Consumer Agency Legislation - Remarks at a Briefing for Representatives of Consumer Groups

As you know, Esther Peterson is one person that's impossible to scorn. ¹ [Laughter]

¹ The President was alluding to critical remarks which Richard L. Lesher, president of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, had made about Esther Peterson, Special Assistant to the President for Consumer Affairs.

For 8 years, the Congress of the United States has been considering whether or not to give the average people in our country, the consumers, a voice in government that's clear and concise, inexpensive and effective.

We've still not been successful. When we had a President who had promised to veto the bill, the Congress was more inclined to give it support. Now when it's sure that the White House will approve this legislation to set up an agency to protect consumers, the lobbyists have come out of the woodwork and the Congress is under intense pressure.

I think the action of those who oppose this legislation is ill-advised. I'm very grateful that more than 100 major businesses in our country have seen the advisability of supporting this legislation, because, individually, the Business leaders of our country are fair. They want to be sure that their own customers are protected, and they are not afraid of competition in our free enterprise system.

Unfortunately, when business leaders organize and hire a staff and hire lobbyists, they lose that individual commitment to their customers, and the lobbyists' only commitment is to their employers, to business, corporations, themselves.

So, I think there's a separation here between what individual business leaders want and know is fair and what their spokesmen espouse on Capitol Hill.

This proposal is not earth-shaking. The proposal is for a tiny agency, just to be a focal point for equity and fairness. It's not contradictory to the spirit of the free enterprise system--it's part of it; it exemplifies it; it strengthens it.

It satisfies an unmet demand in our society for the quiet and the unorganized and the sometimes vulnerable purchasers of goods and services just to have a voice. There is no authority granted--just the right to speak and to be heard and to join in the debate or discussion and to probe for unfairness and let that unfairness be revealed. There's nothing wrong with that.

We have seen over the historical times in our Government regulatory agencies established. And if you read the legislation and the title, it says to protect consumers-to protect customers. But over a period of time, because of the disorganized disarray and the absence of intense focusing of attention on the part of consumers-to protect customers. But over a on too many occasions, protectors of and sometimes even servants of the industries that were supposed to have been regulated.

Quite often, decisions are made in secret and decisions are made without the public understanding the consequences of technicalities. It's impossible for a President to understand them. It's impossible for Congress to understand them, because the average Member of Congress--certainly all Presidents--have such a widely diverse list of responsibilities in any given day that we can't focus on a technical ruling that might result in people being cheated. So, we need some small group just to watch and to listen and to discuss and to speak.

I've asked Bert Lance, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, to give me an estimate on how many different agencies in the Government could be eliminated if this tiny agency is formed and how much money would result in savings if they could be channeled into this small agency. There are 13 that have been identified by the Office of Management and Budget, leaving intact those that serve a unique purpose. This involves about 180 people with an annual budget of $10.4 million. So, for anyone to cloud the issue by maintaining that this is another major agency piled on top of a bureaucratic mess, that's a simply misleading statement.

There would .be no increase in the bureaucracy; there would be a reduction in the bureaucracy. There would Be no confusion created; there would be an elimination of confusion. There would be no increased cost at all; as a matter of fact, as this agency functions and probes the workings of Government, it in itself would reveal functions that were no longer needed and agencies that were duplicative of others' functions.

I think in the long run, the savings would be substantial and the simplification of Government would be very gratifying. The total cost could be saved through reorganization. Even if it couldn't, the cost of the agency for consumer protection equals the amount of money that the Defense Department or HEW spends in one hour. So it's a tiny amount involved, but it's very, very important.

I hope that all of you from labor and from business, from consumer organizations, from local government, from State government who have an interest in better government will act aggressively during the coming weeks, because we've permitted misinformation put forward by special interest groups who are selfish to capture the consciousness and the attitudes of the public almost by default, in spite of the intense commitment and the self-sacrificial effort by people like Esther Peterson.

I'd like to add my voice as President to something that I think would contribute to renewed trust among people in their Government, would improve the openness of government to public scrutiny, would save the taxpayers money, would reduce the complications of a bureaucracy, would increase competition in our free enterprise system.

I know that a lot of businesses are here that see the wisdom of this action. One of my favorites is the Levi Strauss Company. [Laughter] I'm one of their best customers. I just don't have time to wear out my blue jeans as much as I used to.

And the King Supermarkets, and Montgomery Ward, and Mobil, and Gulf and Western, and Atlantic Richfield and many others--I can't name them all, more than 100--in business to make a profit, but also in business to be fair and in business to serve their customers, and also in business to meet legitimate competition without fear in the greatest system, economic system on Earth. What could possibly be so fearful about guaranteeing that all businesses adopt the same attitude and the same posture?

So, I would just like to ask you to join with me and these men and women behind me in putting forward our best effort to improve our Government in this simple but very profound fashion.

Thank you very much.