Rob Portman

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Mink substitute. I believe it is an expansion of our current system rather than real reform. Mr. Chairman the fundamental difference with the substitute, of course, is that it retains the entitlement status of the AFDC. But it goes beyond that, it increases the administrative burdens and imposes costly new unfunded Federal mandates on the States. It is mostly deficient for what it does not do. It does not give the States the flexibility to respond to the crisis we have before us. Mr. Chairman, during our Committee on Ways and Means hearings on welfare reform we repeatedly heard from Governors and others closer to the delivery of public assistance that in order to affect real welfare reform, we need to stop the one-size-fits-all Federal approach and let States design welfare programs that are designed to meet the real needs of the population. Such an approach removes a whole layer of expensive Federal bureaucracy that will free up more resources, more resources, Mr. Chairman, to try innovative, new approaches at the local level to truly change people's lives. This substitute before us does not do that. It keeps the same expensive Washington welfare bureaucracy in place, and, in fact, increases costs and Federal requirements. It requires States, as an example, to provide a public sector or subsidized private sector job paying minimum wage for at least 2 years for each recipient. It raises the jobs program participation requirements 5 percent annually, and it guarantees former AFDC families child care indefinitely, until their income reaches 200 percent of poverty. It is the status quo, as the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink] has said, but it is more than that. It is more of the same. Again, I believe this substitute traps us in the failed welfare system of the past, so what we need to do is we need to end the perverse incentives of the past. We need to make people work, we need to encourage families to stay together, we need to slash the costly and ineffective Federal welfare bureaucracy. Thomas Jefferson once said, ``I believe that the States can best govern our home concerns.'' I think he was right. Many of today's thinkers echo those words, sociologist James Q. Wilson among others. Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, we have to oppose this substitute because it just increases the bureaucracy and the failed welfare system. We need to look ahead. We need to support the committee bill which gives our State partners the flexibility they need.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, because of my attendance at the White House for a ceremony commemorating the signing by President Clinton of S. 1, the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995, of which I was a House sponsor, I was unable to be in attendance in the House for two recorded votes, rollcall vote No. 253 on permitting the committee to sit, and rollcall vote No. 254 on approval of the Journal. Had I been in attendance, I would have voted ``yea'' on both rollcall votes No. 253 and No. 254.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], the chairman of the full committee, for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, in a few minutes this Chamber is going to pass the Unfunded Mandates Relief Act of 1995, landmark legislation that is part of the Contract With America. After a long and sometimes difficult process, it is good to see history being made. With Senate passage of the legislation yesterday by a strong vote of 91 to 9, and with every indication from the White House that the President will sign this bill, I think within a few days we are likely to see a bill become law that not too long ago was a radically new concept, unfunded mandate reform. The bill is historic because it redefines the relationship between the Federal Government and our State and local partners. It is historic because it ensures for the first time that Congress will have cost information on mandates as they go through the committee process; a guaranteed informed debate on the floor of the House on unfunded mandates, which we have never had before, and yes, accountability, a vote, up or down, in front of the public, the press, our local partners, on the issue as to whether to impose unfunded Federal mandates. As the chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], noted earlier in this debate, Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to report that the conference report on S. 1 has given us an even stronger bill than passed either the House or the Senate. I am going to submit much more extensive comments in the Record on some of the key issues we worked out in conference, but I want to spend a minute expanding on Chairman Clinger's good description of the judicial review provision, because I think it is critical to understanding why this is strong, meaningful legislation. To address the concerns that many of us had, we wanted to ensure that Federal agencies complied with the key requirements of title II of the bill, especially the cost-benefit analysis. We insisted that agency action be subject to judicial review. The sad history of compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act made that absolutely essential. The conference report provides that courts may compel agencies to perform cost-benefit analyses and to comply with other provisions of title II. It is simple. This review ensures that the agencies meet the requirements that Congress says are necessary in the context of rulemaking regarding mandates. At the same time, we reflected the case law that once an agency acts, the courts are not to substitute the court's judgment for the judgment of the agencies, not to second guess the adequacy We also addressed the concern that judicial review would become a haven for lawyers and paralyze the regulatory process altogether, by making it very clear that the requirements of title II alone could not be used as a basis for staying, enjoining, or invalidating a rule. Let me emphasize, however, that if the underlying statute, and all of the requirements of S. 1 would arise in the context of the underlying statute, does not preclude the type of analysis contemplated in S. 1, a court may review the analysis, the statements, the estimates and the descriptions required by S. 1 as part of the whole rulemaking record to determine whether that rule should be stayed or should be struck down as arbitrary and capricious. This is crucial. As many will recall, judicial review was in our House-passed bill and was not in the Senate-passed bill. Thus, retaining judicial review was a victory for the House. However, much more important, it is a victory for our State and local partners and for all of our constituents and, yes, for the private sector. Let me sum up, Mr. Speaker, by mentioning just a few of the many people who have contributed to this effort. I will tell the Members, having been intimately involved with this bill for the last year or so as it has moved through the process, this is one of those situations where, but for the efforts of any one of these individuals, we might not be here today. It took all of us, working together, pulling together, to get it done. It is hard to get things done in Washington, and we could not have done it without pulling, all of us pulling together. First, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Bill Clinger, said, we have to thank our Speaker. He allowed us to put this language in the Contract With America. He prioritized the issue. He also worked very closely with State and local officials through this whole process. Second, I want to mention one of my colleagues in this effort, the gentleman from California, Gary Condit, the man I call our spiritual leader, the heart and soul of this effort. He was the sponsor of H.R. 5 and one of the conferees selected by the Republicans, and we were happy to have him as part of the team. He was out there talking about this issue, unfunded Federal mandates, long before it was well understood and popular in the House and throughout this country. Next, the person I call our Senate partner, Dirk Kempthorne. He was the original proponent of this legislation. He was the driving force in the Senate, and he worked cooperatively with us in an extraordinary show of bicameralism over the last 8 or 9 months to pull together this legislation. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Bill Clinger, the chairman, for his partnership with all of us in this great debate, particularly for giving me an incredible opportunity here on the floor. I would also like to thank Senator John Glenn, my colleague from Ohio, who showed a commitment to this issue early on in the Senate when few of his colleagues on this side of the aisle were supporting it; the gentleman from California, David Dreier, for his excellent work in sorting out the difficult House procedural issues that came up in the context of the conference, particularly with the Byrd amendment; the gentleman from Virginia, Tom Davis, a freshman member of the conference and an original sponsor of this legislation, who not 4 or 5 months ago was lobbying us on behalf of the National Association of Counties, because he lived under these crippling mandates not long ago. There are lots of other critical players in the House: The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran]; the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling]; the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts]; the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Geren]; the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon]; the gentleman from New York [Mr. Towns]; the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], and the list goes on. From my home State of Ohio, Gov. George Voinovich, he led the Governors on this, and helped us to get focused on mandate relief legislation. I am going to mention some key staffers. They do a lot of heavy lifting around here, and do not get enough credit; Kristine Simmons with the chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Clinger; Steve Jones with the gentleman from California, Gary Condit; Vince Randazzo, with the gentleman from California, David Dreier, and my chief of staff, John Bridgeland. On the Senate side, there is Buzz Fawcett with Senator Kempthorne, Sebastian O'Kelly with Senator Glenn, and Austin Smythe with Senator Domenici. We would not be here without them. Finally, thanks to our State, local, and county officials. Without them, we would not be here. It is on their behalf we are acting today to help them to govern this great country.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, today this House will pass the conference report on S. 1, the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995. We addressed some complicated and important issues in the House-Senate conference. I, therefore, wanted to take a moment to discuss in some detail two of the more significant issues. First, judicial review. The House-passed version of the bill had almost full judicial review of agency compliance with all title II requirements. The Senate-passed version precluded judicial review entirely. Going into the conference, then, we had diametrically opposed positions on this issue and much work to do if an agreement was going to be reached. Many of the House conferees, and some in the Senate, were very concerned that agencies would not comply with the requirements of title II if there was no enforcement mechanism. The history of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, which specifically precluded court review of agency action, in part prompted our concern that, without judicial review, factors that Congress made relevant to the rulemaking process would be totally ignored by agencies. And, in fact, that is what has happened under regulatory flexibility. To address this concern, I insisted, together with other House conferees, that the conference agreement had to maintain some court review of agency action to ensure compliance with the requirements of title II. We began to explore areas of mutual agreement on judicial review. House and Senate conferees agreed that title I, which addresses internal procedures of the House and Senate, should clearly not be subject to court review. We also agreed that the provisions regarding the review of existing mandates outlined in title III should not be subject to court review. We also came to a threshold agreement that certain key requirements in title II should be subject to such review to ensure that agencies were acting in accordance with congressional intent. Our first effort to reach agreement focused on clarifying the requirements of title II and identifying those that involved relatively objective analysis. We also identified those provisions that were central to the rulemaking process with respect to mandates. In the end, we reached agreement that the requirements of sections 202 and 203(a) (1) and (2) would be subject to court review. S. 1 permits a court, pursuant to section 706(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act, to compel an agency to prepare, as a threshold matter, the cost/benefit analyses and other estimates, descriptions, statements, and plans contemplated by sections 202 and 203(a) (1) and (2) of title II. Any aggrieved party will have up to 180 days after the final rule is promulgated, or the shorter time period, if any, specified in the underlying statute to which the S. 1 requirements relate, to bring an action under 706(1). I believe that this right will give agencies an incentive to meet these requirements before the final rule is promulgated. The threat of litigation should be enough of a hammer. In order to address the concern that S. 1 not unreasonably spawn litigation or result in an unjustified delay of the implementation of Federal policy, S. 1 does not permit the courts to stay, enjoin or invalidate the agency's rule for a failure to meet, or for doing an inadequate job meeting, the specified requirements of S. 1. The conference report also makes it clear, consistent with current caselaw, that once the agency performs the analysis, a court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the agency's--not to second manner in which the analysis was performed. S. 1 does not permit a court, when acting pursuant to the review permitted under the underlying statute, to consider any information generated by an agency in accordance with the requirements of S. 1--the cost/benefit analysis for example--as part of the entire record in determining whether the agency rulemaking record supports the rule under the ``arbitrary and capricious'' or ``substantial evidence'' standard--whichever is applicable. A court can not use a failure to meet these requirements adequately or at all as the sole basis for staying, enjoining or invalidating the rule, but a court could consider these factors as part of the mix when considering the entire rulemaking record. Thus, a court could review under section 706(2) of the Administrative Procedures Act the entire rulemaking record that includes information by the agency generated because of the requirements of S. 1. If the underlying statute specifically precludes an agency from examining costs and benefits in connection with the promulgation of the rule, then the requirements of S. 1 do not have to be met. If the underlying statute is silent or contemplates some analysis, however, an agency would have to meet the requirements of S. 1, or fail to do so at its own hazard, when promulgating a rule. The requirements of S. 1 are additional factors that Congress has made relevant to the rulemaking process for significant mandates. These factors should be considered by agencies and the analysis contemplated should be performed. A court can review agency action with respect to these requirements in connection with the review permitted under the underlying statute. I believe this is sensible judicial review that strikes the right balance. S. 1 does not change the landscape of review under the underlying statute--we can not do that in this law. S. 1 also should not result in a delay of the implementation of Federal policy. The judicial review provided under S. 1 ensures, however, that agencies will meet the specified requirements of title II so that agencies consider these critical factors before promulgating rules implementing significant mandates. It is also important to note that in addition to judicial review, the conference agreement includes congressional oversight, both on the least burdensome option requirements and each of the requirements in title II. Under section 205(c), the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall no later than 1 year after enactment certify to Congress, with a written explanation, Agency compliance with the least burdensome option requirements. Section 208 also provides that the Director of OMB shall annually submit to Congress a written report detailing compliance with the requirements of title II. Second, the Byrd amendment. I believe this provision will be helpful to State and local governments. Essentially, it requires an agency reestimate of the actual costs of mandates, after consultations with State and local governments, whenever appropriations in a fiscal year are less than the CBO estimated costs of such mandates. Agencies can submit a statement to Congress saying that such mandate can be implemented for the amount provided--perhaps as a result of decreased costs resulting from new technology--or can submit legislative recommendations. In any case, the mandate is ineffective for such fiscal year unless Congress acts within 60 calendar days after the statement or recommendations are submitted to Congress. What was sometimes a long and difficult conference has come to an end now. The Founders intentionally designed one of the most inefficient machines for legislating and for good reason. Having taken the time to craft careful legislation based on sound policy, I think the final product is an improvement over the respective House and Senate-passed bills. This is a truly historic day. By enacting the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995, we launch yet another chapter in the new federalism, where State and counties and cities and towns are recognized as our partners in governing and are given the freedom to meet the needs of the citizens they serve. Thomas Jefferson, a staunch advocate of State rights, was right when he said, ``I believe the States can best govern our home concerns.'' This bill will help them do just that. I was honored to be a part of that effort.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time at this point.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, America is in the midst of a litigation explosion. Not long ago a woman in New York was using a knife to separate a package of frozen hors d'oeuvres she bought in the supermarket. The knife slipped and she cut her hand. She got a lawyer and sued. She sued the supermarket; she sued the manufacturer; and she sued the packager. We are a litigious society--and we're all paying for it. In 1991, nearly 19 million new civil suits were filed in our Nation's courts. These lawsuits exact a huge price--a price that is ultimately paid not by big business but by America's consumers. In fact, recent estimates put the price tag at $300 billion annually. That's $1,200 for every man, woman and child in America. Civil litigation attorneys present themselves as champions of the underdog, yet its estimated that only one-third of each dollar awarded in liability cases gets into the hands of the injured party. The great bulk of jury awards goes instead to pay court costs and the lawyers themselves. The cost to consumers is high. As much as $500 may be added to the cost of your new car because of litigation costs passed on by the manufacturer. Nearly $3,000 of the cost of an $18,000 pacemaker goes to the tort tax. As much as $500 of the cost of a 3-day maternity stay is due to liability costs. And it's not just the costs to America's consumers: This litigious feeding frenzy is costing the United States in terms of competitiveness. In a global economy, U.S. businesses have to be able to provide better value for the dollar than their competitors in, say, Japan and Europe. But it's not a level playing field when our products carry a legal surcharge. The Japanese have 30 times fewer lawsuits than we do. We have 70,000 product liability lawsuits in the United States every year. In Great Britain, they have 200. The greatest loss, however, may not be a question of economics. It can't be measured in dollars and cents. It comes from the products--often medically necessary, life-saving products--that are kept off the market because of the high costs imposed by a civil litigation system run amok. I believe it's time to stop the litigation explosion. The House took the first step today with the passage of the Contract With America's Common Sense Legal Reform Act. It makes a number of common sense changes, including limiting punitive damage awards to a reasonable relationship to the actual or compensatory damages incurred; punitive damages would be either three times the actual damages or $250,000, whichever is greater. It would help to limit the huge profits tort lawyers now rake in. This will make a plaintiff's lawyer and a potential litigant think carefully before filing a suit. To discourage frivolous lawsuits, it would provide--as almost all other industrialized nations do--that the loser in civil cases pays costs. This will make a potential litigant think carefully before filing a suit. Right now, plaintiffs may sue on unsubstantiated grounds, because they have nothing to lose even if the jury throws the case out of court. The accused, however, may be saddled with tens of thousands in court costs, despite complete and utter innocence. I believe common sense and fairness have prevailed by Congress' passage of these legal system reforms.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, because of a scheduling conflict, I was unable to arrive in time for the vote on the Goodlatte amendment. Had I been in attendance, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 200. personal explanation

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers] for yielding time to me. I also thank the chairman of the committee for all her good work on this legislation, and particularly on the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 926, the underlying legislation, especially title I, because I think it significantly improves the Regulatory Flexibility Act. At town meetings and letters, meetings in the district, telephone calls, and so on, and during my work last year with the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers] in the Committee on Small Business, I have heard again and again from small business constituents about them being overburdened with Federal paperwork, regulations, and compliance procedures. The Reg Flex Act was enacted in 1980 to get at this problem, but there is ample evidence that it has not worked. The bill before us today makes necessary changes in the act, so it will work as intended. Let me be specific. I think none of these changes is more important than judicial review. Currently there is a blanket prohibition, as I think has been discussed previously on the floor, for any kind of judicial review of agency compliance with the requirements of the law. This is an exception, it is a very rare exception, that is made in this legislation. As a result, frankly, agencies are not forced to follow the procedures in the act. Compliance has become essentially voluntary. As a result, during this 15-year period that the act has been in effect, its requirements have all too often been ignored. H.R. 926 corrects this serious flaw by allowing judicial review. It gives teeth to the legislation. The result of noncompliance with the Reg Flex Act has cost our small businesses in my State and yours billions of dollars over the last 15 years. At the same time, let me make it very clear that by adding judicial review, it will not be the lawyers' haven that many on this floor will say. I have looked at the case law, and it clearly shows that courts are deferential to agencies. The courts do not, the courts do not get behind the agency analysis. Once the analysis has been done as required, the courts do not go behind that analysis to determine whether it is correct or not. Mr. Chairman, furthermore, judicial review is unlikely to slow down the regulating process, since judicial stays and injunctions are very rare. Judicial review will not stop all regulations, will not tie up the system. What it will do is it will send agencies a very strong signal, that they are, yes, to meet the reasonable requirements that Congress has said are relevant in the rulemaking process. I urge my colleagues to support 926.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, one of the goals of the Contract With America is to generate economic growth and encourage job creation. Relieving the regulatory burden on individuals and businesses is essential to achieving this objective. Today, the House of Representatives took a step in this direction by requiring Federal bureaucrats to assess the cost of their actions. Washington bureaucrats are costing us $430 billion a year with regulations that often do more harm than good. They are coming up with $50 solutions for $5 problems. It's time for common sense in Washington. Last year 69,000 pages of Federal rules and regulations were published. The process of regulating has become an industry in lawyers, lobbyists, and special interests. These rules and regulations--9 feet of regulations, if laid end-to- end--inpact every aspect of Americans' lives. The rules are often contradictory, and frequently conflict with State, county and local rules. Specifically, H.R. 1022 would ensure that risk assessments are objective, unbiased, and subject to peer review. The cost these rules account, alternatives to complicated rules that might be more cost- effective must be considered, and a sound reason for the regulation in the first place must be demonstrated. This legislation would simply require that the Federal bureaucracy assess the costs of their actions on the rest of us. We are living in an era of declining revenues, and we must make choices and set priorities. And our Government--bureaucrats as well as elected officials--must be accountable. The problem is that we now tend to direct our resources to relatively low-risk concerns while other, more serious concerns receive little attention. Since there's no standarized method of risk-assessment to be used throughout the Government, policymakers are unable to prioritize regulatory strategies in a common-sense manner. This bill allows us to concentrate scarce dollars where they will do the most good, and analyze alternatives to achieve the goal of public safety at the lowest possible cost.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, this week, the House of Representatives completed action on two important items which are a part of the Contract With America's Wage Enhancement and Job Creation Act, intended to relieve individuals and businesses of the burden of onerous Federal regulations, paperwork, and red tape. On Wednesday, the House passed H.R. 830, legislation to strengthen the Paperwork Reduction Act, which would reduce the volume of reports, forms, applications, and other paperwork required by the Federal Government. The House also passed the Regulatory Transition Act which prohibits Federal agencies from imposing any new rules until December 31, 1995, or the date Congress enacts reforms requiring cost/benefit analysis and scientific risk assessment as part of the process. American taxpayers, small business owners, ranchers, farmers, property owners, and local governments have waited too long for Congress to take common sense action to lift the burden of excessive and costly Government regulation and paperwork. That's why the Contract With America includes provisions which promote economic growth by forcing us to halt ill-conceived regulations and make Government bureaucrats accountable for the burdens they impose on American taxpayers and workers. Business owners spend millions of hours a year filling out Government forms at an annual cost of $100 billion. And it is not only businesses who are overwhelmed with paperwork, it is estimated that the American people spent more than 6.5 billion hours filling out forms and compiling records for the Federal Government in 1994. Why is this a problem? Because regulations, red tape, and excessive paperwork are essentially hidden taxes. Employers waste time and money complying with these burdens and cannot hire new employees or invest in machinery and equipment to make workers more productive. Onerous regulations and paperwork create jobs for lawyers but destroy jobs for business--especially small businesses that generate a vast majority of the new jobs in our economy. That is why it is imperative that we take action to stop this counter-productive trend now. The regulatory moratorium is necessary while we sort out what regulatory reforms are appropriate. It does, of course, exempt rules that are necessary to prevent an imminent threat to health or safety or to enforce criminal laws. I supported H.R. 830 and H.R. 450 because I believe these measures demonstrate a continuing commitment to the American people that Congress is finally willing to turn back the tide of paperwork and regulatory red tape burdening the American people.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. As a former member of the small business committee who worked hard to get to this point last year, I can just say it is my great privilege to stand here tonight in support of the bill of the gentleman from Texas, Chairman Archer. I am very pleased that we are here. In talking to people in my district, the two things I hear about the most is the need for fairness and consistency in our tax laws. I think this bill goes a long way to ensure both. It is fair because here finally we are helping those people who have taken the risk, pursued the American dream and been out working for themselves and in turn have provided jobs for others. These are the hairdressers, barbers, farmers, small business owners, shopkeepers, the self-employed. If corporations can duck their health care insurance costs, it is only fair that these people can as well, so this bill is about fairness. It is also about certainty and consistency, certainty because it permanently reinstates the deductibility, which is extremely important, as the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson has noted previously. At a time when we are trying to figure out how to get as many people as possible covered by health insurance, this is exactly the sort of thing we should be doing. This gives an incentive to the 3.2 million people out there who are self-employed who would like to get into health care insurance. It gives them an incentive to do so, and takes away the current disincentive. Rather than just proposing a Government takeover of health care, we are actually trying to give the American people what I think they want, which is the ability to help themselves. In Ohio alone this bill will make health insurance more affordable to more than 50,000 farm families, not to mention, again, the self- employed plumbers, mechanics, mom and pop grocery store owners, and so on. The bottom line is that by beginning to level the playing field between individuals and businesses, we will allow many of the self- employed to purchase health insurance who would not do so otherwise. This is not just theory. I have had plenty of farmers come up to me in my district and say it is worth taking the risk of not going with coverage because their families are relatively healthy, without the deduction. With the deduction, doing their own cost-benefit analysis, which they do, they would in fact buy health insurance. Therefore, it is going to help, and it is exactly what we should be encouraging in health care. I am particularly pleased to see we are moving quickly to put this before the 1994 returns. Again, I congratulate the gentleman for bringing this bill to the floor.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, over the last several years, the world has changed dramatically, and with it, the role of the United States, as well as the activities required of the U.S. military to carry out that role. Since the breakup of the Soviet Union and the end of the cold war, United States defense policy has shifted its primary, concentrated focus to a widely dispersed number of potential threats. At the same time, peacekeeping operations have greatly increased. Since 1988, the United States has entered into 21 new peacekeeping missions compared to only 13 missions in the previous 40 years. In light of these dramatic changes, it is necessary to redefine U.S. defense and foreign policy. In my view, H.R. 7 takes a sound and balanced approach to clarifying the new U.S. position in the world. It calls for a commission to evaluate U.S. defense needs and assess force structure, readiness, strategic vision, modernization, and personnel policies, requires the President to identify our national security interests before deploying United States troops, wisely restricts the ability of the Commander in Chief to place troops under foreign control or command, promotes the expansion of NATO to include fledgling democracies in Central and Eastern Europe, and encourages the deployment of a workable national missile defense system. I would like to draw attention to the provision that prohibits U.S. troops from being under U.N. or foreign command. The measure is vital to our goal of maintaining the integrity of our military force. As Speaker Gingrich noted: ``We invest a lot of money in the best command and control, the best communications and the best training in the world * * *. When you take a unit from that level of speed and effectiveness and you reduce it by putting them under the command of somebody who has never practiced the tempo and complexity of American operations, you are raising the risk of young Americans getting killed * * *.'' The missile defense provisions in the bill have precipitated a significant amount of debate, and, I'm afraid, a fair amount of misunderstanding. The original language in the bill states that ``it shall be U.S. policy to deploy at the earliest practical date an anti- ballistic missile system'' to ensure the security of the United States. Last night, the House properly rejected an amendment offered by Representative Edwards that would have prohibited the Department of Defense from deploying a missile defense system that included space- based interceptors. It is bad policy for Congress to tie the hands of DOD before giving the agency the time to make recommendations to Congress on how best to protect the American people. By rejecting this amendment, Congress has allowed for the opportunity for an analysis of the effectiveness and costs of both ground- and space-based systems before mandating which one should be deployed. I opposed another amendment, offered by Representative Spratt, for largely the same reasons. The amendment requires that operational readiness and modernization of existing forces take fiscal priority over developing and deploying an effective theater missile defense. Modernization of defenses is absolutely necessary to maintain a reasonable level of readiness in the face of ever-improving offensive systems in regions of potential conflict, such as North Korea and Iraq. The Spratt amendment will tie the hands of our military in ensuring such readiness. Unfortunately, the Spratt amendment passed by a narrow margin of 218-212. I should note that two important amendments were passed en bloc Wednesday night that I believe removed a flaw in an otherwise sound approach to national security. These amendments removed from H.R. 7 language that prohibits the use of defense funds to pay the cost of participating in the U.N. peacekeeping missions unless such action is specifically authorized by Congress. I believe this provision imposes unfair and counterproductive restrictions on the President as Commander in Chief, violating his constitutionally granted powers. In certain situations, I believe it has been in our interests to move from unilateral occupation to a U.N. operation. For example, at the end of this month it is my understanding that in Haiti the United States command will become a U.N. peacekeeping operation. We do not want to continue to occupy Haiti. The shift to the United Nation is in our national interest and gives us a way out. The Bereuter amendments remove language in the original bill that would have given the administration an incentive to maintain the unilateral U.S. mission instead of moving to a more sensible, cooperative effort with the United Nation. I am pleased that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle were able to come to agreement on this issue and eliminate this inadvertent but realistic effect of this bill. In the end, I believe H.R. 7 successfully enhances the national security of the United States in a balanced and appropriate manner. It affirms our commitment to a strong, modern defense force and properly limits our role in United Nations operations. I commend Chairman Spence and Chairman Gilman for their good work on this legislation.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my strong support for the Bereuter amendments which passed tonight. I think these amendments remove a significant flaw in an otherwise sensible and balanced approach to enhance the national security of this country. I commend Chairman Spence and Chairman Gilman for their good work on this legislation. As others have eloquently stated, the Bereuter amendments are needed to ensure we do not cross the line--encroaching on the President's constitutional power as Commander in Chief. Having worked as a lawyer in the White House counsel's office at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, I may have a different perspective on this issue than some of my colleagues. I have serious questions about the War Powers Act, and section 508 of this bill seems to go even further by requiring congressional approval of deployment of U.S. troops without any grace period. As a practical matter, I think this may even create a perverse incentive on the part of the administration not to turn over U.S. operations to the U.N. where such a transfer may well be in our national interest. I give you 2 examples--one recent, one on-going. In Somalia, I believe it was in our interest to move from unilateral United States occupation to a U.N. operation. More immediately, at the end of this month, it is my understanding that in Haiti the United States command will become a U.N. peacekeeping operation. We don't want to continue to occupy Haiti. The shift to the U.N. is in our national interest and gives us a way out. Yet, were section 508 to be enacted into law, I believe any administration would have every incentive not to discontinue the unilateral U.S. mission in favor of U.N. cooperation. Mr. Chairman, I believe this is an inadvertent and very realistic effect of section 508. I commend my colleagues for correcting this problem tonight improving an otherwise good bill by passing the Bereuter amendments.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in reluctant opposition to H.R. 728. There is no question that the epidemic of violent crime in America is one of the most serious concerns of all of our constituents--in inner cities, in suburbs, and in rural regions. Certainly, we must continue to strengthen our criminal justice system and require personal accountability on the part of the criminal. Strong measures must be taken to deter would-be criminals and to punish repeat offenders severely and swiftly. As an example, last week, I supported two bills passed by the House that strengthen the death penalty by limiting habeas corpus appeals and that ensure that evidence obtained in good faith is admissible in court. Congress plays an important and appropriate role in clarifying the application of these rights under the U.S. Constitution. I believe Congress must continue to act aggressively to combat crime wherever appropriate. I feel, however, that H.R. 728, the Local Government Law Enforcement Block Grant Act of 1995, is bad policy in light of the Federal Government's limited role in fighting crime and in light of the very serious debt crisis in our country. I simply cannot justify spending $10 billion that the Federal Government does of State and local governments. It seems clear to me that a more appropriate approach would be to free up more State and local dollars to allow them to fight crime. That is why I have taken the lead on relieving States and localities of the burden of unfunded Federal mandates, that currently cost State and local governments tens of billions of dollars a year. That money could otherwise be used for essential services, including more community policing. Asking taxpayers to send their dollars to Washington to be redistributed to local law enforcement agencies, through a political process and after administrative costs are incurred, makes little sense. Local communities should raise local dollars to meet what has always been viewed as a local responsibility. Furthermore, the pressures on the Federal budget today are greater than ever before. With the commitment shown by passing a balanced budget amendment, Congress should be scrutinizing existing Federal programs to cut spending, not increase it as H.R. 728 does. If H.R. 728 passes, I assure my colleagues that I and others concerned about our crippling national debt will scrutinize the appropriations bills for this and all other legislation in order to make the cuts necessary to limit annual budget deficits so we can start to reduce the national debt. For these reasons and because of my opposition to imposing Federal mandates on State and local governments, I also opposed H.R. 667, the Violent Criminal Incarceration Act. Each local community has unique crime problems. Last week, Congress exercised its appropriate role by passing legislation clearly within its purview. I fear that efforts by the Federal Government, like H.R. 728, to assert control in areas that, under our Constitution, are clearly left to State and local law enforcement officials, will result in politicizing the crime issue, too much Federal control and an unjustified increase in our budget deficit. If this occurs, our constituents, our communities, our families, will be the ones who pay the price.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, every year nearly 5 million people are victims of violent crime. Despite this, only 65 percent of all reported murders, 52 percent of reported rape, and 56 percent of reported aggravated assault result in the arrest of a suspect. Every year, 60,000 criminals convicted in a violent crime never go to prison. Given these facts, it is easy to understand why crime, especially among young offenders, is increasing. Without an effective criminal justice system, there is no meaningful deterrent to crime. This is especially the case when you look at death penalty procedures. The death penalty should be the most extreme deterrent against crime. In many countries around the world it has this effect. In the United States, however, it has become so mired in convoluted proceedings, that it has lost its significance as a credible punishment and deterrent to crime. Death row prisoners routinely take advantage of an endless appeals process to delay punishment indefinitely. Since 1991, Federal habeas corpus cases have more than doubled. Thousands of frivolous petitions clog the Federal court system, making it virtually impossible to complete the process and deliver punishment. It is not uncommon for proceedings to take up to 14 years, or more; 14 years from the time a person is sentenced for committing a violent crime until the time he receives his punishment--hardly a credible deterrent. In 1994, district courts fully dismissed only 2 capital habeas corpus petitions, out of the hundreds that were filed to delay the process further. This undermines our whole system of justice. Today we have the opportunity to remedy this serious problem within our criminal justice system. The Effective Death Penalty Act will streamline the habeas corpus process and reform death penalty procedures, reaffirming the commitment of Congress to ensure swift and effective punishments for perpetrators of the most egregious crimes. I urge my colleagues to support meaningful reform to the habeas corpus process and give the American people a reason to put their faith back into our criminal justice system.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, with the passage of the unfunded mandate reform bill and the balanced budget amendment, we are actually starting to change the way Washington works. We are laying the groundwork for a new era of accountability. The next important step is the line-item veto. For too long Congress has sent the White House jampacked, all- encompassing spending bills. This has meant the President has had to choose between signing unnecessary spending into law or shutting down the Government. Every year questionable projects and tax benefits are included and buried in spending and tax bills. Let me give you a few examples. We have all heard them: $500,000 to build the Lawrence Welk museum in North Dakota. Hundreds of millions to stockpile helium for the military, when we already have enough helium in storage to meet the entire world's needs for helium for the next 10 years; $11.5 million for power plant modernization at the soon-to-be-closed Philadelphia Naval Shipyard; and $25 million for an Arctic region supercomputer at the University of Alaska to study how to trap energy from the aurora borealis. The line-item veto is needed because it would allow the President flexibility to weed out and strike other wasteful spending items in an otherwise good bill.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Twenty-nine million dollars is what the Governor is saying annually.

Mr. PORTMAN. It requires a cost analysis so we will know what we are voting on. Then on the floor of the House, any Member of this House can stand up and raise what is called a point of order, which means it can stop the whole process if a new mandate is not funded. So you know what the cost is, and if some committee sends a bill to this floor that is not funded, in other words, it has a new requirement that is not funded, then any one of us or any other Member can stand up and say, ``Point of order; this legislation needs to stop,'' and it stops right there, and you have a debate on the floor of the House about the unfunded mandate in that legislation. Let us take an example, the motor-voter bill, the first bill that I had the privilege to consider here in the Congress when I walked in my first day. I had to vote up or down on motor voter. I kind of looked at it. Everybody wants to have more voter registration. But I did not think it made sense, because Ohio, as the gentleman from Ohio knows, has a good voter registration program. It is run at the State level, as all programs were until we passed this national bill. I was told by some members of the Governor's office here in Washington this was going to cost the State of Ohio several million dollars a year. Nobody was sure, because there was not a good cost estimate. There was no Federal money to pay for it. I voted against the bill on that basis. Now we are finding out many of these States, including California, are suing the Federal Government for precisely that reason. It is costing them a lot of money for voter registration.

Mr. PORTMAN. No. It does not affect the Clean Air Act. It does not affect the Clean Water Act. Now, if those bills come up for reauthorization or there are new mandates attached to them, absolutely, it applies to that. The whole idea is we have got a critically, critically ill patient on our hands. There is a crisis out there. The first thing we do in an emergency room is stop the hemorrhaging, and that is what we are doing here, we are trying to stop the practice, to get Washington to get serious about this, and for the first time ever today we passed a bill to force Washington to do that. It was a historic day. It was part of our contract. It is us keeping our promise. It involved a lot of hard work. We have got to work with the Senate to come up with a compromise between the House and the Senate version, and we will be able to do that as we work with the Senate on this bill.

Mr. PORTMAN. No. That is not what the bill does. The whole premise of the bill is if something is important enough for us to mandate at the Federal level, to tell the States and localities you have got to do it our way, we ought to be able to step up to the plate and provide funding for it. This bill says there has to be, for the first time ever, first time ever, we have never had this in Congress before, a cost analysis of what the legislation is going to cost. How many times have you come up to the House floor and never had any idea what the cost is to State and local government of something you are going to vote on? Frankly, we have not had that information. That forces us to get that information.

Mr. PORTMAN. The vote was 360 to 74. And I have to be honest, the first few days one wonder whether we were getting back into gridlock because we committed to have an open rule on this. This meant any Member of Congress could come to the floor of this House and file an amendment, and we had 174 of them filed, and then have a debate on that amendment, with no time limitation because everyone can speak for 5 minutes, and that can be expanded. So it was a challenge and I have to tell you we spent 3 or 4 days on a very small part of the legislation that was even preliminary to the real meat of the bill, and I was concerned that we were getting into a mode that might be viewed as filibuster or too much dilatory tactics. But finally, after staying to midnight one night we broke through that and got into serious discussion of some of the outstanding issues. Again if you roll up your sleeves and work at it you come up with a bill that makes sense. This bill is in the Contract With America, but on the House floor we improved it. It is even a better bill than it was.

Mr. PORTMAN. We had a vote today of 306 to 74 on this legislation. We worked on it for 2 weeks on the floor of the House, over 30 hours of debate. That means we got about 130 Democrats to support the bill today. This is despite again a lot of disagreement on the other side. We had health debate and we worked hard on this bill. None of this stuff is easy to do. You have to roll up your sleeves and really work at it. But we got to the point of final passage after accepting a lot of amendments and perfecting the bill where a large bipartisans group of the members of this House decided yes, it is time to step up to the plate and start being accountable for what we do for the States and localities.

Mr. PORTMAN. If the gentleman will yield, we had an exciting day today. It was truly a landmark piece of legislation. It was a historic day for the House, the first time we have ever, ever, as a Congress done anything to stop these unfunded Federal mandates. And it was bipartisan. The gentleman mentioned a few of the major sponsors of the bill. Another one is Gary Condit of California, a Democrat.

Mr. PORTMAN. They have two choices at the local level, and it is pretty obvious, if you think about it. One is to raise taxes at the local level, and that tends to be property taxes. Talk about regressive taxes. And the second is to cut services, the very services our constituents are saying they want more of, fire, police protection, personal security. That is what they do. These are the communities the gentleman is talking about that are going to have to go with one or two fewer police officers during a particular timeframe. That is not what we want to be doing to the people we represent and who are also represented by State and local officials who are having to live under these mandates increasingly.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?