Bring up the topic government regulation of business and you're bound to Kendall an argument a businessman. Might say that regulatory agencies are excessive in certain health environmental or economic demands. Might say that there are too many agencies with overlapping duties that unnecessarily cost him thousands or millions of dollars each year, and he might some of his arguments by saying that regulation unnecessarily clogs the economy and ultimately the cost of Regulation will be passed on to the consumer consumer Advocate might leave to his feet and applaud The Regulators. Then he might stare shamefully at the businessman and criticize him saying that he knows well that self-regulation cannot be expected because it cuts into profits and in between sets Congress would create and empowers federal Regulatory Agencies. The 95th Congress will probably consider regulatory reform of some sort. The Carter Administration is pledged to it. But what form it will take is unknown, but many agree. There is a pressing problem which must be discussed by business government andConsumers the first national Forum on business government in the public interest was sponsored by the American management association a nonprofit Group which specializes in sponsoring worldwide seminars today and for the next two days industry government and others will offer their views of Regulation & reform today is first speaker is J. Kevin Murphy president of kma Industries is topic the business position on regulatory policy. strangers Two around a different side of the fence from the public labor unions or government. It's been suggested many times that we are aware on some sort of wall here. We're on this side and they're over there. But you know, we're composed of 70 million employed people the other 16 or 17 million being employed by state local and federal government. And all of these working people whether it's you or me or in the same row boat, you may have a different or two row and if you don't run together, we're going to go in circles. And many of you of course are either privately owned corporations are publicly owned. So we're composed of 70 million working people that were composed of millions of shareholder and it's time in my opinion that that Coalition of business employees and taxpayers made it to voice heard where regulation is oppressive needless and a waste of our money. You know, it's our money that Coalition of employees taxpayers and business and we ought to start telling a story to her tack to our shareholders into our employees where business is being oppressively regulated and where A change is required we have started to do that in many over associations, but we need to do a great deal more. At present there are more than 80 federal agencies and over 1,000 Commissions in the federal government estimated to annually cost this country. Directly and buy ripple effect over 130 billion dollars a year. That's a lot of money as we well know and I'll address that a little bit more by telling you it translates into over $2,000 per American family. on an annualized basis Which would buy a one-year Supply at least for an individual in the way of groceries from the local store? Many of the government agencies and their regulations are punitive in nature. Or tend to be take for example some of the EPA requirements already over 14,000 Americans and a hundred plants have been closed by reason of them and it's expected that shortly over 33,000 additional people will be put out of work. Now you can just ask yourself was that sensible and well-thought-out legislation and or regulation by EPA? I would doubt that anybody would agree with that in General Motors estimates that they have over 25,000 people on their payroll processing government regulatory papers and documents are completely negative unproductive function. And when you consider 25,000 people, I would say that's probably more people than over 95% of all the companies in America employ. So just think about that what a tremendous tax burden that's placing on this this particular Nation 130 billion dollars and ripple effect by reason of this over 80 agencies and 1,000 Commissions in my opinion business is fundamentally opposed to unneeded regulation but needs to do a lot more about it. And I'd like to just point out one of the important things is that we now or suffer in our nation from an estimated 60 to 100 billion dollar Capital Gap. and the translated Capital Gap is the apparent need for expanding and modernizing Industrial facilities over the amount that's available to spend for capital e Unless of course equates to job Gap as well. If you have a capital gap of 60 to 100 billion dollars. You're well aware of the fact that that's going to mean a lot of people aren't going to be employed because we don't have the money available. And how does that get involved obviously are affected by government Regulatory Agencies. It's costing us a hundred and thirty billion dollars a year and ripple effect all the way through that's obviously draining out a lot of money that could be converted to Capital development. From 1950 to 1975 government employment at all levels local state and federal Rose 126% from 7.4 million Americans to 16.7 million employees with zero productivity games. This compares to only 32% increase in the private sector and so far as employment for the corresponding 70% increase in the private sector productivity during the same. I think that pretty well tells the story that when you equate productivity on a private sector vs. Business, excuse me versus government, you're quickly aware of the fact that the business and industry can do a far better job than government and it's about time. We began reversing that Trend and requiring government to step out from those areas. It doesn't belong in The jungle of overlapping and confusing government agencies is also part and parcel of our problem. And I think all we need to do is take one example the recent Arisa enactment. We have two government agency fighting over who's going to regulate business and industry and at this moment. Nobody really knows who's going to win out that just doesn't make any sense in a typical example, however of what's going on because there hasn't been well thought out regulation where and when needed The private sector has had to increase its cost to cope with the regulatory Jungle which again asked to inflation and a reduction in the available money for capital investment. Think about your own companies. Those of you who are in the in the private sector how many people have you had to add over the past five years to handle the various government regulatory agency increases and or expansion programs in this idea of the sunset law. It's good to talk about but if you ever known the Congress to examine any federal agency over any lengthy period of time and not increase its Appropriations for that agency and not a good example is the Federal Energy Administration that had a deadline to be stopped as you know, but it's been extended and they employed I'm toll over 40 public relations people to lobby for their extension of time and continuation. So the taxpayers money was being spent in that vein another good example of we talked about subsidies. We look at the postal service and you're well aware of the fact that the that supposed to be an independent agency. But now the Congress is talking about bringing it back into the federal government or I should say present like water is saying that We now subsidize the Postal Service to the extent. We American taxpayers of 2.5 billion dollars. They can't reduce the Personnel because of Union requirements. So they let the net result is you're going to have to subsidize that agency if it's brought back into the control of the Congress you can well imagine how much more that subsidies going to become even though they've just at their first quarter of profit in many years. The recent OSHA proposal to impose a 10 million. 10 billion dollar redesign and cover-up of Machinery is another example of abuse on the regulatory side if that 10 billion dollars had to be spent to redesign machinery and cover-up from the standpoint of noise. Obviously, that would be a tremendous to version of capital and would increase of course the what I call a capital job Gap In the most recent Congress, most of you were involved in public affairs of government relations, so you're well aware of it. But so, excuse me, but just reciting some of the proposals that were before the Congress some of which pass and some of which did not there was a clean air amendments clean water amendments called surface mining control construction site picketing consumer Cooperative Bank Consumer Protection Agency Federal corporate chartering the Federal Election Commission, the Humphrey Hawkins proposal the land use controls the lobbying control the national energy production board the petroleum divestiture proposals in the office of solid waste disposal proposal. That's just some of the thousands of pieces of legislation that were proposed for increased or new regulatory activities on the part of the federal government collectively. They represent billions of dollars of additional tax payers burden as again, I'm saying to your contributing to the Capital job leg in America and this doesn't just apply to big business that some people might suggest the The class of business that's the most damaged by this type of activity of us is of course the small businessman. And listen, this includes of course, small environmental companies bowling alleys retail stores and restaurants Parts manufacturers private schools hospitals medical laboratories professional people all the way up to the so-called multinationals. What small businesses comprise 95% of all business units and comprise 40% of this nation's GNP, but they are threatened with extinction by the regulatory demands and activities of agencies like IRS OSHA EEOC FTC CPS, cfpc epanl RV and you can go on a name. I'm sure dozens of more it's estimated that the average small business man has to fill out federal forms totaling somewhere around 2,000 pages each year. And the reason IRS booklet on small business comprised, I think about a hundred fifty three pages about 95% of which the average small business man couldn't possibly understand or make yourself and saw the cost of lawyers accountants as well as the time of the small businessman is eating them alive and something needs to be done to stop that kind of activity. The regulation of course can be positive or negative and you can list it for your own sake what you think is positive. It could be personal property safety assurance of Public Service anti-collusion procedural quality product quality business planning and inventory control investment security clean air Environmental Protection in the right to work. On the negative side, we could have increased government intervention. Punitive regulations of small business inflationary regulations lots of competition reduction and job opportunities such as brought about by minimum wage increases that put young people out of job opportunities divestiture causing higher prices and let's talk about divestiture having operated in Europe for a number of years and been aware of the cost of gasoline. Most of you are well aware of that you'd pay anywhere from a dollar $82 2 per gallon in a country like Italy or France or Germany. What is it in this country 1/3 that price in the suggestion that we should destroy one of our strongest or begin to tear apart. One of our strongest Industries to me doesn't make a bit of sense think we could spend that time looking at the regulatory agencies that are causing us a hundred thirty billion dollars a year in and out of pocket cost and running our business. I think some of the attacks upon Transportation because I've had some experience in that field are really diversionary. Are they real or Sham in my opinion? Most of them are sham? Yes, we could speed up the regulatory process and that's doable. But a recent study reveals that American businesses saving between 4 and 9 billion dollars a year out of the regulated track motor Transportation industry what to avoid comes out of one across to you by reason of the fact that the carriers can borrow money at much lower interest rates. But because of the fact they are solvent with about a average of a 94% operating ratio, which are you a businessman that 6% pre-tax or 3% after tax not like the public opinion polls say most people think we are in 32% on every doll that's nonsense. The motor carrier industry is earning about 3% after tax. I don't think that's an unreasonable profit margin, but it also pointed out that those of us in business can gauge our inventory requirements. Why because they over 17,000 of competing motor carriers in this country and that's how many there are can transport your goods to every little hamlet in this country. And therefore you can determine how much inventory you need to have on hand and various Geographic locations and reduce your inventory requirements to the fact you have reliable transportation moving into every little Town that we have in this great country more could be said about that, but I'd like to try to conclude because we're running quite late. A white number of public interest causes of related to equal opportunity noise abatement environmental controls Etc have developed in recent years many of these causes can rightfully take credit for aiding our nation, but they're also placed great strain Upon Our resources and have led to the creation of additional or expanded governmental Regulatory Agencies. The business World should support worthy causes and in fact anticipate and Institute changes without outside catalysts, we should simultaneously demand more organized control uncoordinated and overlapping agencies reduction of negative government regulation in required decision-making on major issues at a higher level in the executive branch. I proposed the business and it's 70 million fellow employees who comprise it should insist upon a more thoughtful legislative process which avoids the promises promises promises approach. Politicians you saw that on television one of the ads that this past election time the promises promises approach but who pays for those promises we the Coalition of business employees and stockholders the taxpayers of America play for nobody else and before another Regulatory Agencies established like the Consumer Protection Agency or any other I would like to suggest that the converse look into establishing a taxpayer's protective agency. That would have the power to look into how these other agencies are spending their money how we can begin to cut back the waste of our money and begin to bring back into the capital requirements of Industry the 130 billion dollars that's going down the drain that was Kevin Murphy of k m a Industries Democratic. Senator Gary Hart of Colorado began his talk by scolding business rejecting some regulation while at the same time accepting government subsidies. Protective regulation like to examine what we mean by government regulation or government involvement the marketplace and several regards. First of all, and perhaps most obvious is the area price regulation. Thumb Industries the government of Simply replaced free market with Comprehensive price regulation example price regulation in the airline industry by the c a b has resulted in higher airfares for consumers because the price competition has been virtually removed in this industry competitive energy has been focused on routes resulting an excessive scheduling off and Hatfield planes and needlessly inflated Fair cbf's office concluded. The regulation is raised cost to passengers and help the Foster excessive service competition. Over the industry is vigorously oppose proposal to limit the authority of the cab apparently fearing what one Spokes and spokes when is described as quote ruin us competition. Another unhappy experience. I think with price regulation is in the area petroleum. When the energy crisis occurred the federal government largely out of the necessary response to actions by a number of the major oil companies jumped into the marketplace with what has grown to be a Byzantine maze the price controls allocations and entitlements including other things extensive tariffs and quotas result of satisfied need of the oil industry nor the consumers. In wrestling with this problem. I think we've all learned a very important lesson. That is it. It's a whole lot easier to get the government into the marketplace then to get it out. On the question of oil seems to me the Carter Administration will have to make a number of critical choices whether to maintain price controls whether to increase government control of the industry whether to adopt some form of public ownership of the free market to determine oil prices now vacation. I totally control would Sweep with it the allocations and entitlements to protect independent recliners and marketers from being squeezed from the market by the majors. I think it's also misleading to propose return of petroleum pricing to these so-called free market when in many respects a true free market does not exist. I don't approach is mr. Hayes is indicated is vertical divestiture divorcing the production arm of the major oil companies. So the pricing of petroleum would be established by true free market principles this approach would Foster competition not through intricate regulation, but rather through established a trust principles a major effect of production divestiture would be to substantially enhanced 25% of the petroleum business that is competitive the independent refiners marketers and retailers with divestiture. I think we could afford to phase out over a. Of time the existing regulations in the pricing area without fear that the Major's could take advantage of that situation situation to try to totally lie. Play most vigorously competitive segments of their industry. LOL, there are exceptions in my judgment the general impact of government price regulations in most Industries has been increased prices stifle competition and hampered Innovation. And sure I do not believe that government price controls generally serve the public good from any political perspective. What is a second perhaps more subtle area of government involvement in the marketplace? Which also I think should be considered a form of Regulation. Let's talk about tax subsidies. What subsidies are an issue the Garment often undergoes a kind of an amazing Jekyll and Hyde transformation? What was earlier and mr. Hyde the hairy monster of over-regulation suddenly becomes the esteemed. Dr. Jekyll what is federal medicine and federal money to restore help the ailing Industries and profits to the balance sheets at the growing proliferation of subsidies and incentives are distorting the free Marketplace just as surely as the mind-boggling volume of Federal Regulation since the dangers of government subsidies, and tax incentives are less frequently discussed outline some of their consequences subsidies distort the marketplace by making unprofitable Enterprises appear profitable course this apparent profitability of Sheer Illusion, cuz the prophets on the balance sheets were actually extracted and part from the taxpayers pockets with the assistance of government. Second tax incentives, if you favor them or tax loopholes, if you're opposed them do not receive the same scrutiny by either the executive branch or by Congress as direct budget expenditures. I'm sure that many of you feel the Congress does not take a tough enough. Look at those direct government expenditures, but tax subsidies drain the US Treasury just two certainly is a new 200 million dollar school lunch program, but not until this year that anyone even bothered to find out how much tax subsidies for costing us. The answer is this some but not all the principal tax subsidies cost in excess of forty billion dollars and finally industry in the federal government have gotten involved in The Showdown over regulatory standards Congress Force the automobile manufacturers to produce clean cars and wrist The Economic Consequences of lower sales for auto auto emission standards to be relaxed year after year as they have been in the past. These are the kind of Alternatives that we are supposedly faced with I don't necessarily agree that they're the real alternate. But that's the way they're publicly stated. Considering the problems that I tried to help line here. I think we need to totally new approach to regulating pollution one possibility. It seems to me would be to exploit the unique ability of the free-market system for a bond to cost and price signals by replacing are volumes of pollution control regulations admission standards and compliance deadline with a simpler tax on pollution. As I mentioned earlier. The cost of pollution does not show up on the balance sheets of business a pollution tax would be one method of changing the marketplace to reflect environmental and public health cost. It would work like this Hooters would be required to pay a tax Raffi on every unit of pollutants discharged into the atmosphere faced with these new cost Industries would feel I think a direct economic and Sunday to reduce blue. Structured properly such a system would enable us to achieve the same environmental goes faster and more efficiently and we are doing with our present regulatory structure one example of this approach would be in the area of the throwaway Prada suppose a massive burden on both the environment and all local governments. There is little incentive for manufacturers to reduce the amount of scarce resources used in their product because of the present system and there is no incentive for consumers to change their lifestyle and seek out products that do not add to the solid waste disposal problem. I think if we implemented at pollution tax system of the type that I'm suggesting here products would be subject to a fee based on the cost of disposal the further encourage resource conservation through recycling if he could be reduced for products made from recycled materials and the fees collected through such a system could be distributed the local government and was barely cost of dealing with solid waste. The system it seems to me as number of intriguing advantages over the regulatory approach to solid waste. It would be economically self-sufficient. There would be no government expenditures. No drain on the treasury and note increasing the national debt. Dorothy may make some products cost more. The total cost to Consumers would not increase I described how this approach might be using one of the environment. Larry is solid waste pollution could also be employed in the air in the areas of air and water pollution as well and obviously for toxic chemicals and certain heavy material economic incentives are not the answer outright prohibition still is however for many of the problems in the energy and environment trade-off area affecting air and water we can and should explore this another alternative. Let me in just a second conclude what I think is. The attitude in the present Congress toward this entire area of government regulation. Mr. Hayes has indicated some of us are trying to come up with some solution my own or one of my own has to do with the area of sunset. That is the forest. Only agency and and Regulatory bureaucracy responsiveness, the elected officials representing the people of this country, but the force those elected officials themselves live up the part of their responsibility to the people that sent them to Washington. I think there's a realization on the part of particular the newer members of Congress. In fact, the regulatory approach to solving the problems of this Society may not be totally adequate certainly in the in the area pricing as I've already indicated that there is an increased necessity for congressional oversight that contrary to the allegations made by some Congress may not be to unresponsive. It may in fact be too responsive and maybe two Easily available to the will of the public to create new mechanisms that further encumber the working of the free market place. That is an area that I think a lot of us have a great deal of work in which to do. I think these kinds of forums today can provide that occasion and I appreciate the opportunity to be here with you Colorado Senator Gary Hart how the media views government regulation of business was discussed by a panel of national correspondents public television's Martin agronsky Eric sevareid of CBS News syndicated columnist, Joseph craft and Hobart rowing economics editor for the Washington Post who said business Fear public scrutiny at one point The Washington Post wanted to try to do a journalistic Enterprise saying and show the effect of regulation on business business says, there's tons of paper that thousands of forms that have to be filled out when we propose to a major U.s. Company one of the big ones one of the ones that it has been in the Forefront of making this complaint that we assign a responsible reporter that company for a. Of time and live it with them see how it works see where the regulations affected see where it was happening and I thought about it and turn it over their lawyers and decided they didn't want to do it. We've tried that with a couple of other companies and I think that if this is a legitimate point if business has a case Murphy said, let's let's take the case. I think there's an obligation on business and industry to show it to us. Let me try and answer. I think there's a good answer to the problem here as the first let me associate myself with what has been saying. I hope I was saying that at the beginning it seems to me that the question of Regulation have to be set in a much much wider framework and I completely agree with bought that that undiscriminating me Dax and I regulation rhetoric gets us nowhere. I think you really do have to get down to cases and I think one of the first things you discover when you get down to cases is as the NATO was saying earlier that among the most Ardent the Packers of the regulatory system are the protected Industries the airline's of being one example of truckers being another example now, it does seem to me that this problem that you decided is not a very impossible problem to sort this all I do not think the CIB is really well equipped. I handle this kind of problem they exist for the handling of routine problem. But those of us who thought a lot about it, but even those of us who haven't thought much about this have understood that and it's one of the things that Bart was talking about that a way to solve this kind of very very hot emergency problem is to delegate certain authorities to the executive particularly the president. I told him grab them away from the agencies under a suspense of veto by the Congress of it. He said that the executive with contacts and which is equipped to act deal this time at this kind of an emergency. I can take take action which would then be subject to rejection by by vote of the Congress of a device which we've been using over and over again and which I think which it has been proposed at to meet a large part of the regulatory problems that can't be dealt with rapidly by agencies that donut Back to good people that don't have a lot of morale. I just think that there are answers to that that kind of problem mechanism exists. It doesn't exist yet. But if you're real if you read if you're not just using regulation as a stick with which to beat government, if you really want to solve the problem. It is not beyond the Realms of even people as dimwitted as I am to think of her think of how to do it. the United States Congress Which is now and working up a lather about cutting down government agency just by itself. Get rid of the figures but the growth of the legislative branch. Has been fantastic in the last 20 years Capitol Hill. It's now approaching a billion dollar item that used to be pretty cheap. Number of committees and subcommittees and now is into the hundreds. Patriots directors and staff and sectarian all arrested and I don't notice that them any of the push on the senators and representatives for zero based budgeting are Sunset laws is going to apply to their own industry up there won't let me make another reservation. If you remember in the course of the campaign when it was raised and what party was asked the question about what sort of economies would be affected by the consolidation of regulatory agencies. He finally responded that there might be a contraction of the agency, but this did not at all guarantee that they would be a reduction in the Personnel of those who function in these agency. So you might cut down low to say to take an arbitrary number from 1000 to 500 but you'd have the same number of people in the 500. So those reductions are unrealistic and I was interested that Carter was was forced to zero budgeting thing. If you attempted to introduce zero budgeting into the federal government, I think would take the use of probably every computer in this country for the next couple of years. Go to determine how and where to begin. Those aren't really realistic approaches. It seems like taxes Martin instead of computers travel phrase no Farmers consisted am about 5 or 6% of the population, but the budget agriculture Department goes up year after year after year Hyundai Veloster a little time. I'm sure that a good meat action wiped out half of those Erica Farm population may be 5 or 6% But what's the percent of a farm GNC the rest of the GNP? I think play numbers of committees on the hill have proliferated. I mean look the country is grown for Christ's sakes. I would suppose the number of vice presidents of General Motors has today is more in the number. It had 20 years of the number of congressmen till 5:31. If you have the test, really and I think it's time, you know, if there's anything I can say that seems to me to be but I'd like to hit home. I think it's what's the saying the test is performance. I think that the can Congress has improved itself enormously by setting up those two budget committees that the dinosaur has finally got a brain and so it doesn't mean so it does mean a little more staff. I think the point bought made with respect to the vice presidents of General Motors into the amount of money that companies spend on various project is well taken and I think that an undiscriminating and again I use that word me. I'm just going to dating me. Attitude toward government regulation is not productive indeed really ought to be avoided me race. This is it when a business does badly it gets them. Don't have to go just to Lockheed subsidies. I think his figure is low. I think the subsidy figure in the current budget is closer to a hundred billion dollars business in many ways is is spoon fed as you well know and I don't feel well, but when you stop to think how many years in Congress the United States won on trying for example to evaluate the defense budget. When they were up against God knows thousands of experts in the Pentagon and they were sitting there on committees with two three or four men who were trying to evaluate all of these propositions. If you really can't get uptight about the Congress at last having had enough sense to realize that they were entitled to the expertise and that they could not intelligently evaluate the proposals that came to them for exam computers. The Pentagon had about twenty thousand people working on this budget. The Senate armed services committee. I was probation with whatever was as maybe a 17 so-called experts on the military establishment. Part of the Jungle in terms of subcommittees. Oh and then it really does make your head spin. That's I think not necessary. I had almost no computers except for the mail and payroll up there. gentleman I'd like to turn this over and out of the floor there some specific questions that have come up and they're dressed specifically to some of us in the first one is to you fart. Is the airline industry really so dimwitted as to risk planes and Suits if they felt a good case could be made for fixing floors in the plains. Well, I've been pretty dim-witted. I think the particular case that Martin referred to the was cited to me or editorial this morning, which I hasten to say. I did not write had nothing to do with it. Is a special case if that's the case, we're clearly to save the billions of dollars of costs and Andre putting that DC-10 in order in this has been documented by the way in a couple of very very good books published recently won by a British team my damn well should not have been on if they known to the risk and I think that's a classic case of government collusion with a private manufacturer to its own safety regulations. It's it's it's kind of economic order where they misjudged the market they misjudged the demand for travel and therefore got themselves tied up and billions of dollars worth of orders for plans and some of her sitting out in the Weather now in this country on you is because we have excess capacity. So there's plenty of capacity in any big industry for mismanagement. Look General point. I was trying to make is that it's a very easy and simplistic thing for anybody in this country who's in trouble any industry to say, uhh, it's not the same. It's excessive regulation. It may well be that regulations played a part in the process, but I think we have to be careful. I use that is most gracious a look at what what's happening in the industry. a question to Joe Crab you speak of business reference as a defense mechanism of the private business sector. How can the business Community improve upon its ability to communicate with the media? I think that's a good question and I'm not an easy one to answer and let me first say that I don't think that a good idea is to go around and higher Ronald Reagan to give lectures. I think that it's a problem of internalizing one of the signs that I would see is a good example would be the development of public and the public involves the development whereby increasingly publicly minded people are going on two boards of major companies that it seems to me is going to have the impact of bringing to the attention of corporate management decisions that have public implications that they're not fully aware of so, I would cite that as an as an example of doing it, but I also tend to think that something more than that. I think that corporate leaders. I have to become used to the idea that they're going to have to explain Decisions in public that they they ought to get more and more participating much much more than that. They should not take refuge in the classic line of the Secretary of the Treasury, but that's politics and I don't want to have anything to do with it. That's why we cannot mix with something pure and wonderful. Holy and virginal. It seems to me the basically what's going to be required is that management participate more and more and more in the public in the public debate in public life. They it's a mistake the story the part called. I think it's a horror story. I would like to see management people going on Meet the Press and explaining themselves more and more and more and being forced to do it with respect to specific decisions and not to take refuge in this generalized rhetoric. It's fascinating. New show on public broadcasting and one of the things I'm trying to do is talk to interesting people and I decided I wanted to have some really first-class. Number to the business communities corporate head of some really major corporation and we are having a hell of a time will resist the top. That's what he's had to do all the way from times the shop story. They know how to use them. Other things equal come out very well it damn sure. I could never willingly. Let me know I am our coverage of business. I think is Biolage very very poor. We do not write about business. I think we write about businesses out with something done by the Rover boys and we have it seems to me an important responsibility to to be much more sharp and shrewd in in writing about business. Let me pick Eric up on a point. I don't think it's a question of business learning to use the media as labor. May I think Joe is right men have been very shy about dealing with the Press. They feel pretty much that they got shafted by the Press. And in some cases this may be true, but the general Instinct of the businessman my experience has been it's just a way to put out a press release and his vice president for pay. Are you always have to wear as if he could bring himself to deal honestly and frankly with reporters that he considers reliable and to tell the truth and not cover up. I think a business would find that generally they get a fair shake from responsible journalist. It's been my experience and I think we've all had the same if I wanted to talk to the head of a grade Corporation about some very legitimate matter that affect his business and his Corporation. No way in this world that I can reach him except through his vice president of public relations. I cannot reach that man. I think that the business is very foolish to throw that barrier in between that the media and themselves to see the lighter not enough Hobart rolling of the Washington Post and public television's Martin agronsky close that discussion and how the media of US government regulation now Robert de Lily the retired president of American Telephone and Telegraph offers at corporate view of Regulation vs. Deregulation the Bell System, which recently left functions and two modes. We operate in the private sector much the same way as any other company depending on the resources the intelligence and Imagination of our own management. But we are also regulated and so we can talk about both worlds. I am for finally trouble and have been for some time by the intensely adversary nature that has begun to characterize the public sector private sector Division and by the either-or formulations. That's so awesome Flo from this opposition of Interest. I recognize that the role of government has been Central politically throughout this country's history beginning at least with a division said part of Jefferson and Hamilton, and I know that it wasn't watch card from the Relentless contention principle against principal of the Jeffersonian and hamiltonian orders that they finally emerged the character of government that we have today. Marissa surprising that any achievement of consequence should issue only from Ernest struggle. What troubles me however is that we have accepted and in fact perpetuated a routine hostility as if there was something in the natural and eternal order of things that established the permanently. There is for example considerable ground for the Publix report a disillusionment with regulation the case against it is easily made. There is often there is the often but we'll during array of standards and in some instances of a realtor in context of their application and my own industry, for example, there's a growing convergence of data Communications and data processing and the FCC is going to have one whale of a time dealing with that one. There are the costs of Regulation the Office of Management and budget estimates that Regulatory Agencies and I rules cost the average American family $2,000 annually. They're also what many people consider intrusions in the area of civil rights and personal discretion symbolized by the enforcement of such Provisions as always on seatbelt in a box and motorcycle safety helmets. A lot of people feel that if they choose to fall on their heads. It is up to them and not the government to elect whether it should be with or without the benefits of petting. They're also the respect of effects of Regulation that some companies contend have hobble them in their efforts to compete effectively and foreign markets. And the rest of course and notably the proliferation and endurance of the agencies themselves by keep Cleopatra. They appear to have known only infinite variety immortal longings. Dr. Murray White & Boom Washington University has said in the past decade alone. We haven't been given the FAA the EPA and cpsc the cissp. Yummy. I say then it the nhtsa Yen bfp and o s h a You read that you feel like you've been through an eye examination. And I expect that they will be around for awhile despite Sunset laws and five-year reviews and zero-based budgeting and the four-year program contained in president's for the message to Congress lasts me all of which are supposed to persuade the government to divest itself. Maybe so but recalling that the subject is power. I keep thinking of the response attributed to Somerset maugham when he was approached by his heirs attorneys to relinquish his estate early. So as to avoid legal complications and the rest, mr. Mom wrote back to the lawyers as follows. I have read your letter. I have also read King Lear. But the case for government intervention is just as easily made. It is made by the history of Western Society. It is made by the developments of our own time and the concealed the fact no longer it is made by businessmen themselves, whenever it starts their interests taking it back to England where it all started to note some instances at 10 to place our own anxieties in better perspective. For example the factory Act of 1833. Stipulated that employees between the ages of 9 and 13 have to be given two hours off to go to school each weekday. Think of it 9 on 13 that provision is said to Mark the beginning of compulsory education and no doubt. It was resistant. A late effect react in 1844 authorized the appointment of doctors to examine workers for the certificates of age required by the act that is cited as a beginning statutory medical Supervision in industry and no doubt that was resistant mean while I study by Edwin Chadwick, but he called the sanitary condition condition of the laboring population concerned itself for the prevention as well as the Cure of disease and this was said to Mark the starting point of the modern public health system and no doubt that found products as well. In the speech that I have just referred to by Stanford Smith you very properly quoted Justice Brandeis writing nearly 50 years ago. The Justice said experience should teach us to the most on our God to protect Liberty on government purposes of the nificent the greatest danger to Liberty work in Insidious encroachment by men of zeal well-meaning, but without understanding I think that ought to be embroidered on Samplers and every home and office across the country. But at the same time it would be equally mischievous to contribute to construe every effort of government as an invasion of Rights. In our own time, I don't think that would be much argument that there is an Environmental Protection Agency because the environment has been assaulted that there are occupational safety and health standards because workers have been forced to work in unsafe and unhealthy conditions that there are equal opportunity laws and a friend of action programs because opportunity has been denied and because for so many years are has been no action. Obviously, the illustrations could be extended. But as I said the case is also made by business itself. And recent speech Thomas Murphy the Tramadol General Motors put it this way. He said but one thing we are not consistent in what we say businessman too often rail against government regulation that is except regulation protect us against foreign competition. We oppose government handouts, except those used to bail out particular companies or particular Industries. We are dead set against controls on prices with wage controls might be worth a look Chloe. It is not all as clear as some of this may have thought or as we may have claimed. I felt in embarking on this talk but it would have succeeded if I could leave you with one thought. In the spirit of the times I have since inflated the hope to two thoughts the first the first thought is at the adversary nature of Regulation that has been exaggerated by all of us. And we should try to cool it. I don't mean take a regulator to lunch or vice versa. What I mean is that we should begin to acknowledge a very much of what we are striving to do together coincides. Let me quote for a moment from Carl bakkie with a former member of the federal power commission. He says just us a goals of Regulation have been extended Beyond a limited economic objectives of the past. So a new record regulatory methodology is required for dealing with a broad problems that do not lend themselves to the adversary approach rational regulatory policy cannot be forged in bits and pieces chosen by a few interested parties a formalized consultative process between government and business is needed for joint planning and Joint action Peru making in place of adjudication and for investigatory proceeding. We also need joint action between government agencies both federal and state Which share responsibility for the same sectors of the economy? Regulation as we have noted in the past will be increasingly displaced by Cooperative efforts paste on a mature relationship between government and Industry and between federal and state governments. This is already apparent in many areas. And it goes on to describe some of these areas in the electric power field you speaking of course of regulated industry, but surely The Same Spirit of cooperation could apply throughout all of our relationship with government rather than valey hoping for it to develop at the point of confrontation with various pressure is not the least of which is a sensational publicity surrounding him in a fight make it less than likely. It can be done and the conviction of the 10 leads me of the second thought that I would like to leave behind. And expressing it. I have to return for just a moment to my former state has a telephone man and declare my belief that many years ago. Our business was lucky enough to find its Compass the estimate that I recommend as a guy in place of any understanding and that is the public interest. I recognize that that's an easy phrase the verbal equivalent of the Puritan dress and Henry Cabot Lodge once described as an article that covers everything while touching nothing. but I intend by its use as a measure. However, it's a serious reordering of our approach to the whole spectrum of business government and consumer relations. I don't mean for example a review of how existing laws can be made to serve the public interest. But I review from either further back do the existing laws themselves or the public interest should they be strengthened scrapped should new ones be enacted in brief a comprehensive reappraisal based on a new and vigorously Applied Standard wherever that is seen to be necessary. Some months ago Fortune Magazine published an article under the title business needs a new political staff. No political stamps in which some of my Impressions found an answering chord. It's part of the incidence of large clamp campaign contributions reportedly made a few years ago to influence the price of a commodity rather than taking such measures such clearly the legal measures the article asked why the business had a long ago questioned the law that gave the Executive Branch the power to support the price of this particular commodity in the first place. That's the kind of you I would propose something rora and simply regulation vs. Deregulation. How would it be how would it be accomplished? I don't know at this stage, but I see no reason why the matter couldn't be taken up as a serious exploratory proposition for have to buy a joint effort of government consumer and business groups working together at hawk or by any other feasible means what I Envision arriving from such an effort as a set of Standards or guidelines that might be applied industrial industry spelling out the public interest requirements that would then take their place a primary place and industries planning. All I would add is my belief that business could bring much for such an undertaking. In fact, I would say that no segment of our institutional life in Western Society. But the thickly here in America has been more in concert with change and business and businessmen and businesswomen the tocqueville characterized as long ago as an eminently practical people and forming our energies to what is needed and setting off in the most expeditious matter matter saw the perceived goal that has been our way all we ever need. It's a sense of direction. according to a host here today more than 68% of company presidents responding to an AMA Subway express some doubt as to whether the corporation as we know it will survive into the next century. Whatever the specters maybe excessive regulation planned economies consumer revolts tax burdens, whatever they may be I believe our strongest response is to declare that the consumer interest the public interest will be the connecting on unifying theme through which through all we do and that we will follow it wherever it leads Robert D Lily the retired president of AT&T addressing the first national Forum on business government and the public interests held recently in Washington DC. I'm Neal st. Anthony