Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

14.J89/2:96-13

COMPETITION IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 1979, S. 382

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE

NINETY-SIXTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

S. 382
)

MARCH 6, 20, AND MAY 22, 1979

Serial No. 96-13

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

CONTENTS

Page

1

[blocks in formation]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Shenefield, John H., Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division, De-
partment of Justice__.

Bernstein, Joan, General Counsel, Environmental Protection Agency---.

PREPARED STATEMENTS

[ocr errors][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

69

[blocks in formation]

67

[blocks in formation]

MISCELLANEOUS

Chapter III. Administrative Conference of the United States, section
305.77-3

371

COMPETITION IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 1979, S. 382

TUESDAY, MARCH 6, 1979

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,

Washington, D.C.

The committee met at 9:30 a.m. in room 2228, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C., Hon. Edward M. Kennedy (chairman of the committee) presiding.

Senators present: Kennedy, DeConcini, and Heflin.

Also present: David Boies, chief counsel and staff director; Susan McDermott, counsel; and Peter Chumbris, minority consultant.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR KENNEDY

Senator KENNEDY. We will come to order.

The Committee on the Judiciary today opens hearings on S. 382, the Competition Improvements Act. The objective of this bill is to end the massive and costly inefficiencies within the regulated sectors. of our economy that have been caused by decades of governmental indifference to the proper role of competitive market forces within the regulatory framework. This bill will provide governmental regulators with a competitive standard against which agency actions must be tested and justified.

Excessive Government regulation of business has become a national problem of immense proportion. Legislators, administrators, judges, scholars, reformers, and most importantly, the public at large, increasingly want to know whether governmental programs continue to justify their tremendous costs. Commonsense and everyday economics demand a correlation between what we pay and what we get. But no such demand has been made of our powerful regulatory agencies until now. These agencies' actions and orders, purportedly issued to protect the public, have actually cost the public undetermined billions in higher prices, excessive Government expenditures and untold lost business opportunities without a substantial corresponding public benefit. The public indictment against uncontrolled excesses of regulation is strong and well documented. Regulation today is simply costing too much.

But "costing too much" does not mean that no cost is worth the return. In the critically important areas of health and safety, we have agreed as a responsible society to support added costs to promote public health and safety. What we have a right to demand, howeverindeed a duty to demand-is that all regulatory activity be directed to achieve its goal in the most efficient manner possible. This should be the focus of today's debates on Government regulations.

« ForrigeFortsett »