Source: http://il.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19781116_0040090.C07.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-01-17 01:07:23
Document Index: 131845703

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 401', '§ 402', '§ 1302', '§ 404', '§ 405', '§ 701', '§ 1331', '§ 1361', '§ 405', '§ 1331', '§ 205', '§ 205', '§ 1302', '§ 405', '§ 405', '§ 1302', '§ 555', '§ 405', '§ 901', '§ 404', '§ 405']

| Wright v. Califano
ROLAND WRIGHT, ANNA WRIGHT, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, CROSS-APPELLANTS.v.JOSEPH A. CALIFANO, JR., SECRETARY OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, CROSS-APPELLEES.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 75 C 1537 - Alfred Y. Kirkland, Judge.
The Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 401, Et seq. (the Act), requires the Social Security Administration (SSA) to administer, Inter alia, insurance programs providing for old age benefits (s 401) and survivors benefits (s 402). The object of these programs is to provide monthly retirement benefits to persons who have reached a specified age and worked a sufficient period of time to have attained an insured status, and to provide retirement or survivors benefits to specified dependents of such insured workers, 42 U.S.C. §§ 402, 414. In order for benefits to be received, an application must be filed with the SSA showing eligibility for the benefits. An initial eligibility determination is made by an examiner. If the initial decision is adverse to the applicant, the applicant may request a De novo reconsideration of the decision. If the reconsideration decision remains adverse, the applicant may request a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ). Finally, a request for review of an adverse hearing decision may be filed with the SSA Appeals Council, after which judicial review becomes available.
In recent years there have been long delays at each step of the appeals process.*fn1 Roland Wright, the named plaintiff in this suit, applied on September 1, 1972, for an increase in old age benefits to which he believed himself entitled on account of his deceased wife's prior participation in the Social Security program. His initial application was denied on November 6, 1972. He requested a reconsideration on May 2, 1973, which led to an affirmance of the denial on August 15, 1973. On February 2, 1974, he filed a request for a hearing. When no hearing was scheduled after 420 days despite repeated requests, plaintiff-appellee filed the present lawsuit on May 13, 1975, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated applicants within Region V. The complaint alleged that the SSA's failure to render each successive decision within a "reasonable time" violated the plaintiffs' rights under Title II of the Social Security Act, Sections 555 and 706 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The relief sought included a writ of mandamus ordering the SSA to process claims within specified maximum time limits at each stage of decision and review, and an order requiring the payment of benefits to any claimant whose request for a determination has been pending longer than those time limits. It was also suggested that the Secretary of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare has a duty under 42 U.S.C. § 1302 to promulgate regulations implementing these goals. Lastly, the complaint sought to overturn an SSA regulation, 20 C.F.R. § 404.968a(b), exempting from the coverage of Section 205(q) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(q), any claim in which a request for reconsideration or administrative or judicial review is pending, on the ground that the regulation conflicts with the policies behind Section 205(q).
The complaint alleged jurisdiction under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701, Et seq., the federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the mandamus statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1361, and Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). We conclude that the district court had jurisdiction under Section 205(g)*fn2 and do not consider the other sections. See Caswell v. Califano, 583 F.2d 9 (1st Cir. 1978); Mattern v. Mathews, 582 F.2d 248 (3d Cir. 1978); Liberty Alliance of the Blind v. Califano, 568 F.2d 333 (3d Cir. 1977). The Secretary's principal objection to finding jurisdiction under Section 205(g) is that at the time this suit was instigated there had been no "final decision" on the plaintiffs' claims as required by the statute. However, in Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 95 S. Ct. 2457, 45 L. Ed. 2d 522 (1975), the Supreme Court distinguished between a waivable element of the jurisdictional requirements of Section 205(g) and a non-waivable element. The non-waivable element is the filing of an application for benefits, which was properly alleged in the case at bar. The waivable element is the "requirement that administrative remedies prescribed by the Secretary be exhausted." Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 328, 96 S. Ct. 893, 899, 47 L. Ed. 2d 18 (1976); See also Jimenez v. Mathews, 523 F.2d 689 (7th Cir. 1975), Cert. denied, 427 U.S. 912, 96 S. Ct. 3200, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1204 (1976). In Eldridge the Court characterized the plaintiff's asserted right to a due process hearing before his disability benefits could be terminated as being "entirely collateral to his substantive claim of entitlement" and found it to be a case "where (the) claimant's interest in having a particular issue resolved promptly is so great that deference to the agency's judgment is inappropriate."*fn3 424 U.S. at 330, 96 S. Ct. at 900. With regard to its findings of waiver in Eldridge and Salfi, the Court in Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 109, 97 S. Ct. 980, 986, 51 L. Ed. 2d 192 (1977), stated:
In both instances . . . the claimants challenged the Secretary's decisions on constitutional grounds. Constitutional questions obviously are unsuited to resolution in administrative hearing procedures and, therefore, access to the courts is essential to the decision of such questions. Furthermore, since federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is precluded by § 205(h), Weinberger v. Salfi, supra, at 761 (95 S. Ct. 2457), a decision denying § 205(g) jurisdiction in Salfi or Eldridge would effectively have closed the federal forum to the adjudication of colorable constitutional claims. Thus those cases merely adhered to the well-established principle that when constitutional questions are in issue, the availability of judicial review is presumed, and we will not read a statutory scheme to take the "extraordinary" step of foreclosing jurisdiction unless Congress' intent to do so is manifested by " "clear and convincing' " evidence. 422 U.S., at 762 (95 S. Ct. 2457, 45 L. Ed. 2d 522); Johnson v. Robison, 415 U.S. 361, 366-367 (94 S. Ct. 1160, 39 L. Ed. 2d 389) (1974).
Under these principles, we believe that the district court clearly had jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' constitutional claims under Section 205(g), since the complaint raised colorable claims that the delays in receiving a hearing or review violated the plaintiffs' due process rights and that the deprivation would only be aggravated by further delay. Although the situation with respect to the plaintiffs' claims that the Social Security Act and APA require the SSA to act within a "reasonable time" is less clear, we believe that they also fall within the district court's Section 205(g) jurisdiction. Statutory claims such as these are both colorable and collateral, and the plaintiffs may suffer irreparable harm if judicial review is postponed. Delay in judicial review may even effectively "close the federal forum" to these claims. It must be conceded that the Secretary has an interest in interpreting the "reasonable time" requirement of the Social Security Act that is not present in a case involving only constitutional claims. The Secretary is required by 42 U.S.C. § 1302 to promulgate regulations for "the efficient administration of the functions with which (he) is charged under (the Act)." Yet the Secretary's interest in plaintiffs' statutory claims remains "unsuited to resolution in administrative Hearing procedures." Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. at 109, 97 S. Ct. at 986 (emphasis added). We conclude that it should be seen more as a consideration affecting the desirability of judicial intervention in the administrative process on the merits of a particular case, rather than an absolute preclusion of federal jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claims.
We also reject the Secretary's argument that the plaintiffs' statutory claims are not collateral to their substantive claims of entitlement for benefits, since they seek payment of interim benefits when administrative delay exceeds certain time limits. It is clear that this "presumptive eligibility" is not grounded in any explicit statutory requirement, since the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 405(q) are not applicable here.*fn4 Instead "presumptive eligibility" can only be invoked as a judicial remedy for a violation of another statutory provision or the Due Process Clause. The existence of this prayer for relief does not justify the exhaustion of administrative remedies not otherwise justifiable.
In the district court the Secretary opposed certification of the class only on the ground that class actions could not be maintained in Title II Social Security cases. The court properly rejected this argument. See, e. g., Jimenez v. Weinberger, 523 F.2d 689 (7th Cir. 1975), Cert. denied, 427 U.S. 912, 96 S. Ct. 3200, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1204 (1976). For the first time on appeal the Secretary raises two additional arguments as to why class certification was improper. However, "It is well settled, that a litigant may not seek reversal by this Court on a ground not presented to the district court for consideration." King v. Stevenson, 445 F.2d 565, 570-71 (7th Cir. 1971). In any event, we find the Secretary's argument to be without merit.
559 F.2d 852, 858 (2d Cir. 1977), Cert. denied, 435 U.S. 908, 98 S. Ct. 1458, 55 L. Ed. 2d 500 (1978). Moreover, no individualization is necessitated by the relief which the plaintiffs seek.
The Secretary's second argument is that the named plaintiff's claim was not representative of those of the class, in that he had already received a hearing and Appeals Council decision before the class was certified rendering his claim moot. However, Wright's claim was not moot at the outset of the suit and for the reasons stated by the Second Circuit in White, 559 F.2d at 857, we believe that the class certification should be seen as "relating back" to that point in time. See also Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 95 S. Ct. 854, 43 L. Ed. 2d 54 (1975); Doe v. Mundy, 514 F.2d 1179 (7th Cir. 1975). Wright's claim was likely to become moot at any moment, making evasion of review a real possibility. Moreover, no fault is found with the quality of representation of the class, and the controversy with regard to the class as a whole remains unresolved.
The district court found that the Social Security Act and the APA require the SSA to provide hearings and Appeals Council reviews within a "reasonable time" and that the current delays violate that duty. Accord, White v. Mathews, supra; Caswell v. Califano, supra.*fn5 In support of this determination plaintiffs point to Section 205(b) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(b), which requires the Secretary "to make . . . decisions as to the rights of any individual applying for a payment" and to give "reasonable notice and opportunity for a hearing with respect to such decision." It is suggested that the opportunity for a hearing means a hearing at a "meaningful and reasonable time." Plaintiffs point to parts of the legislative history of the Act emphasizing the financial dependence of beneficiaries on their social security payments and stating that "assurance of prompt payment is vital to their financial well-being." S.Rep.No. 744, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., Reprinted in (1967) U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 2834, 2941. See also Administrative Procedure in Government Agencies, S.Doc.No. 10, 77th Cong., 1st Sess., Vol. III (1942), App. at 37. Plaintiffs find additional support in the fact that 42 U.S.C. § 1302 requires the Secretary to make rules and regulations for the "efficient administration of the functions with which (he) is charged." Section 555(b) requires that:
5 U.S.C. § 555(b) (emphasis added). See Deering-Milliken, Inc. v. Johnston, 295 F.2d 856, 863-64 (4th Cir. 1961). Reference is also made to a statement in the legislative history concerning Section 555(e) of the APA*fn6 to the effect that:
The plaintiffs' interest in receiving prompt action on their requests for a hearing or an Appeals Council review is beyond dispute. Although there have been multiple administrative determinations of ineligibility for benefits in each case, these unsuccessful applicants have a statutory right to seek a reversal of those decisions. The desirability of dispatch in providing hearings and reviews is accentuated by the high rates of reversal experienced in cases appealed in the past.*fn7 We are not unsympathetic to the deprivations that the delays in receiving old age and survivors benefits can cause*fn8 and readily agree that such delays may undercut the purposes of the Act. Nor can they be fully compensated for by the provision of retroactive benefits when eligibility eventually may be found to have existed. The court below, as well as the Second Circuit in Barnett v. Califano, (2d Cir. 1978), and the First Circuit in Caswell v. Califano, 583 F.2d 9 (1st Cir. 1978), seem to have focused primarily on the importance of this injury to the plaintiffs' interests in finding that the delays in providing hearings and reviews are "unreasonable" under the Act and the APA. However, we believe that the "reasonableness" of the delays must be judged in a broader context.
Firstly, although Congress has imposed a duty on the SSA to process claims within a "reasonable" time, the timing of hearings has been left to agency discretion. Congress has continued to eschew the imposition of mandatory time limits in spite of proposals to do so. See, e. g., H.R. 5296, 94th Cong. (1975). When making provision for the payment of interim benefits in 42 U.S.C. § 405(q), Congress drew the requirements so narrowly as to make that section inapplicable here. Moreover, the legislative history of that section demonstrates that in addition to its desire to insure the speedy payment of benefits to eligible applicants, Congress was also concerned with maintaining the quality of administrative adjudication and minimizing the payment of benefits to ineligible applicants.*fn9 S.Rep.No. 744, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., Reprinted in (1967) U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 2834, 2941-42. Congress has continually monitored the appeals crisis in the Social Security system through hearings*fn10 and has passed legislation designed to ameliorate the situation by granting the SSA greater flexibility in the use of administrative law judges and by increasing their number,*fn11 although these measures have so far proven inadequate.
336 F.2d at 691-92. The Supreme Court has also cautioned courts against "engrafting their own notions of proper procedures upon agencies entrusted with substantive functions by Congress." Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. National Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519, 525, 98 S. Ct. 1197, 1202, 55 L. Ed. 2d 460 (1978). In this case the plaintiffs complain of system-wide delays affecting nearly all applicants asking for a hearing of Appeals Council review. We believe that it would be an extremely rare case where a district court would be justified in intervening in the administrative process because of delays of this sort, absent a violation of the Due Process Clause. As Professor Goldman stated:
Goldman, Supra at 1429.*fn12 Here the plaintiffs have not attempted to controvert the Secretary's contention that the delays that have been experienced throughout the Social Security system are the result of a tremendous explosion in the number of claims that have had to be processed, including a one-time wave of claims for black lung benefits under the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969, 30 U.S.C. § 901, Et seq. It is recognized as well that there are limitations on the amount of resources that the SSA has been able to bring to bear on the problem. Although the plaintiffs rely in part on the fact that the Secretary has a duty to promulgate regulations for the "efficient administration" of his functions, there are no allegations of specific inefficiencies or suggestions of obvious ways in which the SSA could increase its productivity under present resource constraints. Another regulation cannot be expected to solve the problem. Nor do the plaintiffs contest the fact that the SSA has made good faith efforts to increase its efficiency and has made progress in increasing the productivity of the hearing officers.*fn13
Congress has committed the timing of hearings and reviews to the discretion of the SSA. It has continually monitored the appeals delay problem; yet it has failed to prescribe mandatory time limits, interim benefit payments or other funding. Congress is not a party in this case. In these circumstances, we believe the courts should be hesitant to require such measures absent a due process violation or clear violation of congressional intent. In addition, since the delays complained of are system-wide and there are no allegations of bad faith, a dilatory attitude, or a lack of evenhandedness on the part of the agency, the reasonableness of the delays in terms of the legislatively imposed "reasonable dispatch" duty must be judged in the light of the resources that Congress has supplied to the agency for the exercise of its functions, as well as the impact of the delays on the applicants' interests. Since administrative efficiency is not a subject particularly suited to judicial evaluation, the courts should be reluctant to intervene in the administrative adjudication process, absent clear congressional guidelines or a threat to a constitutional interest.*fn14 Here, given the good faith efforts of the SSA to cope with the delay problem under severe resource constraints and the prospect of future progress in the reduction of processing times, we do not believe that the present delays are so unreasonable as to justify, no matter how well-intentioned, the district court's resort to its extraordinary equitable powers to impose mandatory time limits and presumptive eligibility. We therefore refuse to follow the lead of our sister circuits in White, Barnett and Caswell.*fn15
Delay in administrative review providing for the correction of errors made in initial eligibility determinations is a significant factor in assessing the sufficiency of the process. It has been so held in a case involving unemployment benefits. Fusari v. Steinberg, 419 U.S. 379, 389, 95 S. Ct. 533, 42 L. Ed. 2d 521 (1975). Delay is a factor but not the only factor. In determining when due process is no longer due process because past due, the influence of other significant circumstances is not to be ignored.
In Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, 80 S. Ct. 1367, 4 L. Ed. 2d 1435 (1960), the Court considered the effect of an amendment on the old age benefits of an alien previously determined to be eligible, but who thereafter was deported and his benefits terminated. The termination was held not to constitute a constitutional violation. The Court explained that "To engraft upon the Social Security system a concept of "accrued property rights' would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever-changing conditions which it demands." Id. at 610, 80 S. Ct. at 1372. The Court concluded that "a person covered by the Act has not such a right in benefit payments as would make every defeasance of "accrued' interests violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment." Id. at 611, 80 S. Ct. at 1373. However, as that language suggests, there is due process protection. The interest of a covered individual is found to be of sufficient substance to be entitled to due process protection from arbitrary government action.
The present record does not establish that the delays are arbitrary or the result of some other inexcusable circumstance. We see no need to further document the burgeoning case load and limited staff problems or set forth SSA attempts to provide a remedy as they are generally well-known.*fn16 In spite of its good faith continuing efforts, the service, though progressing, has been unable for a variety of reasons to keep current with its heavy expanding docket in this unique, widespread and complex situation.
The present case might be considered to be somewhat less compelling than Nestor since we are examining not termination of eligibility but appeals by applicants who have already been found ineligible at one or more levels of reconsideration or review. We do not stress that distinction, however, as denials do not necessarily deserve less due process than terminations. Barnett v. Lindsay, 319 F. Supp. 610 (D.Utah 1970). Neither are we overly impressed with the statistics, though relevant, which are claimed to demonstrate a high rate of reversals of prior ineligibility findings. The Court cautioned in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 346, 96 S. Ct. 893, 908, 47 L. Ed. 2d 18 (1976), that "(b)are statistics rarely provide a satisfactory measure of the fairness of a decisionmaking process." We do not believe the reversal statistics are sufficient in these particular circumstances to change the constitutional complexion of the delays. Successful applicants for whom need is not a criterion are awarded retroactive benefits so that the effects of delay may be somewhat assuaged.
Eldridge offers additional guidance. It examined the due process requirements of terminations of social security benefits payable to workers during periods of total disability and held that a prior termination hearing was not required to comport with due process. It was perceived that the delays exceeding one year between the cutoff of benefits and final hearing could impose significant hardships upon physically disabled workers finally determined to be erroneously terminated. "Still," the Court said, "the disabled worker's need is likely to be less than that of a welfare recipient." Id. at 342, 96 S. Ct. at 906. It was noted that disability benefits were not based on need. Eldridge distinguished Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 90 S. Ct. 1011, 25 L. Ed. 2d 287 (1970), which held that due process required an adequate hearing before termination of welfare benefits. The nature and purposes of the payments in each case, disability in one and welfare in the other, were in part determinative. Speaking of the welfare recipient, the Eldridge Court noted that a crucial factor in Goldberg was "that termination of aid pending resolution of a controversy over eligibility may deprive an Eligible recipient of the very means by which to live while he waits. Since he lacks independent resources his situation becomes immediately desperate." 424 U.S. at 340, 96 S. Ct. at 905. As in Nestor and in contrast with the welfare recipient in Goldberg, the survivors benefits in the present case are not determined by the applicant's need. The named plaintiff, for example, is already receiving some benefits, but seeks an increase based upon his deceased wife's participation in the program for which he has already been found ineligible on two occasions.
Eldridge does not deny that a statutorily created "property" interest protected by the Fifth Amendment exists in the continued receipt of total disability benefits, 424 U.S. at 332, 96 S. Ct. at 902-03, but goes on to explain:
These decisions underscore the truism that " "(due) process,' unlike some legal rules, is not a technical conception with a fixed content unrelated to time, place and circumstances." Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy, 367 U.S. 886, 895 (81 S. Ct. 1743, 1748, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1230) (1961). "(Due) process is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands." Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 481 (92 S. Ct. 2593, 33 L. Ed. 2d 484) (1972). Accordingly, resolution of the issue whether the administrative procedures provided here are constitutionally sufficient requires analysis of the governmental and private interests that are affected. Arnett v. Kennedy, supra, (416 U.S.) at 167-168 (94 S. Ct. 1633, 40 L. Ed. 2d 15) (Powell, J., concurring in part); Goldberg v. Kelly, supra, (397 U.S.) at 263-266 (90 S. Ct. 1011, 25 L. Ed. 2d 287); Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy, supra, (367 U.S.) at 895 (81 S. Ct. 1743, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1230). More precisely, our prior decisions indicate that identification of the specific dictates of due process generally requires consideration of three distinct factors: First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail. See, E. g., Goldberg v. Kelly, supra, 397 U.S. at 263-271, 90 S. Ct. 1011.
Borrowing those factors from that disability case for application to our present survivors benefits case satisfies us that in the name of due process as a flexible standard, we are not justified in sanctioning the imposition of unrealistic and arbitrary time limitations on an agency which for good faith and unarbitrary reasons has amply demonstrated its present inability to comply. Plaintiff argues the social security "system must be fair and it must work." Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 397, 91 S. Ct. 1420, 28 L. Ed. 2d 842 (1971). So it must and perhaps it does reasonably well except it does not work as quickly as we would like. In Perales the due process procedural issue was the use of hearsay in a disability case hearing which precluded cross-examination. In approving the practice the Court took note of the realistic aspects of the magnitude of the administrative burden which, although not controlling, could not be ignored: "The system's administrative structure and procedures, with essential determinations numbering into the millions, are of a size and extent difficult to comprehend." 402 U.S. at 399, 91 S. Ct. at 1426.
The plaintiff, as did the court in Perez v. Lavine, 378 F. Supp. 1390 (S.D.N.Y.1974), finds some support in Smith v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co., 270 U.S. 587, 46 S. Ct. 408, 70 L. Ed. 747 (1926). However, in Smith the Court noted that the delay of the commission in considering utility rates for two years without offering any reason or excuse suggested a lack of any intention to proceed. We note also that retroactive benefits were not involved. Smith is therefore not helpful. There may be, of course, in the more typical situation unjustified and unreasonable administrative delays constituting a deprivation of property in violation of due process requiring our intervention, but we do not see the present case in that light. Custom v. Trainor, 74 F.R.D. 409 (N.D.Ill.1977); Alexander v. Silverman, 356 F. Supp. 1179 (E.D.Wis.1973).
Nor is the solution to be found in a contract theory. An expectation of public benefits does not confer a contractual right to receive the hoped for benefits. Richardson v. Belcher, 404 U.S. 78, 80, 92 S. Ct. 254, 30 L. Ed. 2d 231 (1971).
The district court also enjoined the Secretary from applying his regulation, 20 C.F.R. § 404.968a(b)(2), insofar as that regulation precluded the application of 42 U.S.C. § 405(q), referred to as the expedited benefit payments process, to claims pending on reconsideration, hearing or Appeals Council Review. That provision provides for expedited benefit payments under limited circumstances. We also resolve this issue differently. The statute on its face provides an expedited payments exception only if the Secretary "finds that benefits are due." In the present case the Secretary has found quite the contrary, at least in the initial and first stages of review. The legislative history also suggests that even if the claimant has made a Prima facie case of eligibility, the Secretary must keep erroneous benefit payments to a minimum. An exception is made in certain circumstances on a "preliminary basis." The review and appellate procedures we are considering are not within the meaning of "preliminary." S.Rep.No. 744, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., Reprinted in (1967) U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 2834, 2941, stated:
Although the district court judge has support elsewhere for his views in his commendable desire to improve the administration of the program, we, on balance, believe that we must take a contrary view on the substantive issues.*fn17