[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 4]
[House]
[Page 5655]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    THE COST OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) for 5 minutes.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, we talk a lot in this Chamber about the 
burdensome regulations that Federal agencies frequently place on the 
American public. Last week the Competitive Enterprise Institute 
released a report that puts a price tag on the rules implemented by the 
Federal bureaucracy, saying that Federal regulation and intervention 
cost American consumers and businesses nearly $2 trillion in lost 
economic productivity and higher prices in 2014. That is simply 
unacceptable.
  Many of these rules hinder innovation and job creation and are costly 
to businesses and consumers. As a former small-business owner, I know 
firsthand how the government can make it more difficult for a business 
to be successful. I recognize the true costs of overregulation, such as 
lost productivity, increased expenses, and new financial and legal 
liabilities, which many policymakers often forget about.
  Just last month, the House approved a disapproval resolution to stop 
the Obama administration from implementing its flawed fiduciary rule, 
which will significantly impact the ability of Americans to receive 
advice on how to save for retirement and make it more difficult for 
businesses--in particular, small businesses--to establish retirement 
plans. The rule, which contains more than 1,000 pages of new 
regulations, makes it cost prohibitive to offer advice or services to 
low- and middle-income Americans by increasing compliance costs and the 
risk of litigation.
  The Department of Education is constantly putting obstacles in the 
path of innovation, and these unnecessary regulations are stifling 
pioneering higher education institutions at a time when forward-
thinking solutions are desperately needed. More redtape and hoops to 
jump through are not going to promote diverse choices for students. In 
fact, they often add administrative costs on schools--costs that are 
typically passed on to students in the form of higher fees and tuition. 
That is why I have introduced legislation to reduce Federal intrusion 
and limit the costly regulatory burden on colleges and universities.
  As my colleagues and constituents know, the issue of unfunded 
mandates has been a particular interest of mine for a long time. It is 
frequently overlooked in the debates about reforming our regulatory 
system and carrying out Federal policies. It is all too easy for 
Washington bureaucrats to write off concerns expressed by a handful of 
local governments or a small subset of private businesses. But these 
decisions have real costs and real effects on the individuals, 
families, and communities we each represent.
  My legislation, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency 
Act, does not seek to prevent the Federal Government from regulating; 
rather, it seeks to ensure that its regulations are deliberative and 
economically defensible. Asking regulators to consider thoroughly and 
understand the cost of a rule in addition to its benefits should not be 
controversial.
  Republicans are often accused of opposing all regulations, but that 
is just not true. We are in favor of commonsense rules, and we believe 
it is possible to alleviate the regulatory burden on small businesses 
and other job creators while balancing public safety and consumer 
interests.
  Regulation by bureaucratic fiat is not what the Founding Fathers had 
in mind when they created our government. I applaud Speaker Ryan for 
creating the Task Force on Reducing Regulatory Burdens and look forward 
to seeing its suggestions for a modern and transparent regulatory 
system that makes it easier to invest, produce, and build in America.

                          ____________________