[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 86 (Thursday, June 19, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H4076-H4077]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    THE COST OF EXCESSIVE REGULATION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Ney] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, this is a great discussion tonight because we 
are talking about the American people being able to keep more of their 
hard-earned money. That is why we came here.
  Some of the Members sitting here tonight from the 104th, now in the 
105th, and we actually are so close to that goal and that reality, and 
I hate to even mention what I want to say tonight to put a damper on 
this, but I think it is important that we at least communicate a little 
on this issue. That is the fact that while we here in Congress are 
trying to do this, we have an unelected bureaucrat, Carol Browner, the 
head of the United States EPA, what she is attempting to do is to put a 
new wave of requirements on us, on ozone, and once again shut down some 
jobs.
  Somebody in an unelected position, who will not come here to the 
floor to debate this, is trying to stifle the growth of the American 
people, is trying to take away their money. And if it did something to 
help people, I guess it would be a different story we could talk about. 
But these new regulations, we have lived with them in the Ohio Valley 
and across the country, and they have really been hurting us.
  We have tried to comply. We have tried to do coal bonds in Ohio, 
about $100 million worth. We have tried to do everything we can do, 
but, once again, she does not want to be reasonable. Just this week we 
became aware of some reports in the press about maybe she is cutting 
deals with a few districts across the country and to let them out of it 
but the rest of us will pay.
  We all have to support a clean environment. We want that, but we 
surely want a reasonable discussion on it. I think the bigger picture 
on this too, and it is a frame of mind I guess that this whole 
government can get into, but the idea that veterans fought so we could 
have a democracy, so we could have a great energetic give-and-take on 
public debate, but the veterans did not fight so unelected bureaucrats 
could make a decision no matter what side of the issue we are on.
  So tonight I think we really need to talk about what we are doing for 
tax relief for the average American, but also we have to be aware that 
down the street there is someone that is trying to once again dip into 
the wallet of the working people. And that is why we are here, to 
protect the wallets of the working people. Because it is what that 
worker puts into the wallet and what the government tries to take out, 
and once again we are trying to give them more of their take home and 
somebody down the street is trying to take a little more back.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, If the gentleman will yield, I want to 
commend the gentleman for raising this. It is basically the same 
subject. Our goal here is to try to help people who are working hard be 
able to keep their money and advance without Washington standing as big 
brother and squishing them, either through spending in incredible ways 
and without their approval, or through regulations in EPA.
  Just like Ohio, in Indiana we make, in my district, pickup trucks, 
axles, tires. These are hard working Americans, multi-generational 
Americans, who want clean air, they want a healthy society, but they 
also want to work. And they are proud of what they do. And the idea 
that somebody in Washington, for not even any proven scientific gain, 
by the time we get done with this, in fact, I have heard that, for 
example, by changing the plastic covers on some of the gas tanks we 
could change some of this, but what gas stations are not in compliance 
now? Often they are the ones in the inner cities or in the rural areas 
where they are marginal.
  So are we going to close all those gas stations so the people living 
in the inner cities and out in the rural areas have to drive farther? 
And that actually pollutes more air. It is not even clear 
scientifically the solutions solve the problem, except to put a lot of 
hard working Americans out of work because some bureaucrat decided, an 
unelected bureaucrat decided that the Midwest should be punished and 
that we should send these jobs overseas, and that is, bottom line, what 
happens.

[[Page H4077]]

  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will 
yield, I am glad the gentleman brings up this concept of the cost of 
regulation at the same time we talk about the cost of taxation.
  There is a very important date coming up just in the next few weeks. 
July 3rd is the Cost of Government Day. Now many of us will remember 
back to May 9. We worked up to May 9 to pay off all of the taxes to 
satisfy the government. We worked up to that point for the government; 
the rest of the year we work for our family and the things important to 
us.
  But further down the line, way into the 7th month of the year, July 
3rd, is Cost of Government Day. That is the date after which we have 
surpassed all of our obligations to the Federal Government, not just 
for taxes but also for regulation. More than 50 percent of an average 
family's income goes to pay for taxes at the State, Federal, local 
level, and regulations at the State, Federal and local level.
  These new air quality standards the gentleman from Ohio mentions are 
estimated to cost the agriculture industry alone in America anywhere 
from $9 to $12 billion a year. That is the government's estimates. That 
is Carol Browner's estimates. And the people in the industry suggest 
that those estimates are far too low.

                          ____________________