Rob Portman

Mr. PORTMAN

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

Mr. PORTMAN. I am happy to yield to my friend, the gentleman from California.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, today is a historic day. It is a historic day. It is a historic piece of legislation, historic because it does redefine the relationship between the Federal Government and the State and local governments; historic because for the first time it ensures that Congress will have a separate and informed debate on the question of costs of mandates; and historic because it shows Congress' willingness to put the brakes on the mandate madness. We had over 30 hours debate, Mr. Chairman, on one preliminary section of H.R. 5, and I have to admit that I joined many of my colleagues in wondering whether we would ever get through this legislation. I was concerned that what was truly a bipartisan issue outside this beltway had become a partisan issue, sadly partisan within this Chamber, but I have to say over the last 24 hours Congress has worked in a very constructive, bipartisan way on this legislation. As an example, yesterday I believe we accepted nine amendments from the other side. I think they all improved and perfected this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I would thank the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] and other Members on the minority side for working constructively with us throughout this whole process. Mr. Chairman, I think what we have done now is that we have set the tone, perhaps, for dealing with other legislation that this Congress will consider over the next year. Although some have cast it as such, H.R. 5 was never about the merits or demerits of individual mandates. It is about having the cost information, it is about having an informed debate on the floor of the House, and yet, yes, it is about accountability, having a vote up-or-down on whether to impose a mandate without providing the money. Mr. Chairman, let me just sum up by acknowledging a few of the many people that got us to where we are today. The first person I am going to mention I think will speak next. I consider him the spiritual leader on the unfunded mandate front, the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit]. He was the lone voice crying out in the wilderness over the last several years. He was talking about unfunded mandate reform when most people did not understand it or appreciate it. It has now come to the fore, and he is to be congratulated. Senator Dirk Kempthorne on the Senate side is the person who has aggressively pushed this bill on the Senate side, and he is responsible really for the 86 to 10 vote, a very strong vote last week on essentially the same bill. He showed an extraordinary amount of bicameralism in working with the chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], myself, and others to put together a tough bill. Mr. Chairman, I would also like, of course, to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], the chairman. He has shown an impressive amount of grace under pressure. I would concur with the comments of the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] and others as to the way he has conducted this debate. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the freshman sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis]. He has recently lived under the crippling effect of unfunded mandates, and I think he has shared his stories with us convincingly. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Towns], I have to acknowledge Chairman Towns from last year's Congress. His subcommittee was the subcommittee that had hearings on this issue. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Towns], in the face of a lot of opposition from people who did not want mandate relief last year, had not only hearings but a markup on important legislation very similar to this legislation. We would not be here, I do not think, today if Ed Towns had not done that. Mr. Chairman, a subcommittee last year of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Towns], also included two leaders on our side of this issue, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], who is here in the Chamber, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica] who were very important to getting us to this point. The Committee on Rules was very helpful in this process. We took a good bill to the Committee on Rules. It became a better bill, thanks to the work of the chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier], the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], and others who perfected and refined this legislation. They are to be thanked. Governor Voinovich of Ohio has led this issue for the National Governors and for other elected officials over the years. He is unrelenting, he is focused, and again, I think it is crucial to thank him, because we probably would not be here without that pressure.Finally, let me thank our State and local partners, every township trustee, every mayor, every Governor, every local, State elected official. They are the ones who have really advocated this. They are the reason we are here. Their Big Seven representatives here in Washington have been responsible for helping us craft this legislation over time. All I can say, Mr. Chairman, is that we have acted today on their behalf, on behalf of the local and State elected officials, and on behalf of all our citizens, to craft a new partnership to enable us to better this country in a true partnership.

Mr. PORTMAN. Let me be clear again. What the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] does is the foundation for this legislation which is to provide the cost information, but we need to go further than the cost information and address the very issue which you addressed in the abstract, which is the question of funding. And that is what this legislation does.

Mr. PORTMAN. If the gentleman will yield further, I would just say again I think you made a strong statement in support of H.R. 5. The abstract concept that you said you supported, which is no-money/no- mandate, is in fact even stronger than H.R. 5. I would say all we are asking for is the cost information that is in the Moran bill, but then in addition to that, to have a debate on the floor on the funding issue and force Congress to be accountable to that issue.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, just briefly, I think the gentleman has made a strong statement in support of H.R. 5. I would ask him if he is aware under H.R. 5 of the fact that in fact by majority vote Congress can at any time waive the point of order and go ahead and impose a mandate, go ahead and provide the costs or not mandate at all. Those options are all there.

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

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

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, first in response to my colleague from Michigan, very thoughtful comments on the issue of unfunded mandates, I know he is sincere about his interest in addressing the issue. I would say that the conclusion he draws is a very different one than many of us do. That is to say, we believe that having cost information, having a debate on the floor as to the funding issue and then having a vote up or down will not necessarily result in important issues like special education being passed, when appropriate. The difference between the Moran bill and H.R. 5 before us is that it provides for that debate on the floor and it provides for that accountability, the vote up or down. The cost concerns that the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin] raised would be the same concerns in the Moran bill as an example. The cost- benefit analysis is in both pieces of legislation. I have to oppose the Moran amendment simply because it does not go far enough. And in doing so, I will once again commend the gentleman from Virginia and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] for all the work they have put into this. As I have said earlier in this debate, it is the foundation of this bill, the cost part is extremely important. But I would also say that there is a crucial part missing. At the very least, if we think something is important enough to mandate from Congress, from the Federal level, we ought to be challenged as to paying for that mandate. That is all this bill says. And under the Moran substitute, we have the cost information, but Congress does not have to face, confront that very crucial issue as to whether when we mandate, if it is important enough to mandate, is it not important enough for us to fund it. that is what this legislation gets to. I would say that we have heard plenty of examples in these past 2 weeks of the horrors out there in terms of what the Federal Government is currently doing. It is nothing short of an abuse of power from Washington. When we have these kinds of examples out there, when we have good evidence of such a crisis, we ought to act. I can just say, in summary, that cost information alone is not strong enough medicine for what clearly ails us.

Mr. PORTMAN. The gentleman and I were both on the committee last year, the Committee on Government Operations, when legislation substantially similar to this legislation was passed by a vote of 35 to 4 after 3 hearings in my subcommittee and hearings at the full- committee level. This is not a new issue.

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

Mr. PORTMAN. I, for one, would be very pleased to work with the gentleman, I know the majority side would, on trying to make sense out of some of these Federal requirements. There needs to be more flexibility. That is the point of the whole debate. The gentleman's amendment would go even further than the legislation does, of course. But I commend the gentleman for raising the issue.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, let me just make a quick point at the risk of stopping this debate on the crime bill, which may solve all of our crime bill problems, let me get back to the amendment for a moment and say I think it is an extremely helpful amendment. I congratulate the gentleman for offering it. I think it focuses us on the very issue that this legislation is trying to address but goes even broader. And that is the question of conditional assistance from the Federal Government and voluntary programs.

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

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Let me outline briefly what is in the legislation with regard to the balance that the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] referred to. It is simply unfair to say that the benefits are not to be considered; in fact, they are required to be considered. To repeat, section 423 requires the committees to perform a cost- benefit analysis. Section 421(7)(c) requires CBO again to calculate not only the cost but also the net savings. Any cost analysis, including cost analysis of the threshold, has to be net savings to the local government. Section 202 says agencies must perform a cost-benefit analysis. I would also say that all the examples listed by my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr], are those under existing mandates and none of those are covered by this bill.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, just briefly, I think the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] makes a very sound point as to cost effectiveness, and the benefits of preventive care is one example. It is a consideration Congress ought to take into account on the floor and even in committee. What CBO told us that they can do and they are required to do under this legislation, if we look at title III, a net savings analysis. In other words, they will look at quantifiable costs and benefits, but CBO, as my colleague stated, simply cannot do the more subjective analysis. Committees can do that. In fact they are required under this legislation to look at both the costs and benefits and that will then come to the floor. The gentleman makes a good point, that the point of this legislation is to have an accountability and to have informed, deliberate debate on the floor of the House. The benefits will be analyzed by the committee. That information will be in the committee report, and the report will be part of the debate on the floor.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Absolutely.

Mr. PORTMAN. Well, I do. The next step in the process is there will be a year-long study of all existing mandates which would include the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and so on. There will be a report to the Congress a year from now, assuming this legislation is signed by the President and goes into law, and that report will go through all the existing mandates in a comprehensive way, and in a logical way, because you want to look at all the different pieces, and it will make recommendations that are very specific as to what we as a Congress should do legislatively to change existing statutes and existing mandates. This is one reason again these State and local officials supported this legislation so strongly, because it gives us the ability to figure out what makes sense to be mandated from Washington and what does not.

Mr. PORTMAN. It has typically been the case that there are more Democrats. It is not a partisan issue again. We happen to have more Republic Governors than Democrats right now, but I can tell you that some of the Democrat Governors have been leading advocates on this issue to get Congress to get its requirements under control, and it is part of a much bigger picture, I have got to say to the gentleman from Ohio, role of the Federal Government? We are finally getting to the point in this Congress where we are beginning to debate that issue in a serious way. It is going to come up with welfare reform, it is going to come up with health care reform if we get into that again later in the year: What should the role be of the Federal Government? Should we be dictating everything here from Washington, or should we be giving the States and localities more flexibility, more say in how they go about solving the problems of this great country?

Mr. PORTMAN. Exactly. You know, it is again, an up-or-down vote on this House floor because of our rules has historically been very difficult. Motor voter, again, a good example, there was never a debate on this floor as to whether there was an unfunded mandate. There was never any cost information to have an informed debate, and then there was no up-or- down vote on whether to impose the unfunded mandate. What this bill does again for the first time is it says let us be accountable. If we are going to do this, let us step up to the plate and do it in the full view of the American people, the press, and so on. That is why the Governors, the other State and local officials, mayors, county commissioners, and so on, supported this bill and worked with us to draft a bill that makes sense for them, and why even today they were here congratulating us on passing this bill. It was the No. 1 item for the National Conference of Mayors, No. 1 item for the National Governors' Association, and so on.

Mr. PORTMAN. No. It does not. What happens then, if Congress chooses, Congress may, by a majority vote, waive that point of order. But it forces us to face the issue.

Mr. PORTMAN. No. It is not. What this bill does is it looks prospectively. It looks to the future.

Mr. PORTMAN. It is not. That is an excellent point. Let me just for a moment, we talked about, you know, it takes a lot of hard work to get to this point. You have got to have a bipartisan group here in Congress to support and get behind it. This is not a partisan issue outside of this room really, and outside the Beltway. One of the concerns I had with the debate on the House floor over the first few days is it appeared to be sadly a partisan debate. If you go out into the real world, if you talk to township trustees, you talk to county commissioners, mayors of these small towns the gentleman talks about, it is not a partisan issue; whether you are a Democrat, Republican, or independent, you are getting sick and tired of the Federal Government having a one-size-fits-all Federal requirement coming down on you with no money to pay for it.

Mr. PORTMAN

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

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