[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 100 (Tuesday, July 9, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H7128-H7132]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         COST OF GOVERNMENT DAY

  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to 
the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 193) expressing the sense of 
the Congress that the cost of Government spending and regulatory 
programs should be reduced so that American families will be able to 
keep more of what they earn.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 193

       Whereas the total of Government spending and regulations 
     (total cost of Government) has increased from 48.2 percent of 
     the net national product (NNP) in 1989 to an estimated 50.4 
     percent of NNP in 1996;
       Whereas the total cost of Government now exceeds 
     $3,380,000,000,000 annually;
       Whereas Federal regulatory costs now exceed 
     $730,000,000,000 annually;
       Whereas the cost of Government in general and excessive 
     regulations in particular have placed a tremendous drain on 
     the economy in recent years by reducing worker productivity, 
     increasing prices to consumers, and increasing unemployment;
       Whereas if the average American worker were to spend all of 
     his or her gross earnings on nothing else besides meeting his 
     or her share of the total cost of Government for the current 
     year, that total cost would not be met until July 3, 1996;
       Whereas July 3, 1996, should therefore be considered Cost 
     of Government Day 1996; and
       Whereas it is not right that the American family has to 
     give up more than 50 percent of what it earns to the 
     government: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that, as 
     part of balancing the budget and reevaluating the role of 
     government, Federal, State, and local elected officials 
     should carefully consider the cost of Government spending and 
     regulatory programs in the year to come so that American 
     families will be able to keep more of what they earn.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to strongly support a resolution introduced by Congressman DeLay 
and 37 other original cosponsors. This resolution expresses a sense of 
Congress that Government officials should carefully consider the costs 
of Government and reduce those costs so that Americans will be able to 
keep more of their income. This is something I believe we all can and 
should support.
  The timing of this resolution is appropriate since last week on July 
3, 1996, was the Cost of Government Day. What does that mean? It means 
that if the average American worker were to spend all of their gross 
earnings on nothing else besides meeting his or her share of the total 
costs of Government, then this amount would not be paid off until July 
3, 1996. At a time when private industry is rightsizing and becoming 
more efficient, we are also looking to the Federal Government to do the 
same.
  The facts speak for themselves. The total cost of Government is 
estimated at $3.38 trillion. That's $13,000 for every man, woman, and 
child in America. Federal income tax receipts from individual income 
taxes are more than 13 times the size they were in 1960. The Federal 
regulatory burden that private businesses and citizens must shoulder is 
estimated to be over $400 billion a year. We also recognize that the 
Federal Government should be performing only essential functions; 
however, we have seen the Government continue to mushroom. In 1985, 
there were 1,013 Federal programs; today there are 1,390 Federal 
programs administered by 53 Federal entities.
  However, even more troubling is the billions of wasted tax dollars. 
It is estimated that about 10 percent of every health care dollar in 
this country is lost due to fraud and abuse. Using that assumption, it 
is estimated that combined total losses for Medicare and Medicaid due 
to fraud amount to approximately $32.6 billion, or $89 million each 
day. We must put a stop to this kind of wasteful hemorrhaging of our 
precious tax dollars and I am hopeful that health reform legislation 
will be enacted shortly.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize that the Republican led 
Congress has been keenly aware of the need to rightsize the Federal 
Government. In fact, this issue has been the major focus of our agenda 
from day one of the 104th Congress.
  Without a Republican led Congress, we would never have passed line-
item veto authority which provides the President with the power to 
eliminate unnecessary Federal spending.
  Without a Republican led Congress, we would never have had unfunded 
mandates legislation enacted which will prevent the Federal Government 
and Congress from imposing new requirements on State and local 
governments without the necessary funds. This should help with 
lessening the burden on State and local governments and in turn ease 
State and local tax increases.
  Without a Republican led Congress, we would never have had the Small 
Business Regulatory Fairness Act which now provides for congressional 
review of major regulations to ensure that they make sense.
  Without a Republican led Congress, we would never have had a complete 
overhaul of the Federal procurement system to allow the Government to 
cut through unnecessary redtape and increase efficiencies in purchasing 
goods and services to save the Government billions.
  Mr. Speaker, the list goes on and on but the point is that this 
Republican led Congress is committed to ensuring that taxpayers will be 
able to keep more of what they earn. We have proven that we can do just 
that. It is important to note that many of these initiatives have been 
supported in a very bipartisan manner.
  This resolution is important because it reaffirms that message. Many 
of us on both sides of the aisle are deeply troubled that this 
Government costs too much. It is time to put our money where it 
belongs--back into the pockets of taxpayers. I urge that every Member 
support this resolution and show our commitment to a less expensive but 
more effective Government.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I know that the chairman of the committee is 
disappointed that the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] is not 
able to be here, but I am sure the gentleman wants me to share with him 
what the gentlewoman have said had she been here.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution was never considered in the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight, so we never had an opportunity to 
discuss it or amend it. It was put on today's

[[Page H7129]]

calendar apparently because the Republican leadership wants to show 
that they want to reduce Government spending and the size of 
government.
  I have to say that after reading the text of the resolving clause, 
there is little with which anyone in Congress would disagree. All of us 
were elected to carefully consider every bill we pass, whether it is a 
spending bill, a tax bill, or a regulatory bill. We don't need a 
resolution to tell us to do our job.
  In fact, the deficit has been going down every year under President 
Clinton. The difference between our two parties has been in our 
priorities. We have attempted to protect spending on important areas 
such as education, health care and the environment, while others have 
pursued spending cuts without considering their human costs.
  Had we agreed to carefully consider every bill that spends money, we 
probably would not be considering this resolution today, because it is 
a waste of taxpayer dollars. The printing of this resolution and the 
printing of this debate in the Congressional Record is a waste of 
spending.
  We should instead be doing exactly what the resolution calls for--
carefully considering appropriations bills, which should have all been 
passed by the House last month. Instead, we are woefully behind in the 
appropriations process, as we were last year, in part because we are 
wasting our time on resolutions like this.
  Had the bill been considered in the committee, we might have 
considered some amendments. For example, instead of just considering 
the costs of regulation, we might also have resolved to carefully 
consider the benefits of regulation. However, I am not surprised that 
the sponsor of this resolution does not care to consider the benefits 
of regulation. He has sponsored a bill to repeal the Clean Air Act. In 
sponsoring that bill, did he consider the benefits of clean air?
  The chief sponsor of this resolution also was the chief sponsor of a 
bill last year that passed the House. It would have imposed a yearlong 
moratorium on all new regulations, such as the recently adopted meat 
inspection regulation. That regulation, which will require testing for 
deadly bacteria, could save hundreds of lives and prevent thousands of 
diseases, but the gentleman's bill would have stopped the regulation in 
its tracks. Fortunately, the Senate refused to go along with the 
extremist antiregulatory bill.
  As Nancy Donley, whose son died of the deadly E. coli bacteria in a 
hamburger, said last week when the new rule was adopted, we must 
understand that all regulations are not bad. However, this resolution 
would have us only carefully consider the costs of regulation, and not 
the benefits.
  The same Republican sponsors of this resolution also attempted to cut 
the regulatory budget of the Environmental Protection Agency by a 
third. Perhaps they were carefully considering the costs of regulation, 
but I doubt they were carefully considering the costs to public health 
and the environment from their reckless cuts.
  Earlier this year, the Republican sponsors of this resolution would 
have required every agency to hold a new rulemaking to repromulgate all 
of their existing regulations. That proposal would have added billions 
in regulatory costs, but the sponsors of that bill apparently wanted to 
let polluters continue to pollute while the agencies were tied up in 
knots repromulgating their existing regulations.
  Soon we will be considering appropriations bills that will make large 
cuts in the President's budget for education. While the House considers 
the costs of these spending bills, as it should, I would expect it to 
also consider the costs of not adequately spending on our children's 
education.
  When we had military spending bills before us this year, we had rules 
that prevented us from cutting spending, even for weapons that the 
Pentagon did not ask for. If we are committing ourselves to carefully 
consider Government spending, defense spending bills should not be 
immune to cost-cutting.
  Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that the antienvironment, antiregulatory, 
extreme agenda in this House will come to a close soon. It appears to 
have run out of steam. All that is left of it for the time being is 
this silly resolution that says Congress should carefully consider the 
costs of Government spending and regulatory programs.
  It is about time that this Congress began to carefully consider all 
of its bills. We constantly face bills that have never been considered 
in committee, and this is one of them. Fortunately, it is just a 
resolution, and it is innocuous. Its worse crime is that it is a waste 
of our time and the taxpayer money.
  Its attempt to designate July 3, 1996 as ``Cost of Government Day'' 
is already out of date. Apparently the rule that ended bills to 
designate days of the year for certain worthwhile causes, such as 
charities to cure diseases, does not apply to resolutions designating 
days for Republican propaganda purposes.
  I would urge my Republican colleagues to stop wasting time on 
meaningless resolutions and get on with the Nation's business. We have 
appropriations bills as far as the eye can see, and just a few weeks to 
complete our work. The American people want to see us complete the 
Nation's business without another Government shutdown. Resolutions such 
as this only distract us from the real work ahead of us.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes and 30 seconds to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], majority whip.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chairman for yielding time to me.
  I am truly shocked by the gentleman from Virginia's remarks about 
calling this resolution an innocuous resolution. I think it gets to the 
crux of the matter of why we wanted to bring this resolution to the 
floor, to highlight to the American people something that obviously the 
Democrats think is insignificant, innocuous, does not mean anything, 
that the American family today started on July 4 working for itself. 
That is what this resolution is about. They know that. They are trying 
to cover it up.
  For 40 years they have built the Federal Government to such a huge 
size and taking money from the American family that now we work until 
July 3 for the Federal Government and start on July 4 working for 
ourselves. No one is talking about their bad regulations. What we are 
talking about is rushing to regulations, rushing to judgment without 
cost-benefit analysis and taking a commonsense approach to regulations.
  USA Today newspaper yesterday was talking about the number of kids 
that had been killed by airbags, airbags, rushed to put into cars 
without the kind of commonsense, thoughtful regulations that may have 
created an airbag system in cars that would not have killed those kids.
  So I rise in support of this resolution. I think it is a very 
important resolution that shows the American people that the cost of 
government day is July 3. It is altogether appropriate that we let the 
American people know how much they are spending for their Government. 
This year the average American family did not gain its freedom from the 
cost of government until July 3. July 4 may have been the day that we 
celebrated the anniversary of our Declaration of Independence from 
British tyranny, but this year it was July 3 when Americans actually 
gained their freedom from paying off their own Government.
  Thomas Jefferson once said, a wise and frugal government shall 
restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them free to 
regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not 
take from the mouth the labor of bread it has earned. This is the sum 
of good government.
  My friends, while that description may sum up good government, it 
certainly does not describe our Federal Government. Far too often the 
Federal Government takes, through direct and indirect taxes, the bread 
the American people have earned. As a former small business owner, I 
have felt the very real sting of Federal regulations and its costs on 
my business.
  More people need to realize that government is a cost of doing 
business. Government is also a cost to the American family. If you add 
up the cost of regulations and taxes on the local, State and Federal 
level, the average family involuntarily donates over 50 percent of its 
income to the government. Today one parent is forced to

[[Page H7130]]

work for the government while the other one works to support the 
family.
  According to the Commerce Department figures, Federal, State and 
local governments last year consumed 31.3 percent of all national 
output, the highest level in the history of the United States. That is 
the real legacy of the Clinton administration: the tax trap; higher 
taxes on working families.
  On the other hand, the Republican Congress has made great strides 
toward reducing the size and cost of government. This 104th Congress 
has already cut spending by $43 billion. We have cut our staff by a 
third. We have passed legislation to reduce taxes on middle-class 
families. We have signed into law unfunded mandates reform. And we have 
enacted the Paperwork Reduction Act, and we have passed two balanced 
budgets, two balanced budgets, the first budgets that balance in a 
generation. We are moving in the right direction. In fact, 2 years ago 
it was 52 percent of a family's income. We have it down to 50 percent 
and moved the days back a day or two.
  This resolution serves as a simple reminder that the Government is 
too big and it costs too much. So I urge my colleagues to vote for this 
resolution and to work with me to make the Government work better and 
at less cost to the American family.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Since the gentleman was shocked at the fact that we questioned this 
bill and suggested it was somewhat innocuous, I have to ask how the 
American people are better off for our having passed this resolution, 
particularly when its purpose is to designate July 3 as the ``Cost of 
Government Day,'' this being July 9.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. They are better 
off because most Americans do not realize that over 40 years we have 
built the Federal Government to the point that it takes 52 percent of 
their income to survive.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Blute], a member of the committee.
  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding the time.
  I rise today in strong support of this concurrent resolution 
expressing the sense of Congress that the cost of government is too 
high and should be reduced. It is outrageous that Americans must now 
work until July 3 to pay for the cost of Federal, State, and local 
governments plus the cost of government regulatory redtape.
  The total 1996 cost of the Government is $3,381 billion. My goodness, 
that is $13,000 for every man, woman, and child in America. In 1995, 
the University of Stanford Decisions and Ethics Center compiled data on 
the burden of taxation on all households in the United States. The 
results of this study are shocking. According to Stanford, government 
depletes at least 45 to 60 percent of all income earned by individual 
households, regardless of income level.
  But taxes are not the only cost of government. Regulations also 
impose financial burdens on Americans. According to the Washington 
University Center for the Study of American Business, rulemaking 
agencies of the Government employ almost 131,000 people, the highest 
level in American history, and a 28-percent jump from the 1983 level of 
102,000. As we know in Massachusetts, new drug approvals can take 
upward of 15 years, denying needed therapies to patients who need them 
but also forcing our companies in biotechnology and other innovative 
sciences to lose the competitive edge that they need to compete with 
their European and Japanese competitors.
  Mr. Speaker, some Americans are lucky enough to have a 40-hour work 
week. Indeed, this has become a luxury. But for the majority of 
Americans, the day begins earlier and earlier in the morning and ends 
later and later in the week. Why? So that American workers can make 
enough money to support two families. Yes, you have to support two: 
your own family plus Uncle Sam who has an uncontrollable appetite. That 
means that Americans will spend 184.6 days out of the entire year 
working for the government at all levels.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this concurrent resolution.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute and 15 seconds to 
suggest that there is good reason why America did not have the mad cow 
disease that occurred in Europe. In fact, we hear of so many things 
that occur in other countries that were prevented here. All we are 
asking is for a balance.
  The majority whip, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], criticized 
the use of airbags in his speech. But he did not mention the number of 
lives that have been saved by the use of airbags. We think on this side 
of the aisle that the American people want things like airbags and we 
ought to present a balance.
  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Speaker, the majority whip was referring to the USA 
Today article yesterday which was very extensively researched. It was 
referring to the passenger-side airbags and the regulations that were 
imposed a number of years ago that were not well thought out, that was 
a rush to judgment in the bureaucratic mindset of some of our 
transportation officials and has been an unmitigated disaster for 
children and has killed far more children than it has saved. I think 
what we are saying is, we need regulations. We certainly do. They need 
to be well thought out.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, to clarify for the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, he is not suggesting nor is his side suggesting we ought 
not require airbags to be included in the manufacture of U.S. 
automobiles.
  Mr. BLUTE. I am suggesting, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
that we look at, for example, passenger-side airbags as to whether that 
is well thought out for the safety of our children in automobiles. It 
has been a disaster, as most observers have agreed, that that 
regulation was not well thought out.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes and 15 seconds to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Horn], a member of the committee, 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and 
Technology.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the full committee for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, the Government costs--and the Government taxes that back 
up those costs--are spotlighted by July 3d as Cost of Government Day. 
These costs and taxes are siphoning money away from family resources. 
They are robbing millions of our citizens and those who want to be 
citizens of achieving the American dream.
  The 104th Congress is working to give higher incomes and lower taxes 
to all Americans. We have eliminated more than 200 unnecessary Federal 
programs and agencies. We have downsized the Washington bureaucracy as 
well as the congressional bureaucracy. We have moved government funds 
and programs to the States, and hopefully they will be even further 
decentralized to the communities and counties where real life occurs 
and real government occurs.
  Members of the 104th Congress approved a balanced budget plan, but it 
was vetoed by President Clinton.
  We tried to provide tax relief to the middle class through a $500 per 
child tax credit, but it was vetoed by President Clinton. We tried to 
provide marriage penalty relief and estate tax relief. We did get 
relief for seniors by phasing out the Social Security earnings 
limitation from which they have long suffered. We have tried to provide 
a deduction for families caring for elderly parents, an adoption tax 
credit, long-term care insurance tax reforms. Again, the President used 
his veto. He likes big government.
  Our Nation was founded on the principle of working hard and enjoying 
the fruits of one's labors. But as seen by the Cost of Government Day, 
this is simply no longer true. Instead, our fellow taxpayers work over 
6 months to pay the bills. Congress and the President must continue to 
rethink and work together to cut Government spending and many of our 
outdated regulatory programs. We must ensure that America's workers are 
able to keep more of what they earn.
  I listened to my good friend from Virginia [Mr. Moran] earlier claim 
that if

[[Page H7131]]

we had been in control of the executive branch and gotten our way, we 
would not have issued these recent regulations. Well, if my good friend 
will recall, since he and I are both members of the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight, we always had an exemption to issue 
health and safety regulations. The President was never limited in that 
area. If you can find some other health and safety things to do in the 
next couple of weeks, you can issue regulations whether our laws had 
been on the books or not.
  I think my good friend will recall that health and safety regulations 
were exempt from the downsizing of many other regulations which, as the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Blute] said, were simply not well 
thought out. If the gentleman wonders if I am for airbags, you bet I am 
for airbags. I am for airbags that work, not just from the front but 
also from the side door. I want to protect the children as well as the 
parents.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HORN. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised the gentleman is for 
airbags. He is a very thoughtful member of the committee and of this 
body. We did have an issue on meat and poultry inspection.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues will recall that we have fought 
consistently to get decent standards for frozen chicken, which, when it 
is thawed and then frozen again, creates tremendous bacteria. The 
Department of Agriculture has a lower standard than the State of 
California. The Department of Agriculture does not want to accept the 
higher California standard. And guess who is most influential with the 
Department of Agriculture? It is known as Tyson's Foods.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to underscore a 
point that we have been trying to make, and I think it is consistent 
with some of the rhetoric that we have been hearing today. The 
gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter] had an amendment that we 
would maintain our standards on meat and poultry inspection, which is a 
very relevant one, particularly when we see what has happened with mad 
cow disease in England and other situations that have endangered 
peoples' lives and health, and 220 Republicans voted against that 
amendment.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond, and I 
would underscore what the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn] said, 
and that is that there is a clear exemption in the unfunded mandates 
law and others which says the President has the right to waive that 
where health and safety is involved and clearly can do that without 
being limited to the law.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Roth].
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding, and I 
appreciate the debate here on the floor today.
  As I see it, in a nutshell, the problem is this: that our Government 
has gotten too big and our Government costs too much, and the American 
people have expressed that sentiment time and time again, and that is 
why I think this legislation before us, this resolution, is so 
important.
  Mr. Speaker, last Thursday our Nation celebrated its 220th birthday. 
We recalled the enormous sacrifices our Founding Fathers made to leave 
us a Nation founded on individual freedom. We remembered all the past 
generations of Americans who gave so much and suffered so much in many 
times and places to preserve this most precious legacy that we have.
  Unfortunately, thanks to a government that has grown too big and 
costs too much, Americans also marked their first full freedom, day of 
freedom, from paying for the Federal Government, as July 3. After 185 
long days Americans are finally able to work for themselves, not the 
Federal Government.
  Today the total cost of government, that is Federal, State and local, 
in terms of spending and regulation, comes to more than $3 trillion a 
year. Let me repeat that. The Federal, State and local government taxes 
costs the American people over $3 trillion a year. Federal regulations 
alone, remember, Federal regulations alone, amounts to $600 billion. 
That is more than we need to easily balance our budget.
  This hidden regulatory tax costs each family in my congressional 
district $6,000 of their hard-earned income each year, and this tax 
continues to rise. So for all the people in America, not only in mine, 
but for my colleagues' constituents, too, each household, $6,000 a year 
for Federal regulations.
  In fact, since November 14, 1994, this administration, the Clinton 
administration, has issued 4,300 new rules; 4,300 new rules since 
November 14, 1994. I just want to say that since November 14, 1994 this 
administration has issued 4,300 new rules, and no one has said that we 
need more rules. That is thousands and thousands of more pages of red 
tape for our small businesses. Remember, defunct businesses do not 
create jobs.
  Finally, think of what a family could do with the extra $6,000. 
Perhaps they could set aside some money for their sons' or daughters' 
college tuition. Perhaps they could afford their first new home, down 
payment for that. Perhaps they could open their own small business. The 
possibilities are endless.
  It is time to lift the regulatory burden that is smothering the 
American dream. Excessive regulation is not only wasteful, it is 
mortally wrong. Now is the time, Congress, to act, because America is 
patiently waiting.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself a minute and a half.
  Mr. Speaker, in the first place a lot of the regulations that have 
been cited have not, in fact, been new regulations. They have been 
rescissions and modifications. That grandiose number is misleading 
because it would be implied that those are all new regulations. They 
certainly are not. But the fact is we do have too many regulations, and 
I personally believe that the Federal Government too often imposes 
cookie-cutter compliance on States and localities and private 
businesses.
  I think we would be far better off if we moved to an outcome-based 
approach, particularly to environmental regulation where we told the 
private businesses and the States and localities: ``This is the goal; 
we want you to achieve this in the most effective and efficient manner 
possible. But you know your demography, you know your geography, and we 
think that you have the best understanding as to how to reach this 
goal,'' and we do not really argue, I hope, on the goals of clean water 
and clean air and safe meat and poultry.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and he 
is more than gracious in yielding. I just pointed out the fact that the 
gentleman earlier was criticizing the moratorium on regulations.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shaw). The time of the gentleman from 
Virginia has expired.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself another 2 minutes and yield to 
the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, take time to look at the excessive 
regulations the gentleman just said that we ought to be looking at, and 
the gentleman was criticizing the riders on our appropriations bill 
last year that does exactly what the gentleman just said that we ought 
to be doing: set the standard allowing local and State governments and 
private industries to come up with the solutions.
  That is all we are talking about.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time to explain our objection.
  It was not an objection to reviewing many of our regulations, but we 
object to suspending those regulations in the meantime while we are 
reviewing them. We think that the American people want and need that 
kind of protection, but we also think that we should continue to be 
scrutinizing those regulations to make sure that they function in the 
most efficient reasonable manner possible.
  I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DeLAY. I am sure the gentleman does not want to mislead the 
people watching C-SPAN. The only moratorium we were talking about is 
suspending any new regulations, not suspending existing regulations.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman knows, because I know he 
does not want to deceive the American people certainly, the fact is 
these regulations were up for reauthorization,

[[Page H7132]]

and they would have expired. That is why we needed to continue the 
regulations in effect while we were reviewing them.
  But our principal point with regard to this resolution is that we 
should be balanced in the information we present to the American 
people. We ought to review the costs. Absolutely we ought to review how 
it is tying up States and localities and private businesses. But we 
also need to balance that with an estimate, an understanding of the 
benefits, so we give the American people the cost and the benefits, let 
them decide, and that is the way we can make the best judgment as well. 
This resolution does not address benefits; it only addresses the costs. 
And I think to act responsibly we need to look at both.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just want to underscore. I think this deserves bipartisan support, 
as the gentleman from Virginia said. I think we are in agreement that 
we have too many regulations, that they need to be carefully considered 
before we impose additional burdens on the American people. We have 
taken, I think, substantial steps in this direction with the passage of 
the unfunded mandates law, which passed overwhelmingly on a bipartisan 
basis, to suggest that there needs to be a close look taken to 
regulations that are imposing tremendous new, additional financial 
burden on States and local government. So this resolution really is in 
keeping with that.
  I would suggest to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] that it 
is--I think our point has been in the past too often all we looked at 
was the benefit and all we looked at was what was proposed to be 
accomplished by that regulation. We never looked at the cost, and that 
was one of the things I think that has become a part of this now, is 
that we do try to take a balance.
  Yes, sure, we have to consider what is going to be the impact on 
people, but we have to consider what the cost is going to be as well. I 
would hope that that is implicit in this resolution that we really do 
not have a balance. I would suggest that in the past we did not have 
that balance because the only thing that was required to be considered 
was the benefit to be derived from it.
  So I would hope that this resolution would achieve broad bipartisan 
support, I think it should not be seen as a partisan measure at all.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CLINGER. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. MORAN. Would it be possible to amend this to where it says in the 
third to last line, consider the costs and benefits of government 
spending, two words, and we can make all the Democrats happy?
  Could we get unanimous consent to do that?
  Mr. CLINGER. I do not believe that this can be amended on the floor.
  Mr. MORAN. By unanimous consent, I am told, it can actually, I say to 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].
  Mr. CLINGER. I think, as I say, my view is that the resolution has 
drafted, and implicit in that is the fact that it would indeed cover, 
as the gentleman knows clearly, we are going to consider the benefits 
that are going to be derived from any resolution. So I would think that 
what this does is add the additional component that the costs should be 
considered as well.
  Mr. MORAN. I hope we are not paranoid, but that was not our implicit 
assumption. It only refers to costs, but not benefits. If it included 
benefits, we will not have any problem whatsoever.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] that the House suspend the 
rules and agree to the concurrent resolution, House Concurrent 
Resolution 193.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________