Fran:

For:

Carl Byoir & Associates, Inc.
1750 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: 202-783-7000

)
FOR RELEASE AFTER 10 a.m, May 2, 1977

Consumer Issues Working Group
FORMER CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION CHAIRMAN
SAYS PROPOSED CONSUMER AGENCY IS "ESCAPE MECHANISM"

WASHINGTON, May 2, 1977 —
more than an

The proposed "Agency for Consumer Advocacy" is little

escape mechanism for federal officials already charged with the

responsibility of guarding consumer interests, Richard O. Simpson, former
chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Cormission, told a news conference here today.
Simpson, who was the CPSC's first chairman and served in that capacity until
1976, also praised Attorney Leon Jaworski, former Watergate Prosecutor, for his
analysis of H. R. 6118, the bill creating an ACA.

Jaworski has concluded that

the bill creates "the potential for disruption of our political syston."
"Establishment of an 'Agency for Consumer Advocacy' would provide a convenient
escape mechanism for those who already have been given the mandate of ensuring
that the public's views are honestly solicited and reasonably considered in the
regulatory process," Simpson said.
"Every official in a regulatory agency already has the assigned responsibility
to consider all societal interests, including consumer views, when he makes
decisions on behalf of our citizens.
"The most difficult and elusive part of that decision process is to identify
the consumer's point of view.

The creation of the ACA would have the effect, in

practice, of lifting this burden from the individual connissioner and placing
the responsibility for articulating the consumer's viewpoint on the ACA officials.
"You will have removed a difficult task from the regulator, but the votes
remain as before —

with the regulatory official.
( M O R E )

 SUMER AGENCY IS ESCAPE MECHANISM___2

The net effect can only be a cop-out for the regulatory cctrimissioner and
a reduction in the consumer's voice and influence in our federal regulatory
decisions," Simpson said.
During his news conference, Simpson referred to Attorney Leon Jaworski1s
letter to Rep. Jack Brooks, chairman of the House Government Operations
Committee, in which Jaworski said:
"Definition of the national interest is the most difficult and most
fundamental objective of government;

and ultimate responsibility for its

accomplishment is placed by the Constitution upon the elected Members of
Congress and the President.

I have severe reservations about the delegation

of so broad and basic a role to one unelected official."
Jaworski also noted that there are no checks in the bill against abuse.
"That alone is sufficient to justify laying the concept to rest once and
for all," Jaworski said.
"The new Agency for Consumer Protection, as it is called in the (House) bill,
would be vested with authority so broad that it could easily be turned to the
political advantage of those who control it.
to harness that authority.

There are no checks sufficient

Under these circumstances, creation of the new

agency is unwise," the former Watergate Prosecutor said.
-30-

05277

 FU LB R I G H T & J A W O R S K I
bank o f t h e s o u t h w e s t bu ild ing
1150 C O N N EC TI C U T A V E . , N . W .

H O U S T O N , TEX A S 7 7 0 0 2

W A S H I N G T O N , O. C . 2 0 0 3 6

TELEPHONE (7I3; esi-BIBI
telex ra-ieze

TELEPHON E (202)
TELEX

52

4 5 2 -6 8 0 0

8 0 -2 6 0 2

L I N C O L N ’S

INN

FIELDS

L O N D O N , W C 2 A 3 L2
T E L E P H O N E ( Ol ) 4 0 5 - 3 2 0 8
TELEX

22 - 73S

April 27, 1977

The Honorable Jack Brooks
Chairman
Committee on Government Operations
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C.
20515
Re:

H.R. 6118; Consumer Protection
Act of 1977

Dear Mr. Chairman
I am writing, in lieu of a personal appearance.
to present my views on the bill H.R. 6118.
I respectfully
ask that this letter be placed in the record of proceedings
before your Committee on the bill.
I have reservations about many of the provisions
of H.R. 6118, most of which have been addressed by others.
I wish to concentrate in this letter on a matter of particu­
lar concern —
the potential for disruption of our political
system that the bill creates.
My years of law practice, both as a private and
public citizen, have taught me that the stability and effec­
tiveness of government depends upon balance among its
institutions.
Political power inadequately confined creates
imbalance and invites abuse.
The new Agency for Consumer
Protection, as it is called in the bill, would be vested
with authority so broad that it could easily be turned to
the political advantage of those who control it.
There are
no checks sufficient to harness that authority.
Under these
circumstances, creation of the new agency is unwise.

 The H o n o r a b le J a c k
B ro o k s
April 26, 1977
Page 2

to "protect" a n ^ t ^ H r e p r e s e n t 1"8 ^ ^ " ! 6 ^ ^ " 011 WOuld be c h a r <3edm nearly every activifv
interests of consumers"
tion would grant its adminf °ur fedG^al complex.
The legislabefore agencies aid
2
at°r the ri9ht to aPPear
collect information d ®partmeats of government, the right to
without nnvn
°n by compulsory process from within and
federal
"
^
right t 0 sue the government in
all Sn b e h a l f ' n ? ^
" right to sPeak from anY platform’~
behalf of the consumer interest" which he "represents."
Let us consider the implications of this authority.
V s musk first inquire who are the new agency's
^•^itUentS* They are called "consumers" as if there were
a difference between a "consumer" and a "person."
In fact,
o course, there is none.
The agency will ostensibly represent
e interest of every man, woman and child in this nation.

To

This conclusion leads to the question of how the
interest of the people will be determined in any given
matter.
There are no criteria in the bill for defining that
interest, nor could there be.
Definition of the national
interest is the most difficult and most fundamental objective
of government; and ultimate responsibility for its accomplish­
ment is placed by the Constitution upon the elected Members
of Congress and the President.
I have severe reservations
about the delegation of so broad and basic a role to one un­
elected official.

I
hope that you will carefully consider the implica
tions of this extraordinary authority.
The administrator
would be empowered to appear before executive and independent
departments and agencies, before the courts, before committees
of Congress, and before any individual or entity outside the
government to express the national interest as he defines
it.
The political authority inherent in such an assignment
is literally enormous.
More importantly, there is no effective check
against abuse of that authority by the elected branches.
The bill contains no provision for a term of office or for
the circumstances under which the administrator may be
removed.
These factors indicate congressional intent that

 The Honorable Jack Brooks
April 27, 1 9 7 7
°°*s
Page 3

andb?here^ore thafhe^ou^d

°f the Resident

trol.
On the other
^
within the President's conexecutive departments and
° n?onc7.ls empowered to sue
administrate? won?d K a?d a 9 en=ies, implying that the
Give^tat
? lndePendent from the President,
keystone of t L P ?
SUS executive departments is a
would not
in far?91K 3 1 u” ' 1 assume that the administrator
This conclusion ?t 'nbL SUb;,eCt to c o n t r o 1 by the President. */
tor to
buttressed by the ability of the administFaor to intervene and sue in the context of independent
gency activity.
Were he subject to the control of the
esi ent, his actions before independent agencies might
constitute improper executive interference.
If the Agency
or Consumer Protection were to function as it is conceived
in the bill, the power of the administrator could not be
checked by the President.
Neither could Congress nor the judiciary provide
an effective balance against the activities of the agency,
so long as it remained within its practically limitless
statutory authority.
Congress could theoretically abolish
the agency or limit its appropriation, but in practice would
probably not do so. As the designated representative of all
consumer interests, the administrator would have a far
greater opportunity to influence public opinion than most
Members of Congress.
I would expect the agency to make the
argument that its mandate could not be carried out without
substantially greater appropriations.
Given the administrator's
public platform and his designated status as the representative
of all consumers, it is not unlikely that he would prevail.
For these reasons, I am skeptical as well about the "sunset
provision" contained in Section 23 of the bill.
I do not care to speculate that any person would
use the new agency as a vehicle to distort the political
process for personal gain or for any other reason.
I need
not do so to prove my point.
Power would be vested in the
administrator of the new agency that could be wrongfully
manipulated.
That alone is sufficient to justify laying the
concept to rest once and for all.
It is contrary to the
most fundamental of our democratic principles to vest in one
unelected person the authority to represent, legally and
politically, the interests of all of the people.

V
(1974).

See United States v. Nixon,

418 U.S.

683

 The Honorable Jack Brooks
April 27, 1977
Page 4

I do not mean to concentrate on the negative.
There are positive aspects to the bill, particularly its
purpose, which is to make the processes of government more
responsive to the needs of citizens.
I applaud that goal,
but cannot understand why the least desirable alternative
to achieve it has been selected.
The creation of additional bureaucracy may have
been more acceptable to the nation in the earlier years of
this decade.
It is apparent, however, that consumers now
want less government for their "protection." The vote on
this legislation has become increasingly negative to a point
at which a shift of five votes in the House would have
defeated it in the 94th Congress.
Moreover, we have recently
elected a new President who is pledged to halt the continued
growth of government and to reorganize its existing functions
along more efficient lines.
I respectfully submit that he
and the Congress should work together for the accomplishment
of that goal, and not delegate the task to an unelected
official with inordinate authority.
I regret that the scheduling of proceedings on
H.R. 6118 was such that I was unable to appear personally
to discuss my convictions on the bill in greater detail. If
the proceedings are reopened, I would be pleased to do so.
Furthermore, I stand willing to amplify the views expressed
herein and to answer any questions that you may have.
In closing, I wish to make clear my interest and
that of my firm in this legislation.
We have, for several
years, participated voluntarily with other members of the
business community in an attempt to demonstrate why the
consumer protection agency concept should be abandoned.
We
shall continue to do .so. Our services in preparing for
anticipated oral testimony before your Committee and the
preparation of this letter will be compensated by the Business^
Roundtable. an organization of businessmen.
Under the terms
of our agreement with Business Roundtable, the views expressed
herein are my own.
The contents of this letter.have not

cc:

Members of the Committee on Government Operations
U. S. House of Representatives