[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.
____________________