« ForrigeFortsett »
COMPETITION IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 1979, S. 382
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
MARCH 6, 20, AND MAY 22, 1979
Serial No. 96-13
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Cohen, Marvin S., Chairman, Civil Aeronautics Board___
Miller, Dr. James C., III, codirector and resident scholar, Center for the
Panel of small business experts:
McKevitt, James D., Washington counsel, National Federation of
Shenefield, John H., Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division, De-
Bernstein, Joan, General Counsel, Environmental Protection Agency---
Paster, Howard G., legislative director, International Union, UAW_
Stewart, Milton D., Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Small Business Adminis-
Panel of independent businessmen under ICC regulation:
Pearce, Jack, partner, Pearce & Brand; Don Chichilla, president, Na-
tional Agricultural Transportation Association; Thomas Living-
ston, representative, Livingston Storage & Transfer Co.; Timothy
Person, owner, Allstates Transcontinental Van Lines; Arnold Pevna,
president, Haverhill Lawrence Transportation Co., and Alfred Rap-
peport, president, General American Shippers, Inc---
Panel of attorneys from the American Bar Association:
Gellhorn, Ernest, dean and professor of law, University of Washington Page
Law School; Richard W. Pogue, and Bert W. Rein, attorneys‒‒‒‒‒
Report on antitrust laws, prepared by President Carter's National Com-
mission for Review of the Antitrust Laws and Procedures, re recom-
mendation that Congress enact legislation furthering competition and
adopt principles contained in S. 2625, submitted by Senator Kennedy--
(N.B.: Regarding agency comments on S. 382, the Competition Improve-
Federal Communications Commission_.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation_
International Trade Commission..
Interstate Commerce Commission__.
National Credit Union Administration_
Nuclear Regulatory Commission____
Air Transport Association of America..
American Trucking Associations_.
Chamber of Commerce of the United States__.
Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America, Inc.
Chapter Seven: Periodic Reauthorization of Regulatory Programs.
An Analysis of the Potential Impact of title II, S. 1291, by Henry Cohen,
Library of Congress study. S pt. 4, 1979..
Chapter III, Administrative Conference of the United States, section
COMPETITION IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 1979, S. 382
TUESDAY, MARCH 6, 1979
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
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.