Rob Portman

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Energy and Water Appropriations bill. This bill represents a good balance between competing interests for a limited pool of resources, and I applaud the Appropriations Committee for their good efforts. One issue that I have closely monitored during the formulation of this bill is the appropriation for the Department of Energy's [DOE] Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Budget. Those of us who represent districts containing sites where the Department of Energy carried out nuclear energy or weapons research and production activities that resulted or weapons research and production activities that resulted in radioactive and hazardous contamination are committed to ensuring that this budget maintain responsible levels of funding to meet the Federal Government's clean up obligations. If there are no funds to clean up the environmental and health hazards caused by our nation's nuclear weapons production, the sites will continue to cause an imminent danger to citizens living near the facilities. I believe the Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Budget appropriation is fair given the Government's budget constraints. The recommended appropriation represents a 7.6 percent increase from last year's budget, increasing spending from $4.9 billion in fiscal year 1995 to $5.3 billion in fiscal year 1996. I understand that the committee has sought to protect funding for cleanup milestones established in compliance agreements by directing cuts against support service contracts, excessive headquarters and field oversight, and by reducing the number of new construction starts proposed to begin in fiscal year 1996. I agree that it is important to ensure that this funding is sued for actual clean up of sites, instead of wasted on overhead costs. The Fernald site, a former uranium processing center, lies in my congressional district. At no fault of their own, thousands of people living near Fernald have potentially been exposed to dangerous material in the air, soil and water. With DOE oversight, much progress has been made at Fernald in cleaning up these hazards. However, problems persist. A specific proposal has been developed to accelerate remediation, so that the site will be clean in 10 years. Having reviewed the proposal and consulted with the various interested parties, I am convinced it is a sound approach. It enjoys widespread support, could serve as a model of successful cleanup efforts, and would result in significant savings to the taxpayer. In fact, I understand that accelerating the schedule for cleanup from 25 years down to 10 years would result in a savings to the taxpayer of approximately $1.4 billion. I am extremely pleased that the Appropriations Committee has also specifically recognized the prospects for immediate cleanup at Fernald. The Committee Report cites that, ``the Committee supports [Fernald's] proposal to reduce costs and accelerate cleanup activities and expects the Department to make every effort to increase funding for this project.'' Again, I urge my colleagues to support this appropriations legislation. It provides fair funding levels for our national energy and water priorities, including the cleanup of the Government's nuclear waste sites, while still providing for savings that will help move us to a balanced budget by 2002. Thank you. Mr. de la Garza. Mr. Chairman, included in the fiscal year 1996 Energy and Water Appropriations package are two projects of great interest to me for which I want to express my support for funding. They are as follows: Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Texas, is a navigation project which is budgeted for operations and maintenance at $2,190.000. Continued funding of this project is essential due to the impact on the local economy. The project provides for widening and deepening the existing channels to (40.5 miles) and basins from the Gulf of Mexico to deepwater ports at Harbor Island, Ingleside, and Corpus Christi, and a branch channel to the port of La Quinta to provide a project depth of 45 feet. It also includes the construction of mooring areas and dolphins at Port Ingleside, one mooring area and six dolphins constructed initially with seven others deferred to be constructed when required. Lower Rio Grande Basin, South Main Channel, Texas, is a comprehensive flood control-drainage project which is budgeted at $900,000. It provides the major outlet component of an overall flood protection plan for Willacy and Hidalgo Counties. The authorized plan calls for construction of a major channel extending from near McAllen to the Laguna Madre, and related fish and wildlife mitigating measures. The authorized plan would provide two year protection to rural areas which drain into the South Main Channel; one hundred year flood protection to the cities of Edinburg, McAllen and Lyford; and 50-year flood protection for the cities of La Villa and Edcouch.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, and I want to commend him and his bipartisan team that put together this budget. They have done a great job. Let us not forget, as someone has mentioned, we have not had a balanced budget around here since 1969, so this is historic. Yesterday the chairman of the Committee on the Budget revealed to me that in his first budget he wrote, which was in about 1969 in the Ohio State Senate, he got one vote. It was his own. Today he is probably going to get about 250 times that amount. He gets the most improved award, I guess. The reason he is going to get that kind of support is because this document is fair. Despite what my colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means from New York said, it is fair. It is fair in that everything is on the table. It is fair in that everybody makes a sacrifice for the future of the country and, yes, it is fair because it is fair to the next generation of Americans who otherwise would be burdened with skyrocketing taxes and a failing economy because of our irresponsible and reckless spending. Our real challenge is going to be to keep our resolve 2 years from now, 4 years from now, 6 years from now. I think we will do it but we need the momentum today to be able to do it. It is not going to be easy but nothing is more important. I urge everyone to support this document because it is fair, it is a great start, and again I want to commend the bipartisan team.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer the Clinger-Portman- Condit-Davis amendment to the legislative branch appropriations bill. Our amendment is fiscally responsible and is vital to the mission of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. In fact, our amendment is endorsed by many of the same groups that supported the unfunded mandates bill earlier this year, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Governors' Association, National Conference of State Legislatures, National Association of Counties, and the National League of Cities. The amendment would add $1.1 million to CBO's budget, the funding it needs to comply with S. 1, the unfunded mandates bill that was signed into law in March. As you know, the House approved this Contract With America bill by a strong vote of 394-28, and the Senate did as well, 91-9. The amendment's appropriation of $1.1 million to the CBO is far below the $4.5 million the House authorized earlier this year in S. 1. In fact, it is only 26 percent of the amount we've already authorized for CBO by the unfunded mandates law. As you may remember, under the unfunded mandates bill, CBO has a number of critical and new responsibilities starting January 1, 1996. First, CBO is required to analyze all new reported legislation containing Federal mandates and to prepare cost estimates for bills that impose mandates on State and local governments costing more than $50 million in any year. CBO has to perform a similar analysis for bills that impose mandates on the private sector costing more than $100 million. Although CBO does analyze intergovernmental mandates costing more than $200 million now, the new law has greatly increased its workload. These are complicated analyses, requiring CBO to perform a number of complex new tasks. CBO has identified a number of new challenges it will be facing as it calculates the costs of mandates. Specifically, Dr. June O'Neill, Director of the CBO, has identified that: First, legislation often lacks the detailed information needed to project future impacts at the time a bill is considered; second, the effects of legislation may vary greatly among localities, making it difficult to quantify nationwide costs; third, obtaining accurate information from State, local, and tribal officials will be difficult and time consuming; fourth, obtaining information from private-sector parties will be difficult and time consuming since the information may not be readily available and is often considered to be confidential. To make accurate cost estimates, CBO needs these additional resources to address these problems. Specifically, these resources will need to be focused on covering the costs of: First, consulting extensively with the relevant Federal agency to define the range of alternatives that are likely to be considered in issuing regulations; second, collecting information early in the legislative process from a broad sample of State, localities, and tribes, as well as from the private sector and individuals; third, consulting with experts to identify techniques that will improve CBO's ability to provide accurate estimates of nationwide costs based on a limited sample of States, localities, tribes, businesses, and individuals; fourth, consulting directly with as many States, local, and tribal officials as possible, as well as representatives from business and citizen groups. CBO estimates that it needs 25 new full-time employees to conduct the cost analyses required by the unfunded mandates bill. The office intends to create a new intergovernmental mandate unit in the Budget Analysis Division that will prepare cost statements and studies of intergovernmental mandates, as well as work with committees and State and local governments--15 people would be assigned to the program divisions for preparing private-sector mandate cost estimates and studies. In addition to new analytic difficulties, the quantity of estimates required by CBO will likely be burdensome. Dr. O'Neill estimates that the private sector analyses--a provision in the law that is strongly supported by many Members of Congress--alone could require CBO to analyze approximately 10 to 15 percent of all reported bills. I expect the number of analyses required for State and local governmental mandates will be even higher. The bottom line is that S. 1 increased significantly CBO's volume of work. CBO has identified another issue that justifies this additional appropriation to its budget. In the case of both intergovernmental and private sector mandates, CBO has determined that it will take nearly as much analysis to estimate whether or not a bill exceeds the threshold as it does to provide a full cost analysis when the threshold is exceeded. A statement by Dr. O'Neill reinforces this point: ``. . . all bills that are deemed to have a mandate will exert considerable pressure on CBO's resources, even when the analysis does not result in a detailed cost statement.'' If CBO fails to complete these analyses, the consequences to the legislative process could be severe. Because the unfunded mandates law establishes a new point of order against the consideration of legislation for which a CBO cost estimate is not printed in the committee report or in the Congressional Record, points of order could potentially be raised against scores of bills. This could significantly complicate and slow down the legislative process. In addition, a provision in the bill allows for a waiver of CBO's requirement if an analysis is not feasible, although a point of order would remain in effect. Without the CBO analysis, the unfunded mandates law would be meaningless. I view the new cost information as the linchpin to the improved accountability the legislation is intended to establish. Without the CBO analysis, Members would be voting on legislation in the dark, without any clear knowledge of the burdens they are imposing on State and local governments or the private sector. Those 394 Members of the House agreed that we should end the practice of mandating blindly. Providing CBO the tools it needs will help to eliminate this problem, by giving Members the information we all must have to legislate responsibly. Also, because S. 1 obligates committees to identify sources of funding to cover the costs of intergovernmental mandates, committees will need the CBO information to do their jobs. Last year alone, it is estimated that we sent billions of dollars worth of mandates to State and local governments. Spending $1.1 million up front to curb the practice makes sense. To do otherwise would be penny- wise and pound-foolish. I understand that the Appropriations Committee expresses concerns about the additional duties given to CBO by the unfunded mandates law, but it suggested that DBO shift its resources to cover the new responsibilities. Having talked to CBO and looked at these new responsibilities, I believe that a mere shifting of CBO priorities will not free up enough money to cover the costs of these analyses. We should not place an unfunded mandate on the very agency helping us to end this practice. This amendment is a modest and responsible request for funding that CBO needs. The $1.1 million is fully paid for by offsetting cuts in the legislative branch appropriations bill. The offset is to a part of the Library of Congress budget, specifically targeted to eliminate funding for the American Folklife Center, which was not authorized. We believe this is a reasonable cut. The Appropriations Committee report on this item cites that ``there is ample precedence for the Library to raise private funding for the American Folklife Center.'' I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment. It will allow for the successful implementation of the unfunded mandates bill. CBO analyses of mandates on State and local governments, as well as the private sector, are the heart of the unfunded mandates bill--a law that is designed to ensure Congress has cost information, has a separate debate on whether and how to fund mandates and is accountable before it ever mandates again. Without providing the additional appropriation, we will also be sending the message that we are not serious about giving our State and local partners the relief they need. Let's keep our promise and support this amendment. If you supported the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 and believe in it, you should vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my support for H.R. 1854, the legislative branch appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996. I strongly support the bold cuts to the level of funding provided in the bill today. There is nothing more important than addressing the $4.8 trillion national debt, which is keeping badly needed capital out of the hands of the private sector of our economy, the engine of growth and job creation. And I believe the goal of deficit reduction will only be met if we lead by example here in Congress. Today, we have the opportunity to prove to our constituents that we are serious about addressing the national debt by taking the lead and making cuts to our own budget. This bill appropriates $1.7 billion for the House of Representatives and other legislative branch operations-- $155 million less than in fiscal year 1995. This bill contains responsible cuts, such as eliminating the Joint Committee on Printing [JCP], the Office of Technology Assessment [OTA], one House parking lot, complimentary Capitol Historical Society calendars, and volumes of the U.S. Code for members of Congress. This bill provides for privatizing the flag office, the House folding room, and other support offices, reducing the General Accounting Office budget by 15 percent, combining the allowances for Members' clerk hire, mailing and office expenses into one account and cutting House committee funding by $39 million. At a time when the House is asking others to make significant sacrifices, we must be responsible enough to tighten our own belt. I will vote for the legislative branch appropriations bill because the House should lead by example rather than give itself special treatment.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief, by necessity. Let me say I think the Folklife Center can get a lot more in private funding. They did raise $330,000 in 1994, three times what they raised in 1990. The one in the western region does it entirely by private funds. I think that offset can be handled. [[Page H 6217]] If you voted for the unfunded mandate bill, you should vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, because of an unforeseen scheduling conflict, I was unable to be in attendance in the House for one recorded vote, rollcall vote No. 400 on the Obey amendment to H.R. 1817. Had I been in attendance, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote No. 400.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, last Friday, I had the pleasure of touring a school in my district which is setting the trend for the future of education. Mason Middle School, in Warren County in southwest Ohio, uses a state-of-the-art technology-driven curriculum so that students can easily enter the high-tech workplace and adapt to a changing world. If our world is transitioning to an information-based society, these students will be way ahead of the curve. As our current methods of production become obsolete, more and more work will have to do with information processing. Because of Mason Middle School's emphasis on information and technology, its students are being given the skills to compete in the work force of the future and the confidence to succeed there. Students also learn to appreciate the interconnectedness of the world, preparing them to interact in a global economy. When we create schools such as this, we are doing more than providing for our children's success in an age of ever-expanding technology. We are laying the groundwork for a new political system. Our system is based on democracy, or the will of the people. To express the will of the people, we rely on representation. Computers will make our system of representation more responsive. What began with polling by mail and then phone has evolved into direct communication and decisionmaking. Instead of relying on our Senators or Congressmen and women to represent us, in the future, we can begin to represent ourselves. A democratic system can only be effective with an informed and engaged electorate. Technology will bring us even closer together--creating a more participatory democracy. Using today's far more advanced computers, satellites, telephones, cable, polling techniques, and other tools, not to mention the Internet and other communication networks, an educated citizenry can, for the first time in history, begin making many of its own political decisions. I'd say that's pretty exciting stuff. And I would also say that I am very proud that a school in the Second Congressional District is leading the way.

Mr. PORTMAN

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

Mr. PORTMAN. Reclaiming my time for what little time remains, I would just say I would like to echo the comments of the gentleman from Illinois. I think it has to be a consideration when it is on the books. I think it is ineffective. I think it violates the constitutional rights of the commander-in-chief. I think the reason previous President may have come to Congress, including the case the gentleman from California mentioned, perhaps that was a factor, but there are other considerations that were overriding.

Mr. PORTMAN. Reclaiming my time----

Mr. PORTMAN. I thank the gentleman. I thank my colleague from Illinois may have some salient comments on this. Let me say the power of the purse, to my friend on the other side of the aisle, is far more powerful and is a much more powerful inducement, I believe, to that President and other Presidents, than any other. Congress could always have acted to force us to withdraw troops from the Gulf had we used the power of the purse and pulled the appropriations. That is ultimately where I think our power derives. I think also, if you look at the amendment, you will see there is consultation and notification that would actually take place.

Mr. PORTMAN. I would encourage the gentleman to take a look at the Hyde amendment carefully because it requires the kind of notification and the kind of consultation that, frankly, I do not think we have now. I think, under this new iteration, with repealing the War Powers Act, by being required to come to Congress for notification and for consultation, I think you would find that in fact Congress would be more of a partner with the executive branch in the future.

Mr. PORTMAN. The answer to that question, reclaiming my time, I would say that is a consideration that every President has to factor in is that it is a law on the books. It is a pressure applied to the executive branch. It is a factor when one is considering deployment, and necessarily so. I think it would also lead to a lot less ambiguity, as I said earlier, with regard to our foreign adversaries.

Mr. PORTMAN. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman has made an excellent case for repeal of an ineffective act. Presidents have ignored the War Powers Act on an official basis. However, our enemies overseas know it exists. It is on the books. Frankly, it is a consideration taken into consideration as Presidents decide whether or not to go to Congress, as we saw with the Gulf War, to receive, and in that case approval, so it is something that is not working. It is unconstitutional. The reason it is not working, I believe, goes to the Constitution. In other words, the constitutionality of it is the reason it is not working.

Mr. PORTMAN. What part does the gentleman not find compelling?

Mr. PORTMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong support for repealing the War Powers Resolution with the consultations as set forth in the Hyde amendment. I understand the history of the resolution that is described by the gentlewoman from Colorado, and I appreciate that, but it is my belief that this 22-year relic of the Vietnam era is both unconstitutional and ineffective. I want to commend the gentleman from Illinois for raising this issue, for bringing forth the amendment today and for all of his efforts over the years on this. I served in the Bush White House in the counsel's office, so I saw firsthand just how this resolution can interfere with the President's ability as the commander-in-chief to defend U.S. interests. I think the Constitution has its right, particularly in this dangerous world where rapid deployment is vital, vital to success. The President must maintain his authority as commander-in-chief to protect U.S. interests around the globe. Under the War Powers Resolution, however, as the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] stated earlier, if Congress fails to explicitly endorse the deployment of troops, the troops must return home. I think this is a flagrant intrusion on the President's constitutional rights inherent as commander-in-chief to defend and protect the Nation. There is a reason that all four former Presidents, Democrat and Republican, support repeal. The Constitution struck the right balance. It granted the President the right to act as commander- in-chief to protect U.S. interests. It also provided appropriate checks for leaving the authority for funding military operations with Congress. The War Powers Resolution tips that healthy balance, tips it too far, by allowing Congress to override the President's constitutional authority by mere inaction. If Congress simply fails to act, 60 days after deployment U.S. troops engaged in hostilities must be withdrawn. In my mind this is a taking. It is Congress taking authority away from the President to act as commander-in-chief. As important, the practical application of the War Powers Resolution is essentially rendered ineffective. We have seen that over the years. It was noted earlier by both speakers. It has also increased the danger to U.S. personnel and interests. By requiring the withdrawal of troops within 60 days unless Congress acts, the resolution permits Congress to drag its feet until policy is established by inaction. More troubling I think is that the resolution unwisely undermines U.S. policy. It is dangerous. Our enemies have a strong incentive if the War Powers Act acts as intended to resist negotiations and wait out the 60 days. Why should they not? In other words, the effect of the War Powers Act is really to embolden our enemies and endanger our military personnel overseas unnecessarily. Whether we are dealing with Raoul Cedras, Manuel Noriega, or Saddam Hussein, we cannot simply afford to send our enemies the message that the actions of our military and the President are not the actions of the United States, do not constitute the will of Congress and the people. They must, until Congress explicitly acts otherwise. If we insist on keeping the War Powers Resolution, I would urge this Congress to make changes to it to force Congress to face the issue. Let us vote up or down on the issue. Let us openly confront the question of deployment. Under the war powers resolution, we have got it both ways. We have got the best of both worlds. We can tie the hands of the President and avoid a direct up-or-down vote on an often tough issue whether to deploy or not. If we keep the resolution, I think it would be better to establish expedited procedures during that 60-day period, forcing to act by joint resolution on an up or down vote, either authorizing action or requiring disengagement. As President Nixon noted in his veto of the War Powers Act in 1973, ``One cannot become a responsible partner unless one is prepared to take responsible action.'' Let us act responsibly today, 22 years later, and end this congressional encroachment.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, after hearing the debate on MediGap this morning, I am here today to make a plea on Medicare. Let us stop the demogoguery--let us roll up our sleeves and deal with the problem. The Medicare trustees have just reported to us that if we do nothing to save the system, the part A trust fund, the heart of the program starts to go broke next year and is bankrupt entirely in 7 short years--not unanticipated by those who have been following it closely--but sobering nonetheless. Let us deal with it--and the sooner the better. The new CBO Director told us the obvious in recent testimony: ``Any delay will require dramatic cuts and program changes in the future.'' If we start to reform the system now, I believe we can accomplish the twin goals of saving the program from bankruptcy and improving it through private sector innovation, expanded choice and cracking down on fraud. We can do it because, as President Clinton told the AARP in 1993, ``Today, Medicaid and Medicare are going up at three times the rate of inflation. We propose to let it go up at two times the rate of inflation. That is not a Medicare or Medicaid cut. So when you hear all this business about cuts, let me caution you that that is not what is going on. We are going to have increases in Medicare and Medicaid, and a reduction in the rate of growth.'' Let us act now in a bipartisan manner before the problem gets out of hand. The Medicare trustee report itself stated, ``these programs are too important to be politicized and [we] urge that a highly professional, nonpartisan approach continue to be followed.''

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to recognize a prominent Cincinnatian, Edwin L. Artzt, on the occasion of his retirement as chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the Procter & Gamble Co. Today we thank him for the vision and service that he has so generously given to his company and to his community. Ed began his career with Proctor and Gamble in 1953 in the sales training department. He worked nearly 40 years in positions both at home and abroad to become chairman and CEO of the company in 1990. During his tenure as chief executive, Ed concentrated on innovating new products, improving the efficiency of operations and globalizing the business and building the organization. Under his leadership, Procter & Gamble's earnings increased at an average growth rate of 14 percent and the real earnings growth rate (after inflation) has been 10 percent, more than double the company's historic average. Procter & Gamble began its concentration on value pricing and expanded its international operations, adding business in 10 additional countries. His vision has strengthened our economy locally and nationally. Ed has brought his high caliber of leadership to many areas outside of Procter & Gamble. Serving our Nation, he has been an influential advocate of world trade as a member of President Clinton's Advisory Committee on Trade Policy and Negotiations, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Business Roundtable. In the Cincinnati community, he has given his time and talent by serving on the board of the Cincinnati Business Committee and the board of trustees of the Cincinnati Institute of Fine Arts. I know firsthand that he has found time to give of himself. He was my little league baseball coach 30 years ago. Long a champion of business education, Ed has helped to groom business leaders of the future in his work as a member of the board of visitors to the Anderson Graduate School of Business Management at UCLA and the board of overseers of the Wharton School. Within P&G, his vision was the inspiration for creating a P&G College, where employees continue their education with innovative courses on business trends. All of us in Cincinnati congratulate Ed for his numerous accomplishments in both private and public enterprise. We are grateful for his service to Cincinnati and to our Nation.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong support for House Concurrent Resolution 67, the Republican budget plan that moves us to a balanced budget for the first time since 1969. This budget is about America's future--it is a plan that will allow us to enter the next century with America's fiscal house in order. Our country has continued to sink deeper and deeper into debt, and the time has come to restore our Government's economic strength and integrity. The current budget crisis is taking its toll. Today's $4.8 trillion debt requires annual interest payments of $235 billion. If Government spending is not curtailed, the debt will reach $7.5 trillion by 2005, requiring interest payments of $412 billion. As early as 1997, Americans could pay as much interest on the debt--$270 billion--as we pay for national defense. These wasteful debt payments occupy increasingly large portions of our Federal budget, crowding out money that could remain with the taxpayer or be reinvested in America's neighborhoods, infrastructure, schools, and farms. In addition to decreasing the amount of money that the Government has to pay for its programs, Americans are adversely affected by the debt each time they borrow money to pay for a home, car, or an education. It is estimated that interest rates are about two points higher than they should be under a balanced budget. The Budget Committee tells me that this adds as much as $37,000 over 30 years to a mortgage on a $75,000 home. We must meet our budget crisis head-on for our Nation to be strong and prosperous. We cannot continue to mortgage the future of our children and grandchildren. House Concurrent Resolution 67 moves us toward a balanced budget by the year 2002 by eliminating wasteful spending and reducing the growth rate of many programs. In all, this budget reduces the deficit by about $1.1 trillion over the next 7 years. This budget plan not only balances the budget--it also takes action to protect and preserve Medicare. To save it from bankruptcy, House Concurrent Resolution 67 would reduce the unacceptably high rate of growth of Medicare. I have a special interest in this issue given my position on the Ways and Means Committee, which has jurisdiction over Medicare. As you may know, the Social Security and Medicare trustees have predicted that the Medicare Part A--hospital Insurance--trust fund will be bankrupt in 7 years. That means that by 2002, the funds simply won't be there unless Congress takes some corrective action. In order for Congress to keep its commitment to provide health insurance for the elderly, we must act now to safeguard the system. The budget resolution recommends three approaches to reforming Medicare, all of which deserve further investigation by the Ways and Means Committee. None of these options would reduce Medicare spending below current levels. In fact, the program would be allowed to continue to grow at a healthy rate, one which is closer to the rate of increase for health care expenditures generally. Under the budget proposal, average spending on a Medicare beneficiary would increase from about $4,800 today to about $6,400 in 2002. I do not agree with every detail of the budget plan's suggested reforms. But when taken as a whole, it is a well-crafted, responsible and balanced measure. It restores fiscal responsibility to our Government for the first time in more than a generation. It's way overdue. Let's act now to safeguard the future of our children and grandchildren.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to address the Clean Water Act legislation. After careful examination of the committee bill, H.R. 961, and the Boehlert substitute, I have decided to support H.R. 961 on final passage. Though I do not agree with every provision, I believe it is an improvement on current law and addresses many of the specific problems that my constituents have identified in the Clear Water Act. it makes the Clean Water Act more flexible and less prescriptive and addresses a number of regulatory issues of concern to me. The Clean Water Act is widely regarded as one of the Nation's most successful environmental laws in terms of cleaning up dirty water. I am pleased at the level of cleanup in Ohio generally and in my district specifically. One beneficiary has been the Little Miami River, Ohio's first State and national scenic river, which runs through my district. Although the Little Miami is considered to be an exceptional warmwater habitat, it has one of the highest volumes of treated sewage pumped into it. The water quality has improved over the last decade in part because fewer pollutants are being discharged from these treatment plants along the river. And this is in part due to the Clean Water Act. However, problems with the act itself persist. H.R. 961 works to address some of the problems that the Ohio EPA recently identified regarding the cleanliness of the Little Miami River. One of the major threats to the Little Miami includes increased stormwater runoff. In 1987, Congress charged the EPA with implementing a specific permit program for stormwater discharges from industrial sources and municipalities. The permit program has resulted in the creation of one of the most burdensome unfunded Federal mandates in history. It has been brought to my attention time and time again by local governments. I have been told, for example, that a permit application alone can cost over $600,000 to prepare. Compliance costs could be in the billions by requiring stormwater to meet fishable and swimmable quality standards without taking into account the sudden, short-term nature of storms. The EPA's own estimate of costs to municipalities to comply with the current stormwater permitting requirements of the Clean Water Act is between $3.4 and $5.3 billion annually. It is evident that these wet-weather flows are not amenable to traditional end-of-pipe, command and control regulatory approaches. Attempts to impose these controls on wet-weather flows have led to regulations that require results that are only achievable at an enormous cost. Accordingly, the current law has been unable to effectively address the problems with this type of pollution. H.R. 961 would essentially convert the current stormwater permit program into a nonpoint source management-type program. Nonpoint source discharges include stormwater and runoff from farm fields, streets, and other areas. The new bill requires States to develop stormwater management programs within 4 years and to meet the goal of attainment of water quality standards for stormwater within 15 years of program approval. To meet that goal, States have the flexibility to target receiving waters and sources of stormwater discharges. State controls begin with pollution prevention plans and may proceed to general and site-specific permits as determined to be necessary by the State. By returning this program to the States, Ohio can adopt a program that will best eliminate stormwater pollution. Currently, a one-size- fits-all approach exists, which in many cases does not provide the best solutions for communities along the Little Miami River and every other river in Ohio. Flexibility is necessary to achieve the greatest environmental benefits from scarce resources. I believe that States working with local communities are simply better equipped to address these problems. Regarding the larger problem of nonpoint source pollution, the bill adds to and improves upon current law. Nonpoint source pollution is believed to account for more than half of all remaining pollution nationwide. Although Congress attempted to address nonpoint source pollution in 1987, there is more that Congress can and should do. For example, H.R. 961 provides grants for preparing reports and management programs in addition to grants for implementing programs--under current law. These are new Federal grants to address specific problems. The share of a project which may be funded by grants is also increased from 60 to 75 percent. Finally, it requires States to resubmit management programs every 5 years. Should a State fail to submit a program, the EPA is directed to prepare and implement one for the State. I do want to note that I am disappointed that the House adopted an amendment to strike a provision in the bill that would have authorized $500 million annually for a new State revolving loan fund program to reduce nonpoint source pollution. I opposed this amendment when it was considered by the House. I believe these funds would have helped to reduce some of the problems that we are currently facing with nonpoint source pollution. In addition, H.R. 961 works to eliminate many of the unfunded mandates that exist in current law. These provisions are in the spirit of H.R. 5, the unfunded mandates bill I sponsored that are overwhelmingly approved by the House and Senate earlier this year and signed into law by the President. During the debate in the House earlier this year on unfunded Federal mandates (H.R. 5), the Clean Water Act was mentioned again and again as imposing particularly burdensome mandates on State and local governments. Because H.R. 5 did not address retroactively the impact of mandates that are currently in effect and does not apply to reauthorizations to strike any mandates in the Clean Water Act. H.R. 961 gives us that opportunity. Among other things, H.R. 961 gets at the mandate problem by authorizing increased funding for several important clean water programs. For example, grants for State revolving funds would be authorized at $2.5 billion annually for the next 5 years, compared with the current appropriation of $1.2 billion. This is a significant clean water financial burden that is lifted from the shoulders of States. H.R. 961 also includes two provisions that I supported in the Contract With America--cost-benefit analysis and takings. H.R. 961 inserts greater consideration of cost into the Clean Water Act. Current law does not expressly include analysis of cost effectiveness of water quality standards. In the past decade, the cost to our citizens of complying with environmental regulations has risen dramatically. It is estimated that each household spends $1,500 per year on environmental protection. Approximately one-third of these costs are attributable to the Clean Water Act. Although many regulations perform a valuable function, the cost of some regulations simply outweighs the benefits. With resources of this magnitude being obligated to protect our Nation's water quality, it is extremely important that policymakers have information that is based on sound scientific analyses of potential risks to public health and the environment. In addition, the costs of proposed Clean Water Act regulations must be weighed against their benefits before they are promulgated. Through cost-benefit and risk analysis, H.R. 961 helps to eliminate problematic regulations and focus our limited resources on the most-pressing environmental problems. I also support the concept of takings which is part of H.R. 961. The current wetlands program has resulted in serious infringements on private property rights. It is estimated that 75 percent of wetlands in the United States are located on private property. H.R. 961 requires the Government to compensate individuals for an amount equivalent to the diminution in value if a Federal agency diminishes the fair market value of property by 20 percent or more. Twenty percent may be too low, but the concept is sound. If the diminution is more than 50 percent, the Federal Government is required to buy the affected portion of the property. I have only touched on some of the highlights of H.R. 961. Although H.R. 961 is not a perfect bill, I believe it will lead to improved water policy in the United States in a responsible and efficient and more flexible manner, and will help maintain the high quality of our Nation's water as we move into the next century.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, after hearing the debate this afternoon, I think it is important that we back up a little bit and highlight the fundamental purpose of this tax relief bill. We are trying to strengthen the American family and yes, we are trying to encourage economic growth. That is what we are going to do with this legislation if we are able to enact it. As the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] told us moments ago, this new Congress refuses to be stuck in the old thinking, refuses to cling to the tax-and-spend policies of the past. Instead, it is simple. We believe in helping families and we believe in growing the economy through economic growth, not in growing big government. History is a good guide here. In 1948, the average American family of 4 paid just 3 percent of their income to the Federal Government. My 1992 that Federal tax bill had increased to about 25 percent of family earnings. In 1993 Congress added to that by passing the largest tax increase in American history. Common sense tells us that Congress has gone in the wrong direction. I would hope we would all agree on both sides of the aisle that it is fundamentally important for us to have economic growth, increase jobs and increase our global competitiveness. That is what this bill is all about. By eliminating the marriage penalty, by providing tax credits, by expanding IRA's, it encourages savings, savings we desperately need in this country and it encourages economic growth. Because it lowers the capital gains tax, relieves corporations from the obsolete burden of the alternative minimum tax, and permits small businesses to take tax deductions for needed investment, it will create jobs. These and other changes will all enhance U.S. competitiveness, which we have to have in order to survive in the global economy of the 21st century. For those who argue that cutting taxes is incompatible with our goal of balancing the budget, let me be emphatic: This bill is paid for, more than paid for, with spending cuts. I could not do it without this commitment. As the gentleman from Ohio, John Kasich, said earlier today, this is actually the first step toward a balanced budget. This is the down payment.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I just say that listening to the debate this afternoon, some of my colleagues may be confused. This debate actually is not about soaking billionaires, soaking rich people. This is an issue that has been out there for a long time. Certainly when both parties, when both Houses of Congress and the administration were with the other party they could have solved this problem. We are willing to solve the problem. We do not think this is the right time or place to do it. It has not been subject to any hearings. It was not even part of the House legislation. It was not even on the floor of this House, something that ended up in conference on the Senate side. However, that is not the issue here today. The issue here is providing access to health care for the self-employed. It is something I would think that all of us could get together on. I am certainly pleased to tell my constituents who happen to be self-employed that we are doing two things here that they have been asking for. One is fairness and the second is predictability in tax policy, both very important. How in the world can you run a business when you cannot plan for the future? Is it fair to have an automatic unfair disadvantage between the self-employed and corporations? Those are the two things we are trying to get at here. This bill ensures fairness for those who have taken the risk and pursued the American dream by working for themselves. It helps them to provide jobs for others. I am talking about farmers, small business people, shopkeepers, plumbers, and so on. These people are self-employed if corporations can deduct their full health care costs, it is only fair the self-employed should be able to do so as well. Second, this bill is about predictability by permanently reinstating the deduction, so that small businesses can plan. They are no longer left guessing about whether or not they can deduct their health care insurance. That is a very important part of this. At a time when we are trying to make sure as many people as possible can get on the health care rolls, it really makes sense for us to take out this current disincentive for the 3.2 million people in America who are self- employed. Rather than proposing a government takeover of health care, we are doing what makes sense, we are trying to give the American people what they want, the ability to help themselves. In Ohio alone, Mr. Speaker, this bill will make health care more affordable for more than 50,000 farm families, not to mention the self- employed plumber, the mom and pop grocery store owners, and others. I am particularly pleased to see we are doing it before April 15, so people can get this on their tax returns this year. Connecticut, Mrs. Kennelly and Mrs. Johnson, and others to expand beyond 30 percent, so it is even closer to major corporations.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. I just have one small point to make. I think a lot of us on this side want to get at this same issue the gentleman from Florida has been discussing, and many of us agree this is a problem that should be addressed in the tax law. We are not sure this is the right place to do it or the right time to do it or this is the right proposal to do it. One of the things I have been hearing from some of my colleagues is what we would do in this legislation is similar to what other countries do, Australia, Canada, and so on. I have looked into it a bit as has the staff, both of the Committee on Ways and Means and the Joint Tax Committee. That is simply not true, What we do here is something different than is done in those other countries. There are specific differences. Other countries do impose some kind of an exit tax. They are Australia and Canada. But they are different than ours. As an example, they would allow a step-up in basis, so if you were to go, for example, from Hong Kong to Canada and then emigrate from Canada somewhere else, you would get the step-up in basis, so the gain would only be during the time in which you are a resident or a citizen of Canada. That is a big difference from our proposal that we have before us which would not allow that step-up in basis. Second, those two countries allow a deferral, so you can allow a deferral in the payment of the gain until the asset is actually sold. Again, that is a big difference. I just think as we go through the debate, we ought to look at all the proposals before us, but make it very clear what we are talking about doing here in this motion to instruct is to accept language that is very different from that imposed by other developed countries on their citizens. Perhaps the gentleman from California [Mr. Matsui] or others will discuss this issue later. I think it is important for us not to say we are going to be doing something that other countries do.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, we are in the midst of a historic effort to change Government as we know it. Not since the New Deal has Congress had such an active legislative agenda to address the most pressing problems of our day. But our philosophy of governing is very different from the New Deal and different from the President's approach: consistent with the Founders of this great country, our goal is to give government back to the people. In addressing the role of the Federal Government, Thomas Jefferson once said, ``I believe that the states can best govern our home concerns.'' We share Jefferson's fundamental faith in the ability of people to organize in their neighborhoods, towns, cities, counties, and States all across our Nation to identify and resolve our toughest problems. As a result, we have already begun to shrink the Federal Government and return power to communities, to the people back home where it does the most good. Our new ideas to reduce the size and scope of government and give States and communities the freedom to fashion solutions that work are embodied in our proposal to fix our failing welfare system. The current system is broken, big Government programs are lifeless and impersonal and it has become clear that large bureaucracies based in Washington do little to uplift the poor. It is a bad system that is cruel to children, and cruel to families. Republicans recognize that Washington does not have all the answers and are willing to give States real flexibility and resources to try what they find works. We know today's welfare system is full of perverse incentives that destroy families, denigrate the work ethic and trap people in a cruel cycle of government dependency. We're committed to replacing that failed system of despair with reforms based on the dignity of work and the strength of families, and yes, parental responsibility. By not accepting the status quo in Washington, we are moving solutions closer to home where we offer real hope for the future. returns power and flexibility to States, cutting out a whole level of Federal bureaucracy and giving the States the ability to respond in innovative ways to real needs. By reducing the role of the large and costly bureaucracy, and by slashing redtape, we will free up more resources to try new local programs that will help change people's lives. The defenders of the status quo have had every opportunity to fix the failed welfare system. But they chose not to do so. Now, they continue to fight change--using irresponsible scare tactics to blur the debate and confuse the American people about our plan. It's simple. Our plan does three things: it makes people work; it stresses personal and parental responsibility and creates incentives for families to remain intact; and it cuts the endless, unnecessary Federal regulations and bureaucracy typical of the current system.