BASIS OF INCREASED FUNDS

Senator PASTORE. Our witness is Mr. Glenn E. Pommerening, Acting Assistant Attorney General for Administration.

Please proceed.

Without belaboring this, what was the amount that we had to pay including any supplementals for witness fees last year?

Mr. POMMERENING. The authorization for fiscal year 1973 is $10,500,000 and the request for fiscal year 1974 is $13 million.

Senator PASTORE. Yes. In other words, this is merely a projected figure?

Mr. POMMERENING. Yes. It is.

Senator PASTORE. Why the increase of $2.5 million? I am not quarreling with you. But what is the justification of it? What are you basing it on?

Mr. POMMERENING. Our projection for the current fiscal year, 1973, indicates we will exceed our present obligational authority. Currently there is a supplemental request before your committee for $500,000. Senator PASTORE. How much did we give you in the regular budget? Mr. POMMERENING. $10.5 million.

Senator PASTORE. How much did you ask for in your supplemental? Mr. POMMERENING. $500,000.

Senator PASTORE. Why the extra $2 million?

Mr. POMMERENING. The extra $2 million is based upon the historical trend of this account, Mr. Chairman. In other words, if we take our experience from 1969 through 1970, 1971, 1972, as we see it now for 1973, and as we review it on the daily basis, the increased cost for the retention of expert witnesses and the increased costs of the witness protection program, the $13 million figure is the best estimate we can make as to the obligational authority that will be required in fiscal year 1974.

It is very much a historical trend.

Senator PASTORE. But it is a projection?

Mr. POMMERENING. Yes. It is.

Senator PASTORE. Of course, this is something that is an obligation that is uncontrollable in the event that you either ask for too much or too little. The fact still remains you don't spend it if you ask for too much. If you ask for too little you could come back on supplemental.

What we are trying to do, and I think you are in the same ball park as we are, we are trying to shave down wherever we can a little bit. On this item here, I think myself we will have to use our judgment on this and then if we are wrong, it is against you.

I think you will have to come back on a supplemental. That is about the size of it. It has got to be paid.

Mr. POMMERENING. Mr. Chairman, I believe we have found it necessary to come forward on a supplemental on this for the past 5 years.

Senator PASTORE. You are asking for $2 million more over and above what you spent last year. You justified it on the grounds that things cost a little bit more. But your best estimate is $13 million.

Mr. POMMERENING. That is right. We couldn't argue with your better estimate.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Senator PASTORE. We will insert your statement in the record at this point.

[The statement follows:]

The budget request for Fees and Expenses of Witnesses is $13,000,000 which is $2,000,000 over the amount appropriated for the last fiscal year adjusted to reflect a pending supplemental request of $500,000. The $2,000,000 increase requested includes $1,700,000 for fact witnesses, $200,000 for protection of witnesses and $100,000 for expert witnesses. The rising costs in fact witnesses, fees and travel expenses are directly attributable to the increase in the number of cases being tried. For illustration, the number of cases closed by U.S. Attorneys has risen from 58,217 in FY 1969 to 81,104 in FY 1972 and an estimated 92,400 in FY 1974. It follows that with the number of cases increasing each year that the number of witnesses and the attendant expenses will also

increase.

Contributing to the rising caseload is the increased effort against narcotics trafficers. These cases are up 35 and 36 percent respectively in '72 and '73 in some judicial districts. Claim cases against the Government referred by Congress share in the increases experienced. Some of these referral cases continue for years with resultant high expenses. In one case the witness fees for FY 1972 were $94,542 plus an additional estimated witness expense of $25,000 in FY 1973 before the case will be closed.

The costs of protecting witnesses continue to rise. The number being protected has increased from 53 witnesses with a family total of 141 in FY 1970 to 222 witnesses and a family total of 537 in FY 1972. The first six months of FY 1973 has already approximated last years total with 214 witnesses and a family total of 551.

As the number of trials involving technical and scientific issues increase the need for expert witnesses also increases. The costs of expert witnesses other than psychiatrists testifying in two of the more active districts rose from $12,635 in FY 1971 to $24,284 in FY 1972, while the number of witnesses dropped from 64 in FY 1971 to 61 in FY 1972.

There is a table attached reflecting certain activities which are indicative of the requirements against this appropriation.

This concludes my statement. I shall be glad to answer any questions.