« PreviousContinue »
General information relative to land commissioners by districts, U.S. attorneys, fiscal year 1960-Continued
Mr. ROONEY. So that we understand this, you presently have the amount $1,112,000 in your budget for expert witnesses.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
Mr. ROONEY. I note that at page 16-5 of these justifications, under your general statement and concerning workload, you start the first sentence in the second paragraph, as follows:
As of June 30, 1960, the number of tracts pending in condemnation cases and for direct purchase amounted to 38,423, which is 8,691 more than the number pending June 30, 1955.
It is a fact, is it not, that this figure, 38,423, should be compared with the figure for the previous year, 1959, a more realistic year, rather than 1955, when the number pending was 39,846, or 1,423 less land acquisitions than in the fiscal year just closed? Is that a fair statement? Mr. WILLIAMS. It could be done that way.
Mr. ROONEY. Why did you not do it that way?
Mr. ROGERS. We did it the other way because
ROONEY. If we had not taken time to look at these workload charts and go through these figures, we would think you were way up. The fact is, you are way down. Is that a fair statement?
Mr. ROGERS. No, sir. I do not think we are way down.
Mr. ROONEY. You are 1,423 land acquisitions down from the year before; are you not?
Mr. ROGERS. The year before, but
Mr. ROONEY. Why 1955? Why did you not pick 1942? Is not the year before the logical year to pick?
Mr. ROGERS. The logical year to pick to compare the work, yes, sir, is the year before.
Mr. ROONEY. As compared with the year before, your land acquisitions are down by 1,423 cases. Right?
Mr. ROGERS. Right.
Mr. ROONEY. That is all. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you, Mr. Clark.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Could I say just one thing. We appreciate the effort you made to get the amendment to the Indian Claims Commission Act to permit the interlocutory appeals. I just wanted to tell you both the United States and the Indians have perfected their appeals in that California case, and in five other cases the Indians have taken interlocutory appeals under that amendment.
Mr. ROONEY. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Clark and gentlemen.
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 1, 1961.
OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL
N. deB. KATZENBACH, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Katzenbach, you are the new Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel?
Mr. KATZENBACH. That is right, sir.
BIOGRAPHY OF N. KATZENBACH
Mr. ROONEY. It is a pleasure to meet you. It is customary at this point to inquire with regard to the background of the new Assistant Attorney General.
Mr. KATZENBACH. I prepared, sir, a piece of paper with dates, telling what I have done. Would you care for that, or would you prefer me to give it orally?
Mr. ROONEY. Would you briefly summarize it, please?
Mr. KATZENBACH. I am a graudate of Princeton University and the Yale University Law School. After that I was a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford for 2 years. I practiced law in Trenton, N.J., for about a year, then with the Government, with the Office of General Counsel of the Air Force for 2 years until 1952 when I returned to Yale University as an associate professor of law. I was there until 1956. Since 1956, I have been at the University of Chicago as a professor of law.
(Mr. Katzenbach's biographical sketch follows:)
NICHOLAS DEBELLEVILLE KATZENBACH, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Born: January 17, 1922, Philadelphia, Pa.
Education: 1939-42, 1945, Princeton University; A.B. degree; 1945-47, Yale University Law School, LL.B. degree, cum laude; 1947-49, Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University.
Bar: 1950, 1955, New Jersey; Connecticut.
Experience: 1942-45, U.S. Air Force, first lieutenant; 1946 (part time), Albertus Magnus College, New Haven, Conn., instructor; 1946-47 (part time), Yale University, assistant instructor of economics; July-October 1950, Katzenbach, Gildea & Rudner, Trenton, N.J., law associate; Office of General Counsel of the Secretary of the Air Force, Washington, D.C.; 1950-52, attorney-adviser; 1952-56, consultant (part time); 1952-56, Yale University, associate professor of law; 1956–61, University of Chicago, professor of law; 1960, research to write a book on "International Economic Problems" for the Ford Foundation, Geneva, Switzerland.
JUSTIFICATION OF THE ESTIMATE
Mr. ROONEY. The particulars with regard to the item Office of Legal Counsel under "Salaries and expenses, general legal activities, are to be found under tab 17 in the justification book. We shall at this point insert in the record pages 17-1 through 17-5 of these justifications.
(The pages referred to follow :)
The Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel has the responsibility of preparing the formal opinions of the Attorney General, of rendering informal opinions and legal advice to the various governmental agencies, and of assisting the Attorney General in the performance of his functions as legal adviser to the President and as a member of and legal adviser to the Cabinet. He reviews as to form and legality, and makes necessary revisions of all proposed Executive orders and proclamations prior to their final submission to the President, as well as regulations which require the approval of the Presi
dent or the Attorney General; advises the Attorney General in connection with his review of decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals and of the Office of Alien Property, and performs the legal work involved with respect to gifts and bequests made to the Government; coordinates the work of the Department of Justice in connection with U.S. participation in the United Nations and related international organizations. The responsibility of the Department under section 6(j) of the Universal Military Training and Service Act, to hold hearings and make reports to selective service boards on cases of conscientious objectors is also a function of this Office. The Office of Legal Counsel also has as a component and under its administrative supervision the Office of Administrative Procedure, established by the Attorney General pursuant to recommendation of the President's Conference on Administrative Procedure for the purpose of achieving improvements in administrative procedures within the executive departments and agencies of the Federal Government.
It is estimated that the Office of Legal Counsel will require $484,200 to perform its assigned duties and functions in the fiscal year 1962. This exceeds the amount needed for 1961 by $2,700. The additional amount is needed to meet statutory provisions for within-grade promotions (Ramspeck Act), and resulting increased contribution to the retirement fund. The detailed requirements are as follows:
1. Statutory promotions (Ramspeck Act). 2. Retirement fund contribution_.
3. One less compensable day in 1962
$4,200 100 -1, 600
Predictions as to the workload of the Office of Legal Counsel are difficult because of the special nature of most of its work. The most important, difficult, and time-consuming of its functions relate to the necessity of assisting the Attorney General in performance of his functions as chief legal adviser to the President and the Cabinet and in providing informal opinions and legal advice to the various Government agencies. The need for such services varies with national and international situations and other unpredictable conditions. Accordingly, the statistical drop in the 1960 workload figures of the Office was not foreseen. Equally, however, it cannot be assumed that the 1961 and 1962 workloads will continue at the 1960 level.
Past experience has indicated that a change in administration tends to increase the work of this Office, at least initially. In any event, current demands upon the Office require the expenditure of many man-hours in consultation with the White House staff, the Bureau of the Budget, and with the various Government departments and agencies. Moreover, statistics such as the number of opinions rendered in a given period may not accurately reflect the actual workload of the Office. Some opinions may take months of research, others may require only a few hours of preparation. A drop in the number of opinions rendered, therefore, may not reflect any actual drop in the total amount of time necessarily devoted to this work.
The 1962 budget request merely provides for continuing the Office at its present level. Office of Legal Counsel-Workload