Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
This file contains material relating to the Domestic Council Review Group on Regulatory Reform and President Ford's meetings with regulatory commissioners.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
1515923
label
Regulatory Reform (3)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1515923
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Regulatory Reform (3)
description
This file contains material relating to the Domestic Council Review Group on Regulatory Reform and President Ford's meetings with regulatory commissioners.
citationUrl
collections
James M. Cannon Files (Ford Administration)
James Cannon's Issues Files
subjects
Aeronautics, Commercial
Antitrust law
Government regulation
Independent regulatory commissions
Intergovernmental relations
Legislation
Regulatory reform
Trucking
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1515923
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1976-12-31
month
12
year
1976
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1975-06-01
month
6
year
1975
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
3825abc4b581a860
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 29, folder "Regulatory Reform (3)" of the James
M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Some items in this folder were not digitized because it contains copyrighted
materials. Please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library for access to
these materials.
Digitized from Box 29 of the James M. Cannon 710 Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
THE NATION
Regulatory
THE PRESIDENCY/HUGH SIDEY
Tackling the Bumbling Bureaucracy
nie
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Desatory
June 5, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CANNON
THROUGH:
JIM CAVANAUGH
FROM:
PAUL LEACH
SUBJECT:
Professor Houthakker's
Deregulation Points that
Your Requested
Attached is a copy of Professor Houthakker's paper
dealing with the 43 areas of government that he feels
out to be deregulated.
If you need any other information please let me know.
TORO
otherwise the separate titles might be killed 1: the
Standing Committees, of which are primarily attuned to
special interests
The following is a preliminary listing of the subjects
this bill night cover. The order of presentation is arbitrary:
1. Government Operations
a. repeal of the interest rate ceiling on long-term
government bonds.
b. authority to issue cost-of-living bonds whose principal
and interest would be related to the Consumer Price Index.
C. repeal DI the private express statures, which give a
monopoly to the Postal Service.
d. repeal of legislation now preventing the sale of surpluses
from the stockpile.
2. General Business
a. abolition of resale price maintenance
b. amendment of the antitrusts law to make refusal to sell a
per se violation in the case of corporations with sales of
more than $100 million per year.
reformula ion oj the merger guidelines to emphasizenthe
effect of mergers on competition rather than numerical
standards.
d. requiring all corporations over a certain size to have a
minimum number of outside directors.
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
[e.
corporate income tax reform: a large subject which should
perhaps be in separate legislation. The main points would
be graduation by:rate of return on equity, exemption of
dividends paid to residents from corporate taxation, and
removal of the investment tax credit.]
3. Labor
a. Prohibition of unreasonable restrictions on union membership,
such as prior apprenticeship or excessive entrance fees.
b. abolition of union-operated hiring halls.
c. repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act and similar laws concerning
wages paid under government contracts.
d. reform of Unemployment Insurance so as to make it less of
a disincentive to work.
e. exemption of juveniles from minimum wage laws.
4. Energy
a. deregulation of wellhead prices of new natural gas.
b. outlawing of state prorationing of oil and gas:
c. repeal of the Connolly Hot Oil Act.
a. termination of crude petroleum allocations and oil price
controls.
e. reform of pipoline legislation so as to make oil pipelines
effective common carriers.
f. termination of the embargo on uranium imports.
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
Agriculture
a.
amendment of marketing order legislation so as to prohibit
restrictions on interstate movement and production quotas
on individual producers.
b. repeal of the Meat Import Act.
c. replacement of import quotas on dairy and other farm
products by teriffs, if needed at all.
d. abolition of export subsidies, except when the domestic
price is at the support level.
e. repeal of the antitrust exemption of agricultural
cooperatives with sales exceeding $10 million per year
6. Transportation
a. removal of all route and other restrictions in existing
trucking licenses.
b. automatic approval of changes in milroad rates within a
zone of reasonableness determined by variable costs.
c. exemption of bankrupt railroads from rate regulation.
d. repeal of the antitrust exemption of railroad and trucking
rate bureaus.
e. amendment of civil aviation legislation to permit discount
air fares trid to bring capacity limiting agreements under
the antitrust levs.
f. repeal of the Jones Act governing constal shipping.
g. abolition of subsidies for ship construction and operation
unless military need is proved.
BERALD R.FORD LIBRARY
Banking
a. general reform of Federal Reserve regulation a. including
permission for banks to pay interest on demand deposits.
b. relaxation of the interest limitations on savings institutions.
c. allowing interstate banking subject to the antitrust laws.
d. improvements in accounting procedures to clarify the
balance sheets of financial institutions.
8. Foreign Trade
a. repeal of the Buy American Act.
b. repcal of the constitutional prohibition against export duties.
c. termination of voluntary export agreements on textiles and
steel.
d. tightening of provisions concerning export credits.
9. Administration and Adjustment Assistance
a. establishment of an Anti-inflation Board consisting of the
Secretary of the Treasury, the Director of OMB, the Chairman
of CEA, FRB and FTC, the Counselor for Economic Affeirs
and the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Anti-
trust Division, with economic and legal staff.
b revival 01 the Government Regulation and Procurement Board
C. establishment of an Adjusment Assistance Fund which could
make limited grants to firms or workers seriously damaged
by provisions of this bill, or guarantee loans to firms for
restructuring made necessary by this bill.
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
Blue Eagles and Déjà Vu
by Walter B. Wriston
REMARKS BY
WALTER B.WRISTON
CHAIRMAN
CITICORP
BEFORE
THE SOCIETY OF AMERICAN BUSINESS WRITERS
WASHINGTON, D.C.
MAY 5, 1975
As we approach the bicentennial of our republic, it is useful to remember that our
economic system, though it has produced both the highest standard of living and the
founding fathers faced hard times-much harder than those which are with us today. They,
largest measure of personal liberty in the history of mankind.
too, had to make some tough choices. Thomas Jefferson expressed the problem in a
nutshell: "We are not to expect to be translated from despotism to liberty in a featherbed."
People who should know better begin to waffle about human freedom and in the moment of
passion that John Randolph feared even suggest that some form of dictatorship may not be
The great principles of our government laid down by our founding fathers embody a vast
so bad after all. In the 1930s Senator David Reed from Pennsylvania voiced it bluntly: "If
distrust of centralized governmental power and an unswerving dedication to the
this country ever needed a Mussolini, it needs one now." The admiration in the United
proposition that government rests on the consent of the governed. No sector of our society
States for the way Mussolini made the trains run on time was widespread. The New York
has been more vigilant than the press in keeping that proposition always before us.
Times in May of 1933 reported that the atmosphere in Washington was "strangely
Nevertheless, whenever we create the conditions which cause our system to appear to
reminiscent of Rome in the first weeks after the march of the Blackshirts, of Moscow at the
falter, whether through inflation or corruption, people who would destroy our liberty press
beginning of the Five-Year Plan The new capital presupposes just such a highly
forward with plans the founders rejected-old plans dressed in a new vocabulary. A good
centralized, all-inclusive government as is now in the making." In the 1930s it began to look
many years ago, John Randolph foresaw the danger and put it this way: "The people of this
more and more as if we would sacrifice some great principle and lose our liberty.
country, if ever they lose their liberties, will do it by sacrificing some great principle of
government to temporary passion."
The resident philosopher in Washington in those days was Rexford Guy Tugwell. Like his
current counterparts, Tugwell expressed contempt for the consumer's ability to choose
Today, passions abound in the land. As the heat rises, our memory of fundamentals seems
and wanted large state-controlled corporations along fascist lines. It was all very simple
to fade. We forget that the traditional optimism of the American people is an absolute
and logical. He put it this way: "When industry is government and government is industry,
essential to a democracy. We hear a rising chorus of attack upon the unique American
the dual conflict deepest in our modern institutions will be abated." This old idea has now
4
been revived with a new name. We now call them "benchmark" corporations. By 1984,
5
for planting wheat that they themselves ate on their own farms. Barbers who charged less
George Orwell tells us the concept will be set to music in a telescreen jingle that goes:
than the code rate for a shave and a haircut were subject to fines of up to $500. Even the
"Under the spreading chestnut tree, I sold you and you sold me "
village handyman was prosecuted, since he did not fit in under the multiple wage-and-hour
scale set up by the codes.
The first major step that this nation took toward merging government and industry, and
toward the total abandonment of the free market system, was the enactment of the
The complexity of the codes soon antagonized labor as well as management. The average
legislation that created the National Recovery Administration. The NRA with its famous
factory worker who had been earning $25 a week was cut back to $18.60 under NRA codes.
Blue Eagle symbol soon began grinding out hundreds of "codes" repealing economic
As a result, strikes became a way of life and auto workers, frustrated by red tape, began
freedom and arbitrarily fixing wages, prices and hours.
calling the NRA the National Run Around. When the textile code authority cut production
in the mills in 1934, another great strike began in the South. Before the strike ended, the
In the temporary passion of that moment, many businessmen welcomed the idea of
National Guard had been called out in seven states and scores of textile workers were
controls and were openly pleased with the idea of an escape from competition. "Codes" in
killed and wounded. A few months later, NRA Administrator General Hughie Johnson
the 1930s were the equivalent of the current euphemism "guidelines." These "codes"
resigned under a storm of criticism-or, as he phrased it himself, "a hail of dead cats."
ultimately affected some 22 million workers. Like all schemes which require people to
behave in a way they would not act of their own free will, force eventually has to be used
As was the case with the rights of minorities in the 1950s and 60s, or with Watergate in the
against the populace. Since the NRA codes required citizens to make decisions which
70s, a few had the courage to challenge the power of the state. A fairly small company, The
were contrary to their own economic interests, penalties for noncompliance had to be
Schechter Poultry Company, refused to observe NRA standards of "fitness" governing
severe. Tailors were arrested, indicted, convicted and sentenced because their prices for
the slaughtering of chickens. When the case reached the Supreme Court, the NRA was
pressing a pair of pants were a nickel below the relevant NRA code. Farmers were fined
unanimously declared unconstitutional. The Court wrote: "Such a delegation of powers is
-
unknown to our law and it is utterly inconsistent with the constitutional prerogatives and
members, businessmen, academicians and labor leaders, are all well-intentioned people
duties of Congress." After the decision was read, Justice Brandeis told one of FDR's legal
who should know better. Their program, if adopted, could bring about the step-by-step
aides: "I want you to go back and tell the President that we're not going to let the
destruction of the free market system and, as a consequence, all personal liberty. The
government centralize everything." That was a call to return to fundamental American
opening statement of the Initiative Committee expresses the usual doubt about whether
principles.
our tried and tested system provides "the best hope for combining economic well-being
and personal liberty."
That time around we were rescued from the temporary passion of the moment by the
Supreme Court. For such actions, the justices were reviled as the Nine Old Men.
Like central planners in the past, the new breed speaks euphemistically of "plenary
Fortunately, they were old enough to remember the tyrannies of the past and struck down
power" and obtaining a "mandate." They suggest that a "five-year plan" would be
the attack on individual freedom, even though it was wrapped in a package labeled
"voluntary" but add that it might require a "legislative spur." They imply that they would
"progress." As if in direct reference to John Randolph, the Court said: "Extraordinary
not set specific goals for General Motors, General Electric, General Foods or any other
conditions do not create or enlarge constitutional power."
individual firm but would "try to induce" the relevant industries to do their bidding. The
New York Times, an ardent advocate of central planning in 1975 as in 1933 (except of course
Today, just as we are beginning to win the battle against inflation and recession, the classic
for the media), has fully endorsed the idea of government planning as"a means to help
attacks on individual freedom are being launched with new vigor. In place of the NRA and
private industry to make its own planning decisions without government coercion."
Mussolini's Blackshirts of another era, we have new groups with new names selling the
There is no case of government planning not implemented in the end by coercion.
same worn-out concept of government planning as "progress."
If the proponents of central planning came right out and said they wanted to create an
The current effort to peddle the theories of Tugwell is being quarterbacked by an
economic police state, their cause would never get off the ground. So, they resort to
organization called the Initiative Committee for National Economic Planning. Its
"doublespeak," as Mario Pei so aptly called it, the usual camouflage for the ultimate use of
force against the individual. Ludwig von Mises summed it up when he wrote: "All this
All current proposals for a managed economy rest on an underestimation of the
talk: the state should do this or that ultimately means: the police should force consumers
intelligence of the American people. They assume that you and I are just not smart enough
to behave otherwise than they would behave spontaneously. In such proposals as: let us
to decide how to spend the money we earn. The decision must be made for us by a wise
raise farm prices, let us raise wage rates, let us lower profits the us ultimately refers to
government. Those wonderful people who brought us wage and price controls, which so
the police. Yet, the authors of these projects protest that they are planning for freedom and
severely disrupted our economy, now wish to extend the chaos on a permanent basis. The
industrial democracy."
intellectual arrogance of those who would substitute their judgment for that of the
American people is amazing.
Perhaps the oldest lesson of history is that an assault on one aspect of freedom is an attack
on the whole, as the framers of the Constitution were well aware. To think that the bell that
As the incredible complexity of American life begins to dawn on the would-be government
tolls for economic freedom does not toll for academic freedom or for freedom of the press
managers, as it did in fact ultimately dawn on the Administrator of the NRA, ever
is a delusion, and a dangerous one. The vigilance of the press which helped smoke out
increasing pressure has to be applied to make a reluctant citizenry conform. The clash
some of the misdeeds of Watergate should be equally focused on the economic non
between governmental economic planning and personal liberty is inevitable because, in
sequiturs coming from some of Washington's prominent citizens.
the end, governmental allocation of economic and intellectual resources requires
the use of force. No agency, for example, could have regulated our railroads
Attacks on the system that has produced our relative affluence as well as our freedom
into bankruptcy as did the I.C.C. without such power. This power must be continuously
come in part from people seeking power and in part from a failure to understand the
increased to block opposition, to generate public acceptance and suppress doubts about
American experience. Pulitzer Prize historian Daniel J. Boorstin put it this way: "There is
the competence of the planner.
an increasing tendency to blame the United States for lacking many of the ills which
have characterized European history. Our lack of poverty is called materialism, our lack of
Last year's Economic Summit should have made it obvious to all the world that experts do
political dogma is called aimlessness and confusion."
not agree. No plan which covers a continent with the infinite variety of America and
Pare
have
to
the
10
contains thousands of parts can possibly be agreed upon by experts and certainly not by a
11
competing dog foods without government help, but is competent to sort out the true
majority of the people. Even if by some miracle we could get all the fiscalists and
meaning of a senator's speech.
monetarists to concur, the ultimate decisions would be political much more than
economic. It would be impossible to get a majority vote in the Congress on every item in
The press, along with the rest of this country, generally has come to the conclusion that the
the economy which would have to be allocated, priced and assigned priority. Since both
performance of government at all levels leaves a great deal to be desired. Bureaucracy has
political and economic agreement is a virtual impossibility, these decisions have to be
never been synonymous with efficiency. There is a growing perception across the country
delegated to the planner and thus can never represent the will of the majority. Such action
that government regulation of goods and services has often tended to promote monopoly,
by definition destroys the premise on which American democracy rests.
raise the price levels and smother innovation. Professor Houthakker of Harvard made this
point dramatically at the Economic Summit by listing 43 areas he thinks the government
The First Amendment is one of the most sweeping definitions of freedom of the citizen
should deregulate.
against his government ever enacted anywhere in the world. As in the past, it must now
be guarded jealously by all sectors of our society. What I am suggesting to you today is that
Lest you think that you are exempt, more and more educators are beginning to perceive
you must examine with great care and skepticism the proposition that government
the hand of government within their own campuses, despite the long tradition of academic
regulation of goods and services is a legitimate function of government. It is predicated
freedom. Academicians are learning the old lesson that if you take the king's shilling, you
upon the dogma that consumers lack the intelligence to make choices, but that they are
will do the king's bidding. We already have government very much in the broadcast field,
capable of sorting out a good idea from a bad one without government help. You should
although some people feel this has not been objected to as strongly by the print media as
question the logic which leads some people to conclude that a so-called truth-in-
one might have hoped or wished. If you accept the proposition that government
advertising law is good, but a truth-in-media law is bad. On a purely logical basis it is
intervention in the dissemination of ideas is bad, which is one I strongly hold, you must
hard to sustain the argument that the public is unable intelligently to choose among
then review in your own mind whether it makes any sense to argue for governmental
12
intervention in the individual's choices among goods and services. Whatever conclusion
you come to on this proposition, you should not fool yourself that economics and politics
live on separate islands; in the end our freedom is indivisible.
One of our least admired presidents was characterized as one who approached power with
"muffled oars." Those of you who depend for your existence on the First Amendment
should sensitize your ears to pick up the sound of "muffled oars" seeking to approach
power through a planned economy. This suggestion is in accordance with sound liberal
doctrine as expressed by Woodrow Wilson: "The history of liberty is a history of limitations
of governmental power, not the increase of it."
CITICORP
For additional copies write to Publications Unit,
18th Floor, 399 Park Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10022
PR1162 5-75-25 Printed in U.S.A.
Tile
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Regulator
June 11, 1975
MEETING WITH THE
BIPARTISAN CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS
June 13, 1975
8:00 a.m.
The Cabinet Room
(60 minutes)
From: Jim Cannon
Jue
I. PURPOSE
A. To obtain the leaders' agreement to
choose 20 members--10 from each House--to
meet with you and various Administration
officials on Wednesday, June 25, to discuss
regulatorypform.
B.
To alleviate Congressional fears that the
Executive is interfering with the independence
of the Regulatory Commissions.
C. To seek Congressional cooperation in dealing
with the regulatory crisis and in setting
priorities for legislative action.
II. BACKGROUND, PARTICIPANTS AND PRESS PLAN
A. Background: In your Chamber of Commerce
speech you announced that you would convene a
meeting of the Commissioners of the ten major
independent regulatory agencies, key Members
of Congress and Administration officials to
discuss reform of regulation.
Later, you decided to divide the proposed
meeting into two separate meetings:
1) A meeting with 20 selected
Congressional leaders.
2) A meeting with the Commissioners of
the Regulatory Commissions.
FORD & LIBRAR ave
2
You also decided to meet with the Leadership
prior to either of the two larger meetings.
B. Participants: Jack Marsh, Max Friedersdorf,
Bill Seidman, Jim Lynn, Rod Hills, Dick Dunham,
Paul Leach, Bill Kendall, Vern Loen, and
Congressional participants at Tab A.
C. Press Plan: To be announced: White House
photograph.
III. TALKING POINTS
Talking Points at Tab B.
RALD f. FORD
97
Congressional Participants
Rhodes
Michel
Anderson
O'Neill (no word yet)
McFall
Burton
Scott
Griffin
Mansfield
Byrd
Moss
Regrets: Albert, Curtis
FORD
"
TALKING POINTS ON REGULATORY REFORM
1.
As you know, I am concerned that Federal Regulatory
Agencies are frustrating our National goals.
2.
Since the Economic Summit meetings last year, there
has been broad and mounting concern that we take steps
to insure that our Federal Regulatory Agencies are
furthering the National interest.
3.
To deal with the regulatory problem, I have sponsored
or supported a number of pieces of legislation dealing
with regulatory reform. I have:
*
Asked Congress to establish a National Commission
on Regulatory Reform.
Submitted a Railroad Revitalization Act.
*
Submitted the Financial Institutions Act.
*
Submitted the Energy Independence Act.
*
Supported legislation to remove the antitrust
exemption for State Fair Trade laws.
*
Supported and signed the Securities Act
Amendments of 1975.
4.
In my recent Chamber of Commerce speech I indicated
that I would be convening a meeting with the Commissioners
of ten Independent Regulatory Agencies to discuss the
need to improve regulations and procedures in order
to foster greater competition and reduce the infla-
tionary impact of regulation.
5.
Because of the unique relationship of these agencies
with both Congress and the Executive, I would like
to meet with a group of Members of Congress before I
meet with the Regulatory Commissioners.
6.
I would like you to select a delegation of 20
members -- 10 from each House - to meet with me.
7.
Such a meeting will be an important first step toward
reform of regulation.
FORD
BALD
-2-
8.
The purpose of the meeting would be to explore areas
where the Executive and Congress can work together to
improve regulatory performance and to minimize the
adverse impact of regulation on the economy.
9.
I am hopeful that together we can develop a consensus
on a set of principles and priorities to guide the
regulatory reform effort. We must find ways:
*
To expedite the regulatory process.
*
To require that Agencies analyze and consider
the inflationary cost of regulation.
*
To insure that regulation does not impede increased
domestic energy production.
*
To promote a revitalized transportation system.
*
To reduce the impact of regulation on small business.
*
To restate, and redirect the objectives of the
Agencies.
10.
I want -- and need -- Congressional guidance on how to
achieve a sound regulatory system and how to discuss
this regulatory problem with the Commissioners.
11.
I have scheduled the meeting with your Congressional
group on Wednesday, June 25, and will have my staff
coordinate the arrangements.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 25, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CANNON
FROM:
JIM CAVANAUGH
SUBJECT:
James J. Kilpatrick Article on
"Hospital Wastebaskets" (Tab A)
Summary
I called Dr. M. H. Schaffner, the president of the
Kettering Medical Center, who was mentioned in the
Kilpatrick column. He reports that a representative
of OSHA, a Mr. Tyler, inspected the hospital on
July 16, 1974, and definitely told them that they
should have plastic liners in their wastebaskets.
Background
Basically his story is as follows:
-- In response to a letter OSHA received from a
hospital employee on June 21, 1974, an OSHA
representative named Tyler arrived at the
hospital on July 16 to review the eleven
complaints made by the employee. He also
inspected the entire hospital, which is normal
in the case of a complaint.
During the course of the inspection, the OSHA
representative informed the vice president of
the hospital and the chief nurse that they
needed to use plastic liners in the wastebaskets
to guard against contamination of hospital
employees. The inspector indicated that he
would not give them a citation, but that they
should do it.
-- In August the hospital received a letter from
HEW, announcing that their inspectors would be
there for a four-day survey in September. During
the HEW survey in September of 1974, they were
told that they should remove the plastic liners
from the wastebaskets because of the fire hazard.
FORD
- -2-
Dr. Schaffner has not accused the OSHA representative
of saying that there was a law or regulation they
were violating with the wastebasket situation.
His only comment is that he was told by one agency
representative to use plastic liners and by another
federal agency representative not to use them.
He is not saying who is right or who is wrong,
but he just thinks that the federal government
ought to get its house in order.
FORD i
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
file
June 23, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Secretary Weinberger
Secretary Dunlop
FROM:
JIM CANNON
SUBJECT:
Two News June
Attached are two news items which recently came
to the President's attention. The first indicates
that your departments are trying to chop off a
research contract to George Washington University's
Medical Center from the National Heart and Lung
Institute for research on the relationship between
cholesterol and heart attacks.
The second item, which is a column by James J.
Kilpatrick that appeared in Saturday's Washington
Star, points out that HEW prohibits the use of plastic
liners in wastebaskets in hospitals because of the
fire hazard, while at the same time the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration of the Department
of Labor says that wastebaskets must have liners
in order to avoid infecting hospital workers.
The President would like to have a joint report
in writing from you on each of these situations.
I would like to have the report here in my office
no later than Tuesday evening, June 24.
I think there is every reason to believe that this
may come up at Wednesday's Cabinet meeting, and I
think you both should be prepared to discuss it.
Attachments
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 23, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CANNON
FROM:
JIM CONNOR JEL
The President wishes a complete report from Secretaries
Weinberger and Dunlop on the attached materials by
Wednesday June 25th.
The report should be prepared in writing by noon and
both you and the Secretaries should be ready to discuss
it in the Cabinet meeting scheduled for 2:00 p.m. on
Wednesday.
Encl.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 21, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CONNOR
FROM:
DICK CHENEY
Jim, attached is a newspaper clip from today's Post,
that talks about cutting off research contracts to
American University and George Washington University,
on grounds that they failed to meet their "numerical goals. 11
Now, it seems to me that a "numerical goal" is a quota and
that their quotas are not legal under the Civil Rights Act
of 1964.
This relates to the earlier memo I sent you concerning
HEW's trying to use contract compliance executive
order to chop off research contracts.
In this instance, they are trying to chop off a research
contract to George Washington Medical Center from the
National Heart and Lung Institute for research on the
relationship between cholesterol and heart attacks.
That looks like pretty important research.
Bang on HEW, Casper Weinberger, personally, with
an action memo and tell them we want a status memo
on what's going on.
The second item concerns a column by James J. Kilpatrick
in today's Washington Star. The bottom of the second
column and the top of the third column points out that
HEW prohibits the use of plastic liners in garbage cans
in hospitals because of the fire hazard. At the same
time, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
of the Department of Labor says that waste baskets must
have liners in order to avoid infecting hospital workers.
Send another action memo to Cap Weinberger at HEW
and to Secretary Dunlop at Labor and find out what the
FORD
hell's going on.
The President wants to know.
could prove expensive
Harassment of hospitals
James J. Kilpatrick
Colleges'
Contracts
In Peril
HEW Rejects
Their Minority
Hiring Plans
By Noel Epstein
Washington Post Staff Writer
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 21, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CANNON
JIM LYNN
JIM CONNOR
FROM:
DICK CHENEY
Last Sunday, June 15, the Washington Post did a front
page story to the effect that HEW was cutting off grants
and contracts to a number of colleges and universities
for failure to comply with requirements for equal
opportunity in hiring.
I have since received criticism from a number of different
sources raising questions about HEW's actions. Supposedly,
it's being done under an executive order, issued several
years ago, dealing with contract compliance by the Depart-
ment of Labor. Allegedly, HEW is cutting off research
contracts to the physics department if the history department,
for example, is not in compliance with so-called "numerical
goals. " They refrain from using the term "quota", but
emphasize the term "numerical goals. "
Other criticisms include concern from Black colleges
and universitites that they will lose their faculty if
predominately white institutions are forced, as a matter
of Federal government policy, to hire more minority
professors.
In addition, there are serious questions about the extent
to which faculties do discriminate against women.
Bob Goldwin can give you some specifics on the arguments
against HEW's actions.
The President has raised the issue and wants a report
as to what precisely HEW is doing, why they are doing
it and what they expect the consequences are. We'd
FORD
like to get a report on this by Wednesday, June 25th.
LIVERSE
(513)298-4331
Flying to Wsh. Wed. a.m. for 12 noon mtg.
Home: 593-5178
at Wash. Adventist Hospital, Tacoma Park,
(301) 891-7600.
James J. Kilpatrick
Harassment of hospitals
could prove expensive
DAYTON, Ohio - The Three years ago, the De- the bags out of the waste-
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 17, 1975
Dear Mike:
As you know, I am concerned that government regulation is having
an unnecessarily adverse impact on the economy. Something must
be done to foster greater competition in regulated industries and to
insure that the inflationary effects of regulation are considered.
Improved and expedited regulation is also critical if the Nation is
to increase domestic energy production and promote a revitalized
transportation system.
As one major step toward improved regulation, I plan to meet in
July with the Commissioners of the ten major independent regu-
latory agencies. At that time, I look forward to a general dis-
cussion of the current problems of regulation and proposed solutions.
I also hope to ask the Commissioners to cooperate in making regu-
lation more responsive to our need for economic growth without
inflation.
Before this meeting takes place, I would like to meet with a group
of selected Members of Congress to explore areas where the
Administration and Congress can work together to improve regu-
latory performance and minimize government-induced inflation.
To that end, I would request that the bipartisan leadership select
ten Members of the Senate to meet with me at the White House on
Wednesday, June 25th at 8:00 AM. Can you let me have the list
of Senators who will attend as soon as possible?
Separately, I am also asking the Speaker of the House of Represen-
tatives to select a group of ten members of the House to attend this
meeting.
Sincerely, hords R. yl
Honorable Michael J. Mansfield
Majority Leader
The United States Senate
Washington, D. C. 20510
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
THE WHITE HOUSE
Regulation
WASHINGTON
June 17, 1975
Dear Carl:
As you know, I am concerned that government regulation
is having an unnecessarily adverse impact on the economy.
Something must be done to foster greater competition in
regulated industries and to insure that the inflationary
effects of regulation are considered. Improved and
expedited regulation is also critical if the Nation is
to increase domestic energy production and promote a
revitalized transportation system.
As one major step toward improved regulation, I plan
to meet in July with the Commissioners of the ten major
independent regulatory agencies. At that time, I look
forward to a general discussion of the current problems
of regulation and proposed solutions. I also hope to
ask the Commissioners to cooperate in making regulation
more responsive to our need for economic growth without
inflation.
Before this meeting takes place, I would like to
meet with a group of selected Members of Congress to
explore areas where the Administration and Congress can
work together to improve regulatory performance and
minimize government-induced inflation. To that end, I
would request that the bipartisan leadership select ten
Members of the House of Representatives to meet with me
at the White House on Wednesday, June 25th at 8:00 a.m.
Can you let me have the list of Members who will attend
as soon as possible?
Separately, I am also asking the Majority Leader of the
Senate to select a group of ten Members of the Senate to
attend this meeting.
Sincerely, Horld R. Ford
The Honorable Carl B. Albert
The Speaker
House of Representatives
Washington, D. C. 20515
FORD i LIBRARY 938470
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JUNE 25, 1975
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
PRESS CONFERENCE
OF
RODERICK HILLS
(
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
PAUL MAC AVOY
COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS
JOHN 0. PASTORE
SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
JOHN E. MOSS
REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
AND
JAMES C. WRIGHT, JR.
Full
REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
THE BRIEFING ROOM
10:05 A.M. EDT
MR. NESSEN: The President met for slightly
over two hours with 12 Members of the Senate, 12 Members
of the House, and various members of his staff on his
proposals to simplify the regulatory agencies.
Let me just quickly give you one or two high-
lights from the President's opening statement, and then
we are going to have to brief you on this Rod Hills, the
Counsel to the President, W.O is heading the Domestic
Council review group that is overseeing the President's
ideas in this area; Paul MacAvoy, a new member of the
Council of Economic Advisers, who also is working in this
area, Senator Pastore; Congressman Jim Wright, and
Congressman Moss, whose committees will be dealing with
this problem.
MORE
GREATO FORD LIBRA
- 2 -
The President said that since he has been in
the White House and even before that, in Congress, he
has sensed a growing apprehension and concern about
regulatory agencies, the amount of time they consume and
the amount of added costs they put into the economy,
and lay on the consumer.
He said that they were established to serve
the public interest but that with the passage of 25 or
30 or 50 years, they have got to be looked at again
now to make sure they are still serving the public
interest.
The discussion was broken down into three
areas -- economic regulation, health and safety regu-
lation, and administrative procedures.
The President made clear that he does not
want to dismantle the regulatory agencies. He has no
intention of dismantling environmental regulations,
health protections and consumers' rights, but he did
say that the cost-to-benefit ratio needs to be looked
at.
He wants to make sure that these agencies
still serve the public interest in the 1970s rather
than having gotten away from their original intention
of serving the public interest.
He told the Members of Congress that he hoped
that they could work together, the White House and
Congress, because regulatory agencies are a joint
responsibility of the Executive Branch and of Congress.
That is a summary of what the President said
at the beginning, and for more details on the meeting I
am going to give you these gentlemen from Congress and
from the White House.
MR. HILLS: Let me say, generally, the purpose
of the meeting was to seek a consensus from the group
gathered as to the major objectives of regulatory reform.
I think the President was extremely gratified to find
that there was indeed not only a consensus but unanimity
that regulatory reform was a critical item for the
future.
The purpose of the consensus, of course, is
in preparation for his meeting with all the commissioners
of the independent regulatory agencies, which will take
place two weeks from today. The consensus, which I
think I can state without fear of dissent, was broadly
in the area of economic regulation, the need for more
flexible pricing, more redefinition of the objectives
of agencies that had been in effect for a very long
period of time, and in some areas more ease of entry.
MORE
FORD
0758
LIBRAI
- 3 -
Of course, as regulation falls away from
certain economic types of regulation, it is generally
agreed today that the antitrust procedures and more effec-
tive antitrust protection must take its place.
In the area of general regulation, the need
for more cost benefit analysis was generally accepted;
in other words, regulation should not be passed in
a vacuum, rather they should have the benefit of an
intensive cost analysis, not necessarily that you can
trade off lives or safety against money, but that
people passing regulations must know what it costs in
order to choose the best alternatives.
Finally, and certainly the most dramatic
assent, was that regulation takes too long and that
the substance that is created by that form of regulation
is perhaps the most deleterious effect upon the
regulatory efforts of Government.
The form of problems with big business and
little business was particularly harmful. The trouble
of small businessmen to deal with regulation was a
prime matter. There was not complete agreement on
every matter. Certainly, in the area of consumer
representation, there was a difference of approach.
There are a number of people, a number of
Senators and Congressmen, that feel there should be
a consumer agency to represent the consumers' points
of view. The President and others present felt that
there was indeed a stronger role for the consumer,
but that it could best be met by an effort in each
individual agency; in other words, redoing the agency.
So there was broad assent, there was broad
consensus the President sought, but of course there
were some areas of disagreement, and we are all
available for questions.
Senator, would you care to speak?
SENATOR PASTORE: First of all, I think this
is one of the better meetings called by the President.
He should be applauded for it.
There is no question at all that the habits
of 1950 cannot be the procedures of the 1970s. A great
deal needs to be done to modernize our regulatory
agencies.
On the other hand, it is not an easy solution
and it will require time, it will require patience, and
will require public confidence.
MORE
FORD
- 4 -
I pointed out, of course, that there are
several elements that could be taken into account
as a remedy, on a short-term basis. For instance, only
too often -- and this is not a reflection on the present
Administration, it has been with all Administrations --
certain candidates who failed an election are usually
dumped over on a regulatory agency.
Many, many times we take people out of industry
and put them on a regulatory agency that is to regulate
that particular industry. And that is number one.
In other words, we ought to have people who
are independent, people who can be impartial, and
people who are not using that position as a training
ground to get a job with a regulated industry once
they leave that position. And that is one of the
first things.
Another thing, too, we have to be very, very
careful that the bureaucrats, the people who are
charged with dealing with the public, will use courtesy,
will not act as though they are despots, will not act
as though they have plenipotentiary powers, that they
will be patient with people.
I have known of cases where under OSHA they
would walk into an establishment and summarily fine
people for an offense where it was innocently done.
Now you can carry out the meaning of a
statute, you can carry out a meaning of a regulation
without being arrogant about it, and there has been
too much of that, and that has been a harrassment on
the part of business.
On the question of a speedy conclusion, we
are all interested in that, but in the process we have
got to be very, very careful in that we are dealing with
the public and we cannot deprive the public from a
judiciary remedy.
In other words, if they feel that they have
been aggrieved, you can't deny them the right to go
to court and our court calendars are crowded and for
that reason, of course, there is delay upon delay.
Now, all of this has to be taken into account
and it won't be easy, as I said before, but it needs
to be done and I repeat again this is the first of a
series of meetings with the President. It can't be
done by the Congress alone. It can't be done by the
Administration alone. It has to be a joint effort
and we all have to look at the objective and do it in
a very impartial way.
Thank you very much. If anyone wants to ask
me a question, I will be glad to answer.
MORE
FORD
LIBRARY
- 5 -
Q
Senator, do you agree with Mr. Hills
that there was a broad consensus in this meeting?
SENATOR PASTORE: Yes, there was. There was
a broad consensus that something needs to be done, and
rather quickly.
Q
Senator, you mentioned specifically the
quality of the nominees to these agencies. In fact,
your own subcommittee has passed on a number of these
nominees so would you not say the Senate would have
to share the blame?
SENATOR PASTORE: Absolutely, but we have
rejected quite a few of them. As a matter of fact,
we have the Coors amendment (nomination) before us now.
That is highly controversial. You wait and see what
happens to that.
Q
Senator, how much of this can be done
without new legislation?
SENATOR PASTORE: First of all, I think
there ought to be an admonishment on the part of all
of these people who are entrusted with enforcing
regulations to act with decency, with dignity and
courtesy.
Q
Senator, excuse me. Backing up to the
Coors nomination, are you saying that your subcommittee
is left with the position to reject that nomination?
SENATOR PASTORE: I did not say that at all.
As a matter of fact, I said it is highly controversial.
We have separated it from the other seven nominees
because we have to deal with that separately. There is
a lot of objection to it.
Q
Senator, did you get the impression that
you were far apart from the Administration on the matter
of health and safety regulations?
SENATOR PASTORE: Not too much. Not too much.
Of course, you have got to realize that the President
talked in general terms and it is a matter of implementation.
I thought it was a very healthy meeting and I think
it was a very productive one and I think something good
will come out of it.
MORE
FORD
- 6 -
Q
Senator Pastore, do you kind of reject the
charge Ralph Nader made this week that the regulatory
reform is merely a ploy by the Ford Administration to
build political support for 1976?
SENATOR PASTORE: I think it is too soon to say
that.
Q
Do you think there is any kind of scape-
goatism looking for somebody to blame the economic crisis
on?
SENATOR PASTORE: I would not say that. I would
not accuse the President of the United States of that
deception.
Q
Mr. Hills, the Administration a few weeks
ago proposed some regulatory reform in surface transpor-
tation, in rails. Supposedly, there is going to be some
more reform in trucks and some easing of regulations of
the airlines. Nothing has been heard. When is it coming?
MR. HILLS: This meeting is an effort to find
the consensus for most matters, and they are coming.
Considerable work has gone on over the last few weeks
between various of us on the White House staff and the
Hill staff with the agencies.
I think considerable has been done, if you
consider how such a short period the President has been
in office. I think you will find considerable efforts
at specific legislation in the very near future. I think
also you will find a greater consensus around such
legislation when it comes to the Congress.
Q
May we hear from the two experts from the
House?
CONGRESSMAN MOSS: I want to first agree that
there was a very broad consensus that reform must take
place, and particularly in the area of economic regulation.
There was not sufficient in depth discussion of health and
safety to characterize it as a reform, but it was not
marked disagreement.
Another broad consensus of great significance
is the recognition of the fact that neither the Congress
nor the Executive can effect the changes necessary by
themselves. It is going to require the closest cooperation
on a continuing basis if a restructuring of the regulatory
agencies is to be achieved.
There is a recognition that far too much time
is wasted in the regulatory process. It can be expedited
without the sacrifice of due process, and due process is
certainly an essential protection, both to industries and
to the public.
MORE
R.FORD
TIBRARY
- 7 -
We have a disagreement on the matter of a
consumer advocate. There is a division. It is not a
partisan division because support and opposition surfaces
from both sides of the political spectrum here in
Washington.
I think the significance is that we did meet.
and, after a meaningful discussion, agreed to seek to work
cooperatively and try to expedite the process of re-
evaluating these agencies.
We in the House in several committees -- mine
having the broadest jurisdiction over regulatory agencies --
are working on a greatly accelerated timetable, reviewing
each of the agencies within the jurisdiction of the
House Commerce Committee.
We will have that work completed during the life
of this Congress, and we will have recommendations for
actions which will not in many instances require additional
legislation.
There was a consensus that a change of attitude
on the part of those engaged in the regulatory process
would be refreshing, would be constructive and would
restore a great deal of public confidence, a very essential
ingredient, in the work of these agencies.
I think that is a fair summary of the achievements
of this morning.
Q
Did you discuss deregulation of gas prices?
CONGRESSMAN MOSS: We did not discuss deregulation
of gas prices.
Q
Mr. Moss, somewhere down the road, can we
anticipate a reduction in the number of regulatory
agencies through consolidation?
CONGRESSMAN MOSS: I would not rule it out, but
at this moment, I think it would be premature to state that
there would be a reduction.
Q
Mr. Moss, how do you evaluate the present
Office of Consumer Affairs?
CONGRESSMAN MOSS: The evaluation of the present
Office of Consumer Affairs operates really within a very
limited scope of jurisdiction. I don't think it would be a
adequate substitute for the consumer advocate agency,
which is being urged in both Houses of Congress at this
time.
MORE
- 8 -
Q Sir, when you talk about regulatory
reform, are you talking about this year or next year,
or beyond that? What kind of time?
CONGRESSMAN MOSS: I hope I am talking about
a continuing review correcting faults as they surface
and starting at this time to accelerate the process of
identifying problem areas. I don't think we will ever
be finished with regulatory reform.
Q Mr. Moss, if Congress approved a consumer
advocacy agency and the President vetoed this legislation,
do you think the Congress would be able to override
the veto?
CONGRESSMAN MOSS: I would want, first, to
hear the reasons for the veto and see the final form
of the agency presented to the President before being
able to make that kind of judgment.
Q
Congressman, is there a consensus in the
view that disputes on economic matters that are now
empaneled as matters of equity by the regulatory agencies
should be referred to the courts? And if so, would that
not delay things further?
CONGRESSMAN MOSS: Well, it presupposes that
we would have them have direct access to the courts
from the beginning and that, of course, is not in
my judgment anticipated. We have two very recent
complete re-enactments of regulatory agency legislation --
the Federal Trade Commission Act of last year and the
rewrite of the Securities and Exchange Commission Act
this year -- and I would suggest that those two indicate
both the consensus of Congress and of the Executive.
They resulted in a clarification of authority,
a broadening of authority of the agencies, and that was
achieved with the support of the White House, the
Department of Justice, the regulatory commissions, and
a major part of the regulated industry.
Q You do not have any consensus on abolition
of, say, the Interstate Commerce Commission or the Civil
Aeronautics Board?
CONGRESSMAN MOSS: I do not. A restructuring,
yes; an abolition, no.
Q
You were talking, Mr. Moss, of having
something ready in your committee by the end of this
Congress. That doesn't seem to be very speedy action,
to me. Don't you expect something before that?
MORE
- 9 -
CONGRESSMAN MOSS: Oh, I expect a great deal
before the end of this Congress. I was talking in
that context about an evaluation of the work of each of
the agencies within the jurisdiction of the House
Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, which has
the independent regulatory commissions and the Federal
Food and Drug Administration, and related agencies.
The total review by the end of this Congress --
we will be prepared to move with reports setting forth
very precise recommendations before the end of this
session of this Congress in some areas.
Q Which areas, Mr. Moss?
CONGRESSMAN MOSS: I think one of the first
will be with the Federal Power Commission, secondly with
the Federal Energy Administration, and from there on
there are several candidates, but we have not advanced
sufficiently to make a final decision.
Q
Was any thought given to reforming the
wordage used in writing regulations, any thought given
to making regulations simple so that plain people can
read them and understand them?
CONGRESSMAN MOSS: There was a considerable
discussion about a need of the change in attitude.
Certainly, basic to a change of attitude would be to
remove much of the bureaucratic verbiage and to get
down to the essential use of the good English
concisely stated in all of these regulations.
Q
In that regard, sir, you might start with
this Democratic policy statement here because -- (Laughter)
CONGRESSMAN MOSS: That was a committee production.
Q
Sir, at this meeting this morning, did you
discuss at all the Administration's proposals on
transportation, loosening controls over transportation?
And if so, do you have any prediction about what Congress
is going to do to Administration proposals in that area?
CONGRESSMAN MOSS: I do not have any predictions.
We discussed transportation and recognize a need for
freer entry in some markets.
On the other hand, we cannot abandon regulation
because there are markets where there is no effective
competition.
Q
Well, do you foresee, for example, free
entry into air routes in the near future?
CONGRESSMAN MOSS: I think a freer entry is a
distinct possibility.
MORE
FORD
- 10 -
Q
Mr. Moss, if it is true, as many have
charged, that some supposedly independent regulatory
agencies have become captives of the very industries
they are supposed to be regulating, then do you expect
that these industries are going to support these reform
efforts? Don't they have a vested interest in maintaining
the status quo?
CONGRESSMAN MOSS: I do not expect that they
will support reform efforts enthusiastically, but faced
with the inevitability of reform they will attempt
to give as much as they have to and no more, and then
Congress and the Executive will have to apply the
pressure to go the additional step required to serve
the public interest.
MORE
LIBRARY
- 11 -
Q
Why didn't some Republican Congressmen
come out here? Are they just giving yes to the
President?
CONGRESSMAN MOSS: I don't think SO. My Members
on my committee have split on a number of issues as we
have moved along. They have not been a monolithic block
in working on the committee, but I don't know why they
didn't come in here at this time.
CONGRESSMAN WRIGHT: There is relatively little
that I could add. I think all of us agreed that it was an
extremely useful initiative that the President has begun.
I think all of us agreed that this is a most important and
an extremely vital effort that is being undertaken.
To expect unanimity from so diverse and hetero-
genous a group would be impossible. To expect consensus
would be rosier, but I think there is broad consensus among
those present, first, that: (a) regulation has become
entirely too burdensome in many instances; secondly, that
there seems to be an almost inexorable tendency on the
part of regulatory agencies to proliferate guidelines never
intended by a Congress in enacting the parent legislation;
thirdly, that the regulatory process consumes entirely too
much time and that it imposes far too burdensome a paper-
work requirement upon applicants of all sorts.
I think there was general agreement that the
chief victims were the public themselves, and primarily
small business, which is required in many instances to fill
out the most elaborate forms that a General Motors itself
would have difficulty in completing.
I think there was agreement that there is no
excuse for the kind of internecine warfare that sometimes
exists within Government, pitting Government agencies
into adversary relationships against one another and
leaving Government at war with itself where the public
becomes the innocent victim.
Illustrations abounded. One, for example, found
consensus that there can't be any justification for safety
representatives telling the owner of a small industrial
plant that he must put in corregated sidewalks and corre-
gated floors so as to prevent slippage and a hazard to
safety, and when he does so, then representatives of
the health agencies telling him that he must take it out
because it can't be kept clean.
Any others could enumerate several such
instances. All of them make Government look ridiculous.
MORE
FORD LIBRARY
- 12 -
I believe there was agreement that we must, at
all costs, simplify procedures, that both administrative
and legislative branches have some responsibilities
in seeing that this is done.
I think finally there was agreement that it is not
going to be easy. Fighting red tape is like fighting a
pillow, you can hit it and knock it over in the corner,
but it just lies there and regroups.
Q
This meeting is being billed, as is the July 9
meeting as a regulatory summit, and the last time this
Administration convened the summit, it dealt with the
problem of inflation at a time when the public was
concerned about recession.
Particularly, with the Congressional calendar
full of problems, like antirecession legislation, and tax
reform, what makes you think that there is a public
consensus for this summit conference or this kind of
discussion on regulation.
CONGRESSMAN WRIGHT: I am not certain that there
is a public consensus for a summit conference or a dis-
cussion of this sort. I am reasonably sure, and my opinion
was strongly re-inforced by reports from those who are
closest to the public in their respective States -- and
many of the States represented -- that there is great
concern on the part of the public over a great deal of
regulation all the way from the IRS on the one hand that
touches to the newer agencies such as the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health
Agency, which were created with high hopes to fulfill high
purposes, but which in some cases have become so proliferated
with jungles of red tape that they have become counter-
productive for the purposes for which they were created.
I think there is a general public concern over
that.
MR. HILLS: If I can bear with you a minute,
Dr. Paul MacAvoy, a new member of the Council of Economic
Advisers, would like to speak for a minute.
MORE
- 13 -
MR. MAC AVOY: Let me just add two points.
As an economist usually dealing with mathematical models,
I was shocked by the unanimity of concern about the things
that I always miss: First, too much paperwork; second,
the proceedings take far too long; third, that the
proceedings in good part end out protecting the interest
of the commissioners rather than the consumers.
That is all in what we call variance in the
data and it seems to have grown to enormous proportions,
and perhaps the economic analysts ought to pay attention
to that, starting now.
The second point is in the area of economic
regulation I think there were two strong issues discussed,
even if indirectly.
One is that if you look at the basis for
regulation, the reason for starting regulation, it
was supposed to serve as a substitute for imperfectly
operating markets. It was supposed to do better than
competitive or non-competitive markets in serving the
interest of the consumer, but as you review regulation
and transportation, energy, and communications the
commissions have attempted to thwart the operation of
competition wherever it may appear, so rather than
substituting for markets it has tended to subvert what
market performance there is.
In the area of energy, there was a point made
that the use of historical costs and rate base procedures
in the Federal Power Commission and the State commissions
have wound down investment in gas and in electricity,
and that the present gas shortage wasn't in good part
due to the price freeze put in for a decade in the
Federal Power Commission over wellhead prices in inter-
state commerce.
In the electricity area, this may very well
be on the way to occurring in the next decade due to the
slow and cumbersome and historically based rate-setting
procedures of the State commissions.
That is enough for an economist, I think.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END
(AT 10:35 A.M. EDT)
FORD
LIBRA
FORD is LIBRARY BERALD
THE
"REGULATORS"
They Cost You
$130 Billion a Year
A storm of controversy is swirling about
federal agencies whose decisions regulate
business and industry-and affect what you
pay for almost anything. President Ford is
only one of many critics demanding changes.