3. Proposed statement of policy on the use of sampling plans. 4. Proposed statement of policy regarding employee member- ship and participation in voluntary standards organizations. 5. Proposed recordkeeping requirements for consumer product 6. Consumer safety standards-requirements and procedures 7. Substantial product hazard notifications-submission of in- formation by manufacturers, distributors, and retailers.--- 8. April 22, 1974, letter from Chairman Richard O. Simpson to Senator Metcalf regarding S. 704. 9. Statement of Richard P. Simpson, Chairman, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, before the Committee on Commerce and the Committee on Government Operations, Turner, James, attorney, Washington, D.C., author of "Chemical Feast"- Wiley, Richard E., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission.. Wood, Arthur M., chairman of the board, Sears, Roebuck & Co., prepared ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ARTICLES AND PUBLICATIONS Address by Lewis A. Engman, Chairman, Federal Trade Commission, before the 1974 Fall Conference of the Financial Analysts Federation, Ervin, Hon. Sam J., Jr., chairman, Committee on Government Opera- tions, U.S. Senate, from: Vincent W. Rakestraw, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice, dated July 24, 1974, reviews of the Department of Justice on S. 704, a bill proposing Regulatory Agen- Metcalf, Hon. Lee, chairman, Subcommittee on Budgeting, Manage- Kurylo, Walter, Secretary, National Association of Regulatory Ribicoff, Hon. Abraham, a U.S. Senator from the State of Connecticut from Bruce B. Wilson, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Anti- trust Division, Department of Justice, February 27, 1975, re list of Justice Department's filings and appearances with various regulatory agencies, as requested from Thomas E. Kauper, Assistant 59 245 157 Letters to:-Continued TABLE NARUC survey of State freedom of information (sunshine) statutes, with Ribicoff, Hon. Abraham, a U.S. Senator from the State of Connecticut from Bruce B. Wilson, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Anti- trust Division, Department of Justice, February 27, 1975, with enclosed list of Justice Department's filings and appearances with various regulatory agencies, as requested from Thomas E. Kauper, Questions submitted by Senator Ribicoff to Lewis A. Engman, Chairman, Page 301 158 574 REGULATORY REFORM-1974 THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1974 U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS, Washington, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to notice at 10 a.m., in room 3302, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Abraham Ribicoff, presiding. Present: Senators Ribicoff, Allen, Chiles, Brock, Javits, and Roth. Also present: Eli Nobleman, counsel, and Elizabeth A. Preast, chief clerk, Committee on Government Operations; Vic Reinemer, staff director, E. Winslow Turner, chief counsel, and Alan Chvotkin, professional staff member, Jack Chesson, counsel, Subcommittee on Budgeting, Management, and Expenditures; Richard Wegman, chief counsel and staff director, and Marilyn Harris, chief clerk, Subcommittee on Reorganization, Research, and International Organizations. Senator RIBICOFF. The committee will be in order. Today the Committee on Government Operations begins hearings on bills proposing reform of regulatory agencies of the Federal Government, and examination of State and local governmental regulatory agencies which interact with the Federal system; namely S. 704, S. 770, S. 3604, S. 4155, S. 4167, and S.J. Res. 256. We will place the text of this legislation in the record at the appropriate place.1 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR RIBICOFF President Ford, in his October 8 economic address to the Congress, called for a "total reexamination of the independent regulatory agencies," and for a study to "identify and eliminate existing Federal rules and regulations that increase costs to the consumer without any good reason in today's economic climate." We meet today to begin hearings into the necessity for and scope of such a study and to consider other legislation relating to regulatory reform. Hearings on the need for regulatory reform are long overdue. Federal regulation isn't doing the job. There are bright spots to be sure, but the overall situation is dismal. Since the Interstate Commerce Commission, the first regulatory agency, was created in 1887, the Nation has experienced an enormous proliferation of Government regulation. Today, there are over 20 Federal independent regulatory agencies, a host of other Federal instrumentalities with vast regulatory responsibilities and hundreds of State and local regulatory bodies. Taken together, the action and inaction of these bodies have enormous impact on the lives of all Americans. 1 See Part 2, Appendix 1. It is impossible to estimate the total cost of poor regulation, but available statistics are shocking. Assistant Attorney General Thomas Kauper, who will be testifying at these hearings on Monday, recently noted that price-fixing and other anticompetitive actions raise price levels by $80 billion each year. A study by Prof. Thomas Gales of the Hoover Institution states that outmoded ICC regulations cause yearly loss of from $4 to $10 billion in farms and all other trucking operations. Transportation economists estimate that price-fixing and waste allowed under CAB, FMC and ICC regulations cost the consumer between $8 to $16 billion yearly. These figures are merely the tip of the iceberg and the American consumer is rightfully demanding relief. Consider the following: Agencies often labor under inconsistent, nonexistent, unclear, or conflicting policy goals. More than one agency is often charged with the same function-or conflicting functions. A particular industry often dominates the agency responsible for its regulation. Agencies charged with encouraging competition often end up protecting monopolies. Potential conflicts of interest involving present and former regulators are commonplace. There is an abysmal lack of coordination between Federal and State and local regulatory agencies causing confusion, conflict and inefficiency. The administrative process is plagued with long delays. The interests of the public are too often inadequately represented in agency proceedings. Agencies find it increasingly difficult to attract top talent to serve as commissioners and staff assistants. Structural and organizational problems hinder agency performance. In some instances, the rationale for an agency no longer exists. The list of problems goes on and each has been well-documented by journalists, academicians, and others who have studied regulatory problems. Literally hundreds of law review articles, books and studies comprise an enormous body of literature on the subject. Moreover, during the past four decades, there have been five major Government financed studies which have identified and analyzed major regulatory problems. Beginning in 1937, the President's Committee on Administrative Management took a first look at the situation. This effort was followed by the First Hoover Commission in 1948, the Second Hoover Commission in 1955, the Landis Report in 1960 and most recently by the President's Advisory Council on Executive Organization. I am pleased that Mr. Ash who headed this latest effort is with us today. These studies sought to come to grips with the enormous complexity of Government regulation. They analyzed many problems and proposed solutions. Moreover, they stimulated others to study regulatory problems. The point is that the time has come for action to consider the massive body of literature on the subject and to choose from those many solutions which already have been offered. |