Jim Moran

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Does the gentlewoman agree that we have done enough studying, that it is time for action? Ms. NORTON, Absolutely. It is time for an implementation plan. That is what has been missing from this issue.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I am going to have to vote against this bill. I do not think it is a responsible bill in a number of areas. The one that disturbs me the most is one that is clearly not even penny wise and pound foolish; it is even penny foolish and pound unwise, if there is such an expression. I cannot imagine why we would cut so deeply in the IRS operations. As my colleagues know, from the time of Jesus Christ, tax collectors have been beaten up on. Nobody likes tax collectors. They have one of the worst jobs in the world. But when we compare our tax collection system with any other country, we do a better job. We collect a higher proportion of revenue. We do it in a far less corrupt way than any other country, and the fact is there is no corruption in the Internal Revenue Service. These are good, professional people. We ought not be eliminating 7,500 full-time permanent people, and this idea to take the tax system's modernization program and give it to the Defense Department? The Defense Department has written us a letter. Here is the Undersecretary of Defense. He does not want it. He says we cannot operate this, we do not collect taxes, we do not know what we would be doing. In fact, it says if we were to implement the direction that was given us, it is very unlikely to be successful. And yet this bill gives this tax system modernization responsibility to the Department of Defense. No, thank you; I am sure that is not what the taxpayers want, and the taxpayers do not want cuts that are going to result in a billion dollars less revenue, because that is what the estimate would be. It will increase the Federal budget deficit by a billion dollars. Mr. Chairman, as the previous speaker, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis] said, ``You know the first thing we ought to do is to collect the revenue that is due us.'' How can we do that by cutting back on the Internal Revenue Service? This is not a good bill; it is not a responsible bill. It think we ought to give more consideration to the American taxpayer than this bill does.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would submit to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] that any State can pass a law now under the public policy exemption that makes it clear that whatever Hawaii's decision might be, they do not have to recognize it. They have that right.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment because I support the U.S. Constitution and particularly the 10th amendment to the Constitution. As you know, the 10th amendment was designed to prevent us from preempting States' right. Yet for this purpose, we are willing to federalize the one area of law that has been under State control for the last 200 years. What is worse is that it is the Subcommittee on the Constitution of our full Committee on the Judiciary that is willing to limit for the first time in history the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. The term that the Subcommittee on the Constitution uses is that it wants ``to free the States from a constitutional compulsion.'' If we want ``to free the States from a constitutional compulsion,'' we ought to do it with a constitutional amendment, not through this kind of a statute. This bill in fact is both unnecessary and premature. The Hawaii appeals court is not expected to reach a final decision until 1997. There is no reason to act before that. But by rushing to judgment, Congress is preventing the States from free and open deliberation and failing to allow them to come to their own determinations. States already have the power to refuse to honor same-sex marriages conducted in other States under the public policy exemption to the full faith and credit clause. This is the law right now. So why are we debating an unnecessary bill? I am afraid that the real answer is that it is political exploitation of prejudicial attitudes.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I do not perceive it in the same way the gentleman does. If the gentleman would like to explain why it does, then I would be happy to yield the time that I have. I do not interpret it as accomplishing what the gentleman said.

Mr. MORAN. The gentleman and I have a difference of opinion.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, we have a level of about 3,700 people in the Government Printing Office now. That is less than 50 percent of what it used to be. We used to have about 8,000 people in the Government Printing Office, and they had a reputation for doing a very good job. They still have a reputation for doing an excellent, professional job. If we talk to people in the private sector, the Printing Industries of America, whatever, they will say that they have a high level of respect for people in the Government Printing Office. Now, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], our friend, said this is not about people, this is not about those employees. Well, the fact is, it is. We are cutting another 100 people that are doing their job, have consistently done everything that the Congress has asked them to, have been subject to continuing downsizing. They accept the downsizing. They are on a glide path. They are reducing the number of people that work there, not as fast as they are reducing their workload. The only thing that makes sense is that this is some kind of vendetta against the Government Printing Office and it does not make sense. We were reducing them. Let us do it in the way that we previously agreed to. Reject this amendment.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute and 15 seconds to suggest that there is good reason why America did not have the mad cow disease that occurred in Europe. In fact, we hear of so many things that occur in other countries that were prevented here. All we are asking is for a balance. The majority whip, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], criticized the use of airbags in his speech. But he did not mention the number of lives that have been saved by the use of airbags. We think on this side of the aisle that the American people want things like airbags and we ought to present a balance.

Mr. MORAN. I hope we are not paranoid, but that was not our implicit assumption. It only refers to costs, but not benefits. If it included benefits, we will not have any problem whatsoever.

Mr. MORAN. By unanimous consent, I am told, it can actually, I say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].

Mr. MORAN. Would it be possible to amend this to where it says in the third to last line, consider the costs and benefits of government spending, two words, and we can make all the Democrats happy? Could we get unanimous consent to do that?

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, to clarify for the gentleman from Massachusetts, he is not suggesting nor is his side suggesting we ought not require airbags to be included in the manufacture of U.S. automobiles.

Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Since the gentleman was shocked at the fact that we questioned this bill and suggested it was somewhat innocuous, I have to ask how the American people are better off for our having passed this resolution, particularly when its purpose is to designate July 3 as the ``Cost of Government Day,'' this being July 9.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I know that the chairman of the committee is disappointed that the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] is not able to be here, but I am sure the gentleman wants me to share with him what the gentlewoman have said had she been here. Mr. Speaker, this resolution was never considered in the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, so we never had an opportunity to discuss it or amend it. It was put on today's calendar apparently because the Republican leadership wants to show that they want to reduce Government spending and the size of government. I have to say that after reading the text of the resolving clause, there is little with which anyone in Congress would disagree. All of us were elected to carefully consider every bill we pass, whether it is a spending bill, a tax bill, or a regulatory bill. We don't need a resolution to tell us to do our job. In fact, the deficit has been going down every year under President Clinton. The difference between our two parties has been in our priorities. We have attempted to protect spending on important areas such as education, health care and the environment, while others have pursued spending cuts without considering their human costs. Had we agreed to carefully consider every bill that spends money, we probably would not be considering this resolution today, because it is a waste of taxpayer dollars. The printing of this resolution and the printing of this debate in the Congressional Record is a waste of spending. We should instead be doing exactly what the resolution calls for-- carefully considering appropriations bills, which should have all been passed by the House last month. Instead, we are woefully behind in the appropriations process, as we were last year, in part because we are wasting our time on resolutions like this. Had the bill been considered in the committee, we might have considered some amendments. For example, instead of just considering the costs of regulation, we might also have resolved to carefully consider the benefits of regulation. However, I am not surprised that the sponsor of this resolution does not care to consider the benefits of regulation. He has sponsored a bill to repeal the Clean Air Act. In sponsoring that bill, did he consider the benefits of clean air? The chief sponsor of this resolution also was the chief sponsor of a bill last year that passed the House. It would have imposed a yearlong moratorium on all new regulations, such as the recently adopted meat inspection regulation. That regulation, which will require testing for deadly bacteria, could save hundreds of lives and prevent thousands of diseases, but the gentleman's bill would have stopped the regulation in its tracks. Fortunately, the Senate refused to go along with the extremist antiregulatory bill. As Nancy Donley, whose son died of the deadly E. coli bacteria in a hamburger, said last week when the new rule was adopted, we must understand that all regulations are not bad. However, this resolution would have us only carefully consider the costs of regulation, and not the benefits. The same Republican sponsors of this resolution also attempted to cut the regulatory budget of the Environmental Protection Agency by a third. Perhaps they were carefully considering the costs of regulation, but I doubt they were carefully considering the costs to public health and the environment from their reckless cuts. Earlier this year, the Republican sponsors of this resolution would have required every agency to hold a new rulemaking to repromulgate all of their existing regulations. That proposal would have added billions in regulatory costs, but the sponsors of that bill apparently wanted to let polluters continue to pollute while the agencies were tied up in knots repromulgating their existing regulations. Soon we will be considering appropriations bills that will make large cuts in the President's budget for education. While the House considers the costs of these spending bills, as it should, I would expect it to also consider the costs of not adequately spending on our children's education. When we had military spending bills before us this year, we had rules that prevented us from cutting spending, even for weapons that the Pentagon did not ask for. If we are committing ourselves to carefully consider Government spending, defense spending bills should not be immune to cost-cutting. Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that the antienvironment, antiregulatory, extreme agenda in this House will come to a close soon. It appears to have run out of steam. All that is left of it for the time being is this silly resolution that says Congress should carefully consider the costs of Government spending and regulatory programs. It is about time that this Congress began to carefully consider all of its bills. We constantly face bills that have never been considered in committee, and this is one of them. Fortunately, it is just a resolution, and it is innocuous. Its worse crime is that it is a waste of our time and the taxpayer money. Its attempt to designate July 3, 1996 as ``Cost of Government Day'' is already out of date. Apparently the rule that ended bills to designate days of the year for certain worthwhile causes, such as charities to cure diseases, does not apply to resolutions designating days for Republican propaganda purposes. I would urge my Republican colleagues to stop wasting time on meaningless resolutions and get on with the Nation's business. We have appropriations bills as far as the eye can see, and just a few weeks to complete our work. The American people want to see us complete the Nation's business without another Government shutdown. Resolutions such as this only distract us from the real work ahead of us. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to underscore a point that we have been trying to make, and I think it is consistent with some of the rhetoric that we have been hearing today. The gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter] had an amendment that we would maintain our standards on meat and poultry inspection, which is a very relevant one, particularly when we see what has happened with mad cow disease in England and other situations that have endangered peoples' lives and health, and 220 Republicans voted against that amendment.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised the gentleman is for airbags. He is a very thoughtful member of the committee and of this body. We did have an issue on meat and poultry inspection.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself a minute and a half. Mr. Speaker, in the first place a lot of the regulations that have been cited have not, in fact, been new regulations. They have been rescissions and modifications. That grandiose number is misleading because it would be implied that those are all new regulations. They certainly are not. But the fact is we do have too many regulations, and I personally believe that the Federal Government too often imposes cookie-cutter compliance on States and localities and private businesses. I think we would be far better off if we moved to an outcome-based approach, particularly to environmental regulation where we told the private businesses and the States and localities: ``This is the goal; we want you to achieve this in the most effective and efficient manner possible. But you know your demography, you know your geography, and we think that you have the best understanding as to how to reach this goal,'' and we do not really argue, I hope, on the goals of clean water and clean air and safe meat and poultry.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman knows, because I know he does not want to deceive the American people certainly, the fact is these regulations were up for reauthorization, and they would have expired. That is why we needed to continue the regulations in effect while we were reviewing them. But our principal point with regard to this resolution is that we should be balanced in the information we present to the American people. We ought to review the costs. Absolutely we ought to review how it is tying up States and localities and private businesses. But we also need to balance that with an estimate, an understanding of the benefits, so we give the American people the cost and the benefits, let them decide, and that is the way we can make the best judgment as well. This resolution does not address benefits; it only addresses the costs. And I think to act responsibly we need to look at both. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time to explain our objection. It was not an objection to reviewing many of our regulations, but we object to suspending those regulations in the meantime while we are reviewing them. We think that the American people want and need that kind of protection, but we also think that we should continue to be scrutinizing those regulations to make sure that they function in the most efficient reasonable manner possible. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.