[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 17757-17759]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                  REGULATORY RIGHT-TO-KNOW ACT OF 1999

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 258 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1074.

                              {time}  1503


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 1074) to provide Governmentwide accounting of regulatory costs 
and benefits, and for other purposes, with Mr. LaHood in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) is unavoidably 
detained and will be here shortly and asked me to proceed.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1074, the Regulatory 
Right-to-Know Act, of which I am proud to be a cosponsor. Once again, 
the Congress is taking the lead in enhancing the accountability of the 
Federal Government to the American people.
  The Regulatory Right-to-Know Act is a bipartisan bill that will allow 
us to better understand the impact on our economy of Federal 
regulations and bureaucratic red tape. It requires the Office of 
Management and Budget to submit an annual accounting report that 
estimates the costs and benefits of Federal regulatory programs.
  The importance and timeliness of this legislation cannot be 
understated. Recent studies estimate the compliance costs of Federal 
regulations at more than $700 billion annually. Unfortunately, these 
costs amount to a hidden tax passed on to hardworking Americans in the 
form of higher prices, reduced wages, stunted economic growth and 
decreased technological innovation.
  Just think, if we could lower the cost of Federal regulations by just 
one-seventh of that amount, $100 billion per year, it would have the 
effect of a $1 trillion tax cut for the American people over 10 years. 
That is $200 billion more than the tax cut we fought so hard to pass 
just last week.
  But to lower the costs, we have to know the costs. The Regulatory 
Right-to-Know Act will provide this valuable information, helping 
regulators make better, more accountable decisions.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that all regulation is bad, but we 
ought to know the true cost of these actions so that we can judge how 
useful they really are.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1074 to begin this important 
review.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in opposition to H.R. 1074, the so-called Regulatory Right-to-
Know Act of 1999. This legislation would require the Office of 
Management and Budget to prepare an extensive annual report on the 
aggregate costs and benefits of Federal regulations, by agency, by 
agency program and by program component.
  For the past 2 years, Congress has enacted appropriations riders that 
require OMB to tabulate the costs and benefits of major Federal 
regulations. Some observers have found this annual cost-benefit report 
to be helpful. They argue that it shows the health, environmental and 
other benefits of Federal regulations and how those benefits far 
outweigh their costs.
  For example, the 1998 Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of 
Federal Regulations concluded that those benefits far exceeded the 
costs by anywhere from $30 billion to $3.3 trillion. Well, that is a 
good report supporting the benefits of these regulations and how they 
outweigh the costs of the regulations. That is what we want to know.
  But other observers have questioned the utility of these annual 
reports. According to the OMB, the Office of Management and Budget, 
aggregating costs and benefits of regulations are, they say, of little 
value to policymakers because they offer little guidance on how to 
improve the efficiency, effectiveness or soundness of the existing body 
of regulations. Why? Why would that be the case? They say, because the 
information available includes enormous data gaps, accurate data is 
sparse and agreed-upon methods for estimating costs and benefits are 
lacking.
  Furthermore, critics like Professor Lisa Heinzerling of the 
Georgetown University Law Center say that the difficulty in quantifying 
benefits is likely to cause skewed results. Comparing aggregate, 
quantifiable costs, such as the dollar cost to comply with regulations, 
is easier to do than to quantify the really basically unquantifiable 
benefits, such as lives saved or a cleaner and healthier environment, 
and so to compare the two may mislead the public about the net benefits 
of regulation.
  Well, whatever the merits of the current annual report that is being 
prepared by OMB, this bill is seriously flawed. First of all, this bill 
does not codify the idea that we will have annual reports. Instead, it 
dramatically expands these requirements in ways that will substantially 
increase the burdens on OMB, raise the costs to the taxpayers, and 
produce little significant new information.
  In short, if H.R. 1074 were itself subject to a cost-benefit 
analysis, it would flunk.
  One of the major problems in this bill is its scope. Currently, OMB 
prepares an annual analysis of the costs and benefits of ``major'' 
regulations with an annual economic impact of over $100 million. This 
makes some sense. There are relatively few major regulations. Out of 
the 5,000 regulations issued in the Federal Register each year, only 
about 50 have major economic effects. The limitation to major 
regulations allows OMB to focus its analysis on the most important and 
costly regulations.
  Moreover, agencies that promulgate these major regulations have to 
prepare cost-benefit regulations as part of the rulemaking process, so 
this gives OMB a database to draw from.
  But this bill, H.R. 1074, is not limited to major regulations. It 
requires a cost-benefit analysis of all 5,000 regulations issued each 
year. According to this bill, the report must include, quote, an 
estimate of the total annual costs and benefits of Federal regulatory 
programs, including rules and

[[Page 17758]]

paperwork; one, in the aggregate; two, by agency, agency program, and 
program component; and, three, by major rule. This would therefore 
require agencies to perform cost-benefit analysis for all rules in 
order to provide OMB with the information it needs to compile the 
aggregate report.
  This simply does not make sense. OMB testified that this bill would 
require OMB and the agencies to compile detailed data that they do not 
now have, and undertake analyses that they do not now conduct, using 
scarce staff and contract resources. That is because there is no such 
information available for these 5,000 nonmajor rules.
  The administration says that the increased burden that this would 
place on the agencies would crowd out other priorities and would add 
little value. We have heard similar comments from unions, consumer 
groups and environmental organizations. Groups opposed to H.R. 1074 
include the AFL-CIO, the American Federation of State, County and 
Municipal Employees, Public Citizen, the Natural Resources Defense 
Council, the Sierra Club and dozens of other national and local public 
interest groups.
  Before the committee markup in May, we reviewed the Federal Register 
to see what types of rules would be subject to this new cost-benefit 
analysis. One example was a temporary rule issued by the Coast Guard 
governing the operation of a drawbridge near Hackberry, Louisiana. This 
regulation was completely noncontroversial. In fact, it was actually 
requested by the State in order for the State transportation department 
to make some necessary repairs. Yet under H.R. 1074, OMB now needs to 
conduct an analysis of the economic costs and benefits of this 
regulation, including its direct and indirect effects on economic 
growth, prices, wages, small business and productivity.
  There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of rules issued each year that 
fall into this category. Is this how we want to spend the taxpayers' 
dollars?
  Not only would this bill be wasteful, it would provide an incomplete 
picture of the costs and benefits of government programs by omitting 
corporate welfare from the report of aggregate costs and benefits to 
the taxpayers. According to an investigation by ``Time'' magazine, the 
Federal Government gives out $125 billion a year in corporate welfare. 
It seems to me that it is only logical that any OMB report should 
include all costs and benefits to the economy, including the costs to 
the taxpayers and benefits to businesses from corporate welfare.
  Later today, several of our colleagues will introduce an amendment to 
address these concerns. The Hoeffel-Kucinich-Visclosky Taxpayer 
Protection and Corporate Welfare Disclosure Amendment would require OMB 
to report on the costs and benefits of corporate welfare.

                              {time}  1515

  It would also limit the amount of money that could be spent on these 
analyses to $1 million, double what the CBO estimated for the annual 
cost to implement the bill, while we are giving twice as much as CBO 
says this bill is going to cost, because I do not think their cost 
estimate is going to be correct.
  And there ought to be some ceiling on the amount of money that hard-
working taxpayers are going to pay to do this analysis that may not 
even be of any value. We ought not to be spending certainly more than 
$1 million on this project which seems to be the personal agenda of 
some of those who are pushing the legislation. While this amendment 
does not address all my concerns with H.R. 1074, it will go a long way 
towards protecting the taxpayer by limiting the cost of the bill and 
giving a more accurate picture of the costs and benefits of government 
programs.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge at the appropriate time that Members 
support the amendment. The Hoeffel-Kucinich-Visclosky Taxpayer 
Protection and Corporate Welfare disclosure amendment is a commonsense 
amendment that would at least improve a deeply flawed bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, no one in this room would buy a house without hiring an 
inspector to look it over carefully to make sure it was liveable; no 
one would buy a new car without looking at the warranty and taking it 
out for a spin to make sure that it runs; none of us would buy a new 
suit of clothes without having it professionally tailored and then 
trying it on first to see if it fits, yet we expect the American people 
to spend $700 billion a year to comply with thousands of Federal 
regulations without knowing whether those regulations do what they are 
supposed to do.
  I think we owe the American people an explanation. H.R. 1074 will 
help us give them one. It will help us answer the questions about 
whether all these regulations are worth what we are paying for them and 
whether society enjoys a net benefit. This bill will improve our 
regulatory system by putting timely, reliable information on the costs 
and benefits of regulations in the hands of policymakers and 
legislators. At the same time, it leaves in place all existing rules 
and it maintains the integrity of the existing rulemaking process.
  Mr. Chairman, the American people deserve to know what they are 
getting for $700 billion a year.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I wish to rise in support of 
H.R. 1074. The public has a right to know. What this issue really boils 
down to is what is good for democracy, and what is always good for 
democracy is information. What this legislation seeks to achieve is to 
give the public information.
  Now through our regulatory framework in our Executive Branch of 
government all of our laws in this country are implemented, executed by 
our Executive Branch of government. We here in Congress often pass 
overly vague laws, and it is up to the regulators, the Executive Branch 
of government as defined in the Constitution, to put the teeth in those 
laws, to execute those laws, to define the regulations.
  But what we are finding in this Federal Government which has become 
very vast and very large with so many different regulations, so many 
different agencies often promulgating the same regulations on the same 
topic and the same issue, that we have so much duplication, we have so 
many regulations that are passed onto our people which really take the 
full force of law, which do not take into account any chance of looking 
at whether the costs exceed the benefits, whether there is a better way 
of imposing the regulation or whether it duplicates other existing 
regulations within the Federal Government.
  What this bill seeks to do is to have OMB, the Office of Management 
and Budget, conduct a review every year, something well within their 
means, something the Congressional Budget Office says is very minimal 
on a cost basis. What the OMB will do under this law is give us a 
report analyzing the costs and the benefits of proposed regulations. It 
will look at whether or not regulations duplicate each other.
  We analyzed this last week, and we looked at so many different areas 
where regulations are so duplicative that people, family farmers, 
factory workers, small businessmen and women in this country are facing 
regulations that tear them in different directions. We have two 
different regulatory agencies pursuing wet lands conservation laws. One 
regulatory agency told a farmer in California, Dave Peckham, ``Go ahead 
and farm your field, put a vineyard in there. Make sure you put your 
vineyard around this wetland,'' and then another agency came and said, 
``You're violating the law. We're going to conduct fines and impose 
penalties on your business.''
  We have so much waste and duplication in our regulatory agencies in 
this government that the public has a right to know what is being 
duplicated, where is this taking place. The public also has a right to 
know about the

[[Page 17759]]

costs and the benefits of the regulations being placed upon our people. 
And what this really comes down to is simply a good government act. 
This is good government.
  The U.S. Government imposes a hidden tax on our public today. Last 
week, we voted for a tax relief package. We imposed taxes, income 
taxes, excise taxes, inheritance taxes, capital gains taxes, death 
taxes on our people in an overt way. We see the tax, it comes out of 
our paycheck, we send in our 1040. But there are other taxes that our 
public pays today, there are other taxes that citizens of this country 
pay, and that is a hidden tax, the cost of regulations.
  It is estimated by Thomas Hopkins of the University of Rochester, the 
Rochester Institute of Technology, that hidden tax of regulations costs 
our economy, our people, our small businesses every year in excess of 
$700 billion. A $700 billion tax is being imposed upon the people of 
this country, and we are not even looking into whether or not these 
taxes exceed the costs, whether the benefits of these taxes exceed the 
costs, whether or not they are being duplicative or not. All this is a 
good government measure to say: Let us look at what we are doing as a 
Federal Government, let us look at the regulations we are promulgating.
  This does not change one regulation, this does not affect any law 
from being implemented. This gives the public the right to know the 
truth. This gives the public the information that they need so they can 
follow the law.
  All we are saying is, ``Let's have the Office of Management and 
Budget review these regulations, let's have the Office of Management 
and Budget weigh the costs and the benefits of these regulations, let's 
have the Office of Management and Budget tell us whether they are 
overly duplicative or not,'' and I would like to echo what my colleague 
from Illinois said about the bill and its supporters:
  Mr. Chairman, this is a bipartisan bill. This bill is being supported 
by the National Governors' Association, the National Conference of 
State Legislators, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National League 
of Cities, the National Association of Counties and the International 
City and County Management Association. The bill is also supported by 
Americans for Tax Reform, the Center For The Study of American 
Business, Citizens for a Sound Economy, the Seniors Coalition and the 
Sixties Plus Coalition.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  It is very peculiar to hear the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) 
say we have OMB to do this analysis so we can find out the cost benefit 
of regulations. Well, OMB already does that, and the gentleman said the 
OMB said it costs $700 billion a year to comply with regulations.
  That is not accurate. OMB said, after doing their analysis, that it 
costs $230 billion not $700 billion; and that is the costs. But the 
benefits for regulations OMB said ranged, because we cannot know 
precisely how to quantify it, but we know there are certain enormous 
benefits that come from regulations to protect the environment, to 
protect public health and safety; they say the benefits of a $230 
billion cost is anywhere from $260 billion in benefits to $3.5 
trillion.
  Now the gentleman wants OMB to do a report, but he ought to be 
accurate in telling the Members what OMB is already saying on this very 
subject. Let me tell my colleagues what some others are saying about 
this bill.
  The United Auto Workers say the UAW submits that this bill would only 
serve to further delay the promulgation of public health and safety 
protections by mandating wasteful analysis and diverting limited agency 
resources.
  The United Steelworkers say that they oppose this bill because it 
would lengthen and complicate the already cumbersome regulatory process 
of agencies such as OSHA which address issues affecting worker safety 
and health.
  The Consumers Union opposes this bill, and they say that the 
substitution of different words or details does not obviate the need 
this bill would create for the Executive Branch to expend the very 
substantial resources in an attempt to quantify what they may well find 
is unquantifiable and most certainly would be meaningless in an 
aggregate form.
  Now do we want to take taxpayers' hard-earned money and waste it, 
because that is what this bill would do. It would have OMB spend, I 
believe, without a limit, millions of dollars on an analysis on non-
major regulations. We are not talking about major regulations, but 
regulations that are non-major, often noncontroversial, usually 
noncontroversial, regulations that everyone supports, and then have to 
go through a lot of paperwork. Well, maybe it is a win for those who 
have their own agenda to say that if maybe they are lucky, OMB came out 
with a report showing that the costs out-did the benefits. They can 
say, well, there is a wasteful regulation, but even if they can never 
come up with a way of showing that some of these regulations are not 
effective, they could just busy all the people in the government doing 
these reports that serve no useful purpose.
  Let us subject this bill to a cost-benefit analysis. We do not know 
what the full costs will be of this bill to make OMB go through all 
these regulations and review. But we do know that the costs are going 
to be extraordinary and the benefits are going to be minuscule. We 
ought not to enact legislation that does not serve a cost-benefit 
purpose, we certainly ought not to have regulations that do not have 
benefits outweighing the costs. And I think that the way to make sure 
that we have regulations that are effective and cost effective is to do 
our job as congressional custodians through oversight and not just 
simply pass laws that can do a great deal of harm.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of our time.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield the 
remaining time to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) for his 
management.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert) assumed the chair.

                          ____________________