"They are: Hubert Pair, a distinguished attorney, Walter Yeagley, an Assistant U.S. Attorney General who has served in that capacity under four Presidents, and Gerard Reilly, a distinguished attorney and former member of the National Labor Relations Board.

"These three outstanding nominees have received the approval of the American Bar Association, the District of Columbia Bar Association, and the Federal Bar Association. It is not clear just why the District of Columbia Committee under the Chairmanship of Senator Tydings failed to act on these nominations. I understand that there has been some objections on political grounds, but I believe that the unquestioned qualifications of these men should override consideration of politics. I have also heard that the Chairman of the District of Columbia committee objects to these nominees because they are more than 60 years old. Certainly the great contributions of American jurists after the age of 60 is sufficient evidence to counter that criticism. More than ever today we need mature and experienced judgments in our courts.

'As I make these recess appointments, I am confident that the United States Senate, when it reconvenes next month, will vote to confirm these distinguished judges.

NOTE: The statement was released at Dundalk, Md."

Mr. SPONG. Mr. President, I want to make clear my position in regard to the nomination of Mr. Gerard D. Reilly to be an Associate Judge of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals which has been filed with the Senate today, and in regard to the nominations of Mr. Hubert B. Pair and J. Walter Yeagley to the same court which were rejected by the Committee on the District of Columbia on December 2, 1970.

These nominations were to fill three new judgeships on the District of Columbia Court of Appeals which were created by the District of Columbia Court_Reform and Criminal Procedure Act of 1970 which became law earlier this year. In addition, this act created 15 new judgeships on the District of Columbia general sessions court. Nominations to these 15 judgeships were reported by the Committee on the District of Columbia and approved by the Seante on October 12, 1970. On this date the committee announced that the consideration of the nominations to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals would be held up pending further information in regard to the American Bar Association's age standards, the personal data questionnaires submitted to the Justice Department, and a list of at least 10 cases that the nominees have briefed and argued at the appellate level. This information was not obtained by the committee prior to the start of the election recess on October 14, 1970. On October 24, 1970 these three nominees received recess appointments to the court of appeals, and at this time all three have been sworn in and are sitting as judges.

On December 2, 1970, the Committee on the District of Columbia met in executive session to consider these nominations. At that meeting the committee recommended the confirmation of the nomination of Gerald D. Reilly and rejected the nomination of Mr. Hubert B. Pair and Mr. J. Walter Yeagley. I voted against the confirmation of the nominations of all three of these nominees.

The District of Columbia Court Reform and Criminal Procedure Act of 1970 expanded greatly the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. For example, the Court of Appeals will have for the first time jurisdiction over felony cases, the $10,000 limit in civil matters has been removed, and the Court of Appeals will make the court rules for the new Superior Court. The transfer of jurisdiction has been spread over a period of 4 years, and this period will be critical to development of the law and the judicial system of the District.

The Court Reform Act provides for terms of 15 years for Court of Appeals judges and provides for mandatory retirement at age 70.

All three of the nominees are over 60 years of age: Mr. Pair, 66%; Mr. Reilly, 64; Mr. Yeagley, 611⁄2. Thus, under the provisions of the act none of the three nominees to the Court of Appeals will be able to serve out their 15-year terms and two of the nominees will barely be able to serve out the period of the transfer of jurisdiction to the Court of Appeals. I believe that it is vital at the crucial beginning stage of development of the new court system that the judges on the Court of Appeals be available to serve a substantial portion of their 15-year term, and that it is

even more important that the experience gained by the judge during the period of transfer of jurisdiction be available to the court for some time. It is for this reason that I voted against the confirmation of the three nominations to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

During the consideration of these nominations the question of the age standards of the American Bar Association and the policy of Congress and the Executive in regard to the age of nominees to the bench have been discussed. Despite some early confusion it appears that the ABA, Congress, and the Executive have followed the policy that an individual 60 years of age or over should not be appointed unless he at least held the rating of "well qualified" and that no one over 64 should be appointed unless he had prior judicial experience. Applying this policy to the nominees to the Court of Appeals, it is clear that two of the nominees would not qualify since they are over 60 and receive a rating of only "qualified", while the third candidate, who is rated "well qualified," meets the age requirement by a few days.

The ABA has attempted to make a distinction in regard to these nominations because of the mandatory retirement age of 70. To me, the policy in regard to nominees over 60 is more, not less, relevant with mandatory retirement at 70 than with lifetime appointments.

It is not easy to be a party to the rejection of presidential nominees, particularly when, as is the case here, they are men of character and integrity. Nevertheless, to me the compelling and overriding considerations are twofold:

First, there should be assurance that the quality of the administration of justice under the new court system for the District is the equal of any in the Nation, particularly at the appellate level.

Second, that in endeavoring to achieve this we avoid setting a precedent that would not recognize the need for prolonged service by competent jurists during the more productive years of their lives.

I hope the President will give this consideration in future nominations for high judicial positions.

Having made clear my position in regard to the policy of nominating men to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals who cannot serve out their term and in view of the feeling of the committee that this nomination should be approved, I do not intend to oppose or vote against this nomination.