Mr. SCALIA. No, sir, as far as I know we had no involvement with that whatever. Mr. STEED. I think if you take my advice, you will take a look at that because it could use some help. Mr. SCALIA. It does create some problems in the field of administrative procedure, however. We are aware of that. Mr. STEED. It is kind of unique in itself. Mr. CUSHMAN. We have been studying grant and benefit programs generally, looking at overall guidelines as to how they should be handled. I would say this would fall within that general category. Mr. STEED. There are a number of facets to revenue-sharing that are in the process of getting started and they are, by the nature of the program itself, I think, completely different from anything else the Government has. I think you are going to need to know quite a bit about the procedures of that program before it is over. Mr. SCALIA. Mr. Chairman, may I say that at all times we welcome requests from the Congress in particular, or advice on any particular matter where the Congress thinks they need our expertise. We have tried to be responsive to all requests. Part of the problem has been our visibility. I am not sure how many Members of the Congress realize our capacity to provide expert advice on matters of procedure. It is probably also fair to say that procedure is, unfortunately, but naturally, not of paramount concern in most of the matters that the Congress considers. The substantive problems are so great that the procedure just takes a back seat ordinarily. Mr. STEED. When you get the whole story of revenue sharing, you will know that statement you just made is very true. USE OF CONSULTANTS How much outside consultant help do you have? Mr. STEED. I know you get a lot of expert advice from your council and their participation, but I am thinking of the sort of people who otherwise would be staffers. Mr. SCALIA. Well, we have a stable, if I can use that term, of 40 to 42 consultants, whom we have used with greater or lesser regularity over the years. We constantly try to increase the number of people we involve in this fashion to get good geographic distribution and to interest as many good professors as we can in the field of administrative procedure, but at present our regular consultants number about 40. Mr. STEED. Do you go beyond that into actual research contracting? Mr. SCALIA. Most of our work by consultants is done on a flat fee contract basis. Over the years, unfortunately, the cost of that has risen from about $3,500 to about $5,000 per contract, but it is well worth the money if you compare it with similar research projects done elsewhere. COORDINATION Mr. STEED. Do you have any problem or requirement of coordinating your work with that of other Government agencies? Mr. SCALIA. No. I would say ordinarily not, for the reason that we have representation on the Conference of most major agencies of the Government. Whenever we have a problem, inquiry or request with respect to a particular agency, we get in touch with our member who belongs to that agency and ask him to run it out and find out what the difficulty is. Mr. STEED. How about State and local governments? Mr. SCALIA. As I say, we do get some inquiries, but not as many as I would like. As many problems as there may be in administrative procedure at the Federal level, there are many more at the State level. I think the States are generally well behind the Federal Government in even trying to grapple with these problems. For that reason we haven't had as many requests for assistance as I would have expected. I may add in that context that, as Chairman of the Conference, I am a member of the board of directors of the Center for Administrative Justice, which has been recently established by the American Bar Association and funded by the American Bar Endowment. This is an organization one of whose purposes is specifically to foster the development of sound State administrative procedure. So I would hope by reason of that connection we can provide some assistance there as well. RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PUBLIC Mr. STEED. Now, in your relationship with the public, do you get involved with industry as such, or with professional groups as such, rather than with individuals? Mr. CUSHMAN. Mostly with professional groups. Ours is not a function of the ombudsman. The average citizen would not look to the Administrative Conference to say, "I didn't get a disability check I should have had" or something of that sort. Such a complaint may trigger a study of that whole process, and that particular individual may be the beneficiary of the results of the study, but essentially we don't hold ourselves out to be an ombudsman, or an agency that is set up essentially to handle the complaint of the individual. Mr. SCALIA. The person is more likely to be a member of the bar association section on administrative law who has recently handled a problem for a private client in which he has discovered a real inadequacy in the administrative process. He would normally bring it to our attention. There is nothing to prevent any private group from bringing a problem to our attention and we would welcome such input, but, as a matter of practice, it doesn't happen that way. LIST OF PROJECTS Mr. STEED. Could you furnish for the record a list of the work finished this year, your projects, and what you have projected for the 1974 work year? Mr. SCALIA. Yes, sir. The former is easy. The latter, of course, much depends upon how things pan out. A consultant may come back and say there is no problem here, in which case we are delighted. Mr. ROBISON. Would the summary you are going to submit, Mr. Scalia, at the chairman's request, include the persons who did the work by contract for you and the amount of compensation received for it? Mr. SCALIA. We will make it include that. It already has the name of the consultant. It doesn't have the amount of the contract. Mr. ROBISON. Is there any embarrassing feature to releasing how much each of them got? Mr. CUSHMAN. We furnished that information last year to the Judiciary Committees and will be glad to furnish it to you. [The information follows:] COMPLETED AND PROPOSED RESEARCH The following list of completed, pending, and proposed projects reflects the fact that approximately one year elapses between the time a project is identified and the work upon it is completed. Thus many of the projects completed during 1972-73 were actually started earlier; some of the research committed to contract or being worked on by the staff this year will not be completed until fiscal year 1974. What we have done is to set forth the studies which show the flow of work during the past year and that projected for next year. RESEARCH PROJECTS (June 1972-June 1973) A. RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED June 8-9, 1972 plenary session Recommendation 72-1-Broadcast of Agency Proceedings. Prof. Robert W. Bennett, Northwestern University School of Law, $3,000 K. Recommendation 72-2-Conflict-of-Interest Problems in Dealing With Natural Resources of Indian Tribes. Prof. Reid P. Chambers, University of California School of Law, $5,200 K. Recommendation 72-3-Procedures of the U.S. Board of Parole. Prof. Phillip E. Johnson, University of California School of Law (Berkeley), $3,000 K. Recommendation 72-4-Suspension and Negotiation of Rate Proposals by Federal Regulatory Agencies. Prof. Ralph S. Spritzer, University of Pennsylvania School of Law, $5,000 K. December 14-15, 1972, plenary session Recommendation 72-5-Procedures for the Adoption of Rules of General Applicability. Prof. Robert W. Hamilton, University of Texas Law School, $100 PD (total $5,000). Recommendation 72-6-Civil Money Penalties as a Sanction. Prof. Harvey J. Goldschmid, Columbia University Law School, $3,500 K. Recommendation 72-7-Preinduction Review of Selective Service Classification Orders and Related Procedural Matters. Prof. Francis X. Beytagh, Notre Dame Law School, $3,500 K. Recommenation 72-8-Adverse Actions Against Federal Employees. Prof. Richard A. Merrill, University of Virginia School of Law, $4,000. B. REPORTS UNDER ACTIVE STUDY FOR JUNE 1973 PLENARY SESSION 1. Separation of Functions Under the APA. Prof. Neil N. Bernstein, Washington University School of Law, $3,500 K. 2. Elimination of Certain Exemptions Under the APA Rulemaking Requirements. Prof. Arthur Earl Bonfield, University of Iowa College of Law, $100 PD. 3. Publicity as a Sanction. Prof. Ernest A. E. Gellhorn, University of Virginia Law School, $100 PD. 4. Agriculture Production Control Programs. Prof. Dov M. Grunschlag, University of California (Davis), $3,500 K. 5. Quality Control of HEW Disability Benefit Cases. Prof. Jerry L. Mashaw, University of Virginia Law School, $100 PD. C. OTHER REPORTS COMPLETED 1. Advice to the Public From Federal Administrative Agencies. Prof. Michael R. Asimow, University of California School of Law (Los Angeles), $4,500 K. 2. Admission and Release Processes of Veterans Administration Psychiatric Hospitals. Prof. Robert A. Burt, University of Michigan Law School, $3,000 K. 3. The National Environmental Policy Act and the Licensing Process: Environ mentalist Magna Carta or Agency Coup de Grace? Prof. Arthur W. Murphy, Columbia University Law School, $100 PD. 4. The Exercise of Discretion by the Department of Justice in Handling Referrals for Criminal Prosecutions From Federal Agencies. Prof. Robert L. Rabin, Stanford University Law School, $3,500 K. D. RESEARCH COMPLETED, OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN, FISCAL YEAR 1973 1. Comments on Trial-type Hearings in Nuclear Power plant Siting. 2. Enforcing the National Environmental Policy Act in Federal Agencies. 3. Citizen Suits in the Environmental Field. 4. Procedures of Consumer Product Safety Commission. 5. Alien Labor Certification Procedures. 6. Judicial Review of Deportation Orders. 7. Making the Record: Alternatives to a Verbatim Transcript. 8. Studies of ABA Resolutions To Amend the APA (a) Change in Definition of Rulemaking. (b) Ex parte Communications. (c) Uniform Rules of Procedure. (d) Finality of Presiding Officer Decisions. (e) Abridged Proceedings. (f) Subpoena Power. (g) Informal Adjudications. 9. Testimony before the Subcommittee on Executive Reorganization and Government Operations on S. 707, S. 1160 and related bills to establish a consumer protection agency (Apr. 5, 1973). PROJECTS PROJECTED FOR FISCAL YEAR 1974 (July 1, 1973-June 30, 1974) A. PROJECTS IN PROGRESS 1. Procedures and Policies Governing Transfer of Information Among Federal Agencies. Prof. Alexander W. Bell, University of Virginia School of Law, $3,500 K. 2. Rationalization of the Forum for Judicial Review: Court of Appeals v. District Court. Prof. Francis X. Beytagh, Notre Dame Law School, $3,500 K. 3. Economists in the Regulatory Process. Prof. Stephen G. Breyer, Harvard Law School, $5,000 K. 4. Justice Department Handling of Agency Litigation and Appeals. Prof. Paul D. Carrington, University of Michigan Law School, $3,000 K. 5. Settlement, Negotiation, and Conciliation in Arbitration Cases (NLRBEEOC). Prof. James O. Freedman, University of Pennsylvania Law School, $100 PD. Also: Summary Administrative Action prior to Formal Hearing. 6. Study of Feasibility of an Environmental Court. Prof. N. William Hines, University of Iowa Law School, $100 PD. 7. Federal Prisoner Grievance Procedures. Prof. Howard Lesnick, University of Pennsylvania, $5,000 K. 8. Grazing Rights Under Taylor Grazing Act. Indian Enrollment. Prof. William J. Lockhart, University of Utah Law School, $3,500 K and $2,000 K, respectively. 9. Feasibility of a Special Environmental Court. Prof. Nathaniel L. Nathanson, Northwestern University Law School, $100 PD. 10. Federal Disability Claims Study. Prof. William D. Popkin, University of Indiana Law School, $40,000 K. 11. Administrative Procedures of the Forest Service of the Department of Agriculture with Particular Emphasis on Recreational and Wilderness Functions. Prof. Glen O. Robinson, University of Minnesota Law School, $2,500 K. 12. Handling of Citizen Complaints by Federal Agencies. Prof. Victor G. Rosenblum, Northwestern University Law School, $3,600 K. 13. Treasury Procedures in Dumping and Countervailing Duties. Prof. Warren F. Schwartz, University of Virginia Law School, $3,500 K. 14. Licensing Procedures for Federal Banking Regulatory Agencies. Prof. Kenneth E. Scott, Stanford University Law School, $3,500 K. 15. Government Contract Procurement Procedures. Prof. Richard E. Speidel, University of Virginia Law School, $100 PD. 16. Mining Claims Under the Hard Rock Minerals Permit Program. Prof. Peter L. Strauss, Columbia University Law School, $3,500 K. 17. Civil Commitment Procedures. Prof. Barbara D. Underwood, Yale Law School, $5,000 K. 18. Judicial Review of Informal Rulemaking. Prof. Paul R. Verkuil, University of North Carolina Law School, $3,500 K. 19. HEW Affirmative Actions Programs. Prof. Jan Vetter, University of California Law School (Berkeley), $3,500 K. B. PROPOSED STUDIES 1. Initiation of Major Study of Agency Statistics, $50,000. 2. Study of the Informal Administrative Process, $50,000. 3. Continuation of Study of Citizen Complaints-$35,000. 4. Study of Administrative Procedure Act-(funding undetermined). It is contemplated that the professional staff of the office of the chairman will assume major responsibilities for some parts of the above studies, in addition to new projects as yet undetermined. Mr. ROBISON. Mr. Scalia, I notice you are another one of the refugees from the White House, so to speak, along with your vice chairman, Mr. Morgan. Mr. SCALIA. That is right. Mr. Morgan, when he first came with us, was with the White House. He is now with Treasury. I was not actually with the White House, but with the Office of Telecommunications Policy in the Executive Office, but not the White House. My experience there, I think, was useful. I came to the Conference with some experience in all three of the fields that we draw on. All of our members are either Government people-I have been with the Government or private practitioners-I practiced law for almost seven years or else law professors, and I was a law professor at the University of Virginia. In fact, I am still on leave from that institution. STUDY OF HEW DISABILITY CASES Mr. ROBISON. I think last year we had some discussion-I haven't looked at the record, but that is my recollection-about the need for considering the quality control in HEW disability benefit cases. You might summarize that again, and give us the status of that particular study. Mr. SCALIA. We haven't completed the study which is the one large one we have been able to get into because we got some outside funds. Mr. ROBISON. From HEW? Mr. SCALIA. From HEW, yes, sir. We already have a draft recommendation and draft report. It has not yet been acted upon by the Conference, so I cannot say that it is a Conference position. Mr. ROBISON. What are your findings, if you can generalize them already, in this regard? Mr. SCALIA. Well, this particular recommendation and report goes to the need for Mr. ROBISON. Uniformity? Mr. SCALIA. No, for statistical systems to assure the quality of adjudication in these mass benefit programs. The problem with a mass benefit program is that there are so many claims, most of which are of such small amount that the rightness or wrongness of the decisions will not realistically be tested upon appeal. You have to be sure that the decisions are being made right. The Agency itself has to go out of |