the proposed research, the training and experience of the recenter, the researcher's track record,' the quality of tre escutorent and factores available to the researcher at his , and the quality of the institutional environment which the research will be - Because rajor research institutions often are better ac ́e that site er ones to provide the equipment, facilities, scientific co eagues, and general research environment conducive Laity research, they can attract highly capable, experienced sofentists and the research funds required to support Further, since rercers of peer review cane's are chosen on the casts of their recognized expertise in a giver field of researor, Tery sorentists from major research institutions are selected to serve or these pare's. This situation is a function of the comparative advantage of larger research institutions rather tran of a wearness in the peer review system. CCT to aware of the many issues surrounding methods of allocatore Timited Federal research funds and believes that the 4fice as a continuing responsibility to assure that these funds are a ocated * such a way as to assure that each and every tax collar is devoted to supporting the best possible scientific research. Cuestione It has been suggested by some observers that a generalized statement to the effect that the .S. is falling behind technologically is incorrect. Instead, these observers contend that the U.S. is far ahead in selected areas but falling Denizd certain more traditional cres. Do you agree with this assessment? Do you know of any efforts to identify and or evaluate those areas where the .S. is falling behind? Do you believe COTP should have a role in this area? Answer: By every measure, the United States remains the world's Teading technological nation. However, it is not feasible for a single country to remain at the forefront of every technological area. As other countries advance technologically--often with our assistance--market realities force then preferentially to develop those technologies and industries in which they have a strong comparative advantage. It may well be that, in such areas, those nations wi** surpass the United States in terms of the growth rate of technological development or market share. Thus, it is of utmost importance that this country continuously monitor and assess its own technological comparative strengths and weaknesses and those of its competition, and develop a realistic view of its ability to remain competitive in a given area. Government and industry must work together in such an endeavor to assure that public and private sector resources are optimally deployed. One of the most important roles of the public sector is the support and conduct of the scientific research on which future technologica" advances will be based. OSTP has played, and will likely continue to play, an active role in assessing America's technological strengths and weaknesses and in strengthening the country's scientific enterprise. U.S. REGULATORY COUNCIL STATEMENT OF PETER J. PETKAS, DIRECTOR ACCOMPANIED BY RONALD C. KELLY, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR BUDGET REQUEST Senator GARN. The U.S. Regulatory Council, would you like to come up for your last appearance-first and last before me. Mr. PETKAS. We are still accountable. Senator GARN. President Carter established the U.S. Regulatory Council in October 1978 to improve coordination of federally regulated activities and encourage more effective management in the regulatory process. A key component of the Council's work was to analyze cumulative regulatory effects and work to correct specific problems that arise when several agencies regulate the same product or sector of the economy. The Regulatory Council is composed of 38 Federal departments and agencies. Twenty executive agencies are participating members and 18 independent regulatory agencies contribute to the activities of the Council in various ways. The Council has published, twice a year, a Calendar of Federal Regulations. This calendar covers the most important regulatory activities affecting all industries. The Council reports directly to the President. The amount available for activities of the Council in fiscal year 1981 was $2,560,000 and an associated 11 permanent staff-years. For fiscal year 1982, the President is not requesting any funds or any staff-years for the Council. PREPARED STATEMENT If you would like to proceed with a summary of your prepared statement we will be happy to place your entire statement in the record. [The statement follows:] (625) STATEMENT OF PETER J. PETKAS Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to be here today to discuss with you the activities of the U.S. Regulatory Council. The Council's duties and responsibilities were, until recently, set out in former President Carter's memorandum of October 31, 1978, which created the Council (Attachment 1). The Council's functions in that area have now been superseded by the Presidential Task Force on Regulatory Relief, chaired by Vice President George Bush. Generally, the Council was directed to help ensure that regulations are well coordinated, do not conflict, and do not impose excess burdens on particular sectors of the public. то help achieve these goals, the Council was also asked to publish the Calendar of Federal Regulations twice a year. In its two years of existance, the Regulatory Council has worked to achieve lasting reforms in the regulatory arena. The tasks were largely unprecedented, so the Council reform efforts evolved into three major activities: 1. Compiling and distributing information about new rules the federal government plans to issue. 2. Identifying and promoting effective techniques alternatives to traditional command-and-control regulation is one example; assessing the analyses of the benefits of regulation in the non-ferrous metals industry and assisting agencies to improve regulatory analysis techniques are others. 3. Addressing specific problems caused by the diversity of regulatory programs and the lack of communication among them. Here the Council and in speeding the permits needed to build certain facilities. On March 25, 1981, Vice President Bush announced that the collegial body known as the Regulatory Council would be disbanded, but that Council staff would continue to work on ongoing projects, particularly the Calendar of Federal Regulations. In particular, on March 25, 1981, the Vice President requested all agencies to continue to cooperate in preparing the Calendar of Federal Regulations. The Calendar and its related projects will be continued in 1982 within the Environmental Protection Agency. Although the heads of the 38 regulatory agencies which made up the Council will no longer meet as a formal Regulatory Council, the President's Task Force on Regulatory Relief will be meeting and will be carrying out the worthwhile efforts of the Council. In addition to Vice President Bush, Chairman, the Task Force members are the Secretary of the Treasury, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Labor, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Assistant to the President for Policy Development, and the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers. With the creation of the Task Force on Regulatory Relief and the expanded role for the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12291 and the Paperwork Reduction Act (P.L. 96-511), and with the projected move of the regulatory review staff of the Council on Wage and Price Stability to OMB, the President felt that a separate Regulatory Council staff function would not be necessary after this fiscal year. Thus no funds are requested for FY 82. This concludes my prepared remarks. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have at this time. I am deeply committed to seeing that the regulatory agencies perform their important missions without imposing unnecessary costs. Last March I issued Executive Order 12044 as a first step toward ensuring that regulations achieve their statutory goals in the most effective and balanced way. To reinforce this effort, I am establishing a Regulatory Council, to include all Executive Departments and Agencies with major regulatory responsibilities.. The independent regulatory commissions will be invited to join. I am also extending the Regulatory Analysis Review program and accelerating the "sunset" process under Executive Order 12044. The Regulatory Council will help inform me, the public, and the Congress about the cumulative impact of regulation on the economy. It will publish, at least every six months, a unified calendar of major regulations, using the criteria defined in the Executive Order. This calendar will state the goals and benefits, legal requirements, and expected timetables of the regulations, along with available estimates of economic impacts. The first calendar will be published no later than February 1, 1979. My Executive Office agencies and I will work with the Council and the calendar. The Council will help ensure that regulations are well coordinated, do not conflict, and do not impose excess burdens on particular sectors of the economy. OMB will use the calendar in its key role of overseeing agency compliance with the Executive Order. The Council will consult with the Congress and the public as it proceeds. In the next few weeks, I will meet with the Council to discuss the development of the calendar, identify cross-cutting issues, and emphasize the need to regulate in the least costly, most effective manner. The Council will be chaired by a member for a one year term. The first chairman, serving through January 1, 1980, will be Douglas Costle. The departments should participate in their capacities as regulators. The regulatory calendar will be used by the Regulatory Analysis Review Group that I established on an interim basis early this year. This group assists agencies in analyzing the economic consequences of proposed major rules and in exploring alternative approaches. The group discusses and submits formal comments on 10 to 20 of the most important regulations proposed each year. Today, I am extending this program through June 30, 1980. |