On February 4, 1981, the Commission approved change On October 9, 1980, the Commission approved staff On October 9, 1980, the Commission approved request On July 9, 1980, the Commission approved designation On June 11, 1980, the Commission approved request for closed meeting (5-0). On controversial issues, there is almost always delay, sometimes discord, and often a tendency to arrive at results that are least offensive to the group as a whole. And that's what's meant by "the lowest common denominator." (XII) Some say that commissions protect against partisanship or favor in the regulatory process. RESPONSE: True, for the most part. But that protection sports a hefty price tag. My contention is not that commissions are all bad. The issue is whether they justify the costs in terms of attendant inefficiencies, and lack of focus. From my personal experience, I don't think they do. (XIII) Some say that commissions act as promptly as single administrators. RESPONSE: Hardly, if ever. The delays which have characterized this commission's actions over the years are a constant source of embarrassment. It took 6 years to develop a lawnmower standard; over 3 years to develop our very first mandatory standard--the infamous swimming pool slide standard. Who knows how long it may require to rescind it? Timeliness is not a virtue of any commission I know, least of all ours. Apart from these issues, there are other points which argue persuasively for a single administrator at the CPSC specifically. Rather than merely rebutting criticism of the proposal, I'd like to reiterate a few of the important affirmative reasons why a single administrator would make more sense for regulating in the area of consumer product safety. First, the CPSC would make sense as a single-administrator agency because it is primarily a rulemaking body instead of one that routinely decides individual cases. It does not set rates, award routes, issue licenses, or perform other quasi-judicial functions traditionally reserved for collegial decision-making. It does very little adjudicating. In my 20-month tenure with the agency, we have had no adjudications. And in the eight year history of the Consumer Product Safety Act, CPSC commissioners have adjudicated only 2 cases. Without these types of duties, there is little need for a board of impartial "judges." Second, internal agency procedures argue for a single administrator. The CPSC, unlike many other commissions, has no tradition of working subcommittees or of "lead commissioners" assigned specific responsibilities. The five-member commission acts on each issue in every detail. Lacking that division of labor, the commission takes longer than it might otherwise. Also, since no rule bars individual announcements or press releases, the public can get crossed signals. Pronouncements from individual commissioners about product dangers may be mistaken in the public's mind as official agency policy--which it is not. For example, after a recent commission determination not to issue a press release until receipt of more complete information about a hazard matter, a dissenting commissioner issued an individual press release to the same effect, contrary to the majority's sentiment. Third, a single administrator would help erase the drift which has characterized the CPSC's sense of purpose. There has been no consensus on the agency's mission. From the agency's creation to this day, the CPSC has grappled with defining its purpose and strategies. Varied objectives--leading to too many "priorities" and to overreacting--have impaired agency performance all along. For all these reasons, I strongly advocate transforming this commission into a single administrator agency, structured in a manner to ensure sufficient visibility and resources that must attend to the function of protecting the American public against unreasonable risk of injury from consumer products. In conclusion, despite group leadership, this Commission has performed admirably since the 1978 reauthorization. It is a tribute to the previous chairman, Susan King, and to my colleagues-commissioners David Pittle, Edith Sloan and Sam Zagoria--that this agency has performed as well as it has. But even greater strides will be made if you decide to change the agency's structure. Until then, this agency cannot expect to best fulfill the mandate and mission which Congress has given to it. No other single legislative change this Committee could make would do more to improve this agency's performance. NATIONAL CONSUMER COOPERATIVE BANK STATEMENT OF FRANK SOLLARS, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS ACCOMPANIED BY: MITCHELL ROFSKY, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT DWIGHT INK, VICE PRESIDENT FOR MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION CAROL GREENWALD, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Senator GARN. The National Consumer Cooperative Bank was established through legislation signed into law in 1978. The act creates an instrumentality of the United States designed to provide credit and technical assistance to eligible cooperatives in such areas as housing, health care, food, and energy. The initial capital of NCCB is provided by a $300 million Treasury purchase of its class A stock which is repurchased by cooperatives over time. Borrowers are required to purchase a certain percentage of class B stock as a part of any loan transaction. The Bank is governed by a 15-member Board of Directors, comprised of 8 Government representatives, 6 public representatives, and 1 representative of small business proprietors. The eight Government Directors represent the Federal Government's majority interest in the stock of the Bank. The administration has indicated its intent to terminate the activities of the Bank and repeal its authorization. In fact, I introduced, by request, the administration's bill for that purpose. For fiscal year 1981, the administration is requesting the rescission of an aggregate of almost $90 million. Additionally, no funds are being requested for fiscal year 1982. Please proceed with your statement. STATEMENT HIGHLIGHTED Mr. SOLLARS. As Chairman of the Board of the National Consumer Cooperative Bank and the Board's small business representative, I want to thank you for this opportunity to add my voice to the mounting chorus of support for the National Consumer Cooperative Bank. As a farmer, businessman, and Republican, my belief in the Co-op Bank comes from my personal experience with cooperatives and my conviction that they are consistent with the country's desire for more efficient and decentralized government. The Co-op Bank personifies the self-reliance and self-sufficiency ideals which have made our Nation what it is today. The Co-op Bank is not a Government agency operating some kind of giveaway program. It is, instead, just what Congress wanted it to be-a bank with a mandate to raise funds privately without Government guarantees; and a bank that will repay the Federal Government's investment in it with interest. As you are well aware, the Co-op Bank is modeled after the highly successful Bank for Farm Cooperatives which repaid the Federal Government in full in 1968. Just like the Bank for Farm Cooperatives, the Co-op Bank gives it clients the ability to stand on their own. It does this by encouraging self-reliance rather than Government dependence. As Chairman of the Board of the National Consumer Cooperative Bank, I am happy to report that the Bank is working. The Bank's success in its initial operating year already exceeds the goals set by those who advocated its creation. No one anticipated a loan demand of over $400 million. Yet it exists. No one thought that the Bank would be able to finance all its salaries and expenses after only 2 years of operation-a year earlier than expected. Yet, this will be possible as well. I'm so familiar with the original goals of the Co-op Bank because I was able to participate in the original conception of the program as a board member of the Cooperative League of the U.S.A. I joined with representatives of farm cooperatives in rural electric, credit, marketing and farm supply, and other areas where cooperatives have succeeded because of programs like the Co-op Bank. These cooperatives provided an alternative to direct Government action or Government regulation for rural and farm residents. The National Consumer Cooperative Bank is doing the same thing for urban and rural nonfarm people as these programs did for farm cooperatives. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today and would welcome any questions the committee might have for me. I would like to introduce Carol Greenwald, the President of the National Consumer Cooperative Bank. Ms. GREENWALD. I want to thank you for the opportunity to be here and to introduce Dwight Ink, who is our Vice President for Management and Administration, and Mitchell Rofsky, who is the Executive Vice President. PREPARED STATEMENT I have a statement that I would like to submit and summarize briefly. Senator GARN. We will be happy to place your entire statement in the record. [The statement follows:] |