Mr. KINTNER. Mr. Chairman, there is another side to the point. Sometimes a man stays in office too long.

The CHAIRMAN. I would not want to discuss that part too much. Mr. KINTNER. Present company excepted, of course.

I think that Mr. Babcock's figure demonstrates pretty well, considering there are five Federal Trade Commissioners, that there hasn't been even in his 37 years such a tremendous turnover when you consider even 32 men.

There is a tendency to reappoint Commissioners. Of course, this doesn't take place in all instances where there is a change of administration, and that is part of the normal political process, but I think that for the most part Commissioners who have served well have been reappointed.

We have one outstanding example today, and I apprehend that he probably will be reappointed in the near future.

The CHAIRMAN. I think there is a lot to that and there is a lot to the question that Mr. Shniderman raised.

On the other hand, I have been somewhat alarmed at the rapid turnover in all these commissions in the last several years. I think in the old days, so to speak, or years ago you did find Commissioners who stayed on for a period of time. Take some of your own back in your own Commission.

Mr. KINTNER. I would concede the existence of the problem.

The CHAIRMAN. However, in the last few years, there has been a change, whether because of the necessity of having to fortify one's self, adequately take care of living conditions, and so forth, or what, I do not know.

Joe Eastman stayed with the Interstate Commerce Commission for many, many years, and Dr. Splawn. We could mention many others. However, in most of these Commissions in the last 10 or 12 years there seems to have been quite a rapid turnover for some reason.

I agree there should be something done. Maybe several things can be done, including the probably greater consideration or weight given to the ambition and desire of the individual at the time he is considered for appoinment.

I am somewhat of the opinion that some of them go for these appointments just to have a few years at it for the experience, which is well understood.

Mr. KINTNER. I think that is true in some instances.

Perhaps this recent pay raise for the members of the independent regulatory agencies will have a salutary effect in that connection.

The CHAIRMAN. Does anyone else have any comment on this topic? I might ask this question: Do you think that the benefits of administrative efficiency within the Commission which come from the designation of one Commissioner to serve as Chairman has been offset by undue executive influence upon the Commission flowing from the Presidential appointment of the Chairman?

Mr. KINTNER. In my honest judgment, and I speak primarily as a member of the staff who has had opportunity, particularly as General Counsel, to observe the extent of the existence of that problem, I don't believe, insofar as our agency is concerned, that a serious problem in that connection of influence from the executive branch has ever existed. The CHAIRMAN. We had one panelist the other day who served in another agency make the statement that before the Reorganization

Act, which brought about this procedure, the agency appointed its own Chairman, and he said before they voted on who would be the Chairman, they would call the White House and ask who they wanted to make the Chairman.

Sometimes we might have a procedure well established without taking the action that the Reorganization Act has provided.

Mr. KINTNER. Mr. Chairman, I have served as a staff member under both the old and the new system. I came to the Commission in 1948 when we had a rotating chairmanship and I observed that there was a tendency for all five of the Commissioners to pass on some of the most minute details of grade promotion, for example, and I felt that i they were unduly involved in housekeeping functions. And then there was something that I regard as far worse: There was a tendency on the part of the members of the staff to put themselves under the wing of a particular Commissioner so that staff member A was regarded as Commissioner B's protege and untouchable for any disciplinary purposes.

If he wanted particular privileges that someone else might not have, such as better furniture in his office, it sometimes would be accorded to him because he was under the protection of a particular Commissioner. This may not have been true, but it was rather widely accepted as true on the staff.

I was a neophyte member of the staff and didn't have the experience to judge whether all of these rumors and statements were correct, but I am at least satisfied that it was so, and I thought that was a very undesirable situation and led to inefficient operations of the Trade Commission.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think the clearance by the Bureau of the Budget of FTC recommendations to Congress in any way affects the independence of the Commission in its authorized role of advisor to Congress on antitrust matters?

Mr. KINTNER. No, sir.

I think the authority for clearances, statutory in nature, of legislation by the Bureau of the Budget, operates to better advise the Congress because it does insure in the first instance that the Congress has the administration's position and yet leaves the agencies free to express their own position.

I have served as General Counsel for 6 years and I have had the job of legislative analysis and liaison with the Congress and with the Bureau of the Budget. I found that there was never an instance in which we were really inhibited from expressing the agency's point of view on a particular bit of legislation. The Bureau might advise us that other agencies held a contrary view and it was sometimes helpful to know what those views were, but we have always been able to express our views to the Congress, and so long as I am Chairman, we always shall.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think that the requirement of the clearance with the Bureau of the Budget in any way disturbs the performance of the duties that the Commission itself feels it should carry out?

Mr. KINTNER. No, sir. I do not in all sincerity and based upon very intimate knowledge of how the process works. For example, we often, while we have letters at the Bureau of the Budget for clearance on a particular type of legislation, will be asked to come up and testify before the clearance is forthcoming, or the chairman

45253-5937

of a committee, yourself sometimes, will tell us, "We must have this report urgently." We send it forthwith and merely state that it has not been cleared with the Bureau of the Budget and the Bureau has never, to my knowledge, made any objection to that. They never questioned our right to forthwith advise the Congress of our position. This is how it has operated in practice, Mr. Chairman, during the past 6 years, to the best of my knowledge.

The CHAIRMAN. Is the investigatory function of the Commission to any extent limited in effectiveness by the provision of section 5 of the Federal Reports Act which requires clearance with the Bureau of the Budget if any agency plans to collect information upon identical terms from 10 or more persons?

Mr. KINTNER. Sometimes there is a little delay resulting, but I would say that the answer to your question would be no, with that exception, and there have been some rare instances where that delay has resulted in our doing a better job because sometimes the Bureau of the Budget can be helpful in these connections and has been helpful.

The CHAIRMAN. While I am reminded of it, whereas it might have gone in earlier, wherever it is most appropriate, at this point I think we will include in the record a copy of your letter of June 8 to the committee by Mr. Secrest, Acting Chairman, providing information with reference to the Commission, its personnel, workload, and organization. I think, Mr. Chairman, if you could supply us with a small chart of your organization, if you have it, we will include that in the record, too.

Mr. KINTNER. We will do that, Mr. Chairman. (The documents referred to follow :)

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,
Washington, D.C., June 8, 1959.

Hon. OREN HARRIS, Chairman, Special Subcommittee on Legislative Oversight, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in further reply to your letter of June 4, 1959, requesting material from this Commission to be used at panel discussion hearings before your subcommittee. The chart of organization of our agency is enclosed. I believe you will find it suitable for display.

There are five Commissioners in our agency. Our appropriations for fiscal 1958 totaled $6,185,500 comprised of a lump sum total of $5,950,000 and a supplemental pay raise of $235,500. For fiscal 1959 the total appropriation of $6.488,000 comprised of a lump sum appropriation of $5,975,000 and a supplemental for pay raise of $513,000.

The other material which you requested is set forth in a table showing the comparative figures for the past 3 years. Because all our cases fall into a single category of complaints alleging violations of laws enforced by us, followed by cease and desist orders where violations are found, we have treated them all as falling into one category. Sincerely yours,

1 This total incluged no ta mporary summer help whereas the totals for 1957 and 1958 do. that with summer help the total for this year will be much the same as for the last 2 years. This figure is for 11 months and on an annual basis would be 362.

We believe

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lishman.

Mr. LISHMAN. I would like to return to one of Mr. Rowe's comments. Is it a fact that in 1941 the Attorney General's committee recommended that the Commission vest in the chief examiner the authority to institute formal action by issuing the complaint directly? Mr. KINTNER. This was before my time, Mr. Lishman, and I could not say of my own knowledge.

Mr. LISHMAN. I uderstand that that recommendation was made. Mr. KINTNER. Perhaps Mr. Sheehy would know about that. Mr. LISHMAN. I understand that recommendation was made to do exactly what Mr. Rowe suggested this afternoon.

Mr. DICKEY. What committee was that?

Mr. LISHMAN. The Attorney General's Committee.
Mr. SHEEHY. I have no recollection of it.

Mr. KINTNER. I know that it is a matter of history that the proposal was studied but what recommendation was made with respect to the Federal Trade Commission in that instance I do not know, Mr. Lishman.

Mr. Rowe. I would like to say, if I may, that to have the chief hearing examiner issue the complaint would, of course, not be responsive to what was at the bottom of my suggestion, namely, that the judge not be the one to issue the complaints, and, of course, the hearing examiner is the judge.

Mr. KINTNER. Mr. Lishman, I think the chief hearing examiner at that time was the chief investigator.

Mr. HAYCRAFT. It was the chief examiner which would be like the Bureau of Investigation today.

Mr. KINTNER. The job of the chief examiner in 1941 would be that of the Director of the Bureau of Investigation in 1959.

Mr. LISHMAN. That was the only question I wanted to raise at this time.

The CHAIRMAN. Shall we proceed to the fourth and final point? Mr. Sheehy, I believe you have a statement on this one.

Mr. SHEEHY. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I have been asked to comment upon the fourth item prepared for today's discussion:

The efficiency of the Commissions: What changes, if any, in the existing statutory provisions relating to substance or procedure are needed to enable the Commissions to cope with the increasingly enormous volume of business coming before them?

The first part of this item is "The Efficiency of the Commissions." It is my belief that the Federal Trade Commission has increased its efficiency over the years as it has learned through experience in meeting specific problems. The Rules of Practice and Procedure have been revised from time to time in an effort to standardize our practice and to avoid unnecessary delay and duplication of effort. One way, but not by any means the only way, of judging increased efficiency at the Commission is to compare the volume of complaints and orders issued by the Commission. In fiscal 1958 the Commission issued 354 complaints which was an increase of 46 percent over the previous year: In 1957 it had issued 242; in 1956, 192; and in 1955, 161. Also in fiscal 1958 the Commission issued 273 cease and desist orders which