Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
1075747
label
Consumer Representation Plans
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1075747
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Consumer Representation Plans
citationUrl
collections
Vernon C. Loen and Charles Leppert Files
Vernon Loen's and Charles Leppert's General Subject Files
subjects
Consumption (Economics)
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1075747
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1976-03-31
month
3
year
1976
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1975-11-01
month
11
year
1975
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
73d5c05b0be7312d
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 6, folder "Consumer Representation Plans" of
the Loen and Leppert Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box 6 of the Loen and Leppert Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NOVEMBER 4, 1975
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
This morning I received an interim report from
Virginia Knauer and Jim Lynn on the status of the
Departmental Consumer Representation Plans. I am
pleased with the progress made to date.
Last April, as you may recall, I requested each
of the departments and agencies in the Executive Branch
to analyze their entire decision-making process to
determine where additional consumer input might be
helpful in making Federal agencies more responsive to
the needs of the American consumer.
The plans developed by these departments and agencies
will be published this month in the Federal Register.
Following publication, there will be a major effort to
disseminate copies of these plans to all interested
consumers as well as other interested groups.
So there will be no delay, however, in this effort
to open up to the public the decision-making processes
of the Executive Branch, I have instructed each department
and agency to move ahead at once on putting these plans
into effect. Adjustments can be made later as circumstances
warrant.
In January we intend to hold public meetings in at
least ten cities across the country to explain how these
plans work for the benefit of consumers and to seek
suggestions and ideas for ways to make the departments
and agencies of the Federal government more effective
and responsive to public concerns.
I am convinced we can resolve by better administration
what Congress is attempting to accomplish by new laws and a
costly new government agency. The steps we have taken will
prove to be responsive to the needs of the American consumer
and the concerns of the American public.
#####
RED TAG
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 23, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
BILL BAROODY
THROUGH:
MAX FRIEDERSDORF
VERN LOEN n
FROM:
TOM LOEFFLER
T.L.
SUBJECT:
Oversight Hearing into the President's
proposed Consumer Representation
Plans -- House Government Operations
Subcommittee on Commerce, Consumer
and Monetary Affairs
Basically the hearings provided a political forum whereby the witnesses
and majority members of the subcommittee attempted to discredit the
President's proposed Consumer Representation Plan. Their alternative
would be to have enacted pending legislation which would establish within
the Executive Branch an Agency for Consumer Advocacy. Listed are
various allegations against the President's proposal made during the
hearing:
*** The Consumer Representation Plan is merely a "Ford/
Baroody" coalition, including Virginia Knauer and the
Chamber of Commerce to commit a fraud upon the
American consumer.
***
The President's Consumer Representation Plan is merely
a sham transaction to ameliorate the political support
during an election year of the President's announced
opposition to the ACA.
***
The ten regional conferences to discuss and receive public
input on the President's plan were merely window dressing
techniques costing the taxpayers much, much more than
$250,000.
***
The President's Consumer Representation Plan would serve
as an excellent means to place women in high government
positions notwithstanding their expertise in consumer
Way
FORD
affairs (reference was made to the Braden appointment at
CLD
the State Department).
- 2 -
***
It is impossible to understand why the President and his
advisers continue to push the President's program when
clearly the President's plan has no consumer support
whatsoever.
Representatives of consumer associations will submit
"en bloc" their comments prior to the extended March 4,
1976 deadline.
Congressman Paul N. McCloskey, Jr. (R. -Calif.) served as the
subcommittee's key witness. McCloskey stated that he believed the
Administration was not prepared for his amendment which was offered
and passed during House consideration of the Consumer Protection
legislation and which would in effect abolish the purported 39 consumer
affairs offices within the Executive Branch. The Congressman also
suggested that the subcommittee submit a specific request to OMB for a
precise cost analysis of the proposed Agency for Consumer Advocacy as
compared to the President's Consumer Representation Plans. He
indicated that it was his opinion this analysis would show that the single
Agency for Consumer Advocacy would be far less costly than the 39
consumer representation offices. In addition, he stated that it was his
hope the President would be pursuaded by this cost analysis to change
his position and support legislation which would establish the ACA.
Members in attendance were Messrs. Rosenthal, Drinan, Moffett,
Mezvinsky, and Brown. At the end of the hearings Chairman Rosenthal
announced that the oversight committee would continue its investigation
with the next hearing to be held sometime during the week of March 1.
Administration witnesses, including representatives from OMB, would
be asked to appear along with representatives from GAO.
See attached.
cc: Virginia Knauer
Jim Lynn
Charlie Leppert
Alan Kranowitz
FORD
give
HEARING INTO
PROPOSED CONSUMER.REPRESENTATION PLANS
by the
COMMERCE, CONSUMER AND MONETARY AFFAIRS SUBCOMMITTEE
of the
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
FEBRUARY 23, 1976
10 A.M.
ROOM 2247, RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
WITNESS LIST
Congressman Paul McCloskey (R-Calif)
Rhoda Karpatkin, Executive Director, Consumers Union of the
United States
Mary Gardiner Jones, National Consumers League
Eileen Gorman, Executive Director, National Consumers Congress
Carol Tucker Foreman, Executive Director, Consumer Federation
of America
Joan Claybrook, Executive Director, Public Citizen
Rosemary Pooler, Chairperson, New York State Consumer Protection
Board
Minx Auerbach, Consumer Affairs Administrator, Louisville, Kentucky
OPENING STATEMENT OF
CONGRESSMAN BENJAMIN S. ROSENTHAL, CHAIRMAN
COMMERCE, CONSUMER AND MONETARY AFFAIRS SUBCOMMITTEE
GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
AT
HEARING INTO PROPOSED CONSUMER REPRESENTATION PLANS
FEBRUARY 23, 1976
Today's hearing by the Commerce, Consumer and Monetary Affairs Subcommittee
begins an examination into the adequacy, likely impact and costs of the Adminis-
tration's proposed consumer representation plans.
In April 1975, just as Congress was taking up consideration of legislation
to create an Agency for Consumer Protection, President Ford requested 11 Executive
6
departments and/agencies to analyze their decision-making processes "to determine
how additional consumer involvement could make Federal agencies more responsive
to the needs of the American consumer." Federal regulatory agencies were excluded
from the President's request. The resulting "Consumer Representation Plans" were
announced on November 26, 1975, and 10 regional conferences were scheduled for
the purpose of presenting and discussing them. Those conferences were held during
the month of January in Chicago, Kansas City, Boston, Atlanta, Houston, Philadelphia,
Denver, San Francisco and Los Angeles; and this week, in Washington, 15 additional
conferences are being held, at which the plans will be discussed.
As a part of this Subcommittee's examination of the efficiency and economy
of the proposed consumer representation plans, the General Accounting Office has
been asked to prepare a report on the costs of the 10 regional conferences and 1
the anticipated costs of the plans themselves. The Subcommittee has been advised
by the GAO that the full costs of all 10 conferences of the 17 participating
Federal agencies will not be known until sometime later this week; and that the
anticipated costs of the plans themselves cannot yet be estimated. However, the
General Accounting Office has advised the Subcommittee, that the known but incom-
plete costs of the conferences already total $318,000.00. And, based on the dollar
figures gathered by the GAO, it seems very likely to me that the final cost of the
10 regional conferences will be in the neighborhood of a half a million dollars.
The General Accounting Office has also reported to the Subcommittee that none
of the departments and agencies involved in the Consumer Representation Plan pro-
gram, has developed data showing the costs of implementing the announced plans.
Today's witnesses represent various national consumer groups and State and
local consumer offices. At a future hearing, we will hear testimony from Adminis-
tration and Executive Branch witnesses.
Statement on Proposals for Governmental and Corporate Accountability to Consumers
Before the Subcommittee on Commerce, Consumer and Monetary Affairs
Government Operations Committee
House of Representatives
February -23, 1976
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, my name is Joan Claybrook, and 1
am the director of Public Citizen's Congress Watch, a public interest organiza-
tion concerned with the impact of government policies on citizens. We appreciate
the opportunity to testify today on the inadequacies of President Ford's proposals
for improving the behavior of federal departments toward consumers and the need
to adopt new approaches for governmental and corporate accountability to consumers.
President Ford is not sincere when he says we must limit the federal monolith
and return authority to the people for determining their own destinies. If he
believed his own words, he long ago would have endorsed statutory proposals giv-
ing citizens basic rights and instruments for overseeing governmental activities.
Gerald Ford, who in his first speech as President, said that "truth is the glue
that holds government together", claims concern for the little guy while working
to defeat legislation for greater citizen access to government information,
citizen rights to sue for enforcement of federal law, and the funding of citizen
participation in regulatory decision making. While arguing against the proposi-
tion that part of the cost of running the state is helping citizens exercise their
first amendment right to petition their government and participate in the decision-
making process, President Ford has been doling out the taxpayer's money for fed-
eral agencies designed to promote, subsidize or advocate on behalf of a multitude
of business interests including aviation, maritime, trucking, cotton, banking,
tobacco, nuclear power, drugs, automobiles, agribusiness and on and on. While
Lockheed spends over $20 million in bribes, the President is using scarce budget
- 2 -
resources to protect it from bankruptcy. And while preaching the virtues of
the free enterprise system, the President withdraws his support for critical
antitrust legislation and pours endless millions into anti-competitive corpor-
ate subsidies. Is this the same man who said on August 9, 1974, "honesty
is always the best policy in the end?"
Without dwelling further on the contradictions between what the President
says and what the President does, his duplicitous demagoguery against modest
proposals for citizen rights must be condemned. His speculation that such pro-
posals will enlarge an already oversized government ignores the savings which
result when a bureaucracy is held accountable to citizen interests. As if to
reinforce the insincerity of his position, the President has now endorsed, as
the major consumer program of his Administration, the bureaucratic, mumbo-
jumbo ("input", "thruput", "output") so-called consumer representation plans
reluctantly drafted by the 17 executive agencies and published in the Federal
Register on November 26, 1975. If the few valuable proposals buried in these
plans are implemented they will cost money in spite of Presidential disclaimers.
In the meantime they are a useful diversionary device behind which federal
bureaucrats can yawn and continue their disregard for the interests of consumers.
Structurally, these plans are empty. They are hortatory at best. They
do not create, acknowledge or even recommend any specific rights for consumers.
They do not contain any independent authority to assure effective or forceful
presentation and advocacy of consumer interests. They do not give any consumer
representative the right to subpoena information if needed to carry out his/her
authority. They do not assure consumers will have a voice in the multitude of
agency decisions which affect their every day lives. They do not authorize con-
sumer representatives to seek judicial review of an arbitrary agency decision
adverse to consumers. In comparison, the Consumer Protection Agency as embodied
- 3 -
in H.R. 7575 and S. 200, would add important checks and balances within the
mammoth executive branch. As an independent nonregulatory advocate, it could
petition and challenge regulatory agencies and departments, with the critical
right to resort to the courts for judicial review. It would be an important
generator of data, an important framer of issues, and an important bastion
inside the government to help focus consumer views.
Other proposals awarding legitimate power to citizens to impact their
government have been developed in recent years and generally ignored by the
President. They include:
-- Initiatory rights for civil service accountability which allow
aggrieved consumers, taxpayers and citizens to challenge the tenure
of the civil servant or political appointee and to urge, in proper
forums and with due process, the suspension, resignation, demotion
or fine of employees who arbitrarily refuse to enforce the law
or engage in waste or harassment.
-- Standing as a taxpayer to challenge government action or inaction
in court and to compel fulfillment of statutory requirements by
ineffective agencies, and the provision of attorneys fees when suc-
cessful.
-- Expansion of the initiative, referendum and recall process
which has played a major role in some states to assure accountability
of office holders and permitted citizen enactment of legislation
outside the legislature.
In addition to citizen initiatory rights for monitoring the government,
consumers need tools to monitor corporate activities in the marketplace. The
best evidence that the marketplace is askew can be found in the corporate crime
wave that now pervades America. Day after day in more and more newspapers
Americans are reading about corporate payoffs to foreign countries for business
- 4 -
'contracts, violations of campaign finance laws, failures to disclose required
information under the securities laws, the provision of valuable goodies to
Pentagon officials and politicians. Gulf Oil has acquired a new name recogni-
tion not for its deliveries of oil and gas, but for its insidious payoffs,
bribes, and slush funds. Among the industries in which corporate crime has
been documented as pervasive are aerospace, food processing, oil, sewing machine,
airlines, banking and office supplies. The prevalent rationales thus far dis-
closed for corporate criminality abroad--it's the way business is done; if we
don't do it our competitors will--lead to the conclusion that this pattern of
illegality is customary and influential.
In the past consumers have tended to look to the government for protection
against corporate abuses which consumers could not see, smell, taste, touch or
measure and thus the marketplace could not affect, such as hazards in drugs,
cancerous additives in food, filth in meat products, defects in cars, radiation
in television sets, flammability in apparel, and compulsory consumption which
consumers could not avoid such as pollution in the air and contaminants in water.
The question facing consumers today is how to reassert their authority in
the marketplace so that the frauds, the monopolistic practices, the hidden danger
do not undermine their purchasing power and their health and safety. More and
more consumers are seeking self-help remedies to challenge corporate fraud or
to discourage health and environmental danger. Some practical examples include:
-- Authority to aggregate many small but identical claims in consumer
class actions;
-- Authority to share in the penalties imposed on corporate law violators
in return for bringing the action;
-- Creation of viable small claims courts;
-- Facilitated funding for development and expansion of local consumer
5 -
cooperatives, as was provided 35 years ago through the farm credit
system for farmer cooperatives;
-- Systematic methods for raising funds for citizens to oversee state-
granted monopolies, such as through a voluntary check-off on periodic
(monthly) bills.
In addition, legislation permitting government action to protect citizens
from corporate misbehavior is needed. It includes authority for state attorneys
general to file class action antitrust damage suits on behalf of citizens in
the state as embodied in the parens patriae legislation now pending in the
Congress and authority for the federal government rather than a state to charter
multinational corporations.
President Ford's speeches, invariably to business groups, do not allude to
these citizen access rights. He talks, as he did in the State of the Union,
about introducing a "new balance in the relationship between the individual and
the government--a balance that favors greater individual freedom and self-
reliance", but he invariably refuses to translate this rhetoric into reality.
His Consumer Representation Plans are just another example of that deception.
For Release: After 10:00 a.m.
Monday, February 23, 1976
Contact: Andrew Feinstein
202-546-4996
CONSUMERS BLAST FORD'S CONSUMER PLANS
PRESS FOR ENACTMENT OF PEOPLE'S ADVOCATE
Leaders of five national consumer organizations today charged Presi-
dent Gerald Ford with "cynical contempt for consumers." Testifying before
the Commerce, Consumer, and Monetary Affairs Subcommittee of the House Gov-
ernment Operations Committee, the five representatives said, "Gerald Ford
wants to deny consumers real representation and given them instead his phony
and worthless Consumer Representation Plans."
The statement came during the first day of testimony before the Sub-
committee chaired by Benjamin Rosenthal (D-NY). Joining in the statement
were Public Citizen, Consumer Federation of America, National Consumers
League, National Consumers Congress, and Consumer Action Now.
"Gerald Ford's scorn for consumers is demonstrated by his steadfast
refusal to ever meet with or even address consumer representatives,' the
statement said. "Although Gerald Ford has frequently travelled across the
country to meet with business groups, he refused to go five blocks in Jan-
uary to address Consumer Assembly. The Consumer Representation Plans
manifest Ford's contempt for consumer interests. Ford apparently has so lit-
tle regard for consumers that he believes the toothless rhetoric of his plans
will be accepted as a substitute for an independent consumer advocate.
"The first priority of the consumer movement has been and continues
to be the enactment of the Consumer Protection Act, S. 200, which estab-
lishes an independent agency to represent consumer interests before federal
agencies and courts." The consumer bill passed the Senate in May and the
House in November in 1975. It is now enroute to a conference committee.
"The multi-national business community has apparently convinced its
willing servant, Gerald Ford, to oppose the Consumer Protection Act, even
though Ford supported a substantially similar measure as a Member of Congress.
The Consumer Representation Plans are Ford's attempt to have it both ways:
By threatening to veto the bill, he persuades business that he is allied
with them. By directing agencies to develop consumer plans, Ford makes a
desperate attempt to convince consumers that despite the threatened veto
of the Consumer Protection Act, he is sensitive to their concerns.
"Who is Ford kidding? His pathetic political ploy will not work.
Consumers are not hoodwinked by his cynical gestures. If Ford wants the
support of consumers, he will have to support genuine programs for con-
sumers, most notably the Consumer Protection Act.
"What consumers need are responsible federal agencies, staffed with
sensitive and competent people, increased access to decisionmaking, effec-
tive legal redress, and an independent advocate. Gerald Ford is wrong on
every count. He has appointed mediocre individuals to agencies and depart-
ments. He has opposed class action legislation and has demonstrated no
interest in finding ways of opening up the federal government.
"Federal departments and agencies can and must be made to be more
responsive to the interest of consumers. The Consumer Representation Plans
provide only hortatory promises. After years of hostility and neglect by
agencies to the consumer interest, such vacuous verbiage is not enough.
The federal bureaucracy must be accountable to consumers by law.
"While internal reform of agencies is not sufficient to meet the
needs of consumers, it is necessary. The plans submitted even fail to af-
fect this needed reform. Consumer complaints are rarely considered in setting
policies in the federal bureaucracy. Agencies conduct rulemaking in ways
which ensure minimal consumer participation. Information, valuable to con-
sumers, could be, and is not, published by these agencies.
[more]
-2-
"Even if every federal agency made these needed reforms, an inde-
pendent, outside consumer advocate would still be required. Internal ad-
vocacy is inherently defective because it flies in the face of human nature
and poses an obvious conflict of interest. How can an in-house consumer
representative be expected to be a tough advocate when the person who the
representative seeks to convince is the same individual who controls the
salary, tenure, staff, future advancement, and authority of the consumer
representative? If the consumer representative continues against instruc-
tions to press for what consumers want, the head of the agency will soon
fire him/her for insubordination."
Plans were submitted by seventeen agencies and departments. The
regulatory agencies, such as the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, the Federal Power Commission, and the Civil Aeronautics
Board, submitted no plans. "The concept of internal executive agency Con-
sumer Representation Plans is defective because only a portion of the fed-
eral bureaucracy is covered. How can any scheme be sufficient if it leaves
out one of the most important groups of government decision-making organi-
zations, the regulatory agencies?
"Although cost figures were carefully sanitized out of the plans when
they were published, it is evident that implementation of these plans will
be costly to the taxpayers. New staff, computers, public opinion polls, and
television spots are all proposed.
"What consumers resent is the fact that they are being asked to accept
the Consumer Representation Plans -- something of uncertain value -- and are
not being told the cost. Gerald Ford is like the infamous encyclopedia
salesman who has a well-packaged but worthless product which he sells by
stressing the fancy cover and deceptively deemphasizing the price."
-30-
consumer federation america
SUITE 901 1012 14th ST. N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)737-3732
Consumer Federation of America, the nation's largest consumer organiza-
tion, has for the past six years unequivocally stated that the only means
to achieve effective consumer representation in government is through the
creation of an independent Consumer Protection Agency.
The Consumer Representation Plans as proposed by President Ford and
Ms. Virginia Knauer are a thinly veiled attempt to placate consumers who
are angered by the threat of a Presidential veto of the substantive con-
sumer protection bill which has already passed both houses of Congress.
The President's pathetic and farcical Consumer Representation Plans lend
themselves most admirably to a parody of the greatest nonsense poem of
all time. There, CFA presents:
GI BBERWOCKY
--with apologies to Lewis Carroll
Twas brillig and the slippery Prez did slink and slither to the right.
All worried was this veto-bird; Big Business leads the fight.
Beware the CPA, Ms. Knauer, for it has jaws that could us trap.
Stop the mighty CPA and block the consumer's chance to rap.
She took her spineless pen in hand
Long time she pondered something new
And with bureaucrats all dressed in gray
Decided what to do.
And as they plotted its demise,
The CPA with gathered might
Won its House and Senate tries.
Consumers proved that they were right.
Input, output, through-put too,
The spineless pen moved in her hands.
She left it for dead, and in its stead
Consumer Representation Plans.
And hast thou slain the CPA?
And offered yet another ploy?
Oh glorious day, we'll have our way
He chortled in his joy.
Beware G. Ford, all you who vote.
It's he who seeks to still your voice
Remember on November 2
When it's up to you to make a choice.
news from
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 5, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
MAX FRIEDERSDORF
THROUGH:
VERN LOEN
n
FROM:
TOM LOEFFLERT.L.
SUBJECT:
Administration Witnesses
to testify on Consumer
Representation Plans
For your information, attached is a copy of a news release
issued by the House Government Operations Committee.
On Tuesday, March 9, at 10 a.m. Administration witnesses
are scheduled to testify on the President's "Consumer
Representation Plans" before Chairman Ben Rosenthal's
Subcommittee on Commerce, Consumer, and Monetary
Affairs.
Attach.
cc: Jim Lynn
Jim Cannon
Paul O'Neill
Bill Baroody
Virginia Knauer
Jim Cavanaugh
Alan Kranowitz
&
THE
RALD
MAJORITY MEMBERS
MINORITY MEMBERS
JACK BROOKS, TEX., CHAIRMAN
NINETY-FOURTH CONGRESS
FRANK HORTON, N.Y.
L. H. FOUNTAIN, N.C.
JOHN N. ERLENBORN, ILL.
JOHN E. MOSS, CALIF.
JOHN W. WYDLER, N.Y.
DANTE B. FASCELL. FLA.
Congress of the United States
CLARENCE 3. BROWN, OHIO
TORBERT H. MACDONALD, MASS.
GILBERT GUOE, MD.
WILLIAM S. MOORHEAD, PA.
PAUL N. MC CLOSKEY, JR., CALIF.
WM. 3. RANDALL, MO.
SAM STEIGER, ARIZ.
BENJAMIN S. ROSENTHAL, N.Y.
JIM WRIGHT, TEX.
house of Representatives
GARRY BROWN, MICH.
CHARLES THONE, NEBR.
FERNAND 3. 6T GERMAIN, R.I.
ALAN STEELMAN, TEX.
FLOYD V. HICKS, WASH,
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
JOEL PRITCHARD. WASH,
DON FUQUA, FLA.
EDWIN B. FORSYTHE, N.J.
JOHN CONYERS, JR., MICH.
ROBERT W. KASTEN, JR., WIS.
BELLA 8. ABZUG, N.Y.
JAMES V. STANTON, OHIO
2157 Rapburn house Office Building
WILLIS D. GRADISON, JR., OHIO
LEO J. RYAN, CALIF.
MAJORITY-225-5051
CARDISS COLLINS, ILL.
Washington, D.C. 20515
MINORITY-225-5074
JOHN L BURTON, CALIF.
RICHARDSON PREYER, N.C.
MICHAEL HARRINGTON, MASS.
ROBERT F. DRINAN, MASS.
EDWARD MEZVINSKY, IOWA
BARBARA JORDAN, TEX.
GLENN ENGLISH, OKLA.
ELLIOTT H. LEVITAS, GA.
FOR RELEASE: Immediate
DAVID W. EVANS, IND.
ANTHONY MOFFETT, CONN.
March 4, 1976
ANDREW MAGUIRE, N.J.
LES ASPIN, WIS.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:
NEWS RELEASE
COMMERCE, CONSUMER AND MONETARY
AFFAIRS SUBCOMMITTEE - 225-4407
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
ADMINISTRATION WITNESSES TO TESTIFY ON CONSUMER REPRESENTATION PLANS
Virginia Knauer, Joan Braden and other administration witnesses will testify
next week at a continuation of hearings into the costs and potential effectiveness
of President Ford's proposed consumer representation plans, according to Chairman
Jack Brooks of the House Government Operations Committee. The hearings will be held
by the Commerce, Consumer and Monetary Affairs Subcommittee, whose chairman is
Congressman Benjamin S. Rosenthal of New York.
The hearing will be held on Tuesday, March 9, at 10:00 A.M. in Room 2322 of
the Rayburn House Office Building.
Rosenthal said that the hearing would examine the likely costs of the consumer
representation plans and their impact on the policies and programs of certain key
Federal departments and agencies. The New York Congressman also said he would re-
lease at the hearing a General Accounting Office report on the full costs of the
administration's 10 regional conferences used to announce the consumer plans.
Witnesses scheduled to testify are:
Virginia Knauer, Special Assistant to the President for Consumer Affairs
Joan Braden, Consumer Affairs Coordinator, Department of State
Warren Brecht, Assistant Secretary of Treasury (Administration)
Judith T. Connor, Assistant Secretary of Transportation (Consumer Affairs)
Constance Newman, Assistant Secretary of HUD (Consumer Affairs)
Paul H. O'Neill, Deputy Director, Office of Management and Budget
Hazel Rollins, Director of Consumer Affairs, Federal Energy Administration
Nancy Steorts, Special Assistant to Secretary of Agriculture, Consumer Affairs
Members of the Commerce, Consumer and Monetary Affairs Subcommittee are:
Benjamin S. Rosenthal (NY), Chairman
Cardiss Collins (Ill)
Garry Brown (Mich)
Robert F. Drinan (Mass)
Willis D. Gradison, Jr. (Ohio)
Elliott H. Levitas (Ga)
John N. Erlenborn (III)
David W. Evans (Ind)
Frank Horton (NY) Ex officio
Anthony Moffett (Conn)
Andrew Maguire (NJ)
Edward Hezvinsky (Iowa)
Jack Brooks (Tex) Ex officio