INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES ADVISORY COMMISSION ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS [Consolidated schedule of permanent positions paid from funds available to advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations] GS-13, $18,737 to $24,362. Total permanent positions. Total permanent employment, end of year.. 9 2143401 21434L1154 16 ANTONIN SCALIA, CHAIRMAN JOHN F. CUSHMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Mr. STEED. The committee is in session this afternoon for the consideration of the 1974 budget estimate for the Administrative Conference of the United States. The 1973 appropriation was $450,000. The 1974 budget request is $700,000, an increase over 1973 of $250,000. The personnel ceiling request is an increase from 12 to 14 positions. We have a new Chairman for the Administrative Conference this year and I am pleased to welcome you, Mr. Scalia, to the committee. We will be pleased to have your biographical data for our record at this point. [The document follows:] ANTONIN SCALIA Born: March 11, 1936, Trenton, N.J. Address: 1003 Dalebrook Drive, Alexandria, Va. Marital status: Married, six children. EDUCATION College: Georgetown University, Washington, D.C.-A.B. summa cum laude, 1957; University of Fribourg, Switzerland (junior year). Law school: Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Mass.-LL.B. magna cum laude, 1960. Note editor, Harvard Law Review. Postlaw school: Sheldon fellow, Harvard University, 1960–61. EMPLOYMENT Private practice of law with Jones, Day, Cockley & Reavis, Cleveland, Ohio, 1961-67. Associate professor of law and professor of law, University of Virginia Law School, 1967 to date. (On leave since March 1971.) General Counsel, Office of Telecommunications Policy, Executive Office of the President, March 1971 to September 1972. Consultant to: U.S. Land Law Revision Commission (1968); Virginia Court Systems Study Commission (1969-70); U.S. Civil Service Commission, Office of Hearing Examiners (1970); and Administrative Conference of the United States, Committee on Personnel (1971). PUBLICATIONS Sovereign Immunity and Nonstatutory Review of Federal Administrative Action, volume 68, Michigan Law Review (pp. 867-924 (1970)). Appellate Justice: A Crisis in Virginia? Volume 57, Virginia Law Review (pp. 3-64 (1971)). The Hearing Examiners Loan Program, volume 1971, Duke Law Journal (pp. 319-366 (1971)). Don't Go Near the Water (a proposal concerning the FCC's fairness doctrine) (25 Federal Communications Bar Journal 111 (1972)). Mr. STEED. We will now be pleased to have whatever statement you would like to make. Mr. SCALIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to be here to speak in support of the budget request for the Administrative Conference. Incidentally, if you are interested in the history of past personnel, my predecessor, Roger Cramton, has recently been named deanelect of the Cornell Law School. I have with me today John F. Cushman, who is the Executive Director of the Administrative Conference. You have before you my prepared statement, and I would discuss the areas in which you are most interested after making a few general comments about the conference and its business. [The statement follows:] GENERAL STATEMENT Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate this opportunity to appear today to provide supporting testimony with respect to the President's 1974 budget request for the Administrative Conference of the United States. The request is for $700,000, representing an increase of $250,000 over last year's budget of $450,000. Before I get into the details of what we are doing and what we propose to do that justifies this increase, I would like to explain generally the reason for a budgetary rise which, though small in absolute amount, is a large percentage beyond our last year's request. This committee is aware of the unsual nature of this agency-that when it was established by Congress in 1964, it was regarded as something of an experiment. Accordingly, the Congress included in its authorizing legislation a low budgetary ceiling ($250,000)—so low, in fact, that in 1968, when the Conference was activated by the appointment of its first chairman, the ceiling was already so restrictive as to prevent the Conference from carrying out in a thorough fashion the important studies and programs that Congress envisioned in creating the agency. In 1969, on a showing that it would require over $400,000 to provide the level of activity originally anticipated, the ceiling was increased to $450,000. Continuing expansion of activities and unavoidable administrative increases in costs caused our budget to reach this ceiling in fiscal year 1973: if we were to continue even our existing level of operations a statutory amendment was again needed. We felt at this stage that the agency had proven its worth, that it was no longer an experiment. Accordingly, with the support of the administration w sought complete elimination of the ceiling, so that this committee might recom mend the appropriation of such sums as it saw fit. Such legislation, in fact, passec the Senate in the last session. The House, however, was reluctant to abandor entirely the principle of a ceiling-but, I think it is fair to say, the completion of our "probationary" period was acknowledged by raising that ceiling to a leve that would enable us, not only to continue our existing program, but to undertake major new projects that we had been eager, but unable to commence for several years. The Senate concurred in the House amendment. The ceilings now contained in our legislation are as follows: $760,000 for fiscal year 1974; $805,000 for fiscal year 1975; $855,000 for fiscal year 1976; $900,000 for fiscal year 1977; and $950,000 for each fiscal year thereafter. Needless to say, these figures were not selected at random, but were the limits which the Congress was convinced would enable us to undertake and conduct those activities it deemed desirable. Though as a new chairman it is not attributable to any work of mine, I am proud of the fact that in the closing days of a busy session the Congress took note of the Conference's past achievements and authorized new ceilings to permit the appropriation of sufficient funds to enable us to expand our activities along the lines that our early experience has shown useful. Thus, the budget you have before you signifies, in a way, the Conference's "coming of age." As I hope the remainder of my testimony may show, that event promises much for both the fairness and the economy of our administrative procedures. We have submitted a detailed, itemized justification in support of our budget request. I do not plan to discuss it item by item, although I am prepared to do so if you wish. Many of its provisions are similar to prior requests, augmented by increases in costs over which we have little or no control. Let me emphasize several overall aspects of the budget before turning to a discussion of specific new programs. First, the fulltime permanent staff of the Conference will not increase substantially. We are now authorized a permanent staff of 12; 7 professionals, all of whom are lawyers, including myself, and a supporting staff of 5. The present budget request will authorize an increase in our full-time staff from 12 to 14 by addition of 1 or 2 more professionals, or perhaps a professional with additional administrative support. The Conference will continue to rely heavily upon part-time consultants or contractors in the course of its research activities. Most of these consultants are law professors who combine work on Conference projects-part time during the academic year and full-time work during the summer-with their regular academic duties. We continue to be extremely pleased by the high quality of research and writing which the Conference has obtained from this most able group of scholars. The cost of these studies has risen over the past few years (from approximately $3,500 to $5,000), but this is still well within or below what our consultants could obtain were they to perform similar research under grants from private foundations. We are able to attract these people because of the professional associations they make, the special stature which reports for the Conference enjoy in the academic community, and the realization that their work may result in the actual improvement of agency procedures in their particular fields of interest. Since the bulk of the funds sought in this budget will go to continuation of the types of activity that have heretofore been conducted by the Conference, some of our more recent recommendations and pending projects may be of interest to you. PUBLIC INFORMATION Last June the Conference adopted a recommendation (72-1) calling upon agencies to establish policies encouraging the broadcast of their proceedings that involve issues of broad public interest. (We had in mind, for example, hearings involving environmental issues, such as those concerning the location of nuclear power facilities.) This is the latest in a series of Conference recommendations designed to assure the full and free flow of public information. In this connection we are particularly pleased by the progress being made (largely through the cooperative efforts of the House Government Operations Committee) to secure agency implementation of Conference recommendation 71-1 on the Freedom of Information Act. A special effort was made to have agencies reduce their fees for making copies of documents in Government files, so F that they do not exceed actual cost. A dozen agencies have responded by substantially lowering their charges-in some instances by cutting them in half. The Department of Justice has recently revised its regulations governing the production and disclosure of information, so that they follow recommendation 71-1 almost verbatim. After an experimental period, it is hoped that these rules will serve as a model which most other agencies will be willing to adopt. Our pending project in this important field of public information is directed toward the problems raised by adverse agency publicity about private individuals or corporations-what is sometimes known as Government regulation by press release. This is a very difficult problem, requiring the balancing of some very sensitive policy considerations. We hope to develop a recommendation for the agencies and the Congress at our June session. HANDLING OF CITIZEN GRIEVANCES AND COMPLAINTS Nearing completion is a year-long factual study of Federal agency procedures and practices in handling citizen-initiated complaints. The study involves indepth research of the practices of 11 agencies and more general observation of another 25. The project included a day-long seminar in which officials in charge of handling citizen complaints from 25 agencies participated. The exchange of information and ideas which resulted from this seminar was in itself a significant contribution to the complaint-handling process. We hope that the basic information developed by this general study may highlight the problem areas that require more specific examination and recommendation. PAROLE PROCEDURES The June 1972 plenary session adopted a recommendation (72-3) addressed to the procedures of the U.S. Board of Parole, calling for changes that are absolutely essential in order to achieve fundamental fairness. It was recommended: 1. That the inmate be allowed the assistance of counsel (or other representative of his choice) at his parole hearing; 2. That he have an opportunity to examine the nonconfidential portions of his prison file; and 3. That the Board of Parole state reasons for its decisions in granting or denying parole. The Department of Justice has this recommendation under active study, and ve are hopeful that there will be voluntary acceptance of these procedural safeuards in the near future. In view of the fact that about two-thirds of the time to se served under most criminal sentences may be remitted by parole, the present rocedure—which allows no representation for even the most ignorant or inarticute prisoner, no opportunity to refute erroneous or malicious material in the file. nd no statement of reasons for denial-is among the outstanding examples of rbitrariness within our system of justice. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FARM PRODUCTION CONTROLS We have one really "down to earth" study near completion. It is a study of the rocedures and standards employed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in the Iministration of programs of farm production control. Production controls have een a feature of agricultural regulation since the initiation of financial assistance farmers by the Federal Government in the 1930's. The Conference study has two irposes: First, to assess the fairness of procedures whereby payments or loans affected farmers may be granted or withheld; and second, to evaluate the tent to which standards of decision and their application in individual cases are nsistent with stated goals of substantive policy. Here we believe the Conference is an important role to play in investigating the procedural fairness of one of the is visible, but highly important Federal programs. STUDY OF FEDERAL DISABILITY PROGRAMS As we have informed the committee, the Conference conducts cooperative adies with other agencies or organizations where desirable, and the amendments our statute enacted last year clarify our authority in this area. As you know, the cial Security Administration of the Department of Health, Education, and elfare has provided the Conference with $50,000 to help underwrite a major ady of the six Federal disability programs under which millions of Americans |