HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

41.5. Congress,

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE

EIGHTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

S. 1663

TO AMEND THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT,

AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

37-231

JULY 21, 22, AND 23, 1964

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 1964

NOTE

The following note is added as an explanation of the proposals before the subcommittee:

S. 1663.-S. 1663 was introduced by Senator Everett M. Dirksen and Senator Edward V. Long on June 4, 1963. The subcommittee and staff subjected the bill to comprehensive study and consideration.

The subcommittee sought the assistance of a number of scholars in the field of administrative law. A Board of Consultants on Revision of the Administrative Procedure Act was established and the following legal scholars agreed to serve upon it:

Prof. Clark Byse, Harvard University Law School.

Prof. Frank E. Cooper, University of Michigan Law School.
Dean Joe Covington, University of Missouri Law School.
Prof. Roger C. Cramton, University of Michigan Law School.
Prof. Kenneth Culp Davis, University of Chicago Law School.
Prof. Thomas I. Emerson, Yale University Law School.
Prof. Winston M. Fisk, Claremont Men's College.
Prof. John L. FitzGerald, Southern Methodist University.
Prof. Marvin E. Frankel, Columbia University School of Law.
Prof. Ralph F. Fuchs, Indiana University Law School.
Prof. Walter Gellhorn, Columbia University School of Law.
Dean Leo A. Huard, University of Santa Clara Law School.
Prof. Louis L. Jaffe, Harvard University Law School.
Prof. James Kirby, Vanderbilt University Law School.

Dean Robert Kramer, George Washington University Law School.
Prof. Carl McFarland, University of Virginia Law School.

Prof. Robert B. McKay, New York University School of Law.

Prof. Nathaniel L. Nathanson, Northwestern University School of Law.
Prof. Frank C. Newman, University of California Law School.

As the comments of many of these consultants were informal in nature, they are not included in these hearings; they were, however, universally helpful. Those consultants who also commented on the revised version of S. 1663 (see below) were asked to put their comments in a form which could be printed. These comments are in appendix III to the hearing record. Again the subcommittee wishes to express its gratitude to all of the participating consultants. S. 1663 (subcommittee revision). After reviewing the comments of many Federal agencies, the Board of Consultants and others, and after a 3-day series of meetings with representatives of the American Bar Association, the subcommittee drafted and had printed a revised version of S. 1663 dated April 20, 1964. S. 2335.-This bill is the American Bar Association proposal which was introduced by Senator Sam Ervin. As this bill received the informal, if not the formal, attention of the subcommittee, it is included for completeness of the record.

Hearings. These hearings focused on S. 1663 (subcommittee revision), although witnesses were welcome to testify on the original bill as introduced and on S. 2335.

Appendix I consists of the agency comments and comments of the Federal Trial Examiners Conference on S. 1663 as introduced.

Agency and miscellaneous comments on S. 1663 (subcommittee revision) comprise appendix II.

The subcommittee Board of Consultants comments on S. 1663 (subcommittee revision) comprise appendix III.

III