DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND CERTAIN OTHER INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1977 TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1976 U.S. SENATE, Subcommittee of the CommITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 3 p.m., in room 1318, Everett McKinley Dirksen Office Building, Hon. William Proxmire (chairman) presiding. Present: Senator Proxmire. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION STATEMENT OF RICHARD O. SIMPSON, CHAIRMAN ACCOMPANIED BY: MICHAEL A. BROWN, GENERAL COUNSEL STANLEY R. PARENT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ALBERT S. DIMCOFF, ASSOCIATE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR DON R. CLAY, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PROGRAM PLANNING WOODSON W. BERCAW, DIRECTOR, BUDGET AND OPERATIONS OPENING REMARKS BY CHAIRMAN Senator PROXMIRE. The subcommittee will come to order. Good afternoon. This afternoon, the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on HUD-Independent Agencies is meeting to discuss the Consumer Product Safety Commission's fiscal year 1977 budget with Mr. Richard O. Simpson, Chairman, and other officials of the agency. Under Section 27(k) of the Consumer Product Safety Act, the Commission is authorized to present an estimate of resource requirements to the Congress independent of the budget presented by the President. This is most unusual. Usually the agency head appears to defend the President's position. Often we have to dig out of them what they asked for and what resulted from negotiations with the Office of Management and Budget. In this case, however, the President's recommendations are lower than yours, but you are defending your own request, as I understand it. The Consumer Product Safety Commission has submitted a budget request of $41.1 million for fiscal year 1977 to the Congress-an increase of $1.5 million above last year's appropriation, assuming the Congress approves the partial rescission now being considered. At the same time, the President has recommended fiscal year 1977 budget of $37 million, or $2.5 million below last year's adjusted level. Also, I should note that the President has proposed a rescission of $5.2 million from the Commission's fiscal year 1976 appropriation. This morning the committee approved a partial rescission of $2,256,000. Mr. Simpson, last year, in all candor, I was disappointed by your presentation to this subcommittee. The major part of your answers had to be supplied for the record and you didn't even know the total number of employees you had on board. I hope that this year you are prepared to respond to my questions and those of other members of the subcommittee regarding your fiscal year 1977 budget request. Also, as I am sure you are aware by now, yesterday I issued a press release in which I expressed my disappointment over the failure of this agency to establish a set of priorities among the thousands of products that could conceivably be hazardous to consumers. I felt that the Congress was extremely generous with the Commission last year-appropriating over $5 million more than the President requested for your fiscal year 1976 operations. But when I discovered that the only product safety standard you have developed in 3 years under your basic legislation is for swimming pool slides, I decided it was appropriate to take a particularly hard look at your request for $4.1 million more than the President's budget for fiscal year 1977. Mr. Simpson, I know that it has not been an easy task for you to be the first Chairman of this Commission. But, on the eve of your departure from the Consumer Product Safety Commission, I hope that you will be open and candid about what can be done to improve the performance of this agency that, by all yardsticks, has been a disappointment to all concerned. I would appreciate it if you would summarize your opening remarks and then your complete statement will be printed in the record in full. INTRODUCTION OF ASSOCIATES First, could you introduce your colleagues to me and the other members of the subcommittee? Mr. SIMPSON. Yes. I will be pleased to do so. On my far left, Mr. Bercaw, Budget Officer; Mr. Clay, Planning Officer; Mr. Parent, Executive Director; Mr. Dimcoff, next to him, Associate Executive Director; Mr. Brown, General Counsel. Mr. Chairman, I will take advantage of your admonition to be candid throughout the presentation today. Let me start in that same vein by saying that I was also disappointed last year in our first meeting with your subcommittee. Let me tell you one of the reasons why. It was because last year prior to the committee hearing when our congressional relations office had talked with your staff, we were told by your staff that you were not interested in detailed budget questions, that you were interested in policy discussions only and we were requested to have myself and the other four commissioners at the table, which is what we did. Senator PROXMIRE. Could I ask who on the staff told you? Mr. SIMPSON. I could go back in hindsight over a year. I will be glad to supply it. I will be pleased to do so. Senator PROXMIRE. The man assigned to this subcommittee, Mr. van der Voort, who is here to my right, said he has absolutely no knowledge of such a request. Mr. SIMPSON. It is a little bit like who struck John. There was a request for all five commissioners to come up for a policy discussion and yet all I heard last year were detailed questions written out by your staff. I, too, was disappointed-very much so. I felt I had been let down. The budget staff, which is here with me today, was not at the table last year, as you will recognize. Senator PROXMIRE. Of course this is most unusual because of the fact that every agency that appears before us—this used to be called the Subcommittee on Independent Agencies because we have so many-has the Budget Officer here. We also have the other officials of the agency who are experts on the budget and understand its details. Mr. van der Voort has insisted on that as the principal staff man assigned to this job. As I say he was, last year, the principal staff man. He knew nothing about this at all. This is the first time we have heard this. Mr. SIMPSON. I am glad I put it in for the record. It was my understanding. It was a request from your staff last year and it was very disappointing to me, also. Senator PROXMIRE. Go ahead. Mr. SIMPSON. I will proceed and I will summarize and highlight the statement. Then I would like to come back to your press release. As the subcommittee is aware, following the provisions of Public Law 92-573, our enabling statute, as you pointed out, the justification document which was sent to you contains two budget estimates. The first set supports the President's request for the Commission and represents his view of a basic sustenance of the 1975 level of effort. The second series of budget estimates are those of the Commission which accept the Administration's basic economic constraints, but present our judgment on what continuation of the 1975 level of effort would in fact cost. Before I discuss these two numbers, I would like to call your attention to the 1977 budget request which this agency submitted to the Office of Management and Budget in September. We also submitted that document to the Congress last September, with copies to this subcommittee. This document, for the first time, provided answers to pertinent questions which were expressed by OMB and the Congress. The questions addressed issues such as an assessment of the dimensions of the problems the Commission was created to address. In that submission the concept of a finite mission and the predictable end point was described. The stated goal was a reduction in the level of hazards associated with unsafe consumer products to a point which would negate demand for a Federal regulatory product safety agency. This level, we predict, will be reached at such time as we have 100 mandatory safety rules complemented by voluntary standards in effect. A budget level of $55 million, in fiscal year 1977, with the other increases proposed in that document, would permit this to be achieved by 1982. At that point the Commission would have addressed about 75 percent of the injuries that are preventable by standards thereby reducing the overall consumer product safety problem to more reasonable levels-perhaps enough to change the character of the agency to a maintenance or "enforcement only" level agency. Another alternative would be, if the Congress concluded that the risk that was left was no longer an unreasonable risk, the abolition of the agency. Our forecast shows that the 101st standard would be addressing a total of 2400 injuries per year. Mr. Chairman, I also would feel negligent if I did not at least refer to the benefit side of the ledger. I am talking about the benefit to the American public that goes along with the Commission's "100 rule-$55 million" budget estimate. There are approximately 20 million product-associated injuries per year in the United States. This number was first arrived at in a report to the Congress and to the President in 1970, by the National Commission on Product Safety which was the study commission that recommended creation of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. This national estimate of 20 million injuries per year is verified by the Commission's NEISS system as well as other governmental and nongovernmental surveys. Most experts, including those in this Commission, estimate that the product-caused or "standards-preventable" portion of these injuries ranges from 15 to 25 percent of the 20 million total. Also, in 1970 the National Commission on Product Safety estimated that the cost to the Nation of the total product-associated injuries was $5.5 billion per year. That is $5.5 billion per year in 1970 dollars. Applying the same percentages to the total gives an estimate in the neighborhood of $1 billion per year of injury costs to our citizens that is preventable by the actions of the Commission. However, it costs dollars to do the accident prevention job. Mr. Chairman, I commend to you that the 6-year program outlined in the Commission's 1977 budget estimate is the best budget buy in Washington on behalf of the American public. The plan represents a comprehensive and professional approach to fulfilling the mandate given to the agency by the Congress. At a minimum, I believe that the appropriate committees of the Congress, including this committee, should at least consider the plan, evaluate the plan and then reject it if you find it lacking or in error. It would be a shame, however, if it were simply ignored because of our historical approach to the budget process. |