Rob Portman

Mr. PORTMAN

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

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. point of order

Mr. PORTMAN. Reclaiming my time, again, I think those purposes are noble, and I think some of the gentlewoman's concerns will be addressed in a later amendment that she may well offer with regard to the commission in looking at this issue. I would say again the purposes of this legislation are to deal with unfunded Federal mandates at every level including at the local level, of course, and I think it would be unwise for us to put into the purposes clause that this legislation insures that States cannot do what is within their purview and not within the purview of Congress which is their dealings, their own partnership, as it were, with the local governments. I would say this would not be the appropriate place to deal with it. I do plan to support the amendment later, I believe, later that the gentlewoman may offer with regard to having the commission look at this issue.

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

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words and rise in opposition to the amendment. Again, Mr. Chairman, I think all of us are very sympathetic to this purpose in the amendment. I would point out, however, to the gentlewoman from California that this is in the purposes clause, and I think if we were to accept it it would be, in a sense, misleading in the sense this legislation, of course, H.R. 5, does not, indeed, do what this amendment would state. It does not insure that the States do not pass along those costs to the local government. So I would think that it would be inappropriate to make such a misleading statement in the purposes clause.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman agree that the cost- benefit analysis is a good idea for the agency?

Mr. PORTMAN. That is not the current law.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] altering his statement regarding the point of order. I think the point needs to be made, because there were some misleading statements earlier, both by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the former chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder], and the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] that somehow we could never have national standards again after this bill was passed. As we know, it does not apply retroactively, only prospectively. Then it simply requires that Congress, through a considered judgment, with information we do not currently have, make a judgment with a 51 percent vote, a constitutional majority. The gentleman talked about---- Mr. Miller of California. That is the current law.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a further question?

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, first let me say to the gentleman from New York I appreciate all the input he has made to this issue. We would not be here today on the floor if it was not for the gentleman from New York [Mr. Towns]. Chairman Towns last year in his subcommittee held three hearings on this subject, two field hearings, one in Pennsylvania, one in Florida, and a hearing here in Washington, and in those hearings we flushed out a lot of the issues we are now discussing. Just addressing quickly the notion of full funding. It is true that if there is not full funding, it is subject to a point of order on the floor. Congress can always waive that point of order by a majority vote, and Congress can work its will in that way and give partial funding, or even no funding, to an important national priority.

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

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would just say again, to reiterate the point that has been made several times in these debates over potential exemptions to this legislation, this is not a debate about the merits of individual mandates. This is a debate about whether we have the cost information that we do not currently have. I would disagree with my colleague from California as to the costs of legislation. This forces CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, to do a detailed accounting of what the costs are. The committees, incidentally, also have to do a detailed analysis of costs and benefits of the legislation. That legislation then comes to the floor. We have something in this legislation that is not currently guaranteed, which is a debate, an informed debate on the issue. Can the Members imagine that, in the U.S. Congress actually debating the unfunded mandate issue, and then someone can raise a point of order and that point of order can be waived by a majority vote. The gentlewomen from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] may some day be in the other body, and in that case the smaller State would be more represented, but in our current situation, of course, we each represent the same number of constituents, and by majority we constantly enact legislation. We enacted the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act could be enacted again, or similar legislation. All we are asking is that that be an informed decision. That information is not currently available.

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

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words in opposition. Briefly addressing the concerns of my friend, the gentleman from Virginia, first of all, the gentleman from Mississippi who offered this amendment has been an ally generally in the unfunded mandate debate, and I think he would understand that to begin to exempt major pieces of legislation from this bill would, in fact, gut its purpose. Let me be very clear as to what this bill does. With regard to reauthorizations, existing mandates would continue to be exempt from the bill. Only new mandates, and by that, I mean new mandates in a reauthorization context, where there is not funding available. Let me give you an example. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] has spoken about the possibility of reauthorization of clean air and inappropriate funding. You get credit for any existing funds that are in the system. In other words, you may have a situation where there is a 50-percent cut in funding for a specific mandate. That mandate will only be reduced commensurate to that funding. Let me be very clear as to what this does. More importantly, all we are saying is that the Clean Water Act, just like every other piece of legislation, should be subject to this same discipline of getting that cost information, getting an informed debate, then Congress can work its will. The Clean Water Act is not perfect. I happen to represent 100 miles of the Ohio River, so I am very sympathetic to the concerns described by the gentleman from Mississippi and the gentleman from Virginia. I see in this morning's paper, it talks about mandate overboard. Rockville, MD, in particular, is complaining about lack of flexibility in the Clean appropriately to their situation and have resulted in increased costs which are all passed along to the State and local taxpayer. The Clean Water Act is not perfect, nor is the Clean Air Act, nor are other pieces of legislation. Why not subject them all prospectively, and remember, this is all prospective, to this same discipline? It seems to me again if we are to open up this bill to all kinds of exemptions, Clean Water Act, wastewater treatment, and so on, we have gutted the whole purpose of this bill. This is an informational bill and it is an accountability bill.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, just one additional point with regard to the comments of the gentlewoman from California. I think the logical extension of this amendment would then be to say to the counties, for example, that the counties cannot, under Federal law, pass along any mandate to the townships, as an example, and so forth. I think this gets into an area that is well beyond the scope of the legislation in the sense it is the Federal Government, Congress, mandating what the States do and mandating what the counties do and mandating what the townships do and so on. I would also say the gentlewoman's amendment would go well beyond this legislation, perhaps beyond at least the way it was described by the sponsor of the legislation, by the sponsor of the amendment, in the sense it prohibits, as I read it, any mandate being imposed on a State. It is a flat prohibition. As will be discussed later at length in this legislation, this legislation is not a flat ban on all mandates. This legislation sets up a process and provides for a thoughtful debate and then accountability and a majority vote on a waiver of a point of order on a mandate. In other words, there is discussion and informed debate. That is the purpose of the legislation. Again, I think this amendment in the purposes clause would be misleading at the least, probably more so it would be inconsistent with the rest of the legislation as I read it.

Mr. PORTMAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would just say to the gentlewoman that the situation has not changed from the current situation. We passed a Clean Air Act. It affected some States more than others. We did it by constitutional majority. We could do the same thing with regard to the unfunded mandate legislation. Mr. Chairman, this legislation does not change that. That is a reality in this body, and should be a reality in this body. I would say also that it was interesting listening to the analogies made earlier. Our State and local government partners were being termed to be part of our family, but they were the children. And somehow we had to tell our children what to do and what not to do. I think we should view them as our true partners. That is the whole idea of this. Let us give them the benefit of having an informed debate on the costs and the benefits of legislation, and the costs and benefits of whether a mandate makes sense. That is all this legislation asks for. It is a very reasonable, balanced approach. Many people had talked last year and many people had cosponsored legislation that would have banned all unfunded mandates. That is not what this legislation is about. That point has been made several times during the debate over the last 3 or 4 hours. Basically, we have had the same debate. It needs to be made clear to the people who are watching and other Members of this body, this is about providing cost information. It is about having a debate on the issue and then, yes, accountability, having a vote up-or-down on the issue of the unfunded Federal mandate.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I do not have much time, but I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.

Mr. PORTMAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would say that is a debatable point. I would say our partners in local and State government feel they are paying far more than their share. I would say that the citizens of the United States who are paying hidden taxes, where we take the credit for imposing mandates on State and local government, they pay the taxes, whether it is property taxes at the local level, State income taxes, or State sales taxes, that is not a fair system. That is the current system. I think more than their fair share is being paid at that level. We need to have an informed debate on the issue. That is all this legislation does. Whether it is health and safety, whether it is environmental issues, we are just asking for the information and a debate on the issue.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman aware of the fact that the current executive order issued by President Clinton would require even more agency information to be provided and that information is not regularly provided?

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

Mr. PORTMAN. Personally, I would say that speaking for the majority I am absolutely sure we are going to address that issue, and I am confident that when we get to title II, the gentleman and others will raise that issue, and we look forward to that debate on judicial review. This is probably not the time for it. But let me say also, to make it very clear, that judicial review is of the agency requirement here. It is a very limited requirement. It is for regulations after enactment of the legislation, over $100 million, and it asks for a written statement on costs and benefits.

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

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

Mr. PORTMAN. Reclaiming my time briefly, this will be done, of course, at the direction of the committees. That is another issue perhaps for another title. But the point is well taken. I know the gentleman is concerned about unfunded mandates. This a classic example of where we ought to have these mandates looked at carefully. We ought to have a cost-benefit analysis done. We ought to have an informed debate on the floor of the House, and, yes, we ought to have accountability. We ought to have a vote up or down. That is all we are saying.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding the time and want to congratulate him for getting the bill to the floor after years of effort to do so. It has been a true pleasure to work with him on this critical new mandate relief legislation that really initiates a new Federal-state-local partnership and a better understanding of the impact mandates have on the public and private sectors. The goals of H.R. 5 are really very simple. First it gives Congress the information on the cost of mandates. Second, Congress must have an informed debate on the issue of mandates. It guarantees floor debate on the issue, and finally accountability. No significant unfunded mandate can now go through Congress without Members having to vote up or down in the public view. Unbelievably, none of those three things currently apply. That is what this bill gives us. It is important to note in the debate today, Members may hear some say otherwise, but it is important to note this is not a partisan issue outside the Beltway. In fact, we are here debating H.R. 5 today explicitly because State and local elected officials of both parties have come to us. The outcry has been bipartisan. All Members have to do is pick up the Washington Post today and look at page A13. The headline reads ``Unfunded Mandates Top Cities' List of Problems.'' The unfunded mandate crisis is listed in the National League of Cities survey as the No. 1 issue ahead of crime, ahead of violence. The National League of Cities survey as the No. 1 issue ahead of crime, ahead of violence. The National League of Cities, the National Governors Association, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the U.S. Conference of State Legislators, the National Association of Counties, and individual State and local government officials all across this country have enthusiastically endorsed this approach. Governor George Voinovich from my own State of Ohio, in the most comprehensive and quantitative State report on burdens caused by mandates, put the problem this way: The recent explosion of unfunded Federal mandates--174 since the mid-1970's--tells us of a troubling dynamic that distorts governmental accountability. The guardians of the Federal Government have grown adept at a sort of budgetary sleight-of-hand that allows Washington to exert greater influence over other government subdivisions without providing corresponding Federal support. He is right. Mandates preempt important State and local initiatives, stifle local innovations, force States and cities to reorder their budget priorities and to revamp their budgets. It has led to the total breakdown of the Federal-State-local relationship envisioned by the architect of our government. Toward that end, the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit], a longtime champion of that issue, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis], the Gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] and myself have introduced H.R. 5 on the first day of this session. It is a carefully balanced approach. It is the result of lengthy consultations with State and local officials across this country, with the Congressional Budget Office, and yes, with the House and Senate Budget Committees, the Rules Committee, and with Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, experts from the Congressional Research Service, regulators from Federal agencies and many, many others. It is the result of having carefully thought about the alternatives of a balanced budget. Again, to clarify, H.R. 5 is a good bill. I look forward to its passage in the next few days.