Rob Portman

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. That representation is not accurate. As you know, the legislation is very clear, we have now talked about it for a week. It does provide a point of order if the new mandate is not funded. This bill is only prospective, as we know. The bill would not apply to any existing mandate, and it provides a point of order on the floor of the House absolutely. That is the whole idea. But the representation from the League of Cities or even your earlier characterization of the bill just are not what we have here before us today on H.R. 5.

Mr. PORTMAN. Is the gentleman's understanding correct?

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio, for yielding, and I just want to thank the gentleman for educating us over the last several hours here on this very important issue. I thank the gentleman for his contribution to the debate.

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

Mr. PORTMAN. Does the gentleman believe that is an accurate representation of the legislation?

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, it will not come as a surprise that I rise again to oppose yet another amendment excluding whole areas of the law from the very reasonable cost analysis provided in the legislation, H.R. 5. It might be of interest to know this is the eighth amendment to section 4 relating to health, the fifth amendment relating to safety, and the seventh amendment relating to child welfare. The reason these amendments went down, they were all voted down with solid bipartisan votes, the last one was 277 to 155, is that the bill before us in no way precludes Congress from acting responsibly in these areas to protect the very important national interests that are the subject of these amendments.

Mr. PORTMAN

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

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, this is part of the exemption of section 4 which would apply to the entire bill and not just to section 2. The Senate amendment only applies narrowly to the section to title II which is the regulatory section we discussed earlier.

Mr. PORTMAN. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. One small point, again. I appreciate the concern of the gentlewoman from North Carolina. Again, if we look at the amendment by the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] which we considered earlier in this debate, it does include, and these are amendments which we also considered en bloc, establishment of minimum standards for occupational safety. I would just say, Mr. Chairman, that ii is my belief that in a sense we have already had a vote on this issue, and that we did vote on exempting establishment of minimum standards for occupational safety previously in this debate. That vote was, I believe, 161 yeas to 263 noes, so it was soundly defeated.

Mr. PORTMAN. No, I am saying that the Senate amendment is not overly broad or more sweeping. In fact it is more narrow than this amendment.

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

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has given a broad-ranging discussion of the legislation and his critique of it. With respect to this amendment, is the gentleman concerned about the fact that future legislation might be subject to title III of the bill; in other words, subject to a CBO cost analysis, and then a point of order on the floor, which could be waived by majority, or is the gentleman's concern more in terms of regulatory action that may be taken?

Mr. PORTMAN. Just to clarify a few of the points, Mr. Chairman, when the gentleman took to the floor earlier, and his colleague, and in some of the statements he just made, it is unclear to me as to whether he is concerned about title III of the bill, which is the point of order process, or whether the gentleman is concerned about title II, the regulatory requirements.

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

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

Mr. PORTMAN. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me it is important to clarify what this legislation does with regard to future regulations that might be promulgated by the agencies. Yes, they would have to undertake a cost-benefit analysis. That cost-benefit analysis, as the gentleman well knows, is currently required by the President's Executive order. It seems to me that has been the point that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski] has made.

Mr. PORTMAN. This is correct, Mr. Chairman. If the gentleman will yield for a moment, the Executive order is more comprehensive than the new requirements in this legislation.

Mr. PORTMAN. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, under this legislation, independent agencies are exempt. That is a well-founded exemption for independent agencies. It goes back to the function of independent agencies, to keep their independence from Congress. Independent agencies happen to comprise two of the four agencies about which the gentleman is speaking. However, I think it is very important.

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

Mr. PORTMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, just one quick clarification with regard to the Senate amendment. It has strictly to do with title II, so it is not more broad nor more sweeping than this amendment, and in fact, it is more narrow than this amendment.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think it is important that we have now narrowed down this debate to what the real concern is. The real concern is that with regard to the regulatory requirements in this legislation, they are very plain, very clear. They are not as comprehensive or broad as the current requirement under the Presidential Executive order under which these very agencies have to live. The difference is that they are in statute, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski] mentions, and not in an Executive order format. We think that is good. We think these agencies are meant to abide by these. Otherwise there would not be an Executive order. It is good to have cost-benefit analyses. This would not in any way interfere with the carrying out of responsibilities in this area.

Mr. PORTMAN

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

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman may have misunderstood me. I am not saying that prospective regulations would not come under this very limited title II of the bill. Absolutely, they should. That is the whole point, is to get a written assessment of the cost of new regulation. What I said, and where the gentleman perhaps misunderstood me, was that does not stay the promulgation of new regulations. All it says is we want to have written costs of benefits.

Mr. PORTMAN. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Just a brief response, Mr. Chairman, to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski], if he could remain standing, to his question. Mr. Chairman, this new legislation would provide in statute some, not all, of the requirements that are currently in the Clinton executive order with regard to what the agencies are required to do in terms of saying what the costs of new regulations will be to State and local government and to the private sector. Mr. Chairman, it has a $100 million threshold. In other words, anything under $100 million would not be subject to these requirements. The gentleman's concern is that judicial review would somehow cause additional rights to individuals to raise a concern about this. This is not going to result in a stay of the regulation. The regulations will go forward. The database will go forward, should in fact somebody challenge the fact that a written statement of the cost to State and local government was not compiled. Mr. Chairman, all we are trying to do in this legislation is to put some teeth in the existing standards, and the standards we have even relaxed, so the responsibility.