[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 17759-17770]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                              {time}  1530

                  REGULATORY RIGHT-TO-KNOW ACT OF 1999

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
McIntosh).
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining on each side?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) has 21\1/2\ 
minutes remaining; the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) has 16 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  We are bringing this bill, the Regulatory Right-To-Know Act of 1999, 
which is, as my colleague said, a bipartisan bill to promote the 
public's right to know the cost benefits and impacts of Federal 
regulations. This bill is the product of work done by the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) over the last several years, and it builds 
on provisions that were included in the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act for 1997, 1998, and 1999. There is also a companion 
bill in the Senate, S. 59, also designed to establish a permanent and 
strengthened regulatory accounting system.
  Now, my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) says 
this bill would put onerous new requirements on the bureaucracies and 
the

[[Page 17760]]

agencies that write regulations. If only there was that sentiment and 
concern about the small businesses, the farmers, the people who are 
working to earn a living outside of government about the onerous costs 
of Federal regulations, because estimates are that they do, indeed, 
amount to $700 billion a year. These are private estimates which have 
measured the cost of these.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1074 is a good government requirement that the 
Office of Management and Budget would actually make sure that the 
regulatory impact analyses are done on major rules and that they 
aggregate these into an annual accounting statement and an associated 
report. The accounting statement would provide the estimates of the 
costs and benefits for Federal regulatory programs in the aggregate; 
not one-by-one as each rule comes through the process, but by agency, 
so that we can compare where are these costs coming from; which 
agencies have the greater burden; which agencies provide the greater 
benefits for us in these social programs, as well as by program within 
each agency, and by program component.
  The information would be provided for the same 7-year time series as 
the budget of the United States: the current year, 2 preceding years, 
and the 4 following years.
  The associated report would analyze the impacts of Federal rules and 
paperwork on various sectors; for example, what is the cumulative 
impact on several different agencies on small businesses or on farmers, 
and it would also do it by functional areas; what is the impact on 
public health. That is where I think we will see the greatest analysis 
of the potential benefits of Federal regulations. Where are our 
regulatory programs having an impact on the environment, giving us a 
cleaner environment; where are they having an impact on creating 
greater health for the public; where are they having an impact on 
greater safety.
  The essential question that I think this analysis and the final 
report will help us to answer is how do we get the biggest bang for our 
buck, for all of the billions of dollars of regulatory costs that we 
impose upon this country in order to pursue those social goals of a 
cleaner environment, a healthier workplace, and a healthier lifestyle 
for all Americans.
  One of the things we have noticed in our subcommittee time and time 
again is that there are many times in which we have overlapping 
regulations, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) spoke of several 
of those, in which we have duplications, in which we have potential 
inconsistencies among Federal regulatory programs. The report will 
offer recommendations to reform those inefficient programs so that we 
can do a better job. Once again, how do we get the biggest bang for the 
buck out of all of the costs imposed in Federal regulations.
  Currently, there is no report that analyzes these cumulative impacts 
of Federal regulations. I believe from the bottom of my heart that 
Americans have a right to know what are those costs, what are those 
benefits, and what are the impacts they have on various sectors and 
various functional areas.
  Current estimates, as we talked about earlier, are, indeed, in the 
private sector, could be as much as $750 billion, which would be, by 
the way, a 25 percent increase from 10 years ago. Nobody quite knows 
because the Regulatory Right-to-Know bill has not been enacted; and, 
therefore, there is no cumulative accounting for the costs of 
regulations. By the way, if that estimate is correct, that ends up 
being a little less than $7,000, about $6,900 for every family in 
America, a lot more than the taxes that they pay directly to the 
Federal Government.
  Now, the bill requires OMB to issue guidelines, to standardize agency 
estimates of costs and benefits and the format for the annual 
accounting statement. The bill also requires the Office of Management 
and Budget to quantify the net benefits for each alternative 
considered, as well as the net costs, so that we can determine whether 
the agencies are doing their job in maximizing the benefits to the 
environment, health and safety, and minimizing the costs to the 
American public.
  I think this bill will help the public understand how and why major 
decisions that are made by the executive branch agencies are made, and 
it will disclose if there are agencies that have indeed chosen the most 
effective and least costly approach.
  To ensure a balanced and fair estimate in these areas, the bill 
requires that this annual report be publicized in a draft form and be 
submitted to with two or more experts for the opportunity of peer 
review, so that we get outside estimates, outside expertise looking at 
those questions on the costs and the benefits of regulations. Finally, 
it requires that the report be published annually, so that everybody, 
every citizen can have access to that information.
  One of the things that we have also done is we require OMB to compile 
some new and improved information about regulatory programs, but we 
also believe that the bill will not impose any significant undue burden 
on OMB, since much of the needed regulation is either already available 
or already to be provided to OMB under the President's executive order 
on regulatory review.
  Now, since 1981, when President Reagan issued his historic executive 
order, the Federal agencies have been required to perform a cost-
benefit analysis of major rules, which constitutes the bulk of the 
Federal regulatory cost and benefits. Also, OMB can use any other 
sources of information, including private regulatory accounting studies 
and government studies done by the agencies.
  The bill, as reported by the Committee on Government Reform, made 
many changes to lessen the burden on OMB and to address the 
administration's concern, including a phase-in of some of these key 
requirements. The result is that the CBO has estimated the cost of this 
bill to the taxpayer is less than $500,000, less than $500,000 each 
year. To me and my way of thinking, that is a tremendous benefit when 
one can spend a little less than $500,000 and potentially save billions 
of dollars for the American public on unnecessary, duplicative 
regulations.
  There is also a very small sum of money to tell us where can we get 
the biggest bang for the buck in terms of improving the health and 
safety of the American worker, in terms of getting the biggest bang for 
the buck in cleaning up the environment, in terms of getting the 
biggest bang for the buck in allowing Americans to live a healthier 
life. I think the cost of this rule, as demonstrated by the CBO 
estimate, certainly meets any type of cost-benefit analysis that we 
might want to impose on it.
  This bipartisan bill has been endorsed by many organizations; and my 
colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) started to mention 
several of the major public organizations, representatives of cities 
and towns and State governments, as well as the National Governors 
Association; but it has also been endorsed by the Alliance USA; the 
American Farm Bureau Federation; the Americans for Tax Reform; the 
Associated Builders and Contractors and the Business Roundtable; the 
Center for the Study of American Business; the Chamber of Commerce of 
the United States of America which, by the way, is key voting this 
bill; the Chemical Manufacturers Association; The Citizens for a Sound 
Economy, which is also key voting this legislation; the National 
Association of Manufacturers, which is also key voting the legislation; 
the National Associations of Towns and Townships; the National 
Federation of Independent Businesses; the Seniors Coalition; 60 Plus 
Association; and the Small Business Survival Community; which is also 
key voting this piece of legislation.
  Now, unfortunately, some of the complaints about this bill, some of 
those raised in fact in the minority views of the committee report, end 
up misunderstanding the bill and therefore lead to incorrect or 
misleading assertions about what is required in the legislation. For 
example, it incorrectly states that it would require a cost-benefit 
analysis for every major and minor

[[Page 17761]]

rule. That is simply not in the legislation.
  What the bill does require is that major rules that are currently 
subject to the executive order have a regulatory impact analysis, but 
there are no new regulatory impact analyses, no new rule-by-rule cost-
benefit analyses, and no new rule-by-rule impact analyses. Simply, what 
this bill does is require OMB to enforce the executive orders and then 
aggregate the data by various sectors.
  One of the things that we must do in focusing on this is also ask 
ourselves, will this have an impact on slowing down issuing of 
regulations. The bill does not change any standard of law; and it 
cannot, frankly, slow down any rulemaking, because the analyses are 
required to be done after the fact and in the aggregate. This is a look 
back to say what are the regulatory programs that were put in place in 
the past year and what are the costs, so that we can now look and see 
whether we have the best overall regulatory proposals.
  I hope today's debate recognizes both the bipartisan nature and the 
narrow intent of H.R. 1074 to provide useful information. The public, 
it does have a right to know where its regulatory agencies are 
performing and how they are doing; and it will provide useful 
information to decisionmakers, both in Congress and in the executive 
branch, about the costs, the relative benefits, the impact of various 
Federal programs, so that we can do a better job of legislating in 
those areas, and the executive branch can do a better job of regulating 
in those areas.
  In May and April, at the subcommittee and full committee markups, 
opponents of the bill tried to add some amendments to cripple the 
legislation or to undermine the public's ability to actually receive 
the information about these regulatory programs. There are some 
amendments on the floor today that would do that. I think it is 
critical that we move forward to actually ensure that the public does 
have a right to know about its regulatory process, and I would urge my 
colleagues to oppose any weakening amendments, any amendments that 
would gut the bill, any amendments that would be, in fact, undermining 
the essential goals of this legislation. I believe the public has a 
right to an open and accountable government. OMB's accounting statement 
and a report that this legislation will require, will provide important 
tools to help Americans participate more fully in government decision-
making, and to assist in making smarter regulatory decisions for the 
future.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would point out that the gentleman from Indiana is 
absolutely incorrect when he tells us that his bill would apply to just 
the major rules, because the text of his bill provides that there would 
be all the rules and paperwork in the aggregate, by agency, agency 
program and program component, and by major rule. If he wanted it by 
``major rule'' alone, he could have said that.
  Further, on the bill it says, ``analysis of the impacts of Federal 
rules and paperwork on Federal, State,'' so on and so forth. It does 
not say ``major,'' it says ``impacts of Federal rules.'' The 
consequence of that would be, I believe, to waste an enormous amount of 
money.
  There is an argument to do a cost-benefit analysis, as has been 
required in the appropriations riders, on the major rules. But when we 
get into these minor rules, we are talking about things like 
noncontroversial requests to have a regulation of a drawbridge near 
Hackberry, Louisiana, that everybody supported, and then one would have 
to go through all the paperwork to do an analysis on a noncontroversial 
rule.
  On May 14, the Veterans' Administration issued a rule to adjust the 
level of education assistance available to veterans as required by the 
Benefits Act for Veterans of 1998. This rule was strictly ministerial, 
since the adjustment was required by statute. That rule would have to 
be subject to an extensive analysis with a lot of paperwork, with even 
peer reviewers to look at OMB's analysis after the fact.
  On July 23, the Department of the Treasury issued a rule to allow the 
U.S. Mint to use mechanical means rather than melting to destroy 
mutilated coins. Well, we would have to have that rule reviewed over 
again to try to quantify the costs and the benefits of taking these 
mutilated coins and melting them down as opposed to using some other 
way to destroy them.
  On July 23, the Food and Drug Administration amended its animal drug 
regulations to reflect the approval of a new drug to treat infections 
in dogs. Well, why should that have to go through a long, extensive 
review of the costs and benefits?
  Now, it is not just the costs and benefits of that regulation, in and 
of itself; but it is costs and benefits to the economy, to wages, to 
productivity and growth. So we are, in effect, mandating an enormous 
amount of burden, a lot of busywork, wasting taxpayers' dollars to 
comply with this legislation that is so overly broad in the way it has 
been drafted.
  Now, there may be groups that support it because they were 
misinformed, as are the Members being misinformed today about the 
legislation. They may think it was only the major rules, but in fact, 
it goes far beyond that.
  Mr. Chairman, could I just inquire as to the amount of time on each 
side.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) has 13 
minutes remaining, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) has 10 
minutes remaining.

                             {time}   1545

  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel).
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, my concern about H.R. 1074 is that it would give us an 
incomplete picture. The proponents of this bill, of the Regulatory 
Right-to-Know Act, are asking for a cost-benefit analysis of Federal 
regulations, arguing that the public and Congress have a right to know 
the cost of the regulations that are promulgated by the bureaucracy in 
response to the statutes that we pass here in Congress.
  Frankly, it is a fair request. It is a rational request. I understand 
why they want to know that. They say it may cost $700 million a year. 
They cite private estimates that may or may not be true. It could be 
far, far less than that, as government studies have indicated. However, 
we do have some reason to want to know the cost of government 
regulation.
  But the bill before us would give an incomplete picture. There is no 
question that government regulations cost money. They cost businesses 
money to comply. That is obvious on the face. In return, we hope we get 
certain benefits: a safer workplace, a more competitive business 
environment, better consumer protections, cleaner environmental sites, 
cleaner air, cleaner water. There is certainly a benefit intended when 
we pass a bill that is turned into a regulation that in turn regulates 
business.
  But if we are really interested in finding out the impact on 
businesses of Federal action, we must not only do a cost-benefit 
analysis of regulations, but we must include in that a cost-benefit 
analysis of the corporate welfare received by many of those businesses.
  ``Corporate welfare'' is a term bandied about a lot. It can mean a 
number of different things. It is outright government spending 
subsidies to certain businesses that give them a direct benefit from 
the taxpayer. Corporate welfare includes tax preferences, tax breaks, 
loan guarantees, and loan preferences.
  Corporate welfare includes the use of government assets below market 
value. Grazing on government lands, mining on government lands, logging 
on government land at rates below fair market value, all of that 
comprises corporate welfare.
  If we are serious about analyzing the cost of government action on 
American business, and if we really want to give the American people 
the full picture, we have to ask for the full picture. If

[[Page 17762]]

we are going to ask the Office of Management and Budget to do an 
analysis of the cost and benefit of Federal regulations, we have to 
include in that analysis the costs and benefits of corporate welfare 
that have been estimated by Time Magazine at $125 billion a year.
  I will have more to say about the corporate welfare aspect of this 
debate when I offer an amendment on that subject in a few minutes. I 
rise now simply to urge the House to understand the full picture and to 
ask for the full picture.
  What do the proponents of the bill have to hide? If we want to know 
the impact on business of Federal actions through regulations, let us 
include in that study the impact on business of the benefits given 
through corporate welfare.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), the chairman of the Committee 
on Commerce.
  As I mentioned, the gentleman is the originator of this legislation, 
and much credit goes to him for his diligent work in this area over the 
last several years.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have worked with the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. McIntosh), the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit), the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), and a broad bipartisan group of 
cosponsors on the Regulatory Right-to-Know Act of 1999.
  The bill was introduced with 17 Democrats and 14 Republicans as 
cosponsors. The bill has been improved in committee to address some of 
the concerns of the Office of Management and Budget, and based on two 
amendments by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) to add new 
information requirements and to ensure a balanced and peer review.
  One of the amendments of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) 
requires an analysis of the impacts of programs and program components 
on public health, public safety, the environment, consumer protection, 
equal opportunity, and other public policy goals.
  Moreover, the definition of both benefits and costs include 
quantifiable and nonquantifiable effects, including social, health, 
safety, environmental, and economic effects. I think Members can see 
that we have gone the extra mile to ensure that this legislation 
encompasses a fair analysis and is not weighted just toward regulatory 
costs.
  I should also note that the Regulatory Right-to-Know Act of 1999 
changes no regulatory standard and will not slow down the development 
of any regulation. Moreover, the Congressional Budget Office has scored 
this bill in its lowest category as costing under $500,000 per year.
  The Regulatory Right-to-Know Act is a basic step towards a smarter 
partnership in regulatory programs. It is an important tool to 
understand the magnitude and impact of Federal regulatory programs. The 
act will empower all Americans, including State and local officials, 
with new information and opportunities to help them participate more 
fully and improve our government. More useful information and public 
input will help regulators make better, more accountable decisions and 
promote greater confidence in the quality of Federal policy and 
regulatory decisions.
  Better decisions and updated regulatory programs will enhance 
innovation, improve the quality of our environment, secure our economic 
future, and give a better quality of life to every American.
  Mr. Chairman, while good management and accountability matter, there 
are a number of reasons that this act is the right step towards 
enhanced quality and accountability in regulatory programs. Over the 
past 4 years, this Congress has changed the direction of the Federal 
Government from the endless burden of more taxes and spending to the 
new fiscal discipline of balance and accountability.
  For the past decade, America's business ingenuity accounts for a 
surge in quality and productivity. The result of this surge is an 
American economy which is the unparalleled envy of the world. Millions 
of Americans in private businesses have brought incredible improvements 
to our quality of life, health care, and education.
  Through the new emphasis on flexibility and innovation, State and 
local officials have led the way to safer, cleaner, and more prosperous 
places to live. Given this power and responsibility, we in Congress 
must be the allies of state and local government, American business and 
families, through responsible management of the Nation's regulatory 
programs to ensure quality in necessary regulation and freedom from 
unwise regulation.
  The drive for quality, the same basic drive toward the free market 
and State and local innovation, must be the drive for Federal 
regulatory programs as we enter the next millennium.
  This may take time. We have already reviewed two accounting reports 
from the Office of Management and Budget. Many parties commented on 
drafts of these documents and have pointed out the need for substantial 
improvement. I expect the real impact from this information will be a 
few years from now, when the information base is built up further.
  The concept of flexibility and improvement for the accounting 
statement itself is built into the legislation. I agree with the Office 
of Management and Budget, that the current information is not 
sufficiently detailed to make management decisions. That is a few years 
down the road. We should not, however, accept a path where ignorance is 
bliss. We also agree with the Office of Management and Budget in its 
last accounting statement report when it said, ``This report presents 
new information on both the total costs and benefits of regulations and 
the costs and benefits of major individual regulations. We hope to 
continue this important dialogue to improve our knowledge about the 
effects of regulation on the public, the economy, and American 
society.''
  In closing, this bill will provide vital information to Congress and 
the executive branch so they may fulfill their obligation to ensure 
wise expenditure of limited national economic resources and improve our 
regulatory system. Let us not forget that a tax or a consumer dollar 
spent on a wasteful program is a dollar that cannot be spent on 
teachers, police officers, or health care.
  If we are serious about openness, the public's right to know, 
accountability, and fulfilling our responsibilities as managers, we 
will enact this important piece of legislation.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the Clinton administration, which would have to enforce 
this proposal, has written that they oppose it. They say, ``The 
increased burden that this would place on the agencies would crowd out 
other priorities and would add little value in many cases. That is 
because cost-benefit analysis can be very expensive and time-
consuming.''
  The Environmental Defense Fund, which opposes this legislation, said 
that, ``The bill ignores the serious practical and methodological 
limitations that characterize cost-benefit analysis. In doing so, it 
compels agencies to waste considerable taxpayers' resources developing 
new information that is worse than useless.''
  The Environmental Coalition of Mississippi said, ``This legislation 
would impose burdens on Federal agencies, undermining their ability to 
protect consumers' civil rights, public health, safety, and the 
environment.''
  The Natural Resources Defense Council said, ``We strongly believe 
this legislation would create needless bureaucracy and divert scarce 
agency resources away from the efforts to carry out and enforce vital 
public health and environmental safeguards.''
  Of course, I mentioned in my opening comments all the other 
environmental, public health, public interest groups that oppose this 
legislation. The main reason that I would urge Members to oppose it is 
that it is not what it has been represented to be. It is not a review 
of the major regulations. It covers

[[Page 17763]]

all regulations. It wastes taxpayers' dollars in doing so.
  To me, to waste taxpayers' dollars in the name of trying to save 
taxpayers' money is a fraud on the American people. This legislation is 
well-intended but poorly drafted, and for that reason, I would hope 
that when we get to final passage of the legislation, Members would 
vote against it.
  For a proposed regulation to be promulgated by an agency, it has to 
be reviewed and subject to comments from anybody affected. After that, 
it goes to the Office of Management and Budget, where they are required 
by law to review it and to do a cost-benefit analysis on it before it 
is considered one that will be put into final form. After that, once 
the regulation becomes legally binding, existing riders on 
appropriations say that if it is major, we ought to review it for cost-
benefit to see whether we are getting the benefits for the costs.
  This bill goes beyond all of that and requires that small, non-
controversial regulations be subject to this wasteful exercise for no 
value after we have got all that paperwork that will be generated by 
the legislation. So I would hope that Members would oppose the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1074. Before 
coming to Congress, I spent 8 years as a Member of the Omaha Nebraska 
City Council. This gave me an opportunity to observe firsthand the 
impact of Federal regulations on our cities.
  Many of the regulations may not cost the Federal Government much, but 
the cost to the States and the localities can often be great. 
Washington regulators need to appreciate how much of a financial burden 
their rules are on other forms of government. They might even be 
encouraged to find more cost-effective ways of accomplishing their 
goals.
  This is why this legislation is so necessary. Let me tell the 
Members, just to build a road within the city of Omaha, some firsthand 
experience. About 30 to 40 percent of the time and talent to get that 
road built is spent in trying to comply with Federal rules and 
regulations. It is very costly. The irony here is that some of those 
Federal regulations that we must comply with at the local level to try 
and build that road demand cost-benefit analysis.
  I would say what is good for the goose is good for the gander. 
Perhaps some of those rules and regulations are not necessary, and we 
could streamline and create efficiencies and cost savings at the local 
level.
  Information on the costs and the benefits of the Federal regulatory 
programs has been available since 1997. The existing legislation before 
us today strengthens the existing requirements and makes them permanent 
law.
  From the City Council service, I can appreciate why all the major 
organizations representing State and local elected officials support 
the Regulatory Right-to-Know Act. As a sponsor of H.R. 1074, I urge all 
my colleagues to join me in supporting it, and oppose the Hoeffel 
amendment.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we have had these kinds of debates in the past on so-
called regulatory reform proposals, and what we usually get in the 
course of these debates are a lot of anecdotes. They are the kinds of 
anecdotes that get all of us very angry. It usually involves some well-
meaning citizen who is the victim of some terrible regulation, or an 
overzealous agency.

                              {time}  1600

  After we hear these gut-wrenching stories, we are asked to conclude 
that the regulatory system is broken and needs to be reformed. The only 
problem with these stories is that they are just that, stories. After 
the debate, we go back and research some of these anecdotes, as we have 
done in the past, and they may include a kernel of truth, but the facts 
and conclusions end up being wrong.
  For example, in the 104th Congress, we were told about the Safe 
Drinking Water Act requiring the City of Columbus to test its drinking 
water for pesticide used only to grow pineapples. That, of course, is 
ridiculous. Everyone knows one does not grow pineapples in Columbus, 
Ohio. But when we looked into that story, which was told on the House 
floor, it turned out that the pesticide DBCP is considered a probable 
human carcinogen, and it was widely used on over 40 crops until it was 
banned in 1979. Since then, it was found in the groundwater in 24 
States, and 19 States have reported levels above the Federal standard.
  I remember also hearing from the gentleman from Indiana about OSHA 
killing the tooth fairy by requiring extracted baby teeth be disposed 
of as hazardous waste rather than allowing the parents to take the 
teeth home. Well, that sounds ridiculous. But when we checked it out, 
it turned out there was a regulation issued by the Bush administration 
that required dental workers to take precautions when handling 
extracted teeth because they were contaminated with blood. But a gloved 
dentist was allowed to put the tooth in a clean container and give the 
tooth to the parents for the tooth fairy.
  There are other examples. But now, during the debate on this bill, we 
heard a new anecdote. Last Thursday, when we were debating the rule for 
this bill, and I believe that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) 
repeated this, we heard the story in the debate today of Dave Pechan 
who got caught in a turf fight over wetlands regulations between the 
National Resources Conservation Service and the Army Corps of 
Engineers.
  According to our colleague, the Conservation Service gave Mr. Pechan 
approval to convert his land into a vineyard, but then the Army Corps 
of Engineers told them 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 evaluation of his property. That is 
a quote from our colleague.
  Well, we called the Army Corps of Engineers on Friday. What we found 
out is that, while the Corps disagreed with the Conservation Service's 
wetlands determination, it deferred to their decision. The Corps sent a 
letter to Mr. Pechan in December of 1997 informing him that their 
investigation was effectively closed. So Mr. Pechan is not being 
subjected to civil or criminal penalties, and he is not in limbo.
  Mr. Chairman, we may disagree on the role of the Federal Government 
or the need for Federal regulations to protect health, safety, and the 
environment; but we ought to keep the debate on the facts.
  The facts are this bill is not as has been represented, only dealing 
with major regulations. It applies to all regulations. The facts are 
this bill will cost a lot of money. We have heard cited the CBO's 
estimate of $500,000, but I believe it is going to be more. We will 
see, if it is only $500,000, whether the other side will agree to an 
amendment that will say, okay, no more than a million dollars can be 
spent on this enterprise.
  I would like to submit for the Record, and I am going to with this 
statement, comparisons of other anecdotes and facts that we found for 
the various cases that have been raised on the House floor. Let us not 
let these anecdotes, which make all of us angry if we thought they were 
true, be used to get us to make policy changes in our law that will, as 
some of the groups that are opposed to this legislation indicated, 
provide for excessive waste of taxpayers' dollars, to develop a 
needless bureaucracy, divert scarce agency resources away from the 
efforts to carry out and enforce vital public health and environmental 
safeguards.
  I would urge opposition to this legislation.
  With these comments, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Indiana for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, if love and communication are the seeds of a good 
marriage, then open discussions are a good

[[Page 17764]]

thing. It is this same principle that highlights the importance of the 
Regulatory Right-To-Know Act and why it must be approved. The more we 
know about the burdens of Federal regulations imposed on American 
families, the better our decisions will be.
  This bill gives policymakers, lawmakers, regulators, and the public a 
valuable tool for evaluating the benefits and burdens that new 
regulations impose. Either way, it provides an honest and open 
accounting of our votes.
  This effort is bipartisan, and it is built on the principles of 
openness and accountability. The public has the right to know its 
government has considered every factor when it imposes new regulations 
on Americans. To do anything less would be irresponsible.
  I urge all my colleagues to support the Regulatory Right-To-Know Act.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I would like to, rather than go 
into anecdotes, go into facts and talk about some of the arrangements 
that the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) has been talking about.
  First, I would like to talk about the score of the bill. The 
Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget 
Office, said that this would cost less than $500,000 per year for this 
score of the bill. That is after they read the legislation, and I will 
get to that in 1 second.
  But to put this in perspective, Federal agencies will spend an 
estimated $17.9 billion per year to write and enforce regulations in 
fiscal year 1999. That is one-tenth of 1 percent of total spending on 
Federal regulatory programs.
  Even if we assume for the sake of argument that the CBO's estimate is 
off by a factor of 10, H.R. 1074 would still cost less than 1 percent 
of total agency spending on regulations. It will not strain agencies' 
budgets.
  But going on to the point that this would cause a cost-benefit 
analysis on rule by rule by rule, the bill specifically states that OMB 
is given the discretion to bundle rules into aggregate components, to 
take a look at component rule categories.
  So this will not make OMB go down the road of doing 5,000 separate 
rule by rule by rule cost-benefit analyses. This bill gives OMB the 
discretion to bundle rules in the aggregate by section, by related 
categories, and then conduct the aggregate cost-benefit analyses.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
bill.
  This piece of legislation would require the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) to report on the aggregate annual cost and benefit of 
regulations, regulatory programs, and program components. 
Unfortunately, bill would waste taxpayer dollars by compelling agencies 
to use their limited resources to annually analyze rules that are 
immaterial. The resulting information likely would not improve the 
efficiency, effectiveness, or soundness of the existing body of 
regulations.
  The OMB traditionally has worked hard to annually report on the costs 
and benefits of approximately 50 major rules. This bill, as it stands, 
would require the OMB to report on the costs and benefits on over 5,000 
rules issued each year. This would include thousands of administrative 
and routine rules that OMB currently does not review.
  This bill also fails to disclose to the public the costs and benefits 
of billions of dollars of corporate welfare doled out by the federal 
government to regulated corporations each year.
  The burden imposed by this bill will fall on agencies and prevent 
them from using valuable funds for environmental and health programs. 
It will tie up agencies with new, unnecessary, bureaucratic red tape 
that will keep our agency workers writing reports instead of helping 
people.
  Many citizen groups oppose this bill, because they see the danger in 
keeping our agencies overburdened with administrative requirements, 
rather than allowing them to make new rules, and enforce existing 
regulations. Some of the groups that oppose this bill include the 
Sierra Club, the League of Conservation Voters, the Defenders of 
Wildlife, the Environmental Defense Fund, the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, the 
United Steelworkers of America, the Consumers Union and the American 
Lung Association. Each of these diverse groups knows that 
administrative agencies are there to help them in their causes--saving 
the environment, protecting American workers' jobs, and preserving and 
improving our health--and do not want to see these agencies face 
additional hurdles when trying to fulfill their purpose.
  These studies required under this bill are impractical and 
unworkable. Simply said, in many cases, agency workers will not be able 
to quantify, especially in a fiscal sense, what good a regulation can 
do. How can we put a price on preserving our beautiful national parks? 
How can we assess the benefit of clean air for our children? It is 
difficult to put monetary figures on these benefits, but they are ones 
that our taxpayers count on, and enjoy.
  I ask all my colleagues to oppose this bill, avoid wasteful 
administrative costs, and keep our government focused on problem 
solving.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this measure, the 
Regulatory Right-to-Know Act of 1999, but to also express some concerns 
I have with the balance of this legislation. While I believe this bill 
is an important tool for the public to learn about the costs and 
benefits of federal regulations, I fear that it may prove extremely 
costly, in both time and resources, and could lead to delays in 
regulations designed to protect worker safety, human health, and the 
environment.
  Everyone understands the impact of federal regulatory programs on our 
economy--they have helped Americans, with the help of American 
businesses and industry, to clean the air, protect wetlands, promote 
safe transportation, ensure healthy and abundant food supplies, improve 
workplace safety, and promote human health. However, each of these 
important steps forward comes with a cost. While many of those costs 
are justified, it is important that the federal government work closely 
with the public to develop regulations which can achieve these goals 
reasonably, quickly, and efficiently. H.R. 1074 may help empower 
Americans with new information to improve public participation and help 
regulators make better decisions.
  For the past 2 years, I have been involved in a bi-partisan working 
group of Members of Congress to develop broad, consensus-based 
legislation in the area of environmental regulations. I remain 
committed to this because I believe all Americans share essentially the 
same goals. The environmentalists I know want to ensure that our 
economy continues to grow and that Americans continue to prosper 
financially. And there's not a CEO I know who doesn't cherish the time 
spent in the great outdoors enjoying fresh air and clean water. In 
short, we all want clean neighborhoods, and we all want good jobs.
  Broadening the information available to the public will improve this 
situation. Causing delay in formulating regulations will not. Americans 
must work together toward success. I believe the Regulatory Right-to-
Know Act may help increase participation in our federal government's 
rule-making process. We in Congress, therefore, must commit to 
providing the necessary support to ensure that the Executive branch can 
continue its work effectively and efficiently. H.R. 1074 must not be an 
excuse to drain scarce agency resources or undermine the health and 
safety of Americans and our precious environment.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises today to express his 
support for H.R. 1074, the Regulatory Right-to-Know Act. This common 
sense legislation would require the Administration to submit to 
Congress a comprehensive annual accounting statement and report 
containing an estimate of the total annual costs and benefits of 
Federal regulatory programs.
  The number of regulations issued by Federal agencies have greatly 
increased in recent times. These regulations can have huge financial 
repercussions on the private sector, state and local governments and 
the public with little or no oversight. This Member is pleased to be a 
cosponsor of H.R. 1074 which simply requires a reporting of the costs 
and benefits of regulations. For example, it is shocking to note that 
an estimate indicates that regulatory costs for 1999 will exceed $700 
billion (or $7,000 for the average family)!
  Mr. Chairman, in closing, this legislation will provide much needed 
accountability and will give the public access to information regarding 
the cumulative costs, benefits and impacts of Federal regulations. This 
Member urges his colleagues to support H.R. 1074.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1074 
and support the Hoeffel-Kucinich amendment. H.R. 1074 would impose 
unduly burdensome analytical requirements and contain excessive 
provisions for consulting with State and local governments. The bill 
would waste huge sums of hard-earned consumers' income. The financial 
burden that would result would take scarce funds away from critical 
environmental protection and public health programs.

[[Page 17765]]

  H.R. 1074 fails to include the costs and benefits of corporate 
welfare. One cannot determine the complete costs and benefits of 
regulations without also taking into account taxpayer-funded subsidies 
to the regulated corporations.
  The administration opposes H.R. 1074, as do over 300 public interest 
organizations ranging from the AFL-CIO to the National Environmental 
Trust, United Auto Workers, U.S. Pirg, and the New Jersey environmental 
lobby in my home State. I can't remember the last time such a large and 
diverse range of interests united on an issue--imagine--the auto 
industry representatives and the environmentalists standing side by 
side!
  The League of Conservation also is likely to score the vote on final 
passage as well as on the Hoeffel-Kucinich amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting Hoeffel-Kucinich and 
opposing final passage.
  Mr. CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute printed in the bill is considered as an original bill for 
the purpose of amendment and is considered read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                               H.R. 1074

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Regulatory Right-to-Know Act 
     of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are to--
       (1) promote the public right-to-know about the costs and 
     benefits of Federal regulatory programs and rules;
       (2) increase Government accountability; and
       (3) improve the quality of Federal regulatory programs and 
     rules.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     section, the definitions under section 551 of title 5, United 
     States Code, shall apply to this Act.
       (2) Benefit.--The term ``benefit'' means the reasonably 
     identifiable significant favorable effects, quantifiable and 
     nonquantifiable, including social, health, safety, 
     environmental, and economic effects, that are expected to 
     result from implementation of, or compliance with, a rule.
       (3) Cost.--The term ``cost'' means the reasonably 
     identifiable significant adverse effects, quantifiable and 
     nonquantifiable, including social, health, safety, 
     environmental, and economic effects, that are expected to 
     result from implementation of, or compliance with, a rule.
       (4) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of 
     the Office of Management and Budget.
       (5) Major rule.--The term ``major rule'' has the meaning 
     that term has under section 804(2) of title 5, United States 
     Code.
       (6) Nonmajor rule.--The term ``nonmajor rule'' means any 
     rule, as that term is defined in section 804(3) of title 5, 
     United States Code, other than a major rule.
       (7) Paperwork.--The term ``paperwork'' has the meaning 
     given the term ``collection of information'' under section 
     3502 of title 44, United States Code.
       (8) Program component.--The term ``program component'' 
     means a set of related rules.

     SEC. 4. ACCOUNTING STATEMENT.

       (a) In General.--Not later than February 5, 2001, and on 
     the first Monday in February of each year thereafter, the 
     President, acting through the Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget, shall prepare and submit to the 
     Congress an accounting statement and associated report 
     containing an estimate of the total annual costs and benefits 
     of Federal regulatory programs, including rules and 
     paperwork--
       (1) in the aggregate;
       (2) by agency, agency program, and program component; and
       (3) by major rule.
       (b) Additional Information.--In addition to the information 
     required under subsection (a), the President shall include in 
     each accounting statement under subsection (a) the following 
     information:
       (1) An analysis of impacts of Federal rules and paperwork 
     on Federal, State, local, and tribal government, the private 
     sector, small business, wages, consumer prices, and economic 
     growth, as well as on public health, public safety, the 
     environment, consumer protection, equal opportunity, and 
     other public policy goals.
       (2) An identification and analysis of overlaps, 
     duplications, and potential inconsistencies among Federal 
     regulatory programs.
       (3) Recommendations to reform inefficient or ineffective 
     regulatory programs or program components, including 
     recommendations for addressing market failures that are not 
     adequately addressed by existing regulatory programs or 
     program components.
       (c) Net Benefits and Costs.--To the extent feasible, the 
     Director shall, in estimates contained in any submission 
     under subsection (a), quantify the net benefits or net costs 
     of--
       (1) each program component covered by the submission;
       (2) each major rule covered by the submission; and
       (3) each option for which costs and benefits were included 
     in any regulatory impact analysis issued for any major rule 
     covered by the submission.
       (d) Summary of Regulatory Activity.--The Director shall 
     include in each submission under subsection (a) a table 
     stating the number of major rules and the number of nonmajor 
     rules issued by each agency in the preceding fiscal year.
       (e) Years Covered by Accounting Statement.--Each accounting 
     statement submitted under this section shall, at a minimum--
       (1) cover expected costs and benefits for the fiscal year 
     for which the statement is submitted and each of the 4 fiscal 
     years following that fiscal year;
       (2) cover previously expected costs and benefits for each 
     of the 2 fiscal years preceding the fiscal year for which the 
     statement is submitted, or the most recent revision of such 
     costs and benefits; and
       (3) with respect to each major rule, include the estimates 
     of costs and benefits for each of the fiscal years referred 
     to in paragraphs (1) and (2) that were included in the 
     regulatory impact analysis that was prepared for the major 
     rule.
       (f) Delayed Application of Certain Requirements.--
       (1) Application after first statement.--The following 
     requirements shall not apply to the first accounting 
     statement submitted under this section:
       (A) The requirement under subsection (a)(2) to include 
     estimates with respect to program components.
       (B) The requirement under subsection (b)(2).
       (2) Application after second statement.--The requirement 
     under subsection (b)(1) to include analyses of impacts on 
     wages, consumer prices, and economic growth shall not apply 
     to the first and second accounting statements submitted under 
     this section.

     SEC. 5. NOTICE AND COMMENT.

       (a) In General.--Before submitting an accounting statement 
     and the associated report to Congress under section 4, and 
     before preparing final guidelines under section 6, the 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall--
       (1) provide public notice and an opportunity of at least 60 
     days for submission of comments on the statement and report 
     or guidelines, respectively; and
       (2) consult with the Director of the Congressional Budget 
     Office on the statement and report or guidelines, 
     respectively.
       (b) Appendix.--After consideration of the comments, the 
     Director shall include an appendix to the report or 
     guidelines, respectively, addressing the public comments and 
     peer review comments under section 7.
       (c) Availability of Peer Review Comments.--To ensure 
     openness, the Director shall make all final peer review 
     comments available in their entirety to the public.

     SEC. 6. GUIDELINES FROM THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 270 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget, in consultation with the Council of 
     Economic Advisers, shall issue guidelines to agencies to 
     standardize--
       (1) most plausible measures of costs and benefits;
       (2) the means of gathering information used to prepare 
     accounting statements under this Act, including information 
     required for impact analyses required under section 4(b)(1); 
     and
       (3) the format of information provided for accounting 
     statements, including summary tables.
       (b) Review.--The Director shall review submissions from the 
     agencies to ensure consistency with the guidelines under this 
     section.

     SEC. 7. PEER REVIEW.

       (a) In General.--The Director of the Office of Management 
     and Budget shall arrange for 2 or more persons that have 
     nationally recognized expertise in regulatory analysis and 
     regulatory accounting and that are independent of and 
     external to the Government, to provide peer review of each 
     accounting statement and associated report under section 4 
     and the guidelines under section 6 before the statement, 
     report, or guidelines are final.
       (b) Written Comments.--The peer review under this section 
     shall provide written comments to the Director in a timely 
     manner. The Director shall use the peer review comments in 
     preparing the final statements, associated reports, and 
     guidelines.
       (c) FACA.--Peer review under this section shall not be 
     subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. 
     App.).
       (d) Balance and Independence.--The Director shall ensure 
     that--
       (1) the persons that provide peer review under subsection 
     (a) are fairly balanced with respect to the points of view 
     represented;
       (2) no person that provides peer review under subsection 
     (a) has a conflict of interest that is relevant to the 
     functions to be performed in the review; and
       (3) the comments provided by those persons--
       (A) are not inappropriately influenced by any special 
     interest; and
       (B) are the result of independent judgment.

  Mr. CHAIRMAN. No amendment to that amendment shall be in order except 
those printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for 
that purpose and pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate.

[[Page 17766]]

Amendments printed in the Record may be offered only by the Member who 
caused it to be printed or his designee and shall be considered read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce a minimum of 5 minutes 
the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately follows 
another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first question 
shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  Are there any amendments to the bill?


           Amendments No. 2, 3, and 4 Offered By Mr. McIntosh

  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I offer three amendments.
  Mr. CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments.
  The text of the amendments is as follows:

       Amendments No. 2, 3, and 4 offered By Mr. McIntosh:
       Page 4, line 17, strike ``President'' and insert 
     ``Director''.
       Page 7, beginning at line 5, strike ``and economic growth'' 
     and insert ``economic growth, public health, public safety, 
     the environment, consumer protection, equal opportunity, and 
     other public policy goals''.
       At the end of the bill add the following:

     SEC.  . SPECIAL RULES RELATING TO CERTAIN FEDERAL BANKING 
                   AGENCIES AND MONETARY POLICY.

       (a) Transfer of Authority and Duties of Director.--The head 
     of each Federal banking agency (as that term is defined in 
     section 3(z) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 
     181(z)) and the National Credit Union Administration, and not 
     the Director, shall exercise all authority and carry out all 
     duties otherwise vested under this Act in the Director with 
     respect to that agency, other than the authority and duty to 
     submit accounting statements and reports under section 4(a). 
     The head of each such agency shall submit to the Director all 
     estimates and other information required by this Act to be 
     included in such statements and reports with respect to that 
     agency.
       (b) Exclusion of Monetary Policy.--No provision of this Act 
     shall apply to any matter relating to monetary policy that is 
     proposed or promulgated by the Board of Governors of the 
     Federal Reserve System or the Federal Open Market Committee.

  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendments be considered en bloc.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, let me describe these three technical 
amendments very briefly. We have discussed them with the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) who unfortunately wanted to be here but was not 
able to be here when this bill was called up earlier today.
  Amendment No. 2 strikes the word ``President'' and inserts the word 
``Director'' which simply ensures the consistency in the use of 
terminology throughout the bill.
  Amendment No. 3, inserting the words ``public health, public safety, 
the environment, consumer protection, equal opportunity, and other 
public policy goals,'' delays the effective date for some of the impact 
analyses which OMB is required to prepare under the bill. This 
amendment is being offered jointly by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kucinich) and me or was to be offered jointly by us.
  Amendment No. 4 responds to the concerns of the gentleman from Iowa 
(Chairman Leach) and the Federal Reserve Board. The amendment's two 
provisions ensure that H.R. 1074 cannot mistakenly be construed as 
impinging on the independence of the Fed, or as interfering in any way 
with monetary policy set by the Open Market Committee.
  I would submit that these amendments will perfect the bill and do not 
change any of the substance or policy of the bill.
  As I understand it, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) has agreed 
to these, and there should not be any controversy to them.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise simply to say that we have reviewed these 
amendments. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), as the Ranking 
Democrat on the subcommittee, and our staff has looked them over, and 
we would support the en bloc amendments.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh).
  The amendments were agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered By Mr. Hoeffel

  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Hoeffel:
       At the end of the bill add the following:

     SEC.  . INFORMATION REGARDING OFFSETTING SUBSIDIES.

       In addition to the information required under section 4, 
     the President shall include in each accounting statement 
     under that section an analysis of the extent to which the 
     costs imposed on incorporated entities by Federal regulatory 
     programs are offset by subsidies given to those entities by 
     the Federal Government, including subsidies in the form of 
     grants, preferential loans, preferential tax treatment, 
     federally funded research, or use of Federal facilities, 
     assets, or public lands at less than market value. The 
     analysis shall--
       (1) identify such subsidies;
       (2) analyze the costs and benefits of such subsidies; and
       (3) be sufficiently specific to--
       (A) account for the amounts of subsidies provided to the 
     entities; and
       (B) identify the entities that receive such subsidies.

     SEC.  . TAXPAYER PROTECTIONS.

       (a) Limitation on Expenditures.--
       (1) In General.--The aggregate amount expended by the 
     Director and agencies each fiscal year to carry out this Act 
     may not exceed $1,000,000.
       (3) Limitation on Application.--Paragraph (1) shall not 
     apply to any expenditure for any analysis or data generation 
     that is required under any other law, regulation, or 
     Executive Order and used to fulfill the requirements of this 
     Act.
       (b) Sunset.--This Act shall have no force or effect after 
     the expiration of the four-year-period beginning on the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.

  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is designed to add to the 
Right-To-Know legislation in front of us a requirement that the Office 
of Management and Budget do a cost-benefit analysis of the corporate 
welfare benefits received by American companies when they do the cost-
benefit analysis required by the bill on regulations written by the 
Federal Government.
  The purpose for my amendment is to make sure that, when we give the 
public this information that the bill wants them to have, when we 
provide this right to know, not only to Congress, but to the American 
people, that we give them the full picture. The bill itself, as 
written, would not do that.
  The proponents of the bill, I am sure in good faith, point out that 
the cost of Federal regulations is, in their estimation, high, and they 
want the public to know that. I understand that desire. But if we are 
going to go through this annual exercise of asking the Office of 
Management and Budget to conduct such a study of the impact of 
regulations on American businesses, let us make sure we know all the 
facts. We should have nothing to hide, Mr. Chairman.
  If these businesses that are allegedly burdened with Federal 
regulations receive a Federal benefit through a tax advantage, a 
subsidy, a preference, let us have that on the table as well. If we 
want to find out the costs and benefit of Federal actions, let us 
include all these Federal actions, not just regulations, but the 
corporate welfare subsidies as well.
  This amendment, the Hoeffel-Kucinich amendment is very much based 
upon the hard work done by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich). As a 
member of the committee, I want to compliment him for his work.
  I want to compliment the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the 
ranking member, for his work. I look forward to the debate here, to 
work with the distinguished members of the majority, to come to a 
legislative decision here that gives the public what we all want the 
public to have, the full picture.

                              {time}  1615

  My amendment would, first, include the cost of corporate welfare in 
the cost-benefit analysis that we are asking to be completed by the 
Office of Management and Budget. Secondly, the

[[Page 17767]]

Hoeffel-Kucinich amendment would make sure that the cost of this annual 
study would be capped at $1 million.
  Now, the CBO has estimated the cost of the underlying bill to be less 
than $500,0000 a year. So we have doubled that to put a cap of $1 
million on the combined study to determine the cost of regulation and 
the cost of corporate welfare. That seems to me to be a rational but 
prudent cap to make sure that we do not have a cost overrun or a 
runaway study here that would cost more than any potential benefit to 
the public.
  And, thirdly, my amendment would make sure that this entire bill will 
not become a perpetual drain on the Federal budget if it proves to be 
not as useful as the proponents hope by putting a 4-year sunset 
provision in the bill. If this bill is successful, we can always lift 
that sunset and keep these studies going on an annual basis, as long as 
we feel they are useful. But if these studies are not useful, then the 
4-year sunset provision in my amendment would protect the taxpayers and 
make sure that this does not become a perpetual drain.
  Mr. Chairman, we have defined corporate welfare as spending 
subsidies, tax preferences, below-market rate use of Federal assets, 
such as land for grazing or timbering or mining. These corporate 
welfare benefits have been estimated by Time Magazine to equal $125 
billion a year. Every year, $125 billion, the equivalent, according to 
Time, of the paycheck for 2 weeks of every working American man and 
woman. That is a very high cost. And we would like to see what the 
benefit of that is, and we would like to have this $125 billion of 
estimated Federal benefit included in this study of Federal cost-
benefit analysis.
  Some who oppose this amendment say that it is designed to kill the 
bill. It is not. It is designed to make this bill whole, to make sure 
that we get the full picture. Without this amendment, the underlying 
bill does not give a full and complete picture of the impact of the 
Federal Government on American businesses and does not give a full 
picture of the benefit and cost of regulations or of corporate welfare.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Let me say in response to the statement of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel), about the Hoeffel-Kucinich-Waxman 
amendment, a couple of different points that I think are important for 
us to keep in mind.
  First of all, the way the amendment is worded, ``burdens imposed on 
incorporated entities,'' it will sweep up into that group entities that 
I am not sure the gentleman had in mind when he was drafting the 
amendment but, nonetheless, would be included in the definition of 
incorporated entities. To the extent that public interest groups or 
not-for-profit groups are incorporated, they would also have the same 
analysis done on the benefits and subsidies that they receive in 
various Federal programs and would be required to disclose the amounts 
of those as a result of this report.
  More fundamentally, this amendment is not related to the fundamental 
purpose of the bill in the sense that it opens up the entire bit of 
legislation to determine what type of benefits different entities in 
our society receive from government programs, specifically those that 
are incorporated in one of our various States. It is not limited to the 
offset on the amount of various regulations but is broad ranging.
  And since every entity is affected by some legislation, it would 
essentially be a laundry list of all of that, subsidies as well as the 
effect on each of those individual players. That truly will bust the 
budget, if it is actually ever included in law and enacted, and, 
ultimately, does a great deal of damage to the core purpose of this 
bill by bogging it down in a direction that was not intended and, 
frankly, not beneficial in determining what are the impacts of Federal 
regulations on the private sector.
  Now, I would have to say that the issue of corporate welfare is a 
longstanding and controversial issue which should be thoroughly debated 
by this House, but not in the context of a bill which we brought 
forward from this committee that is focusing on the regulatory burden 
since it goes much more, quite frankly, into spending and tax subsidies 
than it does to the regulatory impacts on those entities.
  I would say that this Hoeffel-Waxman amendment ultimately ends up not 
being workable as an accounting amendment because it requires the 
government to do that by individual corporate entity. None of the 
analysis that we require currently in the bill is required by 
individual entity. It is, in its most detailed form, by individual 
rule, which has a broad application to many similar entities, but, in 
general, is in the aggregate of cross or different regulations and 
breaking down by business sectors and different functions.
  So this would add a level of detail that, frankly, I am not sure 
anybody could come and say to us would in fact ever be workable if it 
were to be required.
  Finally, the second part of the Waxman-Hoeffel amendment, the cap on 
a million dollar spending in order to require expensive new data 
collection and analysis are somewhat incompatible. This, I think, ends 
up being an amendment that is designed primarily to cripple the 
legislation, a gutting amendment, that would take away from the primary 
purpose of it; and I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hoeffel-Kucinich-Visclosky 
amendment, and this is called the Taxpayer Protection and Corporate 
Welfare Disclosure Amendment to H.R. 1074. Now, this amendment would 
protect the American taxpayer and streamline government by disclosing 
the cost and benefits of corporate welfare and placing common sense 
limits on the cost of this legislation to $1 million a year. It would 
also sunset the reporting requirements after 4 years, thus assuring 
that we do not continue to require this if it is not achieving its 
goals.
  H.R. 1074 ignores the fact that each year the Federal Government 
provides billions of dollars in corporate welfare to regulated 
businesses. In fact, the conservative Cato Institute recently estimated 
that corporations receive over $75 billion annually from the Federal 
Government. Time Magazine puts this total at $125 billion. This 
amendment would require corporate welfare to be disclosed to the 
American public so that they can have a complete accounting of the 
costs and benefits imposed by the Federal Government.
  For example, as currently worded, H.R. 1074 would require OMB to 
report on the cost to industry of clean air regulations promulgated 
under the Clean Air Act, but it would not include any of the $2 billion 
in Federal subsidies allocated to the coal industries through the Clean 
Coal Technology Program, which assists private companies in developing 
technologies which helps them comply with these regulations.
  This amendment, on which I am pleased to have had the participation 
of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel), who has shown real 
leadership on this issue of challenging corporate welfare, this 
amendment would not only ensure that the public gets a more complete 
understanding of the actual cost of Federal regulations, it would also 
help the American public decide whether such subsidies to large 
profitable corporations are worthwhile.
  As Ralph Nader recently testified at the House Committee on the 
Budget hearing, ``There is only one change that will counteract the 
entrenched interest which create, shield, and rationalize corporate 
welfare programs: an informed and mobilized citizenry.''
  The amendment would also protect taxpayers by limiting the funds that 
could be spent on these analyses. The Congressional Budget Office 
estimates that implementing H.R. 1074 would cost less than $500,000 a 
year. According to the letter, this estimate ``assumes that the 
statement submitted under H.R. 1074 would be similar to those 
previously submitted by OMB, which have relied on existing information, 
such as the agency's analysis of new rules to estimate the aggregate 
costs and benefits of Federal regulations.''
  Similar information also exists on corporate welfare, so we believe 
that

[[Page 17768]]

doubling the estimate should provide plenty of funds for OMB to produce 
this report on both the costs and benefits of regulations and the costs 
of benefits of corporate welfare.
  Finally, this amendment would sunset the bill after a reasonable time 
so Congress can evaluate if it makes sense to continue these analyses.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a common sense amendment. It provides the 
American taxpayers with additional information about the costs and 
benefits of regulatory programs. It prevents us from spending unlimited 
amounts of money analyzing minor and noncontroversial regulations and 
does this without limiting cost-benefit analyses that are already 
required under other laws and executive orders.
  It is an amendment that I would hope all budget conscious Members of 
Congress would support. Furthermore, I think that as this issue comes 
up in the future, we should be able to see a growing bipartisan support 
for measures which challenge corporate welfare. At a time when the 
American people are struggling to make ends meet, when many households 
are worried about Social Security, are worried about Medicare, we 
certainly should make sure that those who have the most benefits in 
this society also have to disclose to the American public just how much 
money is getting to them.
  So I have been pleased to work with the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
McIntosh) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) on the other side 
of the aisle in trying to craft the overall bill, though I am sorry we 
do not agree on the details; but I think this is one amendment that I 
hope we can find a way to come to some concurrence on.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, in drafting the amendment, does the 
gentleman know whether the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) or 
any of the other Members have considered the impact of identifying the 
individual corporation in terms of some of the protections of privacy 
under the Internal Revenue Code? Right now we have a fairly elaborate 
system in place where an individual taxpayer's information is not 
revealed when government analyzes different tax information.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if somebody is 
getting billions of dollars in subsidies from the Federal taxpayers, I 
personally do not believe they should be entitled to any commitment of 
privacy. The American people want to know where their money is going. 
However, I respect the import of the gentleman's question.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to address a couple of the points that the 
gentleman mentioned and also just mention that I would like to speak in 
favor of the Kucinich-Waxman-Hoeffel amendment. However, I am unable to 
speak in favor of this amendment because the two policies contained in 
this amendment, although in and of themselves are good policies, fine 
policies, but put together in one amendment they are actually self-
defeating.
  What I mean when I say that is this amendment is a contradiction 
because it will increase the cost of the study and then it will cap it. 
I understand that the gentleman has not certified whether the CBO has 
scored the cost of a new corporate welfare study, but not knowing the 
cost of a new corporate welfare study and then throwing on top a 
million dollar cap is self-defeating.
  The amendment provides a convenient excuse for OMB to refuse to 
perform the analysis due to costs. Even if a study would normally not 
go over $1 million, as OMB has said, absent a corporate welfare study, 
the increased requirement of a corporate welfare analysis would provide 
an even stronger incentive for OMB to argue that it is impossible to 
remain within these caps.
  Mr. Chairman, one additional point that I think is very worthwhile 
noting, as I was just reading the gentleman's amendment, and I would 
like to mention that I would love to work with the gentleman from Ohio, 
the gentleman from California, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania on 
ridding corporate welfare from the Federal Government because I, too, 
believe we should not be subsidizing these types of business 
arrangements; but in reading the definitions contained in the 
amendment, it says ``incorporated entities.'' Well, incorporated 
entities could mean hundreds of thousands of small businesses, such as 
lawyers, doctors, dentists, and even municipalities.
  So I think the way the amendment is drafted it is drafted in such a 
way that it will give us precisely what the gentleman from California 
feared, and that was requiring OMB to do so many analyses that it will 
prevent them from doing their other priority work. It will require OMB 
to go down not just to the big corporate giants that are getting the 
advanced technology grants and the other corporate welfare grants that 
we, as a team, want to get rid of, but going to the dentists, going to 
the municipalities, going to the doctors.
  The definition of incorporated entities is too vague, which gives OMB 
a chance to say this will cost too much, this will exceed $1 million. 
So by combining the laudatory goal of going after corporate welfare 
with the $1 million cap, the gentleman is essentially killing the bill.

                             {time}   1630

  They are essentially rendering this bill absolutely unworkable by 
saying OMB will not be able to do this, it is going to cost too much 
and, therefore, will have no cost-benefit analysis at all.
  If the gentleman would be willing to work on a separate piece of 
legislation going after the issue of corporate welfare aside from this 
legislation, I think we could get a wonderful bipartisan team together 
and really advance this bill and clean up the definition of 
``incorporated entities.''
  If that would be the case, I think we would have a winner here. But, 
sadly, this amendment is nothing short of killing the bill. A vote for 
this amendment is a vote against the Right-to-Know Act. It is a vote 
against cost-benefit analysis.
  So I urge a ``no'' vote on this and a ``yes'' vote on final passage.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, let me first say that the information we 
are seeking is surely in the computers of every agency that exists in 
the Federal Government.
  We are really asking OMB to collect information, not to create an 
entirely new procedure here. So the cost of the corporate welfare study 
is surely within half a million dollars.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I ask the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) what is the definition of 
``incorporated entity'' and has he taken into consideration that 
incorporated entities could very well mean a dentist's office, a 
doctor's office, a municipality, a law firm, something like that?
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, 
an incorporated entity is just that, entities incorporated under 
Federal law.
  The reality is that no matter who is included in that, again, the 
benefits, the tax breaks, the special subsidies, if they are going to 
an incorporated entity, that information is available to the Federal 
Government.
  We have never asked anyone to collect it before. That is what this 
amendment would do. I tell the gentleman that I do have a corporate 
welfare commission bill that I hope he will cosponsor with me.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the problem 
that I see with this bill is that incorporated entities and requiring 
the OMB to study incorporated entities could go down the road of going 
in to seeing whether anything the Federal Government does benefits 
something as small as a doctor's office or a dentist's office could be 
considered corporate welfare.
  We all know that the intent of this is to allow us to be better 
empowered to stop big, multimillion-dollar grants to very large 
corporations. But it is my fear that this amendment is not written that 
way.

[[Page 17769]]

  On top of it, we do not know how much this is going to cost. And I 
know the gentleman is concerned about costs.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Ryan was allowed to proceed for 3 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman).
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, let me explore with the gentleman that 
point that he raised.
  The gentleman thinks that the cost burden of preparing the analysis 
on corporate welfare would exceed the million-dollar total amount that 
we would limit for this whole exercise of the evaluations.
  Now, we have a CBO estimate on the amount of the analysis cost for 
the regulatory side, and they say it is $500,000.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, a figure 
that the gentleman disputes.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I do dispute it. But suppose we said, for that side of 
the ledger, we will go to a million dollars and then we would say for 
the analysis on the corporate welfare side we will not put a limit on 
it. Would that bring the gentleman to the point of supporting this 
amendment?
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman were to remove 
the cap altogether, I personally would not have a problem. I would have 
to refer to my colleague, the chairman of the subcommittee.
  But if the million-dollar cap were removed, I think that would go 
quite a ways farther in ensuring something like this. But I do think 
the definition ``incorporated entities'' does have to be cleaned up.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, on exactly that point, I think the 
amendment, frankly it needs to have hearings if we are going to think 
about it as serious legislation.
  I heard the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) say he thought 
incorporated entities were those incorporated under Federal law. I have 
a suspicion he meant also under State law. Because there is only a 
handful of corporations incorporated under Federal law, whereas the 
vast bulk of private-sector corporate entities are incorporated under 
State laws.
  That is a question we will have to explore and answer. And to 
identify each of those entities that receives a subsidy has some very 
important privacy concerns.
  So I would be reluctant to concede that we could change the cost side 
and not address those serious problems on the first part of this 
amendment.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think what 
we have here is the basis for a working relationship for another 
vehicle to do some hearings in our committee to work on this issue 
together.
  But at this time, with an amendment that is written in a very sketchy 
way that has so many open-ended definitions that does cap the ability 
of OMB to do this where this corporate welfare analysis is not scored 
by CBO, so we just do not have enough knowledge to know whether this 
falls within the cap or outside the cap. I think it is unworkable at 
this time.
  I would like to add that this amendment is key voted as a ``no'' vote 
by the Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of 
Manufacturers.
  I think though, however, we have something we can work with. 
Hopefully, we can work together after passage of the final passage. I 
hope we defeat this amendment. But I would like to urge my colleagues 
that maybe we could get a relationship and work together on this in the 
committee. We have to tighten up the definition and do something that 
is good for our country.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, I strongly support this amendment. The 
amendment has been offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Hoeffel), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), and the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky). It is called the Taxpayer Protection and 
Corporate Welfare Disclosure amendment.
  I am honored that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) would 
call it the Waxman amendment, but it is not officially the Waxman 
amendment. I have not offered it. But I support it.
  This amendment does two important things. First, it protects 
taxpayers. As written, this bill would require OMB to prepare a cost-
benefit analysis of every regulation no matter how small or 
ministerial.
  This makes no sense. We do not need analysis for the sake of 
analysis. We should target our analysis to those major or controversial 
rules that are in genuine dispute.
  My concern is that the cost is going to run out of control. That is 
why this amendment would place a cap on the amount of taxpayer funds 
that can be spent on that analysis of $1 million, which is twice what 
CBO says should be spent on this bill.
  Now, it is interesting how the other side has done a quick pivot. 
They said, oh, this bill is not going to cost much money. It is only 
$500,000, and it is well worth it. But then when we have challenged 
that figure and said, all right, we will accept double the amount of 
CBO, but we think it is going to cost more, let us at least be sure 
that we limit it, they come around and say, oh, no, no, no. We cannot 
limit it because it may cost more.
  Well, one of my colleagues said, what is good for the goose is good 
for the gander. Either it is going to cost $500,000 or under a million 
or it is going to cost more. And if it is going to cost more, I think 
it is going to be wasteful.
  I tried to pursue a minute ago with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Ryan) the idea that maybe we put the cap of a million dollars simply on 
the regulatory analysis and not on the corporate welfare side. But then 
the response was back that he did not want any cap at all.
  Well, I want a cap for one reason. I want to protect the taxpayers 
from having their money wasted on analysis for no purpose.
  This amendment is important to do now in this bill. We were told, let 
us work out another piece of legislation. Let us develop a 
relationship. We will talk about it in committee. We will talk about it 
after the bill passes.
  Well, the leadership of our committee, which is controlled by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
McIntosh), have not given us a hearing on this. Mr. McIntosh said, oh, 
we cannot do this. We have not had a hearing. They are not willing to 
call a hearing on this idea of corporate welfare. We have had no 
hearings on the issue.
  We were told when we had the mandates bill, we said, well, if you are 
going to mandate and require a separate vote in the House before there 
is a mandate, let us do that when it comes to protection of the 
environment. We were told, well, that is something that should be in 
another piece of legislation.
  This amendment belongs in this bill. It would add balance to the 
bill. The bill as written requires analysis of the costs of Federal 
programs to regulated entities. The amendment would require OMB to also 
look at the benefits of Federal programs to corporations through 
various types of what we would call corporate welfare.
  Each year the Federal Government gives out billions in subsidies to 
successful businesses in the form of preferential tax treatment, 
subsidized loans, grants, and the use of Federal land, assets and 
facilities at below-market costs.
  Many might think that a Congress that has worked so hard to take 
people off welfare might also try to force successful corporations off 
welfare as well. But just the opposite is true.
  Let us understand what is going on here. Last week this House, on a 
partisan vote, passed H.R. 2488. I consider it an irresponsible tax 
bill that does nothing to ensure the long-term solvency of Medicare and 
Social Security.
  What it does do is disproportionately provide its tax benefits to the 
wealthy,

[[Page 17770]]

to corporations, to businesses, not to ordinary people who pay taxes.
  This tax bill was passed largely on party lines. It contains almost a 
hundred billion dollars in new direct tax breaks to businesses.
  Now, many might want to keep this information secret about these tax 
breaks. But I think the public has a right to know who we are giving 
our money to.
  The Congressional Research Service has determined that there is not a 
comprehensive list of subsidized industries. We do not know where all 
the Federal tax breaks are going to businesses. We do not know where 
all the grants and the other indirect subsidies are going.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Waxman was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, we know if the Hoeffel-Kucinich-Visclosky 
amendment were adopted it would cure this problem by requiring each 
year the Office of Management and Budget to identify Federal subsidies 
and disclose the costs and benefits of these subsidies.
  Mr. Chairman, if the intent of this bill is to provide more 
information to the American people about the relationship between 
regulated entities and the Federal Government, this amendment will very 
much help accomplish that goal. There is no reason the American people 
should not be informed about how their tax dollars are being used to 
subsidize corporations.
  I have heard this argument, what if the person or entity getting a 
subsidy is an individual business, therefore, you are going to 
presumably invade their privacy or make it too difficult to understand 
where the money by way of corporate subsidies actually goes?
  Well, that is a sham. These corporate entities can be stated in the 
aggregate. They are topics. It is not a doctor's office. It is how much 
doctors get. It is not a subsidy to one corporation. It can be 
corporations in a particular enterprise. And in that way we will know 
how much of a benefit is being placed on these corporations when we ask 
them to clean up the environment and protect public health, when we ask 
them to come in and make sure their drugs are safe and effective and to 
get approved by the FDA.
  We also ought to know, on the other hand, whether we give them 
subsidies that help them deal with that burden, as we do so often to 
corporations that take advantage of special tax breaks and special 
grants and special preferential treatments in the use of Federal 
assets.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 258, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Hoeffel) will be postponed.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Ryan of Wisconsin) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaHood, Chairman of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
1074) to provide Governmentwide accounting of regulatory costs and 
benefits, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________