This most recent increase is due entirely to an extraordinary occurrence-the civil disorder which took place in Washington last month. During that riot, the Court of General Sessions handled all of the judicial work that was required to be done. The court was open around the clock from the morning of Friday, April 5, to after midnight on Monday, April 8. In that period, every person arrested during the riot (except those released by the Police Department on citation) was presented to court, counsel was appointed, bond was set, and a continuance date was determined. Unlike in other cities, each case was considered individually and separately. To accomplish this task, the judges sat in shifts from 9 a.m. to approximately 7:30 p.m., and from 9 p.m. to approximately 7:00 a.m.; each shift consisting of from four to five judges. The personnel of the Clerk's Office and other supporting units were likewise on duty in 12-hour shifts during the Friday-to-Monday period. By midnight Monday, the last of the arrested persons had been presented to court. On that same Monday, the court began to hear the bond review motions provided for under the Bail Reform Act, as well as the first preliminary hearings in felony cases arising out of the riot. Bond review motions and preliminary hearings were heard every day thereafter for almost two weeks by most of the judges serving on the court. The regular criminal and civil calendars necessarily suffered during the period when the court was preoccupied with the riot cases. And many trials arising out of the civil disturbance still remain to be heard, to place a further strain on the judicial resources of the court. It should also be noted that the past gains in the criminal area were achieved partly at the expense of the civil jury calendar. 5,492 civil jury cases are now pending; and it takes an estimated 27 months from the joinder of issue to the date of trial. This period of delay has steadily lengthened over the past several years, and it will continue to increase unless more judges are authorized for the court. If the court had 26 judges instead of the 21 now allocated, it would be able to cope successfully with all of its work and reduce both its criminal and its civil backlogs, to the end that all litigants might be heard within a reasonable time. Based on thorough studies of numbers of cases and average trial times, I estimate that the time of 41⁄2 judges is needed to dispose of the well over 500 criminal cases per month in which jury trial is demanded; and that of 11⁄2 judges to handle the 160 serious misdemeanor cases in which no jury demand is made and the 140 preliminary hearings in felony cases per month; for a total of 6 judges. Five judges are required to handle the 185 civil jury demand cases per month and to begin a reduction of the civil jury backlog; and 3 judges are needed to conduct 240 civil non-jury cases and 180 pretrials per month; for a total of 8 judges. The time of approximately 6%1⁄2 judges is needed to handle criminal cases prosecuted by the District of Columbia, traffic cases, criminal assignments, civil motions, criminal motions, landlord and tenant matters, small claims cases, and possible night operations. In addition, 3 judges are by statute assigned to the Domestic Relations Branch; and it may be estimated that, computed on an annual basis, 21⁄2 judges are unavailable on account of vacations, illness, or attendance at necessary professional conferences. In short, to perform its functions properly, the court requires 26 judges instead of the present 21. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that further increases in the criminal and civil backlogs are not acceptable if the administration of justice generally, and the effort to control crime in particular, are not to suffer. As the Report of this Committee on the Omnibus Crime Bill pointed out (Sen. Rep. No. 912, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. p. 8): "No matter what may be done by legislation designed to control crime, unless the court system in the District of Columbia can adequately deal with the cases which may be prosecuted, most of our effort will be futile." An increase in the authorized number of judges will enable the Court of General Sessions properly to perform its functions and responsibilities. It will permit the court to cope with its ever-growing civil caseload, and it will equip the court to process swiftly and effectively the cases of those persons who may be brought before the bar of justice by the efforts of the police and the prosecuting authorities. I hope the Committee will favorably consider those sections of S. 1731 and S. 2439 which concern the Court of General Sessions. I might note, Mr. Chairman, that S. 2439 contains two provisions that are unrelated to the questions I have been discussing. Section 2 of that bill would authorize the court to appoint attorney advisers equal in number to the judges on the court. I believe this provision is probably unnecessary because the employment of attorney advisers is largely a matter of appropriations. In any event, if attorney advisers are to be recognized legislatively, their appointment should be by the Clerk of the Court, subject to the approval of the Chief Judge, in the pattern of all other court employees. Section 4 of S. 2439 would permit a judge who retires prior to the expiration of his term to render judicial service for up to one hundred twenty days per year rather than the sixty days presently authorized. This is probably a desirable change, for it would make additional judicial manpower available when needed. Mr. Chairman, the three measures I have discussed-an increase in salaries, rectification of inequities in the retirement system, and an increase in the number of judges-constitute a balanced program to promote excellence in the Court of General Sessions. I believe the stature of the court in the community and its effectiveness in handling criminal and other matters have increased in recent years, largely as a result of efforts made by the judges themselves. But the court lacks the means, on its own, to create an instrument for the administration of criminal and civil justice of the caliber and effectiveness that is needed in the Nation's Capital. We believe that favorable congressional action on the bills here under consideration will provide, and will keep on providing, the quality and quantity of judicial manpower that would enable the court properly to fulfill its role in the District of Columbia. CHART A LOSS IN ANNUITY TO JUDGES WITH PRIOR GOVERNMENTAL SERVICE AS A RESULT OF APPOINTMENT TO THE 1 Assuming 1 promotion from the last grade the individual attained in the civil service and 5 longevity increases. CHART B 10 LOSS IN ANNUITY TO JUDGES WITH PRIOR GOVERNMENTAL SERVICE WITH REGARD TO DISABILITY RETIREMENT (AS OF DEC. 31, 1968) AS A RESULT OF APPOINTMENT TO THE BENCH 1 Assuming 1 promotion from the last grade that the individual attained in the civil service and 5 longevity increases. Judge GREENE. I will summarize basically what is in the statement. There are three measures before the committee, incorporated in five bills, but they are basically three separate measures. The first has to do with the increase in salaries for the judges of the court of general sessions and the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. This increase in salary was recommended by the District of Columbia Crime Commission, and by the Committee on Administration of Justice of the Judicial Council for the District of Columbia Circuit, and has been supported by other impartial and distinguished bodies and groups. The CHAIRMAN. Judge Greene, this bill raises the salaries from what to what? Judge GREENE. It raises the salaries of associate judges of the District of Columbia court of general sessions from $23,500 to $27,500, with the chief judge of the court getting $500 more, and it raises the salaries of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals from $24,500 to $28,500, and again the chief judge would receive $500 more than the other judges. The CHAIRMAN. Do you receive $500 more now as a chief judge? Judge GREENE. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. So you just carry that on up? Judge GREENE. That is correct. The CHAIRMAN. You get step raises plus the additional $500 for the chief judge? Judge GREENE. That is correct. There is no change. The CHAIRMAN. No change? Judge GREENE. That is correct. The CHAIRMAN. And how many judges are there in the court of general sessions at the present time? Judge GREENE. There are 21 judges on the Court of General Sessions. The CHAIRMAN. Twenty-one and this raises it to what? I imagine you are going to comment on that. Judge GREENE. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. You are commenting on the salaries first. Very well. Judge GREENE. Yes. The Crime Commission and the Judicial Council Committee recommended this increase in salaries basically as a means of bringing to the court to keep on supplying the court with the judges of the caliber and the stature that is required in the judicial office in the court which handles the bulk of the litigation in the District of Columbia. As the Crime Commission found, the court of general sessions now tries 97 percent of all litigation in the District of Columbia, and certainly so far as rapport with the population is concerned, with the citizenry, is by far the most important court. These groups also pointed to the increased responsibilities that the court has had and will presumably continue to receive in terms of relationships with other courts and with the judicial business generally. I would like to add to that The CHAIRMAN. How does this salary step up in range-as I understand it you go from $23,500 to $27,500. Judge GREENE. $27,500, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. $27,500. That is a $4,000 raise. How does that compare with the courts of similar jurisdiction in cities of comparable Judge GREENE. Judicial Council Committee made an investigation of that, and according to their investigation they found that it compared I shouldn't say unfavorably but it was similar. Perhaps that is the most conservative word I could use. That if the salaries were increased as they are now, the salaries received by judges of our court would be similar, perhaps somewhat less than those received by urban courts with similar populations. The CHAIRMAN. And with similar jurisdiction? Judge GREENE. Similar jurisdiction, yes. The CHAIRMAN. You may even have a little broader jurisdiction here in the District compared with some of the comparable courts of the country. Haven't we extended the jurisdiction of the court of general sessions somewhat by raising the dollar amounts? Judge GREENE. The jurisdiction was increased from $3,000 in civil cases to $10,000 in civil cases. In addition to that, our court also handles Federal matters when they involve, for instance, misdemeanors, criminal cases and so on, so that our court has broader jurisdiction than some of the comparable courts with which the Judicial Council Committee dealt. The CHAIRMAN. A salary of $27,500 would compare favorably with courts of similar jurisdiction in cities of comparable size? Judge GREENE. That is my understanding, yes, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Does the bill before us carry these raises into effect, does it have the approval of the Bureau of the Budget? Judge GREENE. Yes, sir; it does. The CHAIRMAN. It is approved all the way up and down the line? Judge GREENE. Yes, it is, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Very well. You may proceed. Judge GREENE. I would like to add only what these groups, these bodies, have said, and that is while, Mr. Chairman, you mentioned similar courts, I would if I may also provide just a very brief comparison with salaries received by other Government officials. It is my understanding that since 1964, when the compensation of the judges of our court was last raised, civil service employees have received or will have received by July 1st of this year almost 25 percent increase in salaries. The increase that would be provided by these bills, the $4,000 increase, will amount to only 17 percent, so that we would certainly not be gaining in regard to civil service employees. I have also been told, although I have not checked this myself, that there are 50 employees of the District of Columbia government who are now receiving salaries in excess of that received by the judges of our court, and I believe that is a somewhat inequitable situation, when the responsibilities are considered. The CHAIRMAN. Are similar bills pending in the House of Representatives? Judge GREENE. Yes, there are, and hearings were held on those bills. The CHAIRMAN. You have had those hearings? Judge GREENE. We held hearings. The CHAIRMAN. Has there been a markup on the House side? The CHAIRMAN. Very well. You may proceed. Judge GREENE. Now secondly, Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment on the retirement. The CHAIRMAN. Before you get into retirement, there are some questions that I think you may have commented on in your full statement but I have not had the benefit of reading it. If the committee does approve these bills and gives you the additional judges, where are you going to house them? Judge GREENE. We would have, Mr. Chairman, facilities, not very solid, not very elaborate, but we would have facilities in the court as we now occupy it, to house those judges. The CHAIRMAN. You can increase the number and you would still have enough room where you are at the present time to house not only the judges but the necessary staffs? Judge GREENE. Well, what we would have to do, Mr. Chairman would be that some of the staff personnel, some of the related agencies, so to speak, such as the Marriage License Bureau or the Citizens Information Service, who are now occupying space in one of our buildings, would have to be moved out and could be moved into space which the District government could presumably lease in surrounding areas, where there is space available as I understand it, and then the judges would move into the space that they would vacate. I believe that we could, on that basis, at least on a temporary basis, have chambers and courtrooms available for all of those judges. The CHAIRMAN. Do you cover that in your prepared statement? Judge GREENE. No, I do not, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Do you have any idea what the cost of housing these additional five judges, five in the court of general sessions and two in the juvenile court, that is a total of seven judges? Would the juvenile court judges be housed in the same building? Judge GREENE. No, Mr. Chairman. I really do not know and I really cannot comment on the space for the juvenile court judges. The CHAIRMAN. How about the court of general sessions? Judge GREENE. The court of general sessions as to the amount of money it would take, I have not made an estimate of that. I do not believe it would be as large as was required the last time when we had an increase in the judges, because at that time we were given a third building, and that building was renovated, and I believe that the renovation or the change in converting what are now offices into chambers would not cost an excessive amount. Now, it might in terms of courtrooms, there would be some expenditure of funds. The CHAIRMAN. I think you should supplement your statement, and take such time as you need to do it. We will keep the record open for a week, but I think that is a proper question, and I think it is something that is very apt to arise as we move forward with these bills. Number two, where are you going to put them? How much is it going to cost? I suppose it becomes a general charge against the District of Columbia government, doesn't it? Whatever the cost is? Judge GREENE. That is correct. The CHAIRMAN. If it is $1 million, we will have to provide for that in the District of Columbia budget. Is that how it would be provided? Judge GREENE. It would be provided in the District of Columbia budget, in the department of buildings and grounds. When we are given the third building, the Congress appropriated $300,000 for renovation for that building. I would think that the expenditures that " |