Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

Then came Pearl Harbor, and the war. For the next 2 years the special committee on administrative law devoted its energies to the development of the Conference on Administrative Law and other matters covered in its annual report (67 A. B. A. Rept. 226 (1942)).

The situation was reviewed by the committee in its report for 1943. In a sup plemental report submitted at the annual meeting in Chicago, in 1943, the committee noted indications of renewed public and congressional interest in the subject of administrative procedure, and submitted a tentative draft of material for Federal legislation on the subject, and urged the perfecting of a comprehensive proposal in order to provide detailed proposals upon which attention could be focused, serve as mutual provisions for reference, and furnish a draft for consideration in the adoption of a general administrative procedure statute (68 A. B. A. Rept. 249–253, 254-257 (1943)). The house of delegates approved the recommendations of the committee (68 A. B. A. Rept. 148 (1943)).

At a meeting of the house of delegates of the American Bar Association, on February 28–29, 1944, a comprehensive bill to improve the administration of justice by prescribing fair standards of procedure was approved without a dissenting vote. American Bar Association Journal, April 1944, pages 181-189.

On March 2, 1944, Congressman Gwynne introduced H. R. 4314, Seventy-eight Congress, second session, which would give effect to many of the American Bar Association recommendations in the form in which they were embodied in earlier drafts. The Gwynne bill was not, however, the American Bar Association bill in the perfected form which was approved by the house of delegates.

The American Bar Association approved bill was introduced in the second session of the Seventy-eighth Congress by Senator McCarran, as S. 2030 and by Congressman Sumners, of Texas, as H. R. 5081. No action was taken on either of these bills.

Also introduced in the second session of the Seventy-eighth Congress was H. R. 5237, by Congressman Smith, of Virginia, to carry out the recommendations of his Select Committee to Investigate Executive Agencies, as contained in the sixth intermediate report of that committee (H. Rept. 1797, 78th Cong., 2d sess.).

S. 7 and H. R. 1203, introduced in the first session of the Seventy-ninth Congress, are similar to S. 2030 and H. R. 5081, and represent the latest recommendations of the American Bar Association for legislation to improve the administration of justice.

(The following bills relating to administrative procedure have also been introduced in the Seventy-ninth Congress : H. R. 184 (Celler), similar to S. 675, H. R. 4782, Seventy-seventh Congress, to carry out recommendations of majority of Attorney General's committee. H. R. 339 (Smith) similar to H. R. 5327, Seventyeighth Congress. H. R. 1206 (Walter), similar to S. 674, H. R. 4238, Seventyseventh Congress, to carry out recommendations of minority of Attorney General's committee.)

Mr. MILLER. I come now to a subject that I think I shall have to discuss at some length, and I promise you, first of all, I am going to be as brief as I possibly can in all of my presentation and it may be of some interest to say I hope to complete it this forenoon.

The CHAIRMAN. That is very gratifying.

The committee has, of course, full knowledge of the report of the Attorney General's Committee on Administrative Procedure. I would like, with the permission of the Chair, to take a little time to discuss that report.

Mr. WALTER. Which one of the reports are you referring to?

Mr. MILLER. The Attorney General's committee report on administrative procedure.

Mr. WALTER. There were four filed.

Mr. MILLER. I am thinking of it as a whole; and between the minority and majority there were differences, but I am trying to deal here with all of them.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Miller, I am not quite sure what you have in mind, but I am sure what the committee needs. The historical aspect of this matter is of interest to the commitee and probably of general legislation in the judgment of the gentleman who is addressing the committee, and his associates, ought to be enacted.

Mr. WALTER. If I may interrupt: Certainly, with regard to the review of the courts themselves of decisions of administrative agencies.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not want to disturb what you have in mind as to an orderly procedure, but what we are anxious to get is usable information.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I think if I explained to you what I propose to do, you will be able to judge as to whether you want it discussed, bearing in mind that I am simply trying to be just as helpful to the committee as I can.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand.

Mr. MILLER. In the consideration of this subject, quite naturally since 1941, when the Attorney General's committee submitted its report, the consideration has been based upon what that committee did.

The CHAIRMAN. We are not interested in going into that now; we are interested in what you want us to do now.

Mr. MILLER. What I have proposed to discuss, what I had planned to do, was to try to state what this committee pointed out it thought should be done.

The CHAIRMAN. We want you to point out what you think ought to be done. A great deal of this has shifted; changes have occurred along the road, and what we want you to do now is to discuss it from the standpoint of what you think we should do.

Mr. MILLER. That phase of it will be discussed by Mr. McFarland, and I will not attempt to repeat; and I do not want to put anything in the record except what is agreeable to the committee.

Mr. Chairman, what I had planned to do was to give you the picture as presented by the report of the Attorney General's committee.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not believe we are particularly interested in that at this time. What we want to know now is what the gentleman who is here before us believes should be done.

Mr. WALTER. Some of us are aware of the reasons for the creation of the Attorney General's committee.

Mr. MILLER. I know that is true.

The CHAIRMAN. I know that the committee is tremendously interested in what should be done now.

Mr. MILLER. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman, and that matter will be the subject which Mr. McFarland will present to you.

The CHAIRMAN. That is what we want to get at.

Mr. MILLER. I think that being true, Mr. Chairman, I would simply state that we are trying to make our presentation as flexible as possible as we did not know what the committee would want.

The CHAIRMAN. We need help and we need help badly.

Mr. MILLER. In view of what the chairman has said, and in view of the fact that Mr. McFarland is to discuss the details of the bill I will give way to him now.

The CHAIRMAN. You have done a very helpful thing; you have given us for the record the history of the development of this bill and we appreciate it, but we do want to get at the facts.

Mr. MILLER. I appreciate that very much, Mr. Chairman, and as I say, we were trying to make our presentation as flexible as possible, and we do not have any written statements because we did not want to burden the committee with anything that it was not particularly interested in.

The CHAIRMAN. We are glad to have the history of the matter presented to us but we do want to get down to the consideration of what the gentleman appearing before thinks should be done now.

Mr. MICHENER. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to seem discourteous, but I must be on the floor at 11.

The CHAIRMAN. We understand that, Mr. Michener.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I will give way and ask Mr. McFarland to discuss the details of the measure.

I would like to have inserted in the record at this point the report of the Attorney General's Committee on Administrative Procedure. The CHAIRMAN. It may be inserted in the record. (The document referred to is as follows:)

REPORT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL'S COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE

The report of the Attorney General's Committee on Administrative Procedure was published as Senate Document No. 8, Seventy-seventh Congress, first session (1941), and is captioned "Administrative Procedure in Government Agencies."

The committee submitted its report to the Attorney General on January 22, 1941, and the Attorney General transmitted it to Congress on January 24, 1941.

I shall not attempt a detailed summarization of that report. However, in the interest of proper orientation, I should like, at this time, to give the committee a panoramic view of the report.

The committee was appointed in February and March of 1939. It consisted of six law professors, two judges of our local courts, one from the United States Court of Appeals and one from the United States District Court, the Solicitor General of the United States, and three lawyers in private practice.

Necessarily, in any group so constituted there are to be found conflicting opinions and philosophies. The surprising thing in this report is that as to most things there was not a great deal of difference of opinion expressed. The committee did, however, divide into two groups, one as the majority and the other as the minority. The majority consisted of five law professors, the United States district court judge, the Solicitor General of the United States, and one lawyer in private practice.

The minority was composed of one law professor, the United States Court of Appeals judge, and two lawyers in private practice. I make this point in order to dispel any idea that the difference in views, or the division, was between the law professors and the judges and practicing lawyers as such.

It is well, I think, to keep in mind the specific duties that were assigned to the committee. Its first duty was to make a thorough and comprehensive study of existing practices and procedures. Its second duty was to suggest improvements, if any were found to be advisable.

The committee studied 33 agencies, and submitted 27 monographs dealing with the procedures of those agencies.

Any discussion of the report, dealing with conclusions and recommendations, must necessarily deal with the general recommendations which are applicable to all the administrative agencies.

One of the first things we learn from this report is that administrative agencies are not as new as we sometimes look upon them as being.

The report points out that three administrative agencies were created by the Congress during its first session. These agencies were the predecessors of the present Bureau of Customs and the antecedent of the present Veterans' Administration.

The report discusses the reasons for the creation of administrative agencies. These reasons, as we all know, are varying.

The committee reached the conclusion that the administrative process is not an encroachment upon the rule of law, but is an extension of it.

I should like to discuss now, as briefly as I know how, some of the recommendations of the committee.

The committee recommends that members of administrative agencies should delegate functions to subordinates, so as to have the time to decide, fairly and The committee said that it has been impressed by the frequent reluctance of high officers charged with serious policy-making functions, to relinquish control over the most picayune phases of personnel and business management.

The committee recommends that agencies should publish their policies and internal structure and organization and their procedures.

The committee recommends that, except in unusual cases, decisions should be explained by writing reasoned opinions.

The committee refers to the sentiment among lawyers that only members of the bar should be permitted to practice before administrative agencies. I shouldl like to quote briefly from what it says on this subject:

"The committee doubts that a sweeping interdiction of nonlawyer practitioners would be wise, nor does it believe that corporations or other organizations should in all cases be forbidden to appear through and be represented by their officers.”

The majority of the committee would impose upon the Director of the Office of Federal Administrative Procedure, an office proposed to be created by both the majority and minority, the duty to investigate permission to practice before the several 'agencies in order to determine whether it can be centralized and controlled, with a view to eliminating needless delay and duplication in authorizing members of the bar to appear before agencies; regularizing the circumstances in which other than members of the bar may properly so appeal. This majority proposal recognized the right of nonlawyers to appear before administrative agencies.

The minority proposed two things: First, that the requirements for admission of attorneys or agents to practice, and the maintenance of formal registers of practitioners be omitted wherever practical. Secondly, that the OFAP may, subject to certain conditions, establish and maintain a central method for the registration for admission of attorneys and others to practice before the several agencies. The minority thus provided for the nonlawyer practitioners.

The committee proposed that, where admissions to practice are deemed necessary by any agency, attorneys admitted to practice in the highest courts of any State or Territory, or in any Federal court, should, upon written representation to that effect, be admitted to practice before such agency excepting, of course, the Patent Office.

The committee does not believe public hearings are necessary as a condition precedent to rule making, i. e., making of procedural rules. It does believe, however, that when possible, an opportunity should be given for persons to express their views, and that existing use of informal conferences and public hearings should be continued.

The committee says that regulations, as a general rule, should not be effective for at least 45 days after publication in the Federal Register. The committee takes the view that persons should have the right to petition for new rules or amendments of existing rules, and that the administrative agencies should report to Congress annually with respect to their rule-making activities. The committe posed judicial review of administrative rules and regulations in general. The committee recommends the use of declaratory rulings as to the application of a rule where a person has an interest actually affected by the rule.

The committee rejected the view that the rule-making process is essentially the same as that of legislation, and that the legislative technique should be followed.

The committee reached the conclusion that there are four stages of rule making:

1. The investigation of the problems to be dealt with;
2. A formulation of tentative ideas of regulations ;
3. The testing of these ideas;
4. The formulation of the regulations.

The committee was very specific in its recommendation that those who are. affected by rules should have an opportunity to express their views with respect to those rules.

A considerable portion of the report is devoted to a discussion of the subject of informal procedures. The committee states that over 90 percent of matters coming before administrative agencies are informal procedures of one kind or another. The committee recommends that these procedures be improved in many instances.

The committee condemned the practice, in effect with some administrative agencies, whereby a person has to admit past guilt before he is allowed to consent to not violate a law in the future.

The committee recommends that in many instances where the statutes now require hearings, it would be enough to require the agency to give notice

to burden the committee with anything that it was not particularly interested in.

The CHAIRMAN. We are glad to have the history of the matter presented to us but we do want to get down to the consideration of what the gentleman appearing before thinks should be done now.

Mr. MICHENER. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to seem discourteous, but I must be on the floor at 11.

The CHAIRMAN. We understand that, Mr. Michener.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I will give way and ask Mr. McFarland to discuss the details of the measure.

I would like to have inserted in the record at this point the report of the Attorney General's Committee on Administrative Procedure.

The CHAIRMAN. It may be inserted in the record. (The document referred to is as follows:)

REPORT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL'S COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE

The report of the Attorney General's Committee on Administrative Procedure was published as Senate Document No. 8, Seventy-seventh Congress, first session (1941), and is captioned “Administrative Procedure in Government Agencies."

The committee submitted its report to the Attorney General on January 22, 1941, and the Attorney General transmitted it to Congress on January 24, 1941.

I shall not attempt a detailed summarization of that report. However, in the interest of proper orientation, I should like, at this time, to give the committee a panoramic view of the report.

The committee was appointed in February and March of 1939. It consisted of six law professors, two judges of our local courts, one from the United States Court of Appeals and one from the United States District Court, the Solicitor General of the United States, and three lawyers in private practice.

Necessarily, in any group so constituted there are to be found conflicting opinions and philosophies. The surprising thing in this report is that as to most things there was not a great deal of difference of opinion expressed. The committee did, however, divide into two groups, one as the majority and the other as the minority. The majority consisted of five law professors, the United States district court judge, the Solicitor General of the United States, and one lawyer in private practice.

The minority was composed of one law professor, the United States Court of Appeals judge, and two lawyers in private practice. I make this point in order to dispel any idea that the difference in views, or the division, was between the law professors and the judges and practicing lawyers as such.

It is well, I think, to keep in mind the specific duties that were assigned to the committee. Its first duty was to make a thorough and comprehensive study of existing practices and procedures. Its second duty was to suggest improvements, if any were found to be advisable.

The committee studied 33 agencies, and submitted 27 monographs dealing with the procedures of those agencies.

Any discussion of the report, dealing with conclusions and recommendations, must necessarily deal with the general recommendations which are applicable to all the administrative agencies.

One of the first things we learn from this report is that administrative agencies are not as new as we sometimes look upon them as being.

The report points out that three administrative agencies were created by the Congress during its first session. These agencies were the predecessors of the present Bureau of Customs and the antecedent of the present Veterans' Administration.

The report discusses the reasons for the creation of administrative agencies. These reasons, as we all know, are varying.

The committee reached the conclusion that the administrative process is not an encroachment upon the rule of law, but is an extension of it.

I should like to discuss now, as briefly as I know how, some of the recom. mendations of the committee.

The committee recommends that members of administrative agencies should delegate functions to subordinates, so as to have the time to decide, fairly and

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »