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
16987755
label
Consumers (6)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
16987755
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Consumers (6)
citationUrl
collections
James M. Cannon Files (Ford Administration)
James Cannon's Issues Files
subjects
Consumer Product Safety Commission. (5/1973 - )
Consumption (Economics)
Legislation
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
16987755
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1976-10-31
month
10
year
1976
coverageStartDate
day
28
logicalDate
1975-03-28
month
3
year
1975
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
f2c0023040044fd6
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 9, folder "Consumers (6)" of the James M.
Cannon 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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 9 of the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
ansumer
[April 1975]
OPTIONS
1.
Consumer Representation Act of 1975
At your meeting with Mrs. Knauer you said you would con-
sider her proposal to expand the present Office of Consumer
Affairs as an alternative to Administration support of
a CPA. The Consumer Representation Act of 1975 would do
that in two ways. Title I would statutorily create an
Office of Consumer Affairs within the Executive Office of
the President. Title II would statutorily establish within
each independent agency and executive department an
Office of Consumer Representation.
Title I: Statutory establishment of an Office of
Consumer Affairs within the Executive
Office of the President.
An expanded version of Mrs. Knauer's present
office, this agency would perform most of
the amicus type functions outlined in the
Brown CPA bill. In addition, it would
publish a Consumer Register, coordinate
the activities of the consumer offices es-
tablishod by Title II in other agencies,
and transmit consumer complaints to the
appropriate Federal agencies.
On an interim basis, the existing office
could be expanded by Executive Order. This
would entail a staff increase of 35 and an
FY'76 budget increase of $1.5 million.
Pro: In conjunction with the separate Offices
of Consumer Representation, would permit
the Office of Consumer Affairs (OCA) to
more effectively carry out its duties,
and would command strong support from
Mrs. Knauer, many consumerists, and
business as an alternative to CPA
legislation.
Con: Would be a new spending program. Goes
against Administration policy of not
creating special interest offices in
the Executive Office of the President.
Also, could run the risk this would
not stop CPA legislation, and we
:
FORD
could end up with both this office
and a CPA.
GERALD
-2-
Decision
Pro (Knauer, Baroody, CEA, Marsh, Lazarus)
Con (OMB, Seidman, Cannon: would prefer
it established by Executive Order)
Hold for further study and consideration
Title II: Statutory establishment of an Office of
Consumer Representation within each indepen-
dent agency and executive department.
These offices, similar to the CAB Consumer
Advocate, would have the authority to parti-
cipate in agency proceedings in the same
manner as a private party. Their authority
would be granted by agency regulations, with
the head of each agency having the respon-
sibility for determining the role of its
office. Among their responsibilities, the
new offices would ensure that consumer bene-
fit data be considered in the agency decision
making process. Finally, they would operate
in coordination with the expanded Office of
Consumer Affairs.
Pro: Combined with an expanded, amicus OCA,
these consumer offices could provide
a viable Administration alternative
to a CPA. Could provide visible
proof of the President's consumer
commitment.
Con: Could require sizable increased
spending to provide necessary staff.
Could have the effect of relieving
agency operational units of considering
the public interest and risk that the
consumer offices be "captured" by
vested interests. Same undesirable
effects as the previous issue.
-3-
Decision
Pro (Marsh, Seidman, Knauer, Baroody,
Lazarus)
Con (OMB, CEA, Cannon)
Hold for further consideration
-4-
2.
Consumer Benefit Analysis
Each executive department and independent agency
would be responsible for preparing a Consumer Benefit
Analysis setting forth the direct and indirect cost and
benefits to consumers of proposed legislation and regu-
lations. The consumer representative in each agency would
be responsible for seeing that it be considered in
decision making.
Pro: Could receive wide political support and be
an adjunct to the Inflation Impact Statement.
Con: Could be expensive and could be considered
already adequately covered in the Inflation
Impact Statement.
Decision
Pro (Marsh, Seidman, Knauer, Baroody, Lazarus)
Con (OMB, CEA)
Hold for further consideration
FOND
-5-
3. Regulatory Reform Commission
Not only would the Administration continue its support for
a Regulatory Reform Commission, but also we would
expand its mandate to include semi-autonomous agencies,
bureaus and departments with regulatory functions. Also,
the Commission could be charged with examining agency
responsiveness to consumer interests, giving a further
reason why a CPA should not be established until the Com-
mission's work is completed.
The Commission proposal would be supplemented by specific
regulatory reform proposals you are making in this message.
Pro: Would strengthen both your consumer and regu-
latory reform programs by linking the two in
this manner.
Con: With your specific proposals a Commission could
be no longer necessary and could be viewed as
an excuse for delay of further reforms.
Decision
Pro (Marsh, Seidman, CEA, OMB, Knauer, Baroody,
Lazarus)
Con
Hold for further consideration
-6-
4. Reform of Surface Transportation Regulation
ICC rules and regulations to regulate competition annually
cost the consumer an estimated $4-10 billion. As the
result of a four month interagency task force effort,
detailed legislative proposals to modify ICC pricing
practices, liberalize market entry, exit and licensing
restrictions, and eliminate antitrust immunities for both
rail and trucking will be ready for submission to Congress
by the end of the month.
Pro: Inclusion in this message would cast the issue
as a consumer problem, taking transporation
regulatory reform out of its normally special
interest forum.
Con: Could receive opposition from truckers and
teamsters and have some political cost.
Decision
Pro (Marsh, Seidman, OMB. CEA, Baroody. Knauer,
Lazarus)
Con
Hold for further study
-7-
5. Air Transportation Regulatory Reform
An Administration task force is currently developing
specific legislative reforms to liberalize both CAB
pricing practices and entry/exit restrictions and
end antitrust immunities for the airline industry. The
Administration has already testified on this before the
Kennedy subcommittee and indicated that reform legislation
would be forthcoming.
Pro: This issue is receiving considerable press
attention and inclusion in the message could
put the President out in front on this.
Con: Airlines will object to this reform.
Decision
Pro (Marsh, Seidman, CEA, OMB, Knauer, Baroody,
Lazarus)
Con
Hold for further consideration
-8-
6. Financial Institutions Act
The Administration is on the verge of resubmitting legis-
lation seeking to remove outdated constraints on the
services and rates which banks and savings institutions
may offer. Not only would such action benefit the
financial institutions and provide much needed credit, it
would also give the average consumer a better opportunity
to earn an honest return on his savings investment.
Pro: In the current economy, increased savings
dividends would be popular with consumers.
Con: This is not a new legislative initiative.
Decision
Pro (Marsh, Seidman, CEA, OMB, Baroody, Knauer,
Lazarus)
Con
Hold for further study
-9-
7.
Announce Legislation to be Submitted to Reform the
Robinson-Patman Act
Like "fair trade" laws, the 1936 Robinson-Patman Act
denies consumers the benefit of stiff competition in
stores by making it difficult for producers to give price
breaks they might otherwise offer. Legislation to be
proposed by Justice will suggest revisions which preserve
a special remedy against anti-competitive price discriminations
while eliminating language and interpretations which
discourage legitimate price competition. The existing law
is patently anti-competitive and anti-consumer. Economists,
lawyers, and two Presidential Commissions, are in broad
agreement that a thorough revision of the Act is needed.
Pro: Could be seen as pro-consumer action on the
part of the President and an example of
Presidential leadership in reducing consumer
costs.
Con: The proponents of Robinson-Patman will fight
any modification of the Act on the grounds
that it helps small businesses compete against
the advantages of large firms.
Decision
Pro (Seidman, CEA, Knauer, Baroody, Lazarus)
Con
Hold for further consideration (Marsh, OMB)
-10-
8.
Provide for Easier Deviation from Food Standards in
Order to Develop New Foods
Legislation would be submitted to amend the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act to encourage the marketing of new
foods. The issuance of temporary permits to deviate
from an accepted food labeling standard would be authorized
while public acceptance of the new product is being evaluated.
Pro: Could encourage further development of new,
less expensive food products.
Con: Administrative authority already exists for
FDA to issue temporary deviation permits. Also,
this could be interpreted by consumers as
encouraging misleading food marketing.
Decision
Pro (CEA, Knauer, Baroody)
Con (OMB, Lazarus)
Hold for further consideration (Marsh)
-11-
9.
Establish Intergovernmental Task Force on State and Local
Regulatory Reform Leading to a White House Conference
Following the President's October 8 call for a review of
State and local regulation and restrictive practices,
there has been considerable interest expressed by State
and local governments on the types of actions they might
take to remove such practices. In the message you could
(1) highlight priority areas of concern (i.e. public
utility regulation, occupational licensure, etc) ; (2) set
in motion an Intergovernmental Task Force including State
and local officials; (3) announce a willingness to pro-
vide a forum for the discussion of these issues and the
exchange of information. The latter could be a White
House Conference.
Pro: Indicates a cooperative concern to work with
State and local officials on this important issue.
Con: Could be inconsistent with allowing States
and localities to exercise their own priorities
and with your December 4. letter TO those officials.
Decision
Pro (Marsh, CEA, Knauer, Baroody, Lazarus, OMB:
Federal cooperation but not in a task force
or White House Conference
Con
Hold for further study
-12-
10. Announce Administration Support for Special Senate
Committee on Regulatory Reform
The Senate has action underway to create a joint Commerce-
Government Operations Committee to review Government
regulation over a one and a half year period. This body
could prove a useful vehicle for airing a number of
difficult regulatory issues.
Pro: Permits the President to state that such a
group should be a vehicle for change not an
excuse for inaction.
Con: Could undermine Administration support for a
Regulatory Review Commission. Also, there
is a real chance this committee could delay
indefinitely consideration of reforms.
Decision
Pro (Seidman, Knauer, OMB: pending establishment
of the Review Commission
Con (CEA, Lazarus
Hold for further consideration (Marsh, Baroody
-13-
11. Propose Legislation to Streamline Hearing Procedures
Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
The Administration could submit legislation to amend the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act SO that the hearing
process is accelerated. In some cases hearings can now
drag on for years.
Pro: These prolonged hearings have been criticized
by the Administrative Conference of the U.S.
and such a proposal would be popular with consumers.
Con: Could be too insignificant an issue for inclusion.
Decision
Pro (OMB: the specifics must be identified by
HEW first; Marsh; Seidman; CEA; Baroody;
Knauer; Lazarus)
Con
Hold for further consideration
-14-
12. Repeal Federal Law Allowing for State Resale Price
Maintenance Laws (with fair trade laws)
This proposal would reiterate the Administration's
support for Senator Brooke's bill to repeal the Miller-
Tydings Act (1937) and the McGuire Act (1952) Generally
known as the Resale Price Maintenance Laws or "fair trade"
laws, these acts allow a manufacturer to enter into a
contract with one buyer at a set price and then allow
that agreement to be binding on all other retailers who
sell the product in that State. While it has been argued
that these laws keep predatory retailers from drawing more
than their share of the market by "undercutting" other
businesses, in reality the laws have allowed manufacturers
to set their prices at an artificially high level. The
elimination of these laws should save the consumer between
$1.5 and $3 billion a year.
Pro: Would be action strongly approved by consumers.
Con: Would be a restatement of earlier Presidential
support. Also, because of pending action in many
States it could more appropriately be = State issue.
Decision
Pro (Marsh, Seidman, CEA, OMB, Baroody, Knauer,
Lazarus)
Con
Hold for further consideration
-15-
13. Submit Legislation to Prohibit Pyramid Sales Transactions
The Administration could announce its support for
legislation that would provide for the prohibition of
pyramid sales transactions (transactions in which the
incentive for the buyer of a distributorship is the prospect
of monetary gain from the sale of further distributorships)
in interstate or foreign commerce or by use of the mails.
The SEC would be given regulatory authority to carry out
the act.
Pro: Would show the Administration as willing to
take action to protect the consumer from schemes
such as Koscot, Dare To Be Great, and Holiday
Magic.
Con: Could be seen as a regulatory measure in an
essentially deregulatory message.
Decision
Pro (Scidman, CEA, Knauer, Barcody, OMB, Lazarus)
Con
Hold for further consideration (Marsh
-16-
14. Announce Decision on Auto No-Fault Legislation
A Presidential decision paper is being prepared on the
no-fault issue. If you should change your position on
this, the consumer message would be an appropriate time
to announce it.
Pro: No-fault is a major consumer issue and a new
position would be favorably received in a
consumer message.
Con: Considerable opposition to Federal no-fault
remains. Many see it as Federal encroachment
upon individual choice and State responsibilities.
Decision
Pro (Seidman, CEA, Knauer, OMB
Con (Marsh
Hold for further consideration (Baroody, Lazarus
-17-
15. Announce a Review of Antitrust Immunities to be Completed
in Ninety Days
In response to an Economic Policy Board request, a task
force has been set up in the Executive Branch under the
lead of the Justice Department, to review antitrust exemptions
in a number of areas. Although specific legislative
proposals other than modification of antitrust immunity
in air and surface regulation and repeal of the fair trade
laws will not be made at this time, the Consumer Message
could announce that such antitrust immunities are under
review and that further legislative proposals may be
forthcoming.
Pro: Would be seen as pro-consumer Presidential
leadership in trying to remove exemptions to
antitrust actions and reliance on free competi-
tion and the marketplace.
Con: Could be seen as just another study.
Decision
Pro (Baroody, Knauer, Marsh, Seidman, CEA, OMB,
Lazarus
Con
Hold for further consideration
-18-
16. Announce Intention to Veto Any Legislation Which
Unnecessarily Raises Prices to the Consumer or Restricts
Production
An appropriate statement could be made of your intention
to carefully review legislation and veto any which
would result in unnecessary price increases. Your veto
of the Cargo Preference legislation last year could be
given as an example of your commitment to this policy.
Pro: Would be example of your commitment to protect
the interests of consumers.
Con: Could have difficulty agreeing with public
on which price increases are necessary and
which are unnecessary. Impact on consumers is
already a consideration in approving legislation.
Decision
Pro (Seidman, CEA. Baroodv. Knauer, OMB: express
strong Presidential disapproval of but not veto
Con (Lazarus
Hold for further consideration (Marsh
-19-
17. Propose Changes in the Federal Reporting Act and
Federal Register to Give the Public Better Notice and
Clearer Understanding of Proposed Federal Decisions
The Administration could submit legislation to modify the
Federal Reports Act to encourage Federal consumer pro-
tection agencies to obtain better survey and marketing
data before proposing (or denying) complex regulatory
schemes. The legislation would provide for public
(consumer) representation in form and survey review by
OMB and encourage public representatives to identify
needed survey areas. It would also create a public
(including media) advisory board to the Director of the
Federal Register and give the Director new authority to
make the Federal Register a better working and source
document.
Pro: Would have pro-consumer endorsement as making
rule-making policy more visible.
Con: OMB already has a procedure for soliciting
public comment. Also, the purpose of these
changes has been addressed in the Inflation
Impact Statement's policy.
Decision
Pro (Marsh, Seidman, Baroody, Knauer
Con (Lazarus
Hold for further consideration (CEA, OMB
-20-
18. Prohibit States and Localities from not Permitting
the Advertising of Prescription Drug Prices
The Administration would submit legislation that would
prohibit States and localities from enacting or enforcing
any law or regulation which would prohibit or inhibit
the posting of prices of prescription drugs.
Pro: Would allow consumers to comparison shop for
prescription drugs.
Con: Such Federal dictation of State and local laws
could be condemned as heavy handed.
Decision
Pro (Marsh, Seidman, CEA, Baroody, Knauer
Con (Lazarus
Hold for further consideration (OMB: the
details of how this would be enforced are critical
-21-
19. Make Note of the National Appliance and Motor Vehicle
Energy Labeling Act of 1975
The National Appliance and Motor Vehicle Energy Labeling
Act of 1975 is Title XII of the Administration's Energy
Independence Act of 1975. It would authorize the President
to require energy efficiency labels on all new major
appliances and motor vehicles. This would ensure that
consumers are fully apprised of the efficiency of various
appliances and motor vehicles and would encourage the
manufacture and greater utilization of more efficient
products.
Pro: This would demonstrate consumer awareness in
our energy program.
Con: Could be criticized as unwarranted Federal
Government intervention into the private sector.
Would increase costs to consumers.
Decision
Pro (Marsh, Seidman, Baroody, Knauer, Lazarus
Con (CEA, OMB
Hold for further consideration
-22-
20. Resubmit Drug Identification Act
HEW is preparing to resubmit the Drug Identification
Act which would establish a code system for the
identification of prescription drugs. Labeling and
direct product coding would allow quick identification of
drugs in emergencies, and would facilitate prompt medical
treatment. This legislation has been pending since at
least 1969.
Pro: Would be seen as a pro-consumer initiative.
Con: Could be of some cost to the private sector.
Decision
Pro (Seidman, Knauer, OMB, Lazarus
Con
Hold for further consideration (Marsh, CEA, Baroody
-23-
21. Note that the Administration Plans to Resubmit Medical
Devices Legislation
The Administration supported legislation submitted to the
93rd Congress that would have allowed FDA to regulate
medical devices. Current law does not require manufac-
turers of medical devices to establish the safety or
efficacy of their products before marketing. HEW is
planning to resubmit the Administration's bill to this
Congress.
Pro: Could be packaged in message as a consumer
protection measure.
Con: Could be interpreted as a regulatory measure
and out of place in a deregulatory message.
Could result in increased costs to consumers.
Decision
Pro (Seidman, Knauer
Con (Marsh, CEA, Lazarus
Hold for further consideration (Baroody, OMB
-24-
22. Propose Legislation Aimed at Product Testing in the
Private Sector -- A Consumer Product Test Methods Act
such as Has Been Supported by the National Bureau of Standards
Legislation could be proposed which would allow products
to be identified and measured against tests and standards
developed by the National Bureau of Standards. The products
could be labeled and advertised accordingly, providing the
consumer with an additional purchasing tool and the adver-
tiser with a national and objective basis for product
comparisons.
Pro: Could stimulate greater price and quality
competition, improved product efficiency,
and better value comparisons by consumers in the
sale of consumer durables.
Con: Could be seen as unwarranted Federal interven-
tion into the private sector; could also
have a substantial inflationary impact on the
products tested.
Decision
Pro (Seidman, CEA, Knauer
Con (Marsh, OMB, Baroody, Lazarus
Hold for further consideration
-25-
23. Improved Quality Grading Systems of Packaged Food
Direct the Special Assistant to the President for
Consumer Affairs to develop a task force with USDA,
FDA, and Commerce which would recommend harmonization of
grade-labeling systems for packaged and canned fruits,
vegetables, jams, meats, poultry, etc. This would be a
measure to facilitate consumers value comparison.
Pro: Would be a pro-consumer initiative.
Con:
Could be seen as another study.
Decision
Pro (Marsh, Seidman, Knauer, CEA, Baroody, Lazarus
Con
Hold for further consideration (OMB: the specific
and costs must be identified
-26-
24. Improve the System for Disseminating Product Recall
and Hazardous Information and Follow-up
Concern has been expressed both in the media and in
Congress that sufficient product recall information is
not getting to the affected consumer. In addition, business
is worried that massive paid advertising campaigns
might be required. You could direct Mrs. Knauer to chair
a task force of the affected agencies such as FDA, the
Consumer Product Safety Commission, Transportation, and
Agriculture that would explore options for improving
recall efforts and to report their findings to you.
Pro:
Could be seen as an effort to solve this
problem for both consumers and business.
Con:
Could be interpreted as another ineffective
study.
Decision
Pro (Marsh, Knauer, Seidman, CEA, Baroody, Lazatus
Con
Hold for further consideration (OMB: anticipated
benefits must be identified
CONCLUSION
Should you feel that there are an acceptable number of items
in this package, we will proceed to work with the appropriate
agencies in the development of a special message.
DECISION: Draft special message
Approve
Disapprove
THE WHITE HOUSE
ACTION
WASHINGTON
April 8, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JIM CANNON
SUBJECT:
Administration Consumer Policies
At the Cabinet meeting on March 26 you requested that the
Domestic Council staff discuss with Cabinet members what might
be done by Executive and Administrative action to assist
consumers.
BACKGROUND:
1. Your Position on Consumer Protection Agency
Proposals
Your objectives, as we understand them, are:
(1) Prevent, if possible, the passage of legislation
creating a Consumer Protection Agency.
(2) Have enough votes to sustain a veto of S. 200, which
would create a Consumer Advocacy Agency, if Congress
should pass it or similar legislation.
(3) Demonstrate, at the same time, your Administration's
concern for consumers, and your belief that consumer
concerns can be well represented through existing
government structures, which were created to advance the
public interest.
2. Your Position on Regulatory Reform
Since the greater part of the consumer problem lies with the
independent regulatory agencies, you proposed to Congress in
January that a Regulatory Review Commission be established to
review the independent regulatory agencies. Under your proposal,
particular attention would be paid to the effect of these
agencies upon consumers and the extent of consumer representation
in their decision making.
FORD & DERALD LIBRARY
-2-
ALTERNATIVES TO CPA:
To carry out your proposal to work with the Cabinet in
developing alternatives to S. 200 and other proposed consumer
legislation, I have talked with each Cabinet member and
requested a response to these questions:
1. What specific problems does this bill, which would
create a new Agency for Consumer Advocacy, present
to your department?
2. What specific efforts are you making now to better
represent the consumer in your department's
decisions and activities?
3. What additional efforts could you take to better
represent the consumer in your department's decisions
and activities?
4. What regulatory reforms would you suggest to assist
the consumer?
The responses from the Cabinet officers are attached at Tab A.
In summary, they replied:
1. An Agency for Consumer Advocacy created by
S. 200 would grossly interfere with the efficient
conduct of the business and operations of every
department.
2. Each department in its own way has already been taking
specific steps to represent the consumer. Your
Administration is doing more than is generally
realized.
3. While all felt they are conscientiously representing
consumers, they also conceded they could do more to
make their consumer work more effective and visible.
Many made practical suggestions, e.g., dissatisfied
consumers could find redress in the small claims
courts in operation in many States.
4. Regulatory reform is badly needed.
-3-
CONGRESSIONAL SITUATION:
Many Members of the Congress believe there is great popular
appeal in the "consumer protection" issue.
The Senate Government Operations Committee plans formally to
report out S. 200 with a 12-1 vote shortly after Congress
reconvenes.
The House passed a consumer protection bill last year, and
apparently will do so again this year.
Yet a recent poll (Tab B) conducted by Opinion Research
Corporation and sponsored by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
indicates that 75 percent of a sample of 2,000 American con-
sumers would rather make existing agencies more effective
than create a new Agency for Consumer Advocacy.
OPTIONS:
In view of your opposition to establishing an Agency for
Consumer Advocacy and taking into account your Cabinet's
suggestions for alternative actions, we believe these to be
the practical options:
1. Executive Action:
a. By Executive order, expand Mrs. Virginia Knauer's
Office of Consumer Affairs and authorize her to formally
comment in all rule-making proceedings affecting
consumer interests. Also, direct her to participate
in agency adjudicatory proceedings when authorized by
law.
Pro: Would permit the Office of Consumer Affairs
to more effectively carry out its duties, would
assure greater Executive control than with a
CPA and could command support as an alternative
to CPA.
Con: Would go against the spirit of your ban on new
spending programs. Also, this very well might
not stop CPA legislation and we could end up with
both this office and a CPA.
AGREE
DISAGREE
Baroody, Knacer)
(Lazarus, Marsh, Seidman,
Lynn, Cannon)
-4-
b. By Executive order, establish in each executive
department a consumer representative.
Pro: Could provide visible proof of the President's
consumer commitment. Could be a strong
Administration alternative to a CPA.
Con: Could require sizable increased spending. Could
have the effect of relieving agency operational
units of considering the ablic interest. Con-
sumer leaders could see this as an insufficient
alternative to CPA.
AGREE
DISAGREE
(Baroody; Knauer: should
(Lazarus, Marsh, Seidman,
be Office of Consumer
Lynn, Cannon)
Representation)
C. Ask each department and agency head to meet with Mrs.
Knauer to discuss how to develop best an adequate
internal structure to provide consideration of con-
sumer views. A lack of such mechanisms appears to be
the greatest single weakness in most departments.
Where a sufficient structure is already in place, the
department or agency head should discuss with Mrs.
Knauer how to make it function more effectively.
Pro: Could be an effective means of increasing
consumer representation in each department.
Would allow flexibility in each agency's con-
sumer structure and show that consumer concerns
can be handled by existing departments.
Con: Could be ineffective means of insuring consumer
representation. Probably would not placate
consumer leaders.
AGREE
DISAGREE
(Lynn, Knauer, Baroody,
Seidman, Lazarus, Marsh,
Cannon)
-5-
d. Discuss consumer policies at the next Cabinet
meeting. Remind each Cabinet member of the problems
they found with S. 200. Point out that to stop that
legislation each has a responsibility to speak out
against a CPA and to put their own houses in order by
improving and publicizing their consumer representa-
tion efforts.
AGREE
DISAGREE
(Lynn, Knauer, Baroody,
Lazarus, Seidman, Marsh, Cannon)
e. Tell the Cabinet you are determined to prove that
consumer representation can be adequately handled
by their existing departments. Therefore, you expect
them all to do a better job in this area than they
now are.
AGREE
DISAGREE
(Lynn, Lazarus, Seidman,
Marsh, Baroody, Knauer, Cannon)
f. Swear in new members of the National Consumer Advisory
Council at the White House. This would provide an
opportunity to highlight further your consumer poli-
cies and to discuss your concerns directly with these
national consumer leaders.
AGREE
DISAGREE
(Lynn, Knauer, Baroody,
Lazarus, Seidman, Cannon)
2. Regulatory Reform Action:
a. Meet with members of the independent regulatory agencies
to seek their suggestions and to discuss with them ways
to make immediate improvements in the regulatory process.
AGREE
DISAGREE
(Lynn, Knauer, Baroody,
Marsh, Lazarus, Seidman,
Cannon)
-6-
b. Send a special message to the Congress on regulatory
reform. Reiterate your support for a Regulatory
Review Commission, review your pending reform
proposals for financial institutions and fair trade
laws and submit new reform initiatives.
AGREE
DISAGREE
(Seidman, Marsh, Lynn, Cannon) (Lazarus)
(Baroody and Knauer if called
Government Reform Message)
3. Other Actions:
a. Communicate your position on a Consumer Protection
Agency by letters to the Chairmen and ranking
minority members of the House and Senate Government
Operations Committees. A draft letter is at Tab C.
Pro: Would not only make clear your position on S. 200
but would also publicize your consumer initia-
tives at the same time.
Con: Could be a red flag to Congress and preclude
any possibility of compromise.
AGREE
DISAGREE
(Lynn, Baroody, Friedersdorf, (Knauer)
Marsh, Seidman, Lazarus, Cannon)
b. Plan to discuss your consumer policies in a speech
before a major forum.
2
AGREE
DISAGREE
(Lynn, Lazarus, Seidman,
Marsh, Baroody, Knauer,
Cannon)
THE WHITE HOUSE
ACTION
WASHINGTON
April 8, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JIM CANNON
SUBJECT: Administration Consumer Policies
At the Cabinet meeting on March 26 you requested that the
Domestic Council staff discuss with Cabinet members what might
be done by Executive and Administrative action to assist
consumers.
BACKGROUND:
1. Your Position on Consumer Protection Agency
Proposals
Your objectives, as we understand them, are:
(1) Prevent, if possible, the passage of legislation
creating a Consumer Protection Agency.
(2) Have enough votes to sustain a veto of S. 200, which
would create a Consumer Advocacy Agency, if Congress
should pass it or similar legislation.
(3) Demonstrate, at the same time, your Administration's
concern for consumers, and your belief that consumer
concerns can be well represented through existing
government structures, which were created to advance the
public interest.
2. Your Position on Regulatory Reform
Since the greater part of the consumer problem lies with the
independent regulatory agencies, you proposed to Congress in
January that a Regulatory Review Commission be established to
review the independent regulatory agencies. Under your proposal,
particular attention would be oaid to the effect of these
spercies upon consumers and the extent of consumer repres end
in their decision making.
GERALD
LIBRARY
-2-
ALTERNATIVES TO CPA:
To carry out your proposal to work with the Cabinet in
developing alternatives to S. 200 and other proposed consumer
legislation, I have talked with each Cabinet member and
requested a response to these questions:
1. What specific problems does this bill, which would
create a new Agency for Consumer Advocacy, present
to your department?
2. What specific efforts are you making now to better
represent the consumer in your department's
decisions and activities?
3. What additional efforts could you take to better
represent the consumer in your department's decisions
and activities?
4. What regulatory reforms would you suggest to assist
the consumer?
The responses from the Cabinet officers are attached at Tab A.
In summary, they replied:
1. An Agency for Consumer Advocacy created by
S. 200 would grossly interfere with the efficient
conduct of the business and operations of every
department.
2. Each department in its own way has already been taking
specific steps to represent the consumer. Your
Administration is doing more than is generally
realized.
3. While all felt they are conscientiously representing
consumers, they also conceded they could do more to
make their consumer work more effective and visible.
Many made practical suggestions, e.g., dissatisfied
consumers could find redress in the small claims
courts in operation in many States.
4. Regulatory reform is badly needed.
-3-
CONGRESSIONAL SITUATION:
Many Members of the Congress believe there is great popular
appeal in the "consumer protection" issue.
The Senate Government Operations Committee plans formally to
report out S. 200 with a 12-1 vote shortly after Congress
reconvenes.
The House passed a consumer protection bill last year, and
apparently will do so again this year.
Yet a recent poll (Tab B) conducted by Opinion Research
Corporation and sponsored by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
indicates that 75 percent of a sample of 2,000 American con-
sumers would rather make existing agencies more effective
than create a new Agency for Consumer Advocacy.
OPTIONS:
In view of your opposition to establishing an Agency for
Consumer Advocacy and taking into account your Cabinet's
suggestions for alternative actions, we believe these to be
the practical options:
1. Executive Action:
a. By Executive order, expand Mrs. Virginia Knauer's
Office of Consumer Affairs and authorize her to formally
comment in all rule-making proceedings affecting
consumer interests. Also, direct her to participate
in agency adjudicatory proceedings when authorized by
law.
Pro: Would permit the Office of Consumer Affairs
to more effectively carry out its duties, would
assure greater Executive control than with a
CPA and could command support as an alternative
to CPA.
Con: Would go against the spirit of your ban on new
spending programs. Also, this very well might
not stop CPA legislation and we could end up with
both this office and a CPA.
AGREE
DISAGREE
Saroody, Knewor)
(Laxarus, Marsh, Scidmun,
Lynn, Cannon)
-4-
b. By Executive order, establish in each executive
department a consumer representative.
Pro: Could provide visible proof of the President's
consumer commitment. Could be a strong
Administration alternative to a CPA.
Con: Could require sizable increased spending. Could
have the effect of relieving agency operational
units of considering the public interest. Con-
sumer leaders could see this as an insufficient
alternative to CPA.
AGREE
DISAGREE
(Baroody; Knauer: should
(Lazarus, Marsh, Seidman,
be Office of Consumer
Lynn, Cannon)
Representation)
C. Ask each department and agency head to meet with Mrs.
Knauer to discuss how to develop best an adequate
internal structure to provide consideration of con-
sumer views. A lack of such mechanisms appears to be
the greatest single weakness in most departments.
Where a sufficient structure is already in place, the
department or agency head should discuss with Mrs.
Knauer how to make it function more effectively.
Pro: Could be an effective means of increasing
consumer representation in each department.
Would allow flexibility in each agency's con-
sumer structure and show that consumer concerns
can be handled by existing departments.
Con: Could be ineffective means of insuring consumer
[
representation. Probably would not placate
consumer leaders.
AGREE
DISAGREE
(Lynn, Knauer, Baroody,
Seidman, Lazarus, Marsh,
Cannon)
-5-
d. Discuss consumer policies at the next Cabinet
meeting. Remind each Cabinet member of the problems
they found with S. 200. Point out that to stop that
legislation each has a responsibility to speak out
against a CPA and to put their own houses in order by
improving and publicizing their consumer representa-
tion efforts.
AGREE
DISAGREE
(Lynn, Knauer, Baroody,
Lazarus, Seidman, Marsh, Cannon)
e. Tell the Cabinet you are determined to prove that
consumer representation can be adequately handled
by their existing departments. Therefore, you expect
them all to do a better job in this area than they
now are.
AGREE
DISAGREE
(Lynn, Lazarus, Seidman,
Marsh, Baroody, Knauer, Cannon)
f. Swear in new members of the National Consumer Advisory
Council at the White House. This would provide an
opportunity to highlight further your consumer poli-
cies and to discuss your concerns directly with these
national consumer leaders.
AGREE
DISAGREE
(Lynn, Knauer, Baroody,
Lazarus, Seidman, Cannon)
2.
Regulatory Reform Action:
a. Meet with members of the independent regulatory agencies
to seek their suggestions and to discuss with them ways
to make immediate improvements in the regulatory process.
AGREE
DISAGREE
(Lynn, Knauer, Baroody,
Marsh, Lazarus, Seidman,
-6-
b. Send a special message to the Congress on regulatory
reform. Reiterate your support for a Regulatory
Review Commission, review your pending reform
proposals for financial institutions and fair trade
laws and submit new reform initiatives.
AGREE
DISAGREE
(Seidman, Marsh, Lynn, Cannon) (Lazarus)
(Baroody and Knauer if called
Government Reform Message)
3. Other Actions:
a. Communicate your position on a Consumer Protection
Agency by letters to the Chairmen and ranking
minority members of the House and Senate Government
Operations Committees. A draft letter is at Tab C.
Pro: Would not only make clear your position on S. 200
but would also publicize your consumer initia-
tives at the same time
Con: Could be a red flag to Congress and preclude
any possibility of compromise.
AGREE
DISAGREE
(Lynn, Baroody, Friedersdorf, (Knauer)
Marsh, Seidman, Lazarus, Cannon)
b. Plan to discuss your consumer policies in a speech
before a major forum.
AGREE
DISAGREE
(Lynn, Lazarus, Seidman,
Marsh, Baroody, Knauer,
Cannon)
LIBRARY GERALD FORD
Jab B
OPINION RESEARCH CORPORATION
NEWS BUREAU
North Harrison Street
Press Contact: Henry L. Dursin
Princeton, New Jersey 08540
Senior Vice President
609/924-5900
Opinion Research Corporal
609/924-5900
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
PRINCETCN, N.J. -- March 11: American consumers, by a 75% majority,
are opposed to the creation of a new, independent consumer agency within the
Federal Government, according to a nationwide survey of public attitudes released
here today by Opinion Research Corporation.
Public opposition to the proposed agency spreads throughout all geographic areas
and major population groupings.
The survey found that 13% of consumers would support efforts now under way in
Congress to enact legislation establishing the Agency for Consumer Advocacy,
which proponents of the bill say will give the consumer a larger voice in helping
shape government decisions. "In addition, more than half of 13% who initially
favored such an agency withdrew their support rather than have the government
spend $60 million to set up and operate it for the first three years. The bill
(S. 200), now under consideration in the Senate, provides $60 million to set up
and operate the new agency over the first three years.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
5. total of 12% of the public had no opinion on whether or not a new agency should be
established.
: Corporation conducted the survey, which was sponsored by The
A total of 2, 038 people of voting age were interviewed in
-more-
their homes between January 10 and February 3, 1975. All sections of the
country and all population groups are represented. The sampling method
used is the most reliable and professional known.
The survey found that the public is generally satisfied with the consumer
protection efforts of existing government agencies. Almost 80% of consumers
feel they are being treated fairly by the government.
Asked about present Federal agencies in the consumer field, 63% of those surveyed
had heard of the Office of Consumer Affairs and more than half of these respondents
felt it is doing an effective job.
A total of 50% of the public said they have heard about the Consumer Product
Safety Commission, established in 1973; and about three-fourths rated this agency
as effective. Some 75% of the public had heard of the Environmental Protection
Agency, with almost half giving it an effective rating.
Given a choice between creating a new consumer agency or taking the steps
necessary to make existing consumer agencies more effective, the respondents
strongly favored improving the present agencies by a margin of 75% to 13%.
A clear majority of the public feels it is generally being treated fairly by
business, according to the opinion poll. The survey found that 27% of consumers
believe they are "almost always" dealt with fairly by business, while an additional
59% feel they are "usually" treated fairly. Thirteen percent of the public said they
neen treated unfairly.
-morê-
-3-
In cases in which consumers have been dissatisfied with some product or service,
the survey showed that they believe the best places to go in order to get some-
thing done about it are the "person who sold it to them in the first place, " the
Better Business Bureau, and the company that made the product or furnished the
service. Eight percent of the total public look to the Federal consumer agencies
to correct unfair treatment.
###
===
It:
For information about The Business Roundtable, please contact James M. Freeman
at The Roundtable office, 405 Lexington Avenue, New York City (telephone: 212/ 682-
6370).
Table
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
TO:
GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
Representative Jack Brooks
Representative Frank Horton
Senator Abraham Ribicoff
Senator Charles Percy
Dear (
) :
In the interest of protecting the American consumer, I am
directing department and agency heads, in coordination with
the Domestic Council, to review Executive branch procedures
to make certain that consumer interests receive full con-
sideration in all Government actions.
To be frank, I recognize the legitimate public and Congressional
concerns that the interests of consumers have not always been
adequately considered by Federal departments and agencies.
This must be changed. Therefore I am asking each agency head
to examine the specific efforts he is making now to represent
the consumer in the agency's decisions and activities and to
work with Virginia Knauer, my Special Assistant for Consumer
Affairs, in instituting additional efforts his agency could
undertake to better represent consumer interests.
In examining their present procedures and in establishing new
ones, department and agency heads will follow these guidelines:
All consumer interests should receive a fair chance to
be heard in the Government decision making process; and
The costs and administrative requirements of Federal rules
and regulations on the private sector should be held to
a minimum.
Regulatory reform is one of the most important vehicles for
improving consumer protection. Outdated regulatory practices
lead. to higher prices and reduced services. I urge the
FORD (18RRA)
-2-
Congress to pass a number of specific legislative proposals
in this regard, including the bill I submitted in January to
establish a Regulatory Review Commission. I have also requested
the Congress to repeal outdated fair trade laws which raise
prices and to reform many of the existing banking laws and
regulations which penalize small savers. I will soon request
legislation to overhaul our system of transportation regula-
tion to allow freer competition, improved services, and lower
prices.
I am also asking the chairmen and members of the independent
regulatory agencies to meet with me. I intend to ask for
their suggestions and to discuss with them ways they can make
immediate improvements in the regulatory process. I am deter-
mined that the public will receive the most efficient and
effective public service at the least cost.
In view of the steps that are being taken by the Executive
department to make Government-wide improvements in the quality
of service to the consumer, I am requesting that the Congress
postpone further action on S. 200, which would create a new
Federal Agency for Consumer Advocacy.
I do not believe that we need yet another Federal bureaucracy
in Washington, with its attendant costs of $60 million for the
first three years and hundreds of additional Federal employees,
in order to achieve better consumer representation and pro-
tection in Government. At a time when we are trying to cut
down on both the size and the cost of Government, it would
be unsound to add another layer of bureaucracy instead of
improving the underlying structure.
Although the purpose of this new Federal agency would be to
protect the consumers, the practical effect could well be to
raise costs and prices to consumers.
It is my conviction that the best way to protect the consumer
is to improve the existing institutions of Government, not to add
more Government.
I look forward to working with you, the members of your Committee,
and the Congress in advancing the interests of all consumers
within our existing departments and agencies.
vote
THE WHITE HOUSE
ACTION
WASHINGTON
April 8, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JIM CANNON
SUBJECT: Administration Consumer Policies
At the Cabinet meeting on March 26 you requested that the
Domestic Council staff discuss with Cabinet members what might
be done by Executive and Administrative action to assist
consumers.
BACKGROUND:
1. Your Position on Consumer Protection Agency
Proposals
Your objectives, as we understand them, are:
(1) Prevent, if possible, the passage of legislation
creating a Consumer Protection Agency.
FORD & GIRALD LIBRARY
(2) Have enough votes to sustain a veto of S. 200, which
would create a Consumer Advocacy Agency, if Congress
should pass it or similar legislation.
(3) Demonstrate, at the same time, your Administration's
concern for consumers, and your belief that consumer
concerns can be well represented through existing
government structures, which were created to advance the
public interest.
2. Your Position on Regulatory Reform
Since the greater part of the consumer problem lies with the
independent regulatory agencies, you proposed to Congress in
January that a Regulatory Review Commission be established to
review the independent regulatory agencies. Under your proposal,
particular attention would be paid to the effect of these
agencies upon consumers and the extent of consumer representation
in their decision making.
-2-
ALTERNATIVES TO CPA:
To carry out your proposal to work with the Cabinet in
developing alternatives to S. 200 and other proposed consumer
legislation, I have talked with each Cabinet member and
requested a response to these questions:
1. What specific problems does this bill, which would
create a new Agency for Consumer Advocacy, present
to your department?
2. What specific efforts are you making now to better
represent the consumer in your department's
decisions and activities?
3. What additional efforts could you take to better
represent the consumer in your department's decisions
and activities?
4. What regulatory reforms would you suggest to assist
the consumer?
The responses from the Cabinet officers are attached at Tab A.
In summary, they replied:
1. An Agency for Consumer Advocacy created by
S. 200 would grossly interfere with the efficient
conduct of the business and operations of every
department.
2. Each department in its own way has already been taking
specific steps to represent the consumer. Your
Administration is doing more than is generally
realized.
3. While all felt they are conscientiously representing
consumers, they also conceded they could do more to
make their consumer work more effective and visible.
Many made practical suggestions, e.g., dissatisfied
consumers could find redress in the small claims
courts in operation in many States.
4. Regulatory reform is badly needed.
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
-3-
CONGRESSIONAL SITUATION:
Many Members of the Congress believe there is great popular
appeal in the "consumer protection" issue.
The Senate Government Operations Committee plans formally to
report out S. 200 with a 12-1 vote shortly after Congress
reconvenes.
The House passed a consumer protection bill last year, and
apparently will do so again this year.
Yet a recent poll (Tab B) conducted by Opinion Research
Corporation and sponsored by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
indicates that 75 percent of a sample of 2,000 American con-
sumers would rather make existing agencies more effective
than create a new Agency for Consumer Advocacy.
OPTIONS:
In view of your opposition to establishing an Agency for
Consumer Advocacy and taking into account your Cabinet's
suggestions for alternative actions, we believe these to be
the practical options:
1. Executive Action:
a. By Executive order, expand Mrs. Virginia Knauer's
Office of Consumer Affairs and authorize her to formally
comment in all rule-making proceedings affecting
consumer interests. Also, direct her to participate
in agency adjudicatory proceedings when authorized by
law.
Pro: Would permit the Office of Consumer Affairs
to more effectively carry out its duties, would
assure greater Executive control than with a
CPA and could command support as an alternative
to CPA.
Con: Would go against the spirit of your ban on new
spending programs. Also, this very well might
not stop CPA legislation and we could end up with
both this office and a CPA.
AGREE
DISAGREE
(Baroody, Knauer
(Lazarus, Marsh, Seidman,
Lynn
-4-
b. By Executive order, establish in each executive
department a consumer representative.
Pro: Could provide visible proof of the President's
consumer commitment. Could be a strong
Administration alternative to a CPA.
Con: Could require sizable increased spending. Could
have the effect of relieving agency operational
units of considering the public interest. Con-
sumer leaders could see this as an insufficient
alternative to CPA.
AGREE
DISAGREE
(Baroody; Knauer: should
(Lazarus, Marsh, Seidman,
be Office of Consumer
Lynn
Representation
C. Ask each department and agency head to meet with Mrs.
Knauer to discuss how to develop best an adequate
internal structure to provide consideration of con-
sumer views. A lack of such mechanisms appears to be
the greatest single weakness in most departments.
Where a sufficient structure is already in place, the
department or agency head should discuss with Mrs.
Knauer how to make it function more effectively.
Pro: Could be an effective means of increasing
consumer representation in each department.
Would allow flexibility in each agency's con-
sumer structure and show that consumer concerns
can be handled by existing departments.
Con: Could be ineffective means of insuring consumer
representation. Probably would not placate
consumer leaders.
AGREE
DISAGREE
(Lynn, Knauer, Baroody,
Seidman, Lazarus, Marsh
&
FORD
GERALD
LIBRARY
-5-
d. Discuss consumer policies at the next Cabinet
meeting. Remind each Cabinet member of the problems
they found with S. 200. Point out that to stop that
legislation each has a responsibility to speak out
against a CPA and to put their own houses in order by
improving and publicizing their consumer representa-
tion efforts.
AGREE
DISAGREE
(Lynn, Knauer, Baroody,
Lazarus, Seidman, Marsh
e. Tell the Cabinet you are determined to prove that
consumer representation can be adequately handled
by their existing departments. Therefore, you expect
them all to do a better job in this area than they
now are.
AGREE
DISAGREE
(Lynn, Lazarus, Seidman,
Marsh, Baroody, Knauer
f. Swear in new members of the National Consumer Advisory
Council at the White House. This would provide an
opportunity to highlight further your consumer poli-
cies and to discuss your concerns directly with these
national consumer leaders.
AGREE
DISAGREE
(Lynn, Knauer, Baroody,
Lazarus, Seidman
2. Regulatory Reform Action:
a. Meet with members of the independent regulatory agencies
to seek their suggestions and to discuss with them ways
to make immediate improvements in the regulatory process.
AGREE
DISAGREE
(Lynn, Knauer, Baroody,
Marsh, Lazarus, Seidman
2.
FORD
GERALD
LIBREST
-6-
b. Send a special message to the Congress on regulatory
reform. Reiterate your support for a Regulatory
Review Commission, review your pending reform
proposals for financial institutions and fair trade
laws and submit new reform initiatives.
AGREE
DISAGREE
(Seidman, Marsh, Lynn
(Lazarus
(Baroody and Knauer if called
Government Reform Message
3. Other Actions:
a. Communicate your position on a Consumer Protection
Agency by letters to the Chairmen and ranking
minority members of the House and Senate Government
Operations Committees. A draft letter is at Tab C.
Pro: Would not only make clear your position on S. 200
but would also publicize your consumer initia-
tives at the same time.
Con: Could be a red flag to Congress and preclude
any possibility of compromise.
AGREE
DISAGREE
(Lynn, Baroody, Friedersdorf, (Knauer
Marsh, Seidman, Lazarus
b. Plan to discuss your consumer policies in a speech
before a major forum.
AGREE
DISAGREE
(Lynn, Lazarus, Seidman,
Marsh, Baroody, Knauer
GERALD R. FORD LIBRA
[ca. 4/8/75]
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
ACTION
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM :
JIM CANNON
SUBJECT :
Letters to Congress on Consumer Policies
In the decision memo of April 8 on consumer issues,
you agreed to send letters explaining your consumer
policies to the relevant Congressional committee
chairmen. The letters are attached at Tab A for
your signature. They've been approved by Paul
Theis, Jim Lynn, Bill Seidman, Bill Baroody, Paul
O'Neill, Jack Marsh, and Max Friedersdorf.
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that you sign the letters at Tab A to
Representatives Brooks and Staggers and Senator
Ribicoff. Copies will be sent to Senator Percy
and Representatives Horton and Devine.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 16, 1975
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In the interest of protecting the American consumer, I
am directing department and agency heads, in coordination
with the Domestic Council, to review Executive branch pro-
cedures to make certain that consumer interests receive
full consideration in all Government actions.
To be frank, I recognize the legitimate public and
Congressional concerns that the interests of consumers
have not always been adequately considered by Federal
departments and agencies. This must be changed. There-
fore, I am asking agency heads to examine the specific
efforts they are making now to represent the consumer in
their agencies' decisions and activities and to work with
Virginia Knauer, my Special Assistant for Consumer Affairs,
in instituting additional efforts which the agencies can
undertake to better represent consumer interests.
In examining their present procedures and in establishing
new ones, department and agency heads will follow these
guidelines:
All consumer interests should receive a fair chance
to be heard in the Government decision making process;
and
The costs and administrative requirements of Federal
rules and regulations on the private sector should be
held to a minimum.
Regulatory reform is one of the most important vehicles for
improving consumer protection. Outdated regulatory practices
lead to higher prices and reduced services. I urge the
Congress to enact a number of specific legislative proposals
in this regard, including the bill I submitted in January to
establish a Regulatory Review Commission. I renew my request
to the Congress to repeal outdated fair trade laws which raise
prices and to reform many of the existing banking laws and
2
regulations which penalize small savers. I will soon request
legislation to overhaul our system of transportation regula-
tion to allow freer competition, improved services, and lower
prices.
I also intend to ask the chairmen and members of the independent
regulatory agencies to meet with me to discuss ways they can
make immediate improvements in the regulatory process. I am
determined that the public will receive the most efficient and
effective public service at the least cost.
In view of the steps that are being taken by the Executive
department to make Government-wide improvements in the quality
of service to the consumer, I am requesting that the Congress
postpone further action on S. 200, which would create a new
Federal Agency for Consumer Advocacy.
I do not believe that we need yet another Federal bureaucracy
in Washington, with its attendant costs of $60 million for the
first three years and hundreds of additional Federal employees,
in order to achieve better consumer representation and pro-
tection in Government. At a time when we are trying to cut
down on both the size and the cost of Government, it would
be unsound to add another layer of bureaucracy instead of
improving the underlying structure.
It is my conviction that the best way to protect the consumer
is to improve the existing institutions of Government, not to
add more Government.
I look forward to working with you, the members of your Committee,
and the Congress in advancing the interests of all consumers
within our existing departments and agencies.
Sincerely,
The Honorable Jack Brooks
Chairman
House Government Operations Committee
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
DOMESTIC COUNCIL CLEARANCE SHEET
DATE:
April 16, 1975
JMC action required by:
TO:
JIM CANNON
VIA:
DICK DUNHAM
JIM CAVANAUGH
FROM:
PAM NEEDHAM
SUBJECT: PRESIDENTIAL MEMO: "LETTERS TO CHAIRMEN AND RANKING
MINORITY MEMBERS OF SENATE AND HOUSE GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
COMMITTEES"
COMMENTS:
DATE:
RETURN TO:
PAM NEEDHAM
Material has been:
Signed and forwarded
Changed and signed (copy attached)
Returned per our conversation
FORD à LIBRARY GERALD
Noted
Jim Cannon
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
APRIL 17, 1975
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
TEXT OF A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT
TO THREE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
April 17, 1975
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In the interest of protecting the American consumer, I
am directing department and agency heads, in coordination
with the Domestic Council, to review Executive branch pro--
cedures to make certain that consumer interests receive
full consideration in all Government actions.
To be frank, I recognize the legitimate public and
Congressional concerns that departments and agencies be more
responsive to the interests of consumers. This must be
changed. Therefore, I am asking agency heads to examine
the specific efforts they are making now to represent the
consumer in their agencies' decisions and activities and
to work with Virginia Knauer, my Special Assistant for
Consumer Affairs, in instituting additional efforts which
the agencies can undertake to better represent consumer
interests.
In examining their present procedures and in establishing
new ones, department and agency heads will follow these
guidelines:
All consumer interests should receive a fair chance
to be heard in the Government decision making process;
and
The costs and administrative requirements of Federal
rules and regulations on the private sector should be
held to a minimum.
Regulatory reform is one of the most important vehicles for
improving consumer protection. Outdated regulatory practices
lead to higher prices and reduced services. I urge the
Congress to enact a number of specific legislative proposals
in this regard, including the bill I submitted in January to
establish a Regulatory Review Commission. I renew my request
to the Congress to repeal outdated fair trade laws which raise
prices and to reform many of the existing banking laws and
regulations which penalize small savers. I will soon request
legislation to overhaul our system of transportation regula-
tion to allow freer competition, improved services, and lower
prices.
I also intend to ask the chairmen and members of the independent
regulatory agencies to meet with me to discuss ways they can
make immediate improvements in the regulatory process. I am
determined that the public will receive the most efficient and
effective public service at the least cost.
In view of the steps that are being taken by the Executive
department to make Government-wide improvements in the quality
of service to the consumer, I am requesting that the Congress
postpone further action on S. 200, which would create a new
Federal Agency for Consumer Advocacy.
more
2
I do not believe that we need yet another Federal bureaucracy
in Washington, with its attendant costs of $60 million for the
first three years and hundreds of additional Federal employees,
in order to achieve better consumer representation and pro-
tection in Government. At a time when we are trying to cut
down on both the size and the cost of Government, it would
be unsound to add another layer of bureaucracy instead of
improving the underlying structure.
It is my conviction that the best way to protect the consumer
is to improve the existing institutions of Government, not to
add more Government.
I look forward to working with you, the members of your Committee,
and the Congress in advancing the interests of all consumers
within our existing departments and agencies.
Sincerely,
GERALD R. FORD
The Honorable Abraham A. Ribicoff
Chairman
Senate Government Operations Committee
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
The Honorable Jack Brooks
Chairman
House Government Operations Committee
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
The Honorable Harley O. Staggers
Chairman
House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
# # # #
April 19, 1975
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Supports.
Thank you for your prompt and detailed
response to the President's April 17 letter
to you concerning consumer interests and
in particular S. 200.
I wish to assure you that I shall call your
letter to the attention of the President and
the appropriate members of the staff without
delay.
With kind regards,
Sincerely,
William T. Kendall
Deputy Assistant
to the President
FORD i 07V839 LIBRARY
The Honorable Abraham Ribicoff
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
w/incoming to James Cannon for further handling.
Xerax copy to Max Friedersdorf on 4/19
WTK:VO:vo
4-18
ABRAHAM RIBICOFF, CONN., CHAIRMAN
1975
18
PM
2
00
JOHN L. MC CLELLAN, ARK.
CHARLES H. PERCY, ILL.
HENRY M. JACKSON, WASH.
JACOB K. JAVITS, N.Y.
EDMUND S. MUSKIE, MAINE
WILLIAM V. ROTH, JR., DEL.
HAND DELIVERED
LEE METCALF, MONT.
BILL BROCK, TENN.
JAMES B. ALLEN. ALA.
LOWELL P. WEICKER, JR., CONN.
RECEPTAND SECURITY UNIT
LAWTON CHILES, FLA.
SAM NUNN, GA.
United States Senal
THE WHITE HOUSE
JOHN GLENN, OHIO
WASHINGTON
RICHARD A. WEGMAN
COMMITTEE ON
CHIEF COUNSEL AND STAFF DIRECTOR
GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510
April 17, 1975
The President
The White House
Washington, D.C.
FORD : LIBRARY OTHERS
Dear Mr. President:
Thank you for your letter outlining some positive and con-
ME
|structive steps to assist the American consumer. I believe
that repeal of outmoded fair trade laws, overhaul of transporta-
tion regulation, and protection of small savings deposits are
all important, and I strongly support such initiatives.
However, none of these proposals addresses the compelling
need for an effective advocate to represent consumer interests
before the Federal agencies and departments.
These agencies and departments make decisions every day
which affect the consumer.
When the Federal Communications Commission decides to increase
telephone rates, when the Department of Agriculture approves
the export of American grain to Russia, when the Civil Aeronautics
Board approves higher airline fares, or when the Food and Drug
Administration authorizes the sale of a new drug, the business
or industry which has an interest in the outcome is well repre-
sented--often by an entire team of lawyers and technical experts.
But not the consumer--he can hardly afford the hundreds of
thousands of dollars that it takes to present his side of the
case. The result is almost inevitable: the consumer very rarely
wins when government decisions are made.
S. 200, the Consumer Protection Act, would correct this im-
balance. It would provide the consumer with an effective and
well-organized advocate to plead his cause with government decision-
makers. And S. 200 would do this for the relatively modest sum
of $15 million in the first year, $20 million in the second year,
and $25 million in the third year. This is not enormous, when
compared with Assistant Attorney General Kauper's estimate that
inefficient government regulation is costing American consumers
some $80 billion a year.
The President
The White House
Washington, D.C.
April 17, 1975
Page two
I might add that S. 200 includes a provision added in Committee
which requires Federal agencies to prepare cost and benefit assess-
ment statements when promulgating regulations or proposing legis-
lation. This should help to achieve the goal outlined in your
letter that the costs of Federal rules and regulations to the private
sector be held to a minimum.
Mr. President, support for this legislation is widespread and
growing. More than 100 national, state, and local organizations
have endorsed creation of a strong consumer protection agency--and
among them the Consumer Federation of America, Common Cause, the
American Bar Association, the National Conference of Mayors, the
National Association of Attorneys General, and a number of the unions
comprising the AFL-CIO. Thirty-two of the nation's governors support-
ed the bill in a telegram to the Senate last year. And a number
of businesses--including such major corporations as Polaroid,
Connecticut General Life Insurance, Montgomery War, Zenith, and
Dreyfus Fund--have endorsed the bill. In just the last few days,
one of the country's largest food chains, Stop and Shop, and one
of the country's biggest oil companies, Mobil Oil Corporation,
have endorsed S. 200.
This increasing level of support is reflected in the Senate,
when S. 200 now is sponsored by 45 Senators-12 more than last
year. Last Wednesday, the bill was reported out of the Government
Operations Committee by a vote of 11 to 1.
Mr. President, legislation to create a consumer protection
agency has been worked on by Congress for more than 5 years. As
you may recall, you supported it and spoke out in favor of it in
1971, the one time it came to the floor of the House while you were a
member of that body. I am confident that the legislation we have
prepared represents a fair balancing of all the interests concerned,
and that S. 200 meets the needs of the American consumer.
Under the circumstances I feel that S. 200 should be passed
this year.
Mr. President, I believe very strongly that the Consumer
Protection Act deserves your support. I hope that you will be able
to support it.
Sincerely,
ale
Abe Ribicoff
United States Senate
COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
abraham Ribicoff U.S.S.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
The President
The White House
Washington, D.C.
April 19, 1975
Dear Senator:
Thank you for your prompt and detailed
response to the President's April 17
letter concerning consumer interests and
S. 200 in particular.
I wish to assure you that I shall call your
letter to the attention of the President and
the appropriate members of the staff
without delay.
With kind regards,
Sincerely,
William T. Kendall
Deputy Assistant
to the President
The Honorable Charles H. Percy
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
bee: w/incoming to James Cannon for further handling.
Xerox copy to Max Friedersdorf on 4/19
WTK:VO:vo
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
4.19
ABRAHAM RIBICOFF, CONN., CHAIRMAN
JOHN L. MC CLELLAN, ARK.
CHARLES H. PERCY, ILL.
HENRY M. JACKSON, WASH.
JACOB K. JAVITS, N.Y.
EDMUND S. MUSKIE, MAINE
WILLIAM v. ROTH, JR., DEL.
LEE METCALF, MONT.
BILL BROCK, TENN.
JAMES B. ALLEN. ALA.
LOWELL P. WEICKER, JR., CONNY
LAWTON CHILES, FLA.
SAM NUNN, GA.
United States Senate
JOHN GLENN, OHIO
RICHARD A. WEGMAN
COMMITTEE ON
CHIEF COUNSEL AND STAFF DIRECTOR
GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510
02
April 18, 1975
EM
81
The President
The White House
Washington, D.C.
312
me
Dear Mr. President:
I have carefully reviewed your letter yesterday to Senator
Ribicoff, Chairman of the Senate Government Operations
Committee, and the copy you sent me as ranking Republican,
describing actions you intend to take, and have already
taken, on behalf of the American consumer.
I was especially pleased by your recognition that the depart-
ments and agencies that administer programs and make daily
decisions affecting the health, safety, and economic well-
being of all consumers have, over the years and especially
in recent times, failed to be sufficiently responsive to
consumers. I can think of no better beginning than your
directive to those units of government that a major and
immediate effort must be made to make sure that consumers
are adequately listened to and consulted in the decision-
making process. And, with respect to the high costs and
prolonged delays of agency actions, your intent to person-
ally involve yourself in redressing these matters must be
seen by all consumers as a significant development.
So far as regulatory reform is a means of accomplishing both
ends, I share your interest in repealing the so-called fair
trade laws and in reforming transportation regulation and
the regulation of financial institutions, with an overall
view towards lessening the impact of inflation, improving
competition, and better serving the public interest. Toward
this end, I have myself introduced legislation to get the
Senate moving on regulatory reform, substantive and procedural,
by authorizing a comprehensive study under the joint auspices
of the Senate Government Operations Committee and the Senate
Commerce Committee. It is my personal view that consumers and
the country would be better off if such costly and ineffective
BERALD FORD VIBRARY
PAGE 2
agencies as the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Federal
Maritime Commission, and the Civil Aeronautics Board were to
be phased out of existence, consistent with a national effort
to return to free market competition.
But at the core of regulatory reform, in my view, is the recog-
nition that it is not nearly enough to merge or consolidate
agencies, eliminate overlapping functions, and revise, revamp
or reorient the structure and purpose of government regulation.
However well we succeed in that, there remains the ever present
and gnawing reality that while the process may function better,
and make more sense in theory, consumers will probably be no
better off unless commensurate steps are taken to assure that
the views and concerns of individual consumers are taken into
account at each and every stage of agency decision-making.
You have been in government life longer than I, but I am sure
that you share my observation that, for lack of time and money
and organizational means, individual consumers are generally
at a total loss when faced with the red tape and revolving
doors of government decision-making (or more often lack of
decision or action) affecting their daily lives. Accordingly,
the regulatory reform which we both seek hinges ultimately on
devising a means by which consumer views may be voiced, focused,
and systematically brought to bear within that process.
After years of effort, and consultation with enlightened and open-
minded businessmen, economists, lawyers, academicians, consumer
groups, and the government decision-makers themselves (including
numerous experts within the Administrations of the last two
presidents, and your own), the Congress has settled upon just
such a means for assuring consistent, informed, and responsible
consumer input in agency decisions. The means we have settled
upon is an Agency for Consumer Advocacy as outlined in S. 200.
In my view it would be a tragic mistake to defer any longer
consideration of creating the one agency of government which
will be closest to and speaking on behalf of consumers of this
nation.
At the very time that vital decisions are being made by
Presidential counselors, cabinet heads, regulators, and gov-
ernment bureaucrats regarding today's twin crises of energy
PAGE 3
and the economy, there needs to be some agency of government
which can speak out forcefully for consumers and relate how
intimately those decisions are tied to their earnings, savings,
and purchasing power -- how their jobs will be affected,
their weekly budgets, and their bank accounts. There needs to
be some agency of government mandated to seek out and express
the views of those who are most devastatingly affected by
the rate of unemployment at current levels above 8.5 percent,
by the housing slump, and by too-high interest rates that put
home and auto loans out of reach for so many, and in turn,
get the economy out of joint. If consumers today are at all
able to get someone in government even to pay attention
when decisions of this sort are being made, it would appear
that their advice is not being taken.
In reaching the conclusion that an Agency for Consumer Advocacy
is needed, I have, at the same time worked consistently
over the past four years to incorporate safeguards in the leg-
islation to make sure that responsible business will be fairly
dealt with and that the orderly functions and processes of
government will not be delayed or disrupted. What we have
today achieved in the legislation is a delicate balance which
will better protect the American consumer while at the same
time deal with some of the serious wrongs which unfairly
stain the good name of the overwhelming majority of responsible
businesses throughout this great nation.
Mr. President, it is not without thought that 45 Senators are
cosponsoring this legislation. Nor that major American busi-
nesses, including such outstanding and far-sighted firms as the
Mobil Oil Corporation, Zenith, Marcor (parent of Montgomery
Ward), Polaroid, the Dreyfus Fund, Connecticut General Life
Insurance, and others, have lent their good names in support
of the concept and the legislation before us. I note that you
apparently had reached the same conclusion back in 1971 when
very similar legislation overwhelmingly passed the House of
Representatives, as it did again in the last Congress. Whatever
has caused you to change your thoughts in this regard, I urge
that you personally take the time to study the amended version
of S. 200 as reported to the Senate late last week following
an 11 - 1 vote of the Government Operations Committee, and soon
to be scheduled for floor action. The bill, as reported, now
FORD
PAGE 4
includes a provision giving legislative effect to, and providing
guidelines consistent with your own Executive Order of last
fall which mandated a weighing of respective costs to the con-
sumer and benefits to be gained from government regulatory
decisions.
I am confident that a thoroughgoing review on your part will
convince you, as it has numerous Senators and leaders in the
business community, that this bill needs to be passed and the
agency created without further delay. In this light, I want
to share with you my very recent correspondence with Rawleigh
Warner, Chairman of the Board of Mobil, and William Tavoulareas,
President of that company. (attached)
Finally, I would personally be very happy to sit down with you
to discuss this matter. You should be aware that nine years
ago, when I first came to the Senate, I set an objective rele-
vant to the money concerns you expressed, and have maintained
it to this date. That goal was never to propose new legisla-
tion involving additional expenditure of Federal funds without
recommending reductions in comparable expenditures, so that
the net cost to the government is zero. I would welcome, there-
fore, reviewing with you ways of cutting hundreds of millions
of dollars -- nay billions of dollars -- of needless government
expense by existing departments and agencies which have utterly
outlived their usefulness, as a trade-off for the relatively
small sum of $60 million, over 3 years, for financing this
one new agency which can really make a difference. That total
amount is considerably less than the annual advertising budgets
of some of the companies lobbying vigorously, once again, to
defeat this needed legislation.
Warmest personal regards,
them Charles H. Percy Percy
United States Senator
Attachments
CHP:rrg
ABRAHAM RIBICOFF, CONN., CHAIRMAN
JOHN L. MC CLELLAN, ARK.
CHARLES H. PERCY, ILL.
HENRY M. JACKSON, WASH.
JACOB K. JAVITS, N.Y.
EDMUND S. MUSKIE, MAINE
WILLIAM V. ROTH, JR., DEL.
LEE METCALF, MONT.
BILL BROCK, TENN,
JAMES B. ALLEN. ALA,
LOWELL P. WEICKER, JR., CONN.
LAWTON CHILES, FLA.
SAM NUNN, GA.
United States Senate
JOHN GLENN, OHIO
RICHARD A. WEGMAN
COMMITTEE ON
CHIEF COUNSEL AND STAFF DIRECTOR
GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510
March 26, 1975
Mr. William P. Tavoulareas
President
Mobil Oil Corporation
150 East 42nd Street
New York, New York 10017
Dear Mr. Tavoulareas:
I have your letter of March 20, 1975, and the attachment incorporat-
ing your staff's review of the proposed legislation, S.200, to
create an Agency for Consumer Advocacy. It is clear to me from
the incisiveness of that analysis that Mobil has reviewed this leg-
islation at considerable length in arriving at a responsible corporate
position. It has been my contention for some time that so much of
the headstrong opposition to this measure would dissolve if only
corporate leaders were to study the bill's provisions in detail
and understand the important safeguards that are included for the
protection of responsible business and the consumer.
Having reviewed the Mobil analysis of S.200, I can assure you that the
key considerations which are discussed there reflect precisely those
safeguards that are so paramount to assuring positive and meaningful
consumer input into government agency decisions. Each of the points,
taken in turn, expresses those safeguards in a succinct manner. Let
me point out that, as to one provision, it is true that the ACA
administrator is absolutely prohibited from intervening in any state
and local agency or court proceedings. The Committee added an amend-
ment to permit him to provide information to, or upon request assist,
any such agency or court on matters having a substantial impact on
consumers. The memorandum also makes an important point concerning
the significance of price and adequacy of supply as key elements
in the determination of the consumer interest. My objective is to
make sure that such considerations are set forth in the bill when
the legislation is considered on the Senate floor next month.
PAGE 2
Finally, as I relayed to Rawleigh Warner in my recent conversation
with him on this subject, as a principal sponsor of this legisla-
tion I expect to promote passage and enactment of this legislation
in its present form. The delicate balance which we have sought and
obtained must be retained by the avoidance of amendments which
would either unduly enlarge or constrict the authorities of this
Agency. Accordingly, it is my intent, which I am sure is shared
by my colleagues who have joined in this effort, to work assiduously
on the floor and in conference to assure that the final result
reflects this delicate balance.
There is no question in my mind that Mobil can support this measure
with confidence that it will help to redress some of the serious
wrongs which unfairly tarnish the good name of responsible business,
and that, at the same time, the legislation will help to better
protect the American consumer.
I enclose an extra copy of this letter for Mr. Warner to review
upon his return.
Sincerely,
Charles H. Percy
United States Senator
CHP:rrg
Enclosure
are
Mobil Oil Corporation
&
150 EAST 42ND STREET
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10017
WILLIAM P. TAVOULAREAS
PRESIDENT
March 20, 1975
The Honorable Charles H. Percy
United States Senate
Committee on Government Operations
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Percy:
Your letter to Mr. Warner arrived during his absence from the office, and I
think it appropriate that I give you a prompt response on behalf of Mobil. As
you may know, when the subject of an agency for consumer advocacy first arose
Mobil was deeply concerned that the legislation created sweeping powers for the
new agency, making it in essence a super-agency with regulatory responsibilities.
It appears that many of the difficulties in the earlier proposal have been cured
as the result of the work of the sponsoring Senators and their staffs, prompted
in part by constructive criticism from outside the Congress. It would indeed
be ungracious of us to fail to recognize that the proposal now before the Senate
in the form of S.200 is a very different piece of legislation from several of
those previously considered by the Congress, although it still includes undesir-
able provisions such as the exemption granted for labor disputes.
I recently asked my staff to review the current bill and to give me an assessment
of the major points of concern which we previously had. Their review is attached
to this letter. Because so much change has occurred in the legislative history
of this bill, I wonder if it would be possible for you to review the attachment
and to let me know whether we have properly read the intent of the present legis-
lation. I am particularly sensitive to the comment you made in your letter that
the bill is intended to represent a delicately balanced and carefully con-
structed means of assuring responsible consumer input into regulatory matters at
the Federal level. Because this balance is so delicate it is important not only
that the bill remain in its present form throughout the legislative process, but
also that the legislative history reflect insofar as possible the concept of
balance which you have so ably expressed. If you agree with this point of view,
I would hope that you could give us your assurance that you will make every effort
on the Floor and in conference to retain the bill in the form now proposed and to
create a legislative history which will give guidance for responsible interpreta-
tion of the powers conferred. We could then with confidence regard this as a
matter which merits support.
Sincerely,
WPT/LMW
attachment
Mobil Oil Corporation
150 EAST 42ND STREET
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10817
RAWLEIGH WARNER, JR.
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD
April 1, 1975
The Honorable Charles H. Percy
United States Senate
Committee on Government Operations
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Chuck:
I have just seen the exchange of correspondence which you have had with
Bill Tavoulareas on the subject of S.200, the bill to create an agency
for consumer advocacy. I am indeed pleased that both of your letters
have emphasized the need to maintain the "delicate balance" which is so
evident in the construction of the bill. We do support the measure in
its present form, and we note your strong intention to resist changes.
Sincerely,
Rawhigh
KW/IMW
Rawleigh Warner, Jr.
cc: W. P. Tavoulareas
UNITED STATES SENATE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510
Charles H. Pen U.S.S.
PUBLIC DOCUMENT
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
BY HAND
The President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 22, 1975
MEMO TO :
JIM CAVANAUGH
PAM NEEDHAM
FROM :
JIM CANNON
SUBJECT : Percy Letter Re: S.200
Ribicoff Ltr Re: S.200
The attached is forwarded
for
Your handling
FYI
X Other Please read and
see me.
Attachment
CC: Dick Dunham
Jeanne McLean - FYI
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
DOMESTIC COUNCIL CLEARANCE SHEET
DATE: 4/22/75
JMC action required by: cob
4/22/75
TO:
JIM CANNON
VIA:
DICK DUNHAM
JIM CAVANAUGH
54
FORD & GERALD LIBRARY
FROM:
PAM NEEDHAM
SUBJECT: Memorandum to Cabinet members from Jim Cannon
requesting action in regard to S.200, a bill to create an
Agency for Consumer Advocacy
COMMENTS:
I recommend that you send the attached memo to the Domestic
Council members who attended last week's Cabinet meeting.
DATE:
RETURN TO:
Pain comor
Material has been:
Signed and forwarded
Jaw is going to
Changed and signed (copy attached)
Returned per our conversation
do
Noted
Thank June
Jim Cannon
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 22, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR
FROM:
JIM CANNON
At last week's Cabinet meeting the President discussed his
opposition to S. 200, a bill to create an Agency for Consumer
Advocacy. He asked that the members of the Cabinet discuss
their problems with S. 200 with their Congressional authorizing
committee members.
The President also stated his intention to see that Executive
branch procedures are reformed so that consumer views are more
adequately considered. Toward that end, he directed that
each Cabinet member work with Virginia Knauer in reviewing
existing procedures for consumer representation and in instituting
new ones where necessary.
Could you report to me by 5 p.m. Thursday, April 24, on what
steps you have taken to implement the President's requests to:
1. Discuss the problems of S. 200 with your authorizing
committees; and
2. Work with Mrs. Knauer in undertaking necessary
reforms within the departments?
Thank you.
THE WHITE HOUSE Noed
WASHINGTON
April 23, 1975
MEMORANDUM TO:
JIM CANNON
FROM:
PAM NEEDHAM
14/29
I recommend that you approve the attached
memorandum for the President to send to the
heads of executive departments and agencies
regarding his consumer initiatives.
Also attached is a cover memo from you to the
President and a list of addressees for the
President's memorandum.
NOTE: After you approve the package it should go
to Bob Linder who will have the final memo typed
for the President's signature.
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
DOMESTIC COUNCIL CLEARANCE SHEET
DATE:
April 25, 1975
JMC action required by: 4/25/75
TO:
JIM CANNON
VIA:
DICK JIM CAVANAUGH DUNHAM X
FROM:
PAM NEEDHAM
SUBJECT:
Presidential memorandum to heads of executive
departments and agencies on the consumer issue
COMMENTS:
See attached PGN memorandum to JMC
DATE:
RETURN TO:
PAM NEEDHAM
Material has been:
Signed and forwarded
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
Changed and signed (copy attached)
Returned per our conversation
Noted
Jim Cannon
THE WHITE HOUSE
ACTION
WASHINGTON
April 24, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JIM CANNON
SUBJECT:
Presidential Memorandum to Heads of Executive
Departments and Agencies
At your Cabinet meeting last week you directed those present
to review the consumer efforts their departments were making
and to work with Virginia Knauer in instituting new procedures
where necessary.
Attached is a memorandum for you to send to the heads of
executive departments and agencies that would formalize
those directions.
By addressing the memorandum to the heads of executive depart-
ments and agencies you extend your policies beyond just the
Cabinet departments. For instance, such non-Cabinet agencies
as GSA and VA are included in the larger category.
RECOMMENDATION
Bill Baroody, Jim Lynn, Max Friedersdorf, Bill Seidman, Jack
Marsh, Paul Theis, and I recommend that you send the attached
memorandum to the heads of executive departments and agencies.
APPROVE
DISAPPROVE
THE WHITE HOUSE
ACTION MEMORANDUM
WASHINGION
LOG NO.:
Date: April 23
Time: 130pm
FOR ACTION: Paul O'Neill
CC (for information): Warren Hendriks
Jack Marsh
Jim Cavanaugh
Max Friedersdorf
Bill Seidman
Ken Lazarus
Bill Baroody
Paul Theis
FROM THE STAFF SECRETARY
DUE: Date: April 23
Time: 10:30a.m.
SUBJECT:
Draft Presidential memorandum to heads of departments
and agencies on consumer reforms
ACTION REQUESTED:
For Necessary Action
X For Your Recommendations
Prepare Agenda and Brief
Draft Reply
X For Your Comments
Draft Remarks
REMARKS:
Please return to Judy Johnston, Ground Floor West Wing
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
PLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.
If you have any questions or if you anticipate a
delay in submitting the required material, please
telephone the Staff Secretary immediately.
3.
For the
MEMORANDUM FOR HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
In order that the Federal Government can be more responsive
to the concerns of the American consumer, I am asking that
department and agency heads, in coordination with the
Domestic Council, review their agencies' procedures to insure
full consideration of consumer interests in all Government
actions.
You are to examine the specific efforts your agency is making
now to represent the consumer in your agency's decisions and
activities. In establishing new procedures which your agency
can undertake to represent consumer interests better, you
should work with Virginia Knauer, my Special Assistant for
Consumer Affairs.
In examining your present procedures and in establishing new
ones, you should follow these guidelines:
All consumer interests should receive a fair chance
to be heard in the Government decision making
process; and
The costs and administrative requirements of Federal
rules and regulations on the private sector should
be held to a minimum.
In addition, I am requesting that you specifically review with
Mrs. Knauer possible organizational, procedural, information
and consumer complaint handling initiatives.
You are to begin working with Mrs. Knauer immediately and
report back to me as soon as possible on what new steps are
being taken to improve consumer representation within your
agency.
ADDRESSEES FOR MEMORANDUM TO HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
The Honorable Rogers C.B. Morton
The Honorable Henry A. Kissinger
Secretary of the Interior
Secretary of State
Washington, D.C. 20240
Washington, D.C. 20520
The Honorable Earl L. Butz
The Hon. James R. Schlesinger
Secretary of Agriculture
Secretary of Defense
Washington, D.C. 20250
Washington, D.C. 20301
The Honorable
The Honorable Edward H. Levi
Secretary of Commerce
The Attorney General
Washington, D.C. 20230
Washington, D.C. 20530
The Honorable John T. Dunlop
The Hon. William E. Simon
Secretary of Labor
Washington, D.C. 20210
Secretary of the Treasury
Washington, D.C. 20220
The Honorable Caspar W. Weinberger
Secretary of Health, Education,
and Welfare
Washington, D.C. 20201
The Honorable Carla A. Hills
Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development
Washington, D.C. 20410
The Honorable William T. Coleman, Jr.
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Secretary of Transportation
Washington, D.C. 20590
-2-
The Hon. Michael P. Balzano, Jr.
The Hon. Richard L. Roudebush
Director of the ACTION Agency
Administrator of Veterans'
Washington, D.C. 20525
Affairs
Washington, D.C. 20420
The Hon. Bert A. Gallegos
Director
The Hon. Russell W. Peterson
Community Services Administration
Chairman
Washington, D.C. 20506
Council on Environmental Quality
Washington, D.C. 20006
The Hon. Robert C. Seamans
Administrator
The Hon. Albert Rees
Energy Research and Development
Director
Administration
Council on Wage and Price
Washington, D.C. 20545
Stability
Washington, D.C.
The Hon. Russell E. Train
Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20024
The Hon. Frank G. Zarb
Administrator
Federal Energy Administration
Washington, D.C. 20461
The Hon. Arthur F. Sampson
Administrator of General Services
Washington, D.C. 20405
The Hon. James C. Fletcher
Administrator
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration
Washington, D.C. 20546
GERALD FORD VIBRARY
The Hon. Thomas S. Kleppe
Administrator
Small Business Administration
Washington, D.C. 20416
MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
At the last Cabinet meeting, we discussed ways that the
Federal Government can be more responsive to the concerns
of the American consumer. Following that meeting, I wrote to
the Chairmen of the House and Senate Government Operations
Committees and to the Chairman of the House Interstate and
Foreign Commerce Committee regarding my consumer policies.
I requested that the Congress postpone further action on
legislation to create an Agency for Consumer Advocacy in
view of the steps that the Executive branch is taking to
improve representation of consumer views in Government.
Accordingly I am asking today that department and agency heads,
in coordination with the Domestic Council, review their
agencies' procedures to make certain that consumer interests
receive full consideration in all Government actions.
Specifically, I would like you to examine the particular
efforts your agency is now making to represent the consumer
in its decisions and activities. In establishing new proce-
dures which your agency can undertake to represent consumer
interests better, I ask that you work with Virginia Knauer,
my Special Assistant for Consumer Affairs.
In examining your present procedures and in establishing new
ones, you should be guided by these principles:
All consumer interests should receive a fair
chance to be heard in the Government decision
making process; and
The costs and administrative requirements of
Federal rules and regulations on the private sector
should be held to a minimum.
In addition, I am requesting that you specifically review with
Mrs. Knauer possible organizational, procedural, information
and consumer complaint handling initiatives.
Please begin working with Mrs. Knauer immediately and report
back to me as soon as possible on what new steps are being
taken to improve consumer representation within your agency.
-2-
It is my conviction that the best way to protect the consumer
is to improve the existing institutions of Government, not to
add another Federal bureaucracy.
Your cooperation in this effort to make certain that consumer
interests are fully considered within your departments and
agencies is appreciated.
FORD LIBRARY
12:30 PM - Baroody Lunch for Consumer
Advisory Council
Conference Dining Room
1975
Thursday, May 1, 1975