[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 105 (Thursday, July 22, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H6298-H6302]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1074, REGULATORY RIGHT-TO-KNOW ACT 
                                OF 1999

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentelwoman from 
New York (Ms. Slaughter).
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions) for yielding me the time, and I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, this is an almost open rule, for the 
majority has again relied on a preprinting requirement for amendments 
which may affect some Members of the House.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1074 is a bill which sorely needs improvement. 
Amendments to protect taxpayers from runaway spending and to analyze 
the cost/benefit ratio of corporate welfare were not included in the 
bill during its consideration in the Committee on Government Reform.
  My friends on the other side are more than willing to belabor the 
value of and insist on a bottom line for rules which protect the life, 
the health, and the safety of the American people.
  But when the question is restated to ask how much corporate America 
benefits from Federal programs, the majority is far less interested in 
the answer. I expect we will see that issue revisited when we take up 
the Hoeffel-Kucinich amendment.
  H.R. 1074, the Regulatory Right-To-Know Act, has a ``feel good'' 
title to disguise the potential harm buried in its details.
  As envisioned by my friends on the other side, every time the Federal 
Government proposes to take even the most routine action, it would be 
viewed through 1,000 different green eye shades.
  There is little if any leeway given for action which is clearly 
necessary, decisions which are ``no-brainers.''
  It is like the pedestrian whose reflex is to leap from the crosswalk 
to avoid a car running a red light, but first he asks how many calories 
will be burned and how much shoe leather will be used and how the 
impact of the car would impact their productivity at the office.
  Now, if our pedestrian is faced with a different set of 
circumstances, such as deciding whether to buy a car so that they do 
not have to walk to work, then that requires a different approach, and 
rightly so. Because, by Executive Order, we already analyze the cost 
and benefits of the 60 or more major rules which are proposed each 
year. That is sensible and reasonable.
  My concern is that my friends on the other side who so often talk 
about government which is small and smart are now proposing to make 
government big and dull.
  A cost benefit analysis is useful when applied in the appropriate 
circumstances. But with the approach advanced by this legislation, they 
are killing the dog to stop the fleas.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. McIntosh).
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, I am speaking today in support of the rule 
for a bipartisan bill to promote the public's right to know the cost 
benefits and impacts of Federal regulatory programs, H.R. 1074, 
Regulatory Right-To-Know Act of 1999.
  This bill is the product of the leadership of the gentleman from 
Virginia (Chairman Bliley) from the Committee on Commerce over the last 
several years. He really deserves a great deal of credit for bringing 
forward the basic idea of this bill. It also builds on the provisions 
offered by Senator Stevens and Senator Thompson in the 1997, 1998, 1999 
Treasury, General Government and Postal Appropriations Act. They put in 
a temporary 1-year provision very similar to what this bill does.
  This bill, along with the companion bill, S. 59, also designed to 
establish a permanent and stronger regulatory accounting requirement, 
would make that year-by-year appropriations bill unnecessary.
  H.R. 1074 is a good government bill, which requires the Office of 
Management and Budget to prepare an annual accounting statement and an 
associated report. This accounting statement, which is the core 
provision of this bill, would provide estimates ever the costs and 
benefits of Federal regulatory programs in the aggregate, by agency, by 
agency program, by program component, and by major rule.
  The bill requires that accurate information be provided for the same 
7-year time series as the budget of the United States, the current 
year, 2 years preceding this year, and the 4 years following.
  The associated report would analyze the impacts of Federal rules and 
all the paperwork that goes along with these rules on various sectors 
in our economy, for example, on small businesses and on functional 
areas, for example, in the health care and our public health in this 
country.
  In the associated report, OMB would identify and analyze overlaps, 
duplications, and potential inconsistencies among the Federal 
regulatory programs and offer recommendations to reform inefficient or 
ineffective regulatory programs.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), who is Vice Chairman of our 
Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources, and 
Regulatory Affairs, will go into more detail about some of the examples 
of those overlapping and duplicative regulations.
  Now, currently, there is no report that analyzes the cumulative 
impact of Federal regulations. Americans, we believe, have a right to 
know what are the cumulative costs, what are the benefits, and what is 
the impact of Federal regulations on their sector of the economy and on 
various areas throughout the United States.
  Current estimates of the ``off budget,'' if you will, compliance 
costs on Americans by Federal regulatory programs are close to $700 
billion each

[[Page H6299]]

year. By the way, that is a 25 percent increase from 10 years ago.

                              {time}  1800

  Broken down for each family in the United States, they pay, on 
average, $6,900 in additional costs simply because of the compliance 
with Federal regulations. By the way, to put that in perspective, that 
is more than the typical family pays in Federal taxes, which we cut 
earlier today here on the House floor.
  The bill requires OMB to issue guidelines to standardize agency 
estimates of the costs and the benefits and to use an accounting format 
that can be analyzed across different sectors. The bill also requires 
OMB to quantify the net benefits or the net costs for each alternative 
considered in a regulatory impact analysis accompanying a major rule. 
By the way, this is already required under President Clinton's 
executive order on regulatory review.
  This information will help the public understand how and why major 
decisions affecting them are made by the executive branch. It will 
disclose that the Federal agencies chose the most effective, least 
costly regulatory approach.
  To ensure a fair and balanced estimate of the costs and benefits, the 
bill also requires that this report by OMB be peer-reviewed by two or 
more experts and that the public have an opportunity to comment on a 
draft report relating to the impact of sectors. This way the bill 
ensures that the public can know whether OMB is doing its job to keep a 
lid on the stupid, silly, sometimes costly regulations that are often 
promulgated.
  Mr. Speaker, our oversight hearings in my subcommittee, and the GAO 
reports, show that OMB, quite frankly, in recent years, has not done a 
very good job of supervising these type of regulatory impact analyses. 
So this bill will make that a legal mandate for OMB.
  H.R. 1074 requires that they compile some new and improved 
information about these regulatory programs. However, we believe that 
fundamentally the bill will not pose an undue burden on OMB if they are 
doing their job under the current executive order, since much of the 
needed information is already available.
  Since Ronald Reagan issued his historic executive order in 1981, 
Federal agencies have been required to perform cost-benefit analyses on 
major rules. These are the rules that constitute the bulk of that $700 
billion of cost for the regulatory programs. Also, OMB can use many 
other sources of information, including private regulatory accounting 
studies and government studies done by the agencies.
  The bill, as it was reported by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Burton), the Chairman of the Committee on Government Reform, made many 
changes on the initial draft that we have proposed to lessen the burden 
on the Office of Management and Budget and to address some of the 
Clinton administration's concerns, including a phase-in of several of 
the key requirements. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that 
the cost of this bill will be in its lowest category, less than 
$500,000 each year.
  Frankly, I think that is a pretty good deal. For less than $500,000, 
we have the potential to save the American citizens billions of dollars 
in unnecessary, duplicative, and costly regulatory burdens.
  There is wide support for this bill, Mr. Speaker. It is bipartisan, 
and it has been endorsed by many organizations, including the seven 
major bipartisan State and local organizations: the National Governors' 
Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Council 
of State Governments, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National 
League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, and the 
International City/County Management Association.
  Some other organizations, Mr. Speaker, that are endorsing this bill 
include Alliance USA; the American Farm Bureau Federation; Americans 
For Tax Reform; Associated Builders and Contractors; the Business 
Roundtable; the Center for Study for American Business; the Chamber of 
Commerce of the United States, which has key voted this bill on its 
legislative calendar; the Chemical Manufacturers Association; Citizens 
for a Sound Economy, which has also key voted this bill; National 
Association of Manufacturers; National Federation of Independent 
Businesses; the Seniors Coalition; the 60 Plus Association; and the 
Small Business Survival Committee, which, once again, has key voted 
this bill on their legislative calendar.
  Now, unfortunately, there have been some views that have been stated 
about this bill that ended up being reflected in the minority report, 
and so we had to issue a correction and clarification on some of those. 
But I want to stress, for example, that some of the opposition to this 
bill incorrectly states that it would ``require a cost-benefit analysis 
of every major and minor rule.''
  This bill, quite frankly, does not require any new regulatory impact 
analyses, RIAs, no new rule-by-rule cost-benefit analyses, and no new 
rule-by-rule impact analyses. So that the exceptions that are currently 
in place under President Clinton's executive order for minor routine 
regulations would also apply for this bill.
  Instead, the bill provides for combining a set of related rules into 
broad categories. Except for the regulatory impact analysis already 
required for major rules, the various analytical requirements relate to 
information after the rules are issued. So it should not require any 
greater regulatory burden in actually issuing those rules.
  The difference may be that the administration currently, under OMB's 
guidance, does not always follow their own executive order. And so some 
of these regulatory impact analyses that are required under the 
President's Executive Order, in fact, are not being done. But the bill 
provides OMB with substantial discretion in ways to address the various 
analytical requirements. It makes no changes in the standard of law. It 
cannot slow down a rulemaking, since the analysis will be done in the 
aggregate, after those rules are issued; but what it will do is give 
the American people a very precise comprehensive view of what the 
benefits and what the costs are of our Federal regulations.
  I strongly support the rule that has come forth from the Committee on 
Rules, and I believe fundamentally the public has a right to know what 
are the impact of our Federal regulations. We need to have open and 
accountable government. OMB's accounting statement and associated 
report will give Americans the tools to fully analyze how legislation 
on regulatory matters will affect them and how rules today are, in 
fact, impacting their lives.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule and vote for 
the bill when it comes up on Monday.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time, and I use the time to ask the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) 
whether it is not correct that there is now an understanding that the 
House will not be in session on Wednesday so that we can attend the 
memorial service for the distinguished former Member from California, 
Mr. Brown.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, to respond to the gentleman, and I am 
going to read what I have been given, it is my understanding the House 
will be in pro forma session and that no votes will be held, in 
accommodation of Republican and Democrat Members who wish to attend 
services for our colleague, George Brown.
  Mr. OBEY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, my understanding is 
correct, then, that there will be no committees asked to be running 
bills on the floor while that is going on?
  Mr. SESSIONS. If the gentleman will continue to yield, it is my 
understanding that there will not be any legislative business on the 
floor of the House of Representatives.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and I thank the 
leadership for reconsidering that position. I am sorry to take the time 
of the House, but given the fact that George Brown was the ranking 
member of a committee, that he served here 35 years, and that he was 
one of the two people who were driving forces behind the

[[Page H6300]]

 first teach-ins in Vietnam, a very historic occasion in our Nation's 
history, and I think that is very important.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman for his concern and feel like we 
have responded appropriately.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier), the Chairman of the Committee on Rules, and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), the ranking minority member, as well as 
the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), for their work on this 
rule for H.R. 1074, the so-called Regulatory Right-to-Know Act of 1999.
  I also want to express my appreciation to the chairman of the 
subcommittee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh), the committee 
on which I serve as the ranking member. The gentleman from Indiana and 
I have developed a good working relationship. We do not always agree on 
the substance of some of the bills, but I think we have been able to at 
least have an exchange of ideas, which I hope has resulted in a better 
bill. We are pleased on this side of the aisle that we will have the 
opportunity to offer our amendment, which we believe significantly 
improves the bill.
  While I support the underlying goal of the bill to give taxpayers 
information on the costs and benefits of government regulations, with 
the hope of improving government accountability, efficiency, and 
effectiveness, I am concerned that the bill, as offered, fails to 
adequately protect the taxpayers. That is why, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), 
and myself will be offering the Taxpayer Protection and Corporate 
Welfare Disclosure Amendment.
  This amendment will improve the bill in three ways. First, it will 
require the Office of Management and Budget to identify and analyze the 
costs and benefits of corporate subsidies given out by the Federal 
Government. H.R. 1074 is supposed to provide the American people with 
better information about how much money Federal laws and regulations 
cost American businesses and what benefits are derived from those 
programs.
  But this misses the fact that each year the Federal Government 
provides billions of dollars in corporate welfare to regulated 
businesses. This amendment would require corporate welfare to be 
disclosed to the American public so that they can have a complete 
accounting of the cost and benefits imposed on businesses by the 
Federal Government, not just the cost and benefits of regulations.
  Second, this amendment would cap reporting expenditures by the Office 
of Management and Budget and Federal agencies required by H.R. 1074 to 
$1 million a year. According to the Congressional Budget Office, H.R. 
1074 should only cost $500,000 a year to implement. So limiting these 
expenditures to double that amount, or $1 million, should provide 
plenty of funds for both the regulatory and the corporate welfare 
components of the bill, while making sure the taxpayers do not pay the 
price if programs end up costing much more than anticipated by 
Congress.
  Third, the Hoeffel amendment, the amendment that I am pleased to 
sponsor with that gentleman and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Visclosky), would sunset the bill after 4 years. Let us make sure that 
the information we are asking for is actually useful before we make 
this an open-ended requirement. If we find that the accounting required 
under H.R. 1074 is worthwhile, Congress can reauthorize the report at 
that time and make changes to it to make it better.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to again thank those on the other side of the 
aisle who have worked on this, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) 
and all the others who have worked on it, and we look forward to the 
debate on Monday.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), who is the vice chairman on the Committee on 
Government Reform.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas 
for yielding me this time, and I also want to thank the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), who is the ranking member of this subcommittee. I 
must admit that as a new Member of Congress it is nice to see people 
who really like to cooperate on a bipartisan basis, and I think the 
gentleman from Ohio is a person who is of strong conscience and serves 
this body very well, and I just wanted to commend him for his attitude 
in working with us on passage of this legislation. We may disagree on 
some of these amendments, but I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Ohio for his attitude on this.
  I rise in support of the rule, Mr. Speaker, for H.R. 1074. I would 
also like to voice my support for passage of H.R. 1074, the Regulatory 
Right-to-Know Act. This is a bipartisan initiative. This point is made 
obvious by the groups that have voiced their support of this bill. It 
has the support of numerous groups, from the National Governors' 
Association to the Seniors Coalition. The U.S. Conference of Mayors, 
the American Farm Bureau and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have all 
publicly endorsed this legislation. These diverse groups have endorsed 
this bill because they recognize the benefits this legislation could 
provide to Congress and to the citizens of this country.
  This legislation will increase understanding and, therefore, public 
confidence in all Federal regulations and agencies. The public has the 
right to know the factors that affect agency decision-making. The 
Congress has the right to know that the intent of the legislation we 
pass here in Congress is being carefully considered by the agencies who 
promulgate these regulations, taking into account and implementing the 
laws we pass here in this body.

                              {time}  1815

  Through this legislation, the public will have access to information 
regarding the cost and benefits including the social health, safety, 
environment, and economic effects of major agency action.
  Mr. Speaker, the key to accountability in Government is providing 
information. Information is vital to effective governing. The more 
accessible information is to the public and to the Congress, the more 
efficient and productive our system of Government will be.
  This bill does not change the existing process for adopting agency 
regulations. Moreover, it helps us change the environment in which 
these agencies adopt regulations by fostering an atmosphere of openness 
and accountability.
  Some groups have likened this to the annual accounting most companies 
do for their shareholders. Well, Mr. Speaker, the American people are 
the shareholders of our Government of our country and they deserve to 
be provided an accounting of the impact of Federal regulations.
  But I would like to make one more point that is very important in the 
Regulatory Right-to-Know Act, which will require OMB to do an annual 
study looking at duplicative regulations. And believe me, Mr. Speaker, 
we have a lot of duplicative regulations in our Federal Government 
today.
  Just to point out a few examples: Agriculture's Natural Resource and 
Conservation Service and the Army Corps of Engineers had conflict 
requirements over wetlands regulations. I am going to go into that in 
just a second.
  The grantees for so many different programs are required by Federal 
rules to provide nearly identical information to many Federal grant-
making agencies for similar grant programs, including the same type of 
information to various agencies.
  The USDA and FDA have issued overlapping food safety regulations 
regarding tainted food products. Many agency programs, and thus their 
regulatory requirements, sometimes overlap. Just in the area of job 
training and employment there are 14 departments that delve into this 
area.
  Among the 14 departments and agencies that have programs, rules, and 
regulations with respect to job training and employment are the 
Agriculture Department, the Commerce Department, the Education 
Department, HHS, HUD, Interior, Justice, Labor, Transportation, 
Treasury, Veterans' Affairs, EPA, the NRC, and the SSA.
  All of these agencies promulgate regulations on job training and 
employment. Many of them duplicate and

[[Page H6301]]

 overlap each other. An accounting of these regulations is going to do 
nothing but help us get good Government, get good information to the 
citizens we represent.
  Going back to the area of wetlands regulations, there is a great 
example of how overlapping and duplicative regulations can actually do 
a lot of harm to our constituents when we are simply trying to make 
sure that they comply with the Federal law.
  I would like to take an example of a turf fight between two agencies 
over wetlands regulations. The turf fight is between the Army Corps of 
Engineers and the Natural Resources Conservation Service. There is a 
farmer named Dave Pechan who farms near Linden, California. He wanted 
to convert 40 acres of his land into a vineyard.
  In accordance with the law, Mr. Pechan asked the Natural Resources 
Conservation Service to evaluate his property for possible wetlands. 
The Conservation Service is one of those Federal agencies that is 
charged with enforcing wetlands regulations.
  After inspecting Mr. Pechan's land on two occasions, the Conservation 
Service determined that only a .3 acre swale could be considered a 
wetland. He was instructed to go ahead with his vineyard plans as long 
as he plowed around that tiny little wetland.
  Well, that seemed to settle the matter. Until one week later, when 
Mr. Pechan saw representatives from the Army Corps of Engineers and the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on his property taking pictures. They 
told Mr. Pechan that he may be violating the law when he farmed in 
wetlands.
  When Pechan produced the documentation from the Conservation Service 
showing that he was in compliance with these regulations, the agencies 
rudely rejected his claim.
  It seems that the Army Corps of Engineers and the Conservation 
Service are locked into a bureaucratic turf fight over which agency 
would have the lead role in enforcing wetlands laws.
  Well, in 1994, the Corps of Engineers signed a memorandum of 
agreement that ostensibly recognized the Conservation Service as the 
lead Federal agency. However, the Corps of Engineers reneged on that 
agreement because they refused to give up on enforcement of wetlands 
policy.
  The end result is this: The farmer in California, Dave Pechan, is 
snared in the middle of a bureaucratic turf fight. The Corps has told 
him that regardless of what the Conservation Service had determined 
allowing him to go through with his vineyard plans, he will be 
subjected to civil and criminal penalties if he continues to work his 
land.
  He is now in limbo while the Corps conducts its own wetlands 
evaluations of his property.
  Mr. Speaker, the Regulatory Right-to-Know Act is very common sense. 
It is bipartisan. This is a good Government bill. This simply says, let 
us get a handle on all of these regulations we are passing on to our 
constituents. Let us make sure they do not duplicate each other or 
overlap or send conflicting messages to our constituents.
  Lastly, it does not do one thing to change the regulations. It simply 
says, let us measure the cost and benefits of these regulations, what 
are they costing our economy, what are they doing to our constituents.
  This is clearly a good Government measure. I urge all of my 
colleagues to support the rule on this measure. And next week when we 
vote on this bill, I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 
1074, the Regulatory Right-to-Know Act.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel).
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the 
time and I thank her for her cooperation and her leadership.
  I compliment the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) the chairman 
of the Committee on Rules and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Moakley) the ranking member for bringing forward this bill with the 
rule that permits through the preprinting mechanism the opportunity for 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and I to offer an amendment that 
we believe is necessary to improve this bill so that it really provides 
a good service for the American taxpayer.
  H.R. 1074, the Regulatory Right-to-Know Act, is the subject of this 
rule. As the previous speaker, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) 
and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) before him have 
described, this bill is designed to tell Congress and the American 
people how much it costs to produce regulations pursuant to the laws we 
pass every year.
  A cost benefit analysis of Federal regulation is a concept that has 
been debated for some time. I am pleased that this bill is before us. I 
think the bill needs improvement, but I think it is the right thing for 
Congress to address this and to make sure we have an opportunity to get 
the information we need to do our jobs properly and to get to the 
American people a clear statement of the cost of Federal regulation and 
the benefit of Federal regulation.

  I, for one, believe there are many benefits to the rules and 
regulations that are promulgated based upon our statutes. But we need 
to know the cost on business and the benefit to business in order to do 
our job properly.
  Unfortunately, I think that there are some areas of this bill that 
need to be improved. I will be offering, along with the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), the Hoeffel-Kucinich amendment, entitled the 
taxpayer protection and corporate welfare disclosure amendment, when we 
have an opportunity on Monday to debate and amend this bill.
  Our amendment is designed to get even more information available to 
Congress and to the American people regarding the impact of the Federal 
Government on American business.
  If we want to find out the costs and benefits of Federal regulations, 
then let us also find out the costs and benefits of the so-called 
corporate welfare, the Federal subsidies, the tax preferences, the 
below market values of Federal lands that are granted to many of our 
corporations in this country.
  Historically, we have given these kind of corporate benefits to many 
industries, some of them mature, successful, highly profitable 
industries. If we are to determine how much the regulations cost these 
industries to get a fair and complete picture, we surely need to know 
the benefits, if any, of the corporate welfare they receive.
  Secondly, the amendment that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) 
and I will offer will make sure that the cost of this bill will not be 
unlimited.
  The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that to conduct the 
regulatory review of the underlying bill will cost something less than 
$500,000 per year. So we are putting in the Hoeffel-Kucinich amendment 
an overall cap of $1 million a year to conduct both the regulatory 
review and the corporate welfare review that the amended bill will call 
for.
  I think this is a wise and sensible limitation to make sure that, in 
the process of determining costs and benefits, we do not waste the 
taxpayers' dollars with unnecessary expenditures.
  Finally, the Hoeffel-Kucinich amendment will put a 4-year sunset 
provision on both the regulatory review and the corporate welfare 
review called for in the amended bill.
  I will ask for support of the amendment on Monday.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining on 
both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions) has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from New York 
(Ms. Slaughter) has 19 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important as 
we debate the rule and the Regulatory Right-to-Know Act that we put 
this in its proper perspective.
  We would debate what I would like to call the ``killer Kucinich 
amendment'' a little bit later when it is up next week.
  But let us put this in proper perspective. Regulations are good. They 
are necessary. But regulations do pose what we often call a hidden tax 
on the American economy. It is widely estimated that Federal 
regulations cost the American taxpayers about $700 billion annually.
  This is a tax that we do not see right on our paychecks. We do not 
see it in front of our faces in our businesses. This is a tax that 
comes to us through

[[Page H6302]]

the various overlapping and duplicative rules and regulations, costing 
our American families and businesses about $700 billion annually.
  So when we talk about the Regulatory Right-to-Know Act, it is really 
let us see what these taxes are costing us, let us get openness in 
Government, let us make sure that we know when we are imposing $700 
billion of hidden tax on our Government, let us make these open taxes 
so we actually see really what these taxes are, what the cost and 
benefits of these hidden taxes on our families and businesses impose.
  Placing a cap on that to me seems to be very, very much disingenuous 
in the spirit of the public's right to know. We will debate the merits 
of that amendment next week.
  But I think it is very important to put this whole thing in 
perspective, that the Regulatory Right-to-Know Act is a bipartisan 
solution at getting openness in Government at taking a look at what 
really is this hidden tax being placed on our families and our 
businesses.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel).
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the 
time.
  If I could just respond quickly to my friend the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) who spoke about the ``killer Kucinich amendment''.
  Many people have said that I am a pretty tough guy, but no one has 
ever called me ``killer'' before. It is actually the ``Hoeffel-Kucinich 
amendment.''
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOEFFEL. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I said ``killer Kucinich,'' not 
``killer Hoeffel.''
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, we will debate this amendment Monday, known 
as the ``Hoeffel-Kucinich amendment.'' I look forward to the debate 
with the gentleman.
  If I would simply add, he appropriately identified the estimated cost 
of regulations on American business. Let me add to this debate today 
that Time Magazine has estimated that the cost of corporate welfare to 
the Federal Government is $125 billion a year, which they describe as 
being the equivalent of the income taxes paid each year by 60 million 
Americans. Or another way of looking at it, the equivalent of two 
weeks' pay for every working American is distributed and paid by the 
Federal Government in corporate welfare.
  So I simply stand with the Hoeffel-Kucinich amendment for the 
proposition that we ought to know where that $125 billion goes when we 
find out where the $700 billion that the gentleman is concerned about 
and that I am concerned about goes.
  We ought to see the whole package at the same time to get a clear 
picture.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to close.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to add to what the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Hoeffel) said about the corporate welfare costing us $125 billion 
a year. That is handed out despite the fact that the economy has been 
strong and that corporate profits have totaled more than $4.5 trillion 
this decade.
  Proponents of corporate welfare say that it encourages economic 
development and job growth. A good example is a tax break for a company 
that relocates to the inner city. But the biggest recipients are 
Fortune 500 companies that have cut, Mr. Speaker, more jobs than they 
created this decade.
  As stated by Time, ``The rationale to curtail traditional welfare 
programs was compelling because the old system did not work. It was 
unfair and destroyed incentive and perpetuated dependence and distorted 
the economy.''

                              {time}  1830

  ``The same indictment, almost to the word, applies to corporate 
welfare. In some ways, it represents pork-barrel legislation of the 
worst order. The difference, of course, is that instead of rewarding 
the poor, it rewards the powerful.''
  I agree with the gentleman from Pennsylvania that corporate welfare 
deserves all the attention we can give it to bring it into the light.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
I would like to echo the comments that were made by the gentleman from 
Wisconsin and give a quote so that we know where the figure came from. 
Professor Thomas D. Hopkins, Interim Dean, College of Business at the 
Rochester Institute of Technology is the gentleman that estimated the 
total regulatory cost in the United States will be over $700 billion a 
year.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this fair rule so that 
the House may continue this important legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________