July 24, 1974
Page 24930
AGENCY FOR CONSUMER ADVOCACY
The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill (S. 707) to establish a Council of Consumer Advisers in the Executive Office of the President, to establish an independent Agency for Consumer Advocacy, and to authorize a program of grants, in order to protect and serve the interests of consumers, and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order the Senate will return to the consideration of the unfinished business, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Calendar No. 857, S. 707, a bill to establish a Council of Consumer Advisers in the Executive Office of the President, to establish an independent Agency for Consumer Advocacy, and to authorize a program of grants, in order to protect and serve the interests of consumers, and for other purposes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, 2 years ago on the floor of the Senate I urged passage of legislation to establish a Consumer Protection Agency to represent consumer views before Government agencies and to conduct research into consumer affairs and complaints. A number of my colleagues did the same.
Today, that same issue is before us. Legislation to establish a voice for the consumer has been bounced from the Senate to the House and back again, in a pattern so erratic as to discourage the bill's most ardent supporters and confuse the most interested onlookers.
Surely the time has come to resolve this issue once and for all.
Though the bill we are considering this week has been modified from earlier versions, the issues at stake are fundamentally the same. They have been aired and thrashed out so often that they have started to become obscure.
The principal issue we must decide here is whether or not the American consumer needs an advocate to protect his interest at the decision making levels of Government. I believe the answer is clearly, "Yes."
We live in a time when the consumer's domain – the marketplace – is a far more baffling structure than in years past. The growing concentration of economic power in a relatively few giant conglomerates has diminished the salutary incentives of competition. Frequent experiences with products marketed with insufficient attention to health and safety, or lacking in basic quality, have made the exercise of free choice in the marketplace a far less potent tool for the average consumer. And an increasing coziness between industry and the Federal agencies created to regulate it gives the appearance, if not the reality, of government by special interests.
These developments have left the American consumer more and more at the mercy of economic and political factors generally out of his control. If he is to regain a sense of participation in our free enterprise system, he needs a voice to insure that his interests will be represented when decisions are made that affect his daily life in very important ways.
The Consumer Protection Agency would provide just such a voice.
Judging from the tone of the opposition launched against this bill, it appears that emotions have taken hold and blurred these basic issues. For example, much of the mail I have received on the
subject has claimed that S. 707 is a threat to the free enterprise system.
Such rhetorical overkill tempts one to believe that the collective conscience of American business is very guilty.
In fact, however, I believe such opposition to the bill comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of the powers of the proposed agency. For while providing a new and stronger voice for the consumer, the bill also includes stringent safeguards designed to protect the honest and conscientious businessman from harassment and to prevent the disclosure of information vital to a healthy business sector.
First, the agency would have no independent subpoena powers. If it decides to intervene as a party in another agency's proceedings, it can request information from that agency – unless "the agency determines that the request is not relevant to the matter at issue, is unnecessarily burdensome, or would unduly interfere with the conduct of the agency or proceeding." In other words, the Consumer Protection Agency could not intervene vindictively or frivolously.
Second, in requesting information about activities not subject of proceedings before another agency, the burden would be on the Consumer Protection Agency to demonstrate a need for the information sought. The Agency could not go on fishing expeditions, nor harass the neighborhood pharmacist or mechanic.
And last, the Agency's power to release information would be carefully circumscribed, to, prevent damage to business through unwarranted disclosure of trade secrets or other confidential matters.
Two years ago, when these same issues were aired, the Government Operations Committee went over the bill with a fine-toothed comb. The end product, a sound and responsible bill, went on to die in a Senate filibuster.
This time around, we again have a constructive and workable bill before us. We should not allow the rest of the story to be repeated.
Today, the voice of the consumer is perhaps the most universal of all in our ownership-oriented society. Yet when government policy affecting the marketplace is decided upon, the consumer is often too little heard.
The Consumer Protection Agency will not solve all the problems of the American consumer in the marketplace. But it will begin the process of redressing the balance between shopper and producer, between citizen and his remote government.
I commend those who have worked so long and hard to bring this bill before the Senate again, and I urge its speedy enactment once and for all.