Rob Portman

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding. Very briefly, there is a big difference between the motion to strike and the point of order. The point of order is precisely what gives us information on the public-private competition issue that we want to have to address this issue responsibly. So I would say in response to the gentleman's concern about what the gentleman from Louisiana said, that the motion to strike does not solve the problem. We need the point of order, we have to have the point of order.

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

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman believe that is an accurate representation of the legislation?

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

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield further, I would hope we would not override the point of order in every case. I would hope Congress would in an informed way be able to look at the issue of public-private. That was the purpose of an amendment offered earlier today by the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit] and myself. The committees have the responsibility, the requirement under this bill to look at the very issue the gentleman is discussing. As the gentleman knows, they have three things they can do. They can either not fund the public mandate, they can either have the mandate apply equally to both parties, or they can not apply the mandate to the private sector, so there is an explicit provision in this legislation to get at the very issue that is addressed.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, that is an incorrect representation of the bill. What the bill says is that there is a point of order to be raised if the mandate is not funded. Congress can always act by a majority vote to waive that point of order. It is not an opt-out provision for State and local government.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, just to clarify, the gentleman keeps talking about the opt-out provision. What is the opt-out provision in H.R. 5?

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

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Just briefly, Mr. Chairman, in response to the point of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], No. 1: In the Senate debate on this the Senate did agree to a Senate procedure which handles the appropriations issue. So Mr. Frank will take comfort from that, I am sure. It is in a sense a line item in the appropriations bill on the Senate side. So that point is not necessary. Second, this legislation is in fact not only necessary, but as we have seen over the last week in debating it, there is a crisis out there in terms of us sending unfunded mandates to States and localities. If we do not get at it at the authorizing committee level, we will be in a situation where in a balanced budget environment we are increasingly pushing our costs down to the local level. So the legislation is absolutely necessary. Mr. Dreier's concerns are well-stated. Why have another point of order? We already have a point of order. Why appropriations bills? If you are legislating on an appropriations bill, there can be a point of order raised. That is all we are saying. We just do not need it. The language in the bill makes it very clear that at the authorizing committee level you have to consider the costs. Then on the floor of the House there is a point of order raised if the mandate is not funded. At the appropriations level there is always a point of order if you go beyond what the authorizing committee has done. So in point of fact, by definition there is a point of order for both situations, and I think this legislation should not be duplicative. We should not go out of our way to go back and make rules that are not necessary.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, in section 4, there is a specific exemption for emergency situations such as the one which the gentleman stated. I would think that that would be covered by that exemption.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I would just say, as the gentleman is aware, there is nothing in H.R. 5 which would preclude the Congress from continuing to have an active role to play in immunization programs and to perfect, in fact, the local-State-Federal partnership on immunization. I think on the majority side we share the concern about the programs. We share the gentleman's view that these are salutary preventive programs that make a lot of sense, that they are very cost effective. I would say, again, as we said many times over the last several days in response to the exemption argument, that this legislation will in no way preclude Congress carefully considering future mandates in this area. However, reluctantly, we would have to oppose such an amendment simply because it again creates an exemption which is not necessary for this legislation. I would ask the gentleman if he would be willing, given that understanding, that in fact these immunization programs would be coming to the floor, would be receiving debate on a more informed basis, I might add, that he might consider withdrawing his amendment.

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

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am looking forward to the debate on the upcoming amendment to which the gentleman referred. I would say this amendment does in fact address the problem, it does in fact force Congress to deal with the issue of public-private competition. If Congress, under its point of order requirement, which would be the discretion of Congress by majority vote, chooses not to impose a mandate because of the private-public concern, then Congress has the ability to do that under H.R. 5. And by this amendment we are insuring that Congress has the information to carry out that very informed debate and to make this very important decision. So I would say that this amendment in fact does solve the gentleman's concern, and I look forward to the debate on his amendment.

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

Mr. PORTMAN. I thank the gentleman for his support and appreciate it very much.

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

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

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, my colleague and friend the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit] and I are offering this amendment in response to concerns we have heard from Members about the potential adverse impacts this legislation, H.R. 5, could have on the private sector and the competitive balance between the public and private sectors. I should say at the outset it is not my view that H.R. 5 would have such a negative impact. In fact, it strikes me as rather odd that while certain Members of the other party are expressing concerns about the devastation that might befall the private sector, it is representatives of this very sector, the private sector, that have strongly supported H.R. 5 and have worked with us in drafting this bill and are strongly supportive of this clarifying amendment. The list of business groups endorsing H.R. 5 is too lengthy to go through in its entirety, Mr. Chairman, but I will say for the record that we have support from the chamber of commerce, the NFIB, the Small Business Legislative Council and, yes, one of the largest private sector entities involved in this situation which would be BFI, Browning-Ferris. That is quite persuasive to me that the concerns being expressed by the opponents to H.R. 5 are being overdone. These are groups that the opponents of H.R. 5 claim would be negatively affected by its enactment. Yet these groups want this legislation. They want it passed now. As someone who is very proud of my record of support of the private sector, particularly small business, I can assure my colleagues that I would not be standing here today arguing for the passage of H.R. 5 if I believed it would harm this critically important sector of our economy. In fact, I believe just the opposite. Passage of H.R. 5 does not mean that Congress is denied the right to impose mandates on the public sector that are imposed on the private sector. Nor does it mean that we will fund mandates for the public sector that are not funded on the private sector, thereby setting up a competitive disadvantage. Instead it simply means we are going to have the cost information we need to make an informed decision. Specifically on this point, H.R. 5 gives us for the first time, Mr. Chairman, a requirement that Congress must address the impact on the private sector. It must address this very issue of the competitive balance between the public and private sectors. The Portman-Condit amendment strengthens this requirement so that before legislation is brought to the House floor, we will be apprised of the degree to which Federal mandates in this bill could affect the competitive balance between the public and private sectors. This amendment, Mr. Chairman, would require that the committee report accompanying the Federal mandate legislation spell out precisely what the effect on the public-private competitive balance would be if there were mandates on both the public and private sector that were scaled back, eliminated, or funded for the public sector. accountability that is central to H.R. 5. These are the very ends that H.R. 5 seeks, accountability and informed debate. We owe nothing less to the American people than to have that. I believe this amendment clarifies and strengthens the accountability in this act. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. PORTMAN. It is my understanding that the Congressional Budget Office, because, they have no requirements within title II, will begin their analysis on October 1. By that time they will have adequate funding and adequate personnel to do the very major tasks which we are asking them to do in this legislation. Again, this is all consistent with the legislation we passed last year, H.R. 5128. The Senate bill has January 1, 1996, as a deadline.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, the Federal agencies are currently required, under the Executive order, to go even beyond the cost-benefit analysis provided in title II. We now have it in statute, not just in the Executive order. But it is my understanding the agencies would continue to provide the cost-benefit analysis that was subject to the debate earlier today.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, the Federal agencies will be required to do as they are required now under the Executive order to carry out the cost-benefit analysis contained in title II.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, it is my understanding that the regulatory section, which is title II, becomes effective upon enactment. In other words, the Federal agencies will be required to continue to do as they do now.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I would say in response to the gentlewoman's question with regard to title II, which is the regulatory requirements, that it is my understanding that they become effective upon enactment.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, just one small comment, it is a different piece of legislation with regard to the CBO requirements. If anything, this bill has even more requirements for CBO, although the bill last year also had a CBO cost requirement, as the gentlewoman knows, and if anything, one would think the logic would be that we would push back the effective date beyond October 1, given the change in the legislation.