PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUSAN B. KING, CHAIRMAN U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION MR. CHAIRMAN, IT IS A PLEASURE TO BE HERE TO DISCUSS WITH YOU THE VARIOUS REGULATORY REFORM PROPOSALS BEFORE YOU. I'D LIKE TODAY TO HIGHLIGHT OUR VIEWS; WE HAVE PROVIDED A MORE DETAILED ANALYSIS FOR THE RECORD. WE ALL KNOW HOW IMPORTANT REGULATIONS HAVE BECOME IN AMERICAN LIFE. THE FOOD WE EAT, THE CARS WE DRIVE, THE COUNTLESS COMMON HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTS WE USE EACH DAY AND MUCH, MUCH MORE ARE ALL AFFECTED IN SOME WAY. AND TO LISTEN TO THE MORE VOCAL CRITICS OF REGULATION, ONE WOULD THINK THAT ALL CHANGES HAD BEEN FOR THE WORSE. THIS IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE. REGULATIONS HAVE PLAYED A SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN IMPROVING THE LIVES OF ALL AMERICANS. MY OWN AGENCY CAN POINT TO MANY LIVES SAVED AND INJURIES PREVENTED AS A DIRECT RESULT OF ITS REGULATIONS. - FOR EXAM PLE, WE ALL HAVE ENCOUNTERED CHILD-RESISTANT CLOSURES ON THE COMMISSION'S REGULATION FOR BABY CRIBS IS ANOTHER CASE IN POINT. IT ESTABLISHED A MAXIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN CRIB SLATS AND A MAXIMUM CLEARANCE BETWEEN THE MATTRESS AND THE CRIB. SINCE IT WENT INTO EFFECT IN 1974, INFANT 50-941 0 - 80-29 DEATHS FROM HAZARDOUS CRIBS HAVE FALLEN BY HALF ABOUT 85 LIVES SAVED EACH YEAR. YET ANOTHER EXAMPLE IS OUR FLAMMABILITY STANDARD FOR CHILDREN'S SLEEPWEAR. THE BURNS CAUSED WHEN THESE GARMENTS CAUGHT ON FIRE WERE USUALLY SERIOUS OFTEN DISABLING AND DISFIGURING, SOMETIMES FATAL. BURN PROFESSIONALS TELL US THAT THEY HAVE ALMOST DISAPPEARED. WE HEAR MUCH TODAY ABOUT THE COSTS OF REGULATION, BUT SOMETIMES THE COSTS OF NOT REGULATING ARE OVERLOOKED. IN THE HEALTH AND SAFETY AREA, THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT REGULATING ARE SIMPLE -- DEATHS AND INJURIES THAT COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED. THESE COSTS FREQUENTLY CANNOT BE ESTIMATED MEANINGFULLY. SOMETIMES THERE IS THE OPTION, I SUPPOSE, OF SETTING AN ARBITRARY VALUE ON A LIFE. YET I QUESTION WHETHER SUCH ESTIMATES TELL REGULATORS ANYTHING USEFUL; AT BEST, THEY GIVE A ONE-DIMENSIONAL PICTURE OF THE PROBLEM. FREQUENTLY, EVEN THE MOST DOGGED EFFORTS CANNOT TELL US HOW MANY LIVES WILL BE SAVED, PARTICULARLY IN THE INCREASINGLY IMPORTANT AREA OF CHRONIC HAZARDS. - NONETHELESS, WE DO KNOW THAT THE COSTS OF NOT REGULATING CAN BE EXCESSIVELY HIGH. THE LOVE CANAL DISASTER, WHICH BY EPA ESTIMATES, MAY COST $50 BILLION TO CLEAN UP OR IN OUR OWN EXPERIENCE, THE 13,000 AMPUTATIONS EACH YEAR FROM POWER LAWN MOWERS ARE ONLY TWO EXAMPLES. - THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT REGULATION SHOULD BE UNDERTAKEN WILLY-NILLY, WITH AN EYE ONLY TO BENEFITS AND NO CONSIDERA TION OF COSTS. REASONABLE. AND THIS IS WHAT REGULATORY REFORM IS REALLY ALL ABOUT. I THINK BOTH S. 262 AND S. 755 TAKE A BALANCED, REASONABLE APPROACH TO THE ISSUE. I'D LIKE TO TURN TO TWO MATTERS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN TO US AGENCY INDEPENDENCE AND JUDICIAL REVIEW. BOTH - ISSUES INVOLVE THE CHECKS AND BALANCES ON AGENCY DECISION MAKING. THESE CHECKS AND BALANCES ARE CRUCIAL. INDEPENDENT AGENCIES DEAL WITH COMPLEX AND CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES. THEY - - AS SOME HAVE SUGGESTED - HAVE BEEN DELEGATED BROAD AND NECESSARY - DISCRETION TO DEAL WITH SOME OF THE HARDEST PROBLEMS FACING THE COUNTRY. BUT REGULATORS ARE NOT IMMUNE TO ANY FORM OF REVIEW. EXISTING CHECKS AND BALANCES ON AGENCY BEHAVIOR ARE MANY, AND THEY ARE EFFECTIVE, AGENCY RULES ARE SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW. OUR BUDGETS ARE SCRUTINIZED BY THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET. OUR PERFORMANCE IS SUBJECT TO INCREASINGLY INTENSIVE REVIEW BY OUR APPROPRIATIONS, LEGISLATIVE, AND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEES. FOR THE CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION, THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL AND IMPORTANT CHECK. WE ARE A COMMISSION. A MAJORITY OF COMMISSIONERS, WHO BRING WITH THEM DIVERSE EXPERTISE, EXPERIENCE, AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHIES, MUST AGREE TO ANY REGULATORY ACTION THAT WE UNDERTAKE. THE DIVERSE VIEWPOINTS OF THE COMMISSIONERS SERVE AS YET ANOTHER CHECK AGAINST ONE-SIDED AND UNFAIR DECISIONMAKING, AT THE SAME TIME, CPSC, AS AN INDEPENDENT AGENCY CARRYING OUT ITS DELEGATED RESPONSIBILITIES, MUST TAKE EXTRA CARE TO PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY OF ITS DECISIONMAKING PROCESS. THE PROCESS MUST BE FAIR, BUT FREE FROM IMPROPER INFLUENCE FROM ANY SOURCE. THE RULE-MAKING PROCEDURES WE FOLLOW ARE CAREFULLY CRAFTED. THEY ENSURE THAT PUBLIC COMMENTS AND SENTIMENTS REACH THE RULE-MAKERS, BUT THAT EXCESSIVE INFLUENCE IS NOT BROUGHT TO BEAR. THE SYSTEM TO ENSURE FAIRNESS AND ACCOUNTABILITY IS DELICATELY BALANCED. IT IS IMPORTANT TO KEEP THAT BALANCE AND NOT TO VEST BY DEFAULT - TOO MUCH AUTHORITY IN ANY OF THE THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT. I AGREE THAT WE NEED SOME REFORMS. AND TO ENSURE THAT THESE REFORMS ARE MEANINGFUL, SOME MECHANISM IS NEEDED TO ENSURE THAT THE AGENCIES COMPLY WITH THE VARIOUS PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED BY THE VARIOUS BILLS. BUT WE SHOULD BE IN A RELATED CONTEXT, THE LIMITS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OF AGENCY COMPLIANCE WITH REFORM PROPOSALS MUST ALSO BE DEFINED WITH CAREFULLY DRAWN BOUNDARIES. EXCESSIVE, WIDE-RANGING JUDICIAL REVIEW, AFTER ALL, CARRIES WITH IT THE SAME DANGERS OF OVERBALANCING THE REGULATORY PROCESS AND CREATING EXCESSIVE DELAY. THE CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY ACT REQUIRES THE COMMISSION TO MAKE CERTAIN FINDINGS BEFORE ISSUING A FINAL RULE. SOME OF THE REQUIRED FINDINGS ARE TO THE SAME EFFECT IF NOT PRECISELY THE SAME MECHANISM AS THE REGULATORY REFORM - - PROPOSALS. FOR EXAMPLE, WE MUST CONSIDER THE PROBABLE THE VARIOUS PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE REGULATORY REFORM LEGISLATION, THE REGULATORY ANALYSES, REGULATORY AGENDAS, AND SO ON, WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW IN EITHER S. 262 OR THE ADMINISTRATION BILL. THIS IS ESSENTIAL. THESE PROVISIONS ESTABLISH POTENTIALLY USEFUL MANAGEMENT TOOLS. THEIR PURPOSE IS TO FURTHER ENSURE FAIR AND CONSIDERED, BETTER AND MAYBE FASTER REGULATORY DECISIONS. BUT THESE MANAGEMENT TOOLS FAIL IF THEY ARE ALLOWED |