mainly due to the fact that they have had two vacancies in judgeships in the court for practically all of the year-in fact, all of the year, so far. Mr. HORAN. How many positions have you filled altogether? Mr. BROWN. They have an authorized strength of 72 positions, and the employment at present is 68. That includes the two judgeships. Those 6 vacancies include the 2 judgeship vacancies which I mentioned earlier. AIR-CONDITIONING UNITS Mr. HORAN. Judge Oliver, I neglected to ask you as to how many air-conditioning units you anticipated installing. Judge OLIVER. Mr. Chairman, if it would be agreeable with the committee, we would like to submit that information in detail for the record later. Mr. HORAN. That will be fine. (The matter referred to is as follows:) The quotation set forth below is taken from an estimate received in August 1952: 4-ton self-contained window units including installation, service for 1 year, replaceable filters, and all necessary electrical wiring: 38 units at $500_ Electrical wiring. Total $19,000 2, 500 21, 500 Since this estimate was given in 1952, and in the belief that the prices for these articles may have advanced, the figure of $25,000 was requested to cover this item in the 1954 justifications. It was rejected and therefore the same amount ($25,000) was resubmitted in the 1955 budget. The air-conditioning units are to be used in the chambers of eight of the judges of the court, the library, the office of the clerk of the court, and the office of the marshal. Mr. HORAN. In the proposed appropriation for the customs court for 1954, an application was made, under "Equipment," for the allotment of $25,000 for the purpose of installing air-conditioning units in the chambers of eight of the judges of the court, the court library, the office of the clerk of the court, and the office of the marshal. Judge OLIVER. Yes, sir. Mr. HORAN. You are going to put in more than one unit in each of the chambers, then? Judge OLIVER. Oh, yes. For example, in Judge Rao's chambers, there are 3 units: 2 in his chamber in 1 in his secretary's room. My room happens to be about as large as this committee room. I would require, I suppose, 2 or 3 units in that room, and 1 for my secretary's room. us. Mr. HORAN. Gentlemen, we appreciate very much having you with Judge OLIVER. Thank you very kindly, Mr. Chairman. THURSDAY, MAY 6, 1954. ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL WITNESSES DAVID I. LYNN, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL CHARLES A. HENLOCK, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER THOMAS F. CLANCY, SUPERVISING ENGINEER, CAPITOL BUILDING PHILIP ROOF, ASSISTANT TO ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER Mr. HORAN. The committee will come to order. We are privileged to have with us at this time Mr. David Lynn, the Architect of the Capitol; Mr. Charles Henlock, his administrative assistant; Mr. Clancy, supervising engineer, and Mr. Roof, assistant to Mr. Henlock. Do you have a general statement, Mr. Lynn, which you desire to present at this time? Mr. LYNN. Mr. Chairman, I have my general statement in our prepared justification, which I would like to have digested by Mr. Henlock. GENERAL STATEMENT Mr. HENLOCK. For 1954, appropriations totaling $6,600,750 have been provided under the "Architect of the Capitol" in the regular annual appropriation act. For 1955, appropriations totaling $7,312,400, have been requested in the budget, a net increase of $711,650 over the 1954 total of $6,600,750. That net increase results from increases totaling $1,925,950, offset by decreases totaling $1,214,300. All except $425,950 of the gross increase occurs in the item of "Changes and improvements, Capitol Power Plant." However, with respect to the appropriations asked for 1955 in the budget it is to be noted that due to changes in proposed construction schedules, occurring since submission of the budget, explained under the detailed justifications for the powerplant, it is possible to reduce the request for funds for 1955 for the Capitol Power Plant changes and improvements from $2.5 million, shown in the budget, to $1 million. So, when compared to the appropriation of $1 million allowed for such purpose for the fiscal year 1954, there will actually be neither an increase nor decrease under this item. That change, in turn, will reduce the net increase under the total estimates for 1955 from $711,650 to a net decrease of $788,350 which, of course, means that should your committee approve every item in our estimates, our 1955 appropriations would still be $788,350 less than our 1954 appropriations. The appropriations under the Architect of the Capitol are primarily for maintenance of buildings occupied by the Congress and for heat, light, power, air conditioning, and general housekeeping services for the Congress, and each year include items considered necessary to render proper service to the Congress, and to properly maintain the buildings and equipment of the legislative establishment. The appropriations requested for 1955 are confined to maintenance items, with the exception of the item for "Changes and improvements, Capitol Power Plant." SUMMARY BUDGET DATA It has been customary, Mr. Chairman, to insert in the record the remainder of the general statement, which consists of a series of tables, detailed on pages 3 to 7 of the justifications. Do you wish that procedure to be followed at this time? Mr. HORAN. Without objection, those pages will be inserted into the record at this point. (The matter referred to is as follows:) SUMMARIZED STATEMENT OF INCREASES The gross budget increase of $1,925,950 is summarized as follows: Special nonrecurring maintenance items_ Special nonrecurring construction items: Changes and improvements, Total increase, special nonrecurring maintenance and con- Total gross increase requested for 1955---- $7, 100 42, 650 376, 200 1 1, 500, 000 1, 876, 200 1 1,925, 950 The $1,500,000 increase shown under "Changes and improvements Capitol Power Plant," eliminated in these justifications under revised estimate, reducing total gross increase under all appropriations as shown in the 1955 budget from $1,925,950 to $425,950. A breakdown of the annual and nonrecurring maintenance and construction items of increase follows: 1 This increase eliminated in justifications under revised estimate. 2 $1,500,000 for special nonrecurring construction eliminated in these justifications under revised estimate for "Changes and improvements, Capitol Power Plant," reducing grand total increase under all appropriations from $1,925,950 to $425,950. |