Rob Portman

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I just want to stand in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn). I think it makes sense for us to have better information from the Director; and I think this will, frankly, keep OMB more focused on the task.

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

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I think that this is probably already covered under section 10 of the bill, and we did discuss this earlier. However, given that the language has been altered to say in a manner not inconsistent with existing legislation, which is the Government Paperwork Elimination Act, I do not see any big problem with this. I think it is, again, probably already covered in the legislation, but I do not think it will alter the intent or the purposes of the act.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) for bringing this bill to the floor today, taking it through his subcommittee last year, and being able to work with us to perfect the legislation that was passed in the Senate. I also want to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) for his work on this legislation as the ranking member of the subcommittee. This is a bill that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who will speak in a moment, and I introduced last year, which is, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) just said, a common-sense approach to government. It is, in essence, the same legislation that was the subject of a hearing and then reported out of the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology last year. It is identical to legislation that was authored by Senators John Glenn and Fred Thompson which was reported out of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee after hearings last year and then which passed the Senate by unanimous consent late in the last Congress. Mr. Chairman, I am sure every single Member of this House has heard, as I have, from our nonprofit organizations back home, from local and State governments, who expressed their frustration with the process of applying for Federal grants and then keeping up with the reporting requirements and other administrative burdens that follow. Right now, there are over 600 separate Federal programs that provide financial assistance to State and local government, tribal governments, and nonprofit groups. Many of these programs serve similar purposes, and yet they are administered by different agencies or departments. For example, taxpayers spend about $20 billion a year on 163 different job training programs spread out over 15 Federal agencies. Eleven agencies administer over 90 early childhood education and other childhood programs. Each has its own unique set of applications, its own red tape, its own bureaucracy. And, too often, this grant application process is unnecessarily time consuming and costly. As a result, what happens is a lot of these nonprofit groups particularly go out and hire expensive grant writers to put together their proposals. That concerns me greatly because that reduces the resources that are available to address the very problems we want these nonprofits to target. Others who do not have the resources to go out and hire a grant writer try to do it themselves, and again an enormous expenditure of time that could otherwise be directed toward the intended mission of that nonprofit or local or State government. And we find that those groups that do finally obtain a grant often say to us, gee, I wonder if it is even worth going through this process, because of the reporting requirements that are so onerous for them or other administrative burdens. I want to remind my colleagues of something else, which is this is not just about the grant applicants, this is about the Federal agencies, too. Because we are helping them by reducing their work load and thus helping the taxpayer and reducing the cost to administer these Federal programs. Recently, I fielded a lot of concerns from around the country on a particular piece of legislation called the Drug-free Communities Act. I am sure every Member has their own example. But in this case this was legislation that I sponsored in the House. It was enacted with strong bipartisan support of this House. We felt that in the act we set out some pretty clear guidelines, criteria, as to which antidrug coalitions around the country would qualify for Federal matching funds. Unfortunately, the application process is neither simple nor clear. It is a lengthy, complicated instrument that even some of the more sophisticated antidrug coalitions around the country are having an awful hard time with. And, again, they are going out and hiring grant writers and so on to be able to apply. Two things are happening as a result. One, resources are being wasted again that otherwise would be directed in this case towards reducing substance abuse among our kids, which is something all of us believe in and want these agencies and nonprofits to be focused on. Second, some of the agencies and nonprofits out there, these smaller antidrug coalitions, are just scared away by the process. So some of the ones that need the assistance the most, the very ones that are in the most difficult financial situation, are not applying for the grant money. This is the kind of problem we are trying to get at. I will say that, in general, Congress is not above criticism for the way legislation is written. It is not all the agencies' fault. We need to do a better job up here on the Hill in putting together legislation that is clear, that does have guidelines that are easier to administer. In retrospect, we probably could have done a better job in the Drug- Free Communities Act in terms of directing the agency to be sure that the intent of the bill was very clear in that regard. However, agencies also must be given some discretion to implement these pieces of legislation, and that is where so many of the problems that all of us have heard from our constituents arise. The legislation before us today addresses the problem, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) have said, in a very specific way by going to the Office of Management and Budget and asking for, with their oversight, that each agency develop plans within 18 months, we give them 18 months, to streamline application administrative and reporting requirements, number one. Second, to have a uniform application for related programs. So if they have programs spread out over 5, 10, 15 agencies but they are about the same issue, we want to have a common application for the nonprofits and State and local governments that are applying. Third, we want to expand dramatically the use of electronic applications and reporting via the Internet to allow people to use the Internet for access. Fourth, we want to demonstrate interagency coordination to simplify reporting requirements for overlapping programs. The duplication out there is particularly frustrating, and this is something that we get at in this legislation. Finally, to set annual goals to further the purposes of this act. So we need the agencies to set goals and stick with them. In doing this work, the agencies are required in this legislation to work closely with State and local government, with the nonprofit community in setting the performance measures to achieve the goals. The bill also sunsets in 5 years, which I think is responsible, after a review by the National Academy of Public Administration. This bill is consistent, Mr. Chairman, with other things we have done in this Congress, the Unfunded Mandates Relief Act, in terms of reducing the burden on State and local government. It is also consistent with the Government Performance and Results Act, so-called GPRA, in improving government performance generally at the Federal agency level. The intent of the legislation really is quite simple. We are trying to make Federal grant programs a lot more user friendly for the recipients but also less burdensome for the Federal agencies. It is a priority and has been endorsed by all of the major State and local governments out there, including the National Governors Conference, including the National Conference of State Legislators, the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, and so on. It is also supported by nonprofit organizations and other groups, such as OMB Watch. It is a good government measure. It will make it easier for our constituents and for State and local government to interact with the Federal Government. And, very importantly, it is going to result in cost savings for grant recipients and also for the Federal agencies. Again, I want to thank the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight for bringing this bill to the floor. It is common-sense legislation. I urge all my colleagues to support this effort to make the Federal Government work better for all of our constituent groups. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Before we get on to the amendments, let me just say this has been a group effort. It looks kind of easy when we get to the floor sometimes, but nothing is easy around here. Without the gentleman from Maryland's willingness to step forward and provide expertise and assistance on the other side of the aisle, we would not be here today; and without the gentleman from California's willingness to prioritize this and mark it up last year, we would not be here today. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) for joining in the fray this year. Also, Senator Glenn did get the ball rolling, my former colleague from Ohio. I know that he is watching these proceedings with great interest and cannot wait when it finally gets down to the White House for signing, which I would predict will happen within the next couple of months. I think the Senate will take this up on a rather expedited basis. This is a group effort. All the staff involved need to be commended as well.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for raising the problem, and I think all of us sympathize with it. We probably all had constituents come to us with identical, similar problems with Federal agencies. In this case, it is a technical problem, and yet they are not told about it when they could have revised the application. I am not sure this is the right place to do this amendment, honestly; and I would have a couple questions for the gentleman. One is, how do we define what is technical and what is not? I assume the agencies and OMB are going to have questions about that. Does the gentleman have a definition of what is a technical deficiency?

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

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman identified some possible technical deficiencies to try to give agencies some guidance as to what would be within the 7-day rule.

Mr. PORTMAN. How about a cost estimate? Has the gentleman from Ohio had any sense of what this will cost the Federal agencies?

Mr. PORTMAN. And in terms of the 7 days, I know on some of these applications, and we are trying to end this process through this very legislation, are 2, 3, 4 inches thick, and my question would be, is 7 days practical? In other words, do they not go through these application sometimes for weeks, even months?

Mr. PORTMAN. At that point, the 7 days begins to toll?

Mr. PORTMAN. Reclaiming my time, I think again that the intent of this legislation we are considering today is consistent with what the gentleman is trying to get at. In fact, our whole idea here is to end up with a process at HUD and everywhere else where the application process is simplified, streamlined and we do not have the opportunity to have the kind of technical deficiencies the gentleman talked about because it would be clearer to the applicants. On the other hand, now and again it is going to happen. I guess I am not crazy about including this in the legislation, but based on what the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) said earlier and based upon the gentleman's description of the response, particularly to the 7 days, to the cost and then to the definition of ``technical,'' I guess I would not oppose the amendment being included in the legislation with the understanding that this is not meant to in any way impede, slow down the grant making process and that we will continue to work through process as we go back over to the Senate side to try to address this concern. Mr. Chairman, I also want to tell the gentleman from Ohio that I appreciate the gentleman narrowing the amendment considerably from earlier discussions that we had.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding; and I enjoyed his explanation earlier, his description of Vice President Gore's announcement and so on and the concerns you have in your own community. I know that some of these programs are based on other than the criteria the gentleman has set out, and not being an expert in empowerment zones or other economic development programs I do not know whether that makes sense or not. That is why I think it would be unwise for us to, in this legislation, put into law new requirements for economic development programs. However, the gentleman has offered a sense of Congress that seems sensible in terms of the general direction which is we ought to focus economic development where it is needed. So, with that, assuming that the chairman has no concerns about it and assuming it is a sense of Congress and it is not binding on this Congress, I would have no objection. I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), for keeping the administration on its toes.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to William F. Bowen, an outstanding indiviudal who will be honored as a Great Living Cincinnatian on February 19, 1999 by the Greater Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce. He was selected based on his exemplary community service, business and civic accomplishments, and achievements that have brought favorable attention to the Cincinnati area. Bill has enriched the lives of all Greater Cincinnatians through his dedication, leadership and love for our community. William Bowen, the eldest of seven children, was born before the American civil rights movement. He likes to tell people, ``I spent my time fighting the battles; I worked full time at fighting for civil rights.'' His long history in the civil rights movement includes the presidency of the Cincinnati Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Bill grew up in Cincinnati's West End, graduated from Woodward High School and studied business administration at Xavier University. His career as a legislator began when he was elected to the Ohio House of Representatives in 1966. During his tenure, he served as House Minority Whip. In 1970, Bill was appointed to the Ohio Ninth Senatorial District seat. He was elected to the seat later that year and reelected in 1974, 1978, 1982, 1986 and 1990. He is known for his commitment and for being a good friend to his hometown. All of us in Cincinnati are grateful for his leadership and service to our community.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to John Ruthven, a longtime friend and leader in my community, who will be honored as a Great Living Cincinnatian on February 19, 1999 by the Greater Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce. He was selected based on his community service, business and civic accomplishments, awareness of the needs of others, and achievements that have brought favorable attention to the Cincinnati area. As a child of the Depression, John says his family didn't have much-- except of lot of love. He grew up in Walnut Hills and graduated from Withrow High School. After serving in the Navy during World War II, he graduated from the Cincinnati Art Academy and opened a commercial art studio. John won the prestigious Federal Duck Competition in 1960 with ``Redhead Ducks,'' and his work began to be known across the country. In 1971, he founded Wildlife Internationale to produce limited edition lithographs. He has earned numerous awards, including Ducks Unlimited's First Artist, and Trout Unlimited Artist of the Year. John's art is displayed in the White House, in the Congress and in other prominent places around the world. He has given generously of his time and extraordinary skill to benefit numerous charities over the years. He is a modern day Audubon who is both an internationally known wildlife artist and a committed naturalist. John Ruthven is also a warm and caring person who brightens the lives of those he meets. He is a truly great Living Cincinnatian. All of us in Cincinnati are proud of his accomplishments and are grateful for has service to others.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mary Jeanne (M.J.) Klyn, a dear friend and community leader who will be honored as a Great Living Cincinnatian on February 19, 1999 by the Greater Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce. She was selected for her exemplary community service, business and civic accomplishments, awareness of the needs of others, and achievements that have brought favorable attention to the Cincinnati area. M.J. grew up in Illinois and attended Northwestern University. She was successful in banking, retailing and advertising in Cleveland, and was named the first female vice president of the University of Cincinnati. Among her duties was to work with the state legislature on funding and other issues. During her 23 years with the University of Cincinnati, she played a pivotal role in bringing the university into the state system and helped obtain more than $2 billion for important capital projects. Among M.J.'s accomplishments were obtaining funds for the Shoemaker Center and the Barrett Cancer Center. She also led the drive to obtain the designation of the U.S. College of Engineering as one of ten NASA Federal Research Centers. M.J. also served for 20 years on the Board of the Greater Cincinnati Convention and Visitor's Bureau, and earned its first Spirit of Cincinnati Chairman's Award. Women in Communications honored her with its Movers and Shakers Award. M.J. makes friends wherever she goes, and I feel lucky to be among them. All of us in Cincinnati are greatful for her leadership, service, and commitment to our Greater Cincinnati community.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to William Friedlander, a friend and community leader, who will be honored as a Great Living Cincinnatian on February 19, 1999 by the Greater Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce. He was selected based on his volunteer activities, business and civic accomplishments, awareness of the needs of others, and achievements that have brought favorable attention to the Cincinnati area. Bill has enriched the lives of all Greater Cincinnatians through his dedication, leadership, and love for our community. Bill graduated from Walnut Hills High School and Amherst College. After serving 2 years in the Army, he attended Harvard Business School. He began his career at Bartlett & Company in 1957, rising to the position of Chairman. Bill is known for his tireless volunteer work and fundraising for local organizations. He served on the boards of Jewish Hospital and the Greater Cincinnati Foundation, where he served as both a board member and the Volunteer Director. During his very successful tenure at the Foundation, assets grew from $40 million to $140 million Bill has been especially active in the arts, serving as a board member for the Cincinnati Association for the Arts. He and his wife, Susan, also chaired the Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra's Second Century Fund, raising $37 million--thought to be the largest amount ever raised for an arts organization in Greater Cincinnati. All of us in Cincinnati are grateful for his commitment to our community.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 350, the bill just passed.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Boehlert amendment today, and I got to say as one of the co-authors of the bill, this is the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit's) legislation, but as one of the co-authors, this amendment is not consistent with the purposes or intent of the legislation, it is just not because the purpose, as Mr. Condit just said, is to have true accountability. Now the author of the amendment talks a lot about the fact that we would still have focused and informed debate, but we need to look at the record. Three and a half years ago this House passed the Unfunded Mandates Relief Act. The gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) just talked about it. It puts this same procedure in place, although frankly this one is not as onerous for the House; same procedure in place with regard to having a debate and a vote. That, according to the Congressional Budget Office, according to all the outside observers, many of whom frankly were not in support of the original legislation, has been the necessary teeth; yes, the teeth, in the legislation that forced the committees to do what we are all trying to get at here, which is to send better, more responsible legislation to the floor that takes into account the costs of unfunded mandates. Without having a debate and a vote on the floor of the House, Mr. Chairman, we are simply not going to have the kind of discipline we are looking for and the kind of, again, better informed debate and, in the end, more responsible legislation. Let me quote from the CBO testimony just a couple of weeks ago before the Committee on Rules. They said that before proposed legislation is marked up, committee staffs and individual Members are increasingly requesting our analysis about whether the legislation would create any new federal mandates and, if so, whether their costs would exceed the thresholds established by the Unfunded Mandates Relief Act. So that is with regard to the public sector. In many instances, I continue, CBO is able to inform the sponsor about the existence of a mandate and provide informal guidance about how the proposal might be restructured to eliminate the mandate or reduce the cost of the mandate. That use of the Unfunded Mandate Relief Act early in the legislative process, early in the legislative process, Mr. Chairman, appears to have had an effect on the number and burden of intergovernmental mandates in enacted legislation. That is the whole point. Yes, if we take out the debate and the vote, we do take away the teeth that makes this legislation so important in terms of getting to better legislation on the floor of the House in a more informed debate by the Members. Let me also respond to something else that the sponsor of the legislation, the proposed amendment, said. He said that if the Chair ruled that it was all right, then we would have 20 minutes of debate but no vote and indicated that the Chair, rather than the Members, should make that decision. Again, this is not the intent of the legislation, nor is it consistent with what the parliamentarian, what the Committee on Rules, what others who have on run this place day to day believe is the right way to go. We do not want to put the Chair in that position. We want to put the Members in that position. Let us recall that in the end after a 20-minute debate it is the will of that House that prevails. If the will of the House is to go ahead, notwithstanding the mandate with the legislation, which has happened seven out of seven times with the Unfunded Mandates Relief Act over the last few years, and again we have a record here, my colleagues, then the House simply proceeds. But let us not put that responsibility, which is a weighty responsibility, with the Chair. Let us keep it with the Members of this houses. All this says in the end is that, yes, the House should have better information on substantial new mandates on the private sector, and, yes, we ought to be held accountable for how we feel about those substantial new mandates. It does not mean we are not going to mandate; we are, and we have, and we even have on the public sector, and we will continue to, I am sure. But we have better legislation on the floor, we have a better, more informed debate on the floor, and we have accountability to our constituents, both those who do not want additional mandates and those who think that the benefits of the legislation outweigh the mandate. That is the point of this legislation; it is good government. Mr. Chairman, I urge the Members to look carefully at this amendment and the fact that indeed it does gut the legislation, it is not consistent with the intended purpose of the bill, and with all due respect to my good friend from New York who I know is sincere about his interests in making this House work better, it does, in fact, lead us to the point where we would not have the informed debate and we would not have the accountability measure that is so important in this legislation.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, this is a very interesting amendment. And my point is simply, it does not fit here. The gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) just talked about how CBO could do this. Talk to CBO and they will tell him, what CBO does is objectively look at cost information. They objectively look at economic information. This legislation is all about relying on the Congressional Budget Office to do that so that we can, for the first time, have better information and then have accountability as to how we deal with that information. The Waxman amendment is a whole other topic. I just want to raise an alternative. When appropriations bills are on the floor of the House and the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and all the speakers who have supported this have said this is really about appropriations bills, they have focused, as I understand them, on the VA-HUD and other agency appropriations bill, which is where EPA is. Those are always taken up under open rules. There is certainly no history that I am aware of since I have been here where it has not been an open rule. It has never been restricted. We have restricted some appropriations bills, and they have been the legislative branch bill and the foreign ops bill, period. The others are open. Any Member can offer a motion to strike. If there is an environmental rider, which seems to be the focus of this amendment to legislation that really does not relate to Mr. Waxman's concern, then any Member can offer a motion to strike and knock that rider out and have a full debate on it, and we do it regularly. When we legislate on appropriations bills, even if the point of order is waived, and of course we know there is a point of order on legislating on appropriations bills, but even when it is waived by the rule and even when rule passes, which would be two other opportunities to have that happen, you still have that motion to strike. That is where we ought to be addressing these problems. We ought not to be doing it in the context of the private sector or the public sector mandates bill. It is an entirely different analysis. CBO will tell us they cannot do it. They will ask these questions: Okay, who is going to determine whether a mandate is actually weakened? Is that driven by a reduction in direct or indirect cost to the private sector? What if the private sector has become more efficient in implementing the mandate? We all want to encourage that; do we not? What if that has happened? How do we analyze that? Are those costs netted out from the Congressional Budget Office statement? Is there some credit given to the private sector for doing that? Cost reductions always mean benefits to healthy environment are weakened? I thought the goal was to get the greatest benefit for the least cost. That is what we say we encourage we want to do around here. This process that the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) sets up indicates a direct relationship always between cost reductions and weakened benefits, and that may or may not exist. It just does not fit with this legislation. There are other ways to deal with it. We do so in the House all the time through appropriation bills by offering a motion to strike. I would just say that again it is a very interesting debate we are having, it is a topic that is worthy of debate. I know the gentleman is sincere about his concern about riders on appropriation bills. This is not the right place to bring up this legislation. We have worked with CBO over the last 4 or 5 years on the public sector, now the private sector legislation. We have worked with the parliamentarian. We have done the hard work to come up with a balanced product. We have worked with the Committee on Rules. A substantial majority of the Committee on Rules has supported us in our efforts and refined this legislation. To come to the floor with this amendment that changes the whole direction of the bill and takes us off in another direction when it is not even necessary because we can already do it under our rules seems to me to make no sense at all. Mr. Chairman, I urge the Members of this House to look very carefully at what is being done here and to ask themselves cannot this be done through existing procedures, number one; and, number two, do we really want to add this burden that cannot be done by the Congressional Budget Office to this legislation making the legislation ultimately unworkable?

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for working with us, for his patience and his good work here today on the floor. I am pleased again to join the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) who is the lead sponsor of this legislation. Last year, by a nearly two-thirds bipartisan majority, this House voted to support H.R. 3534, legislation nearly identical to the bill that we are talking about this morning, H.R. 350. It is based, as the gentleman from California just said, on a very simple concept. That is, that we want to provide more information and more accountability to Congress as it considers unfunded mandates, which are really hidden taxes, this time on the private sector. About 3\1/2\ years ago, 394 Members of this House and 91 Senators voted to pass the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, also known as UMRA. We have heard about UMRA this morning. That is really the basis upon which we are moving forward today. UMRA ensured that for the first time ever, before the House voted on legislation, the House would have three things: One, new cost information on the public sector; that is, mandates on State and local government but also on the private sector, on the information side. And then, very importantly, with regard to the public sector mandates; that is, the mandates on State and local government, there would also be a separate debate on whether or not to impose the mandate and a vote. Now, that is the accountability measure in the legislation. It does not mean we never mandate on State and local government. In fact, since that time we have mandated, but after considering it. What it does mean is we get a lot better legislation on the floor, legislation that is more cost effective, legislation that goes through the committee process in a way that takes into account the costs of mandates. Committees end up either funding the mandates or they end up deciding the mandates have to be in the legislation and that the other purposes of the legislation, the benefits outweigh those mandates so it goes to the floor, anyway. In the end again we get more information, we get separate debate and we get accountability. I think the most important point to make this morning probably is that it has worked. We have an excellent record. I think even those few Members of this body who chose to vote against that bill 3\1/2\ years ago would agree, it has worked. We have not had the scenarios played out that we have heard about today that could possibly happen with this new piece of legislation. The practical impact has been to force committees to address the mandate issue long before bills reach the House floor. Let me give my colleagues one example. The first time it came up was the telecommunications bill. The telco bill was in conference, the conferees were poised to send to the floor a significant new mandate on local government, on our municipalities. The municipalities caught wind of that. They came to the unfunded mandate champions on the floor of the House and there was a decision made to raise the point of order. The conferees then took it upon themselves to work hard to come up with language that solved the problem so that when the legislation came to the floor, there was not more acrimony, there was less, because we had a better bill on the floor. It was good for this House, it was good for the institution, and in the end it was good for the taxpayers and the consumers. The process worked. In other cases like the minimum wage increase, the point of order was raised on the floor. In fact I think I was the one that raised that point of order, forcing debate over the mandate and the costs that it imposed, significant new costs on the private sector, also the public sector. It was roundly defeated, as I recall. But the point of order, although it failed, did bring out the information that the body needed to hear. The same was true on the Yucca Mountain bill. Some of my colleagues may remember that. The point of order was raised. It was not passed, but again the information was provided to the Members. UMRA has given State and local governments a very valuable tool, to get mandate information out, to get the issue considered and addressed at the committee level before it reaches the floor, and if that fails, to ultimately force a debate on the floor. But it is also flexible enough to permit Congress, as the gentleman from California just said, to pass legislation that does indeed impose new mandates when the merits of the bill override the negative impact of the mandates. Unfortunately due to the political realities of passing what was at that time precedent-setting legislation a few years ago, we were not able to offer all the same procedural protections to the private sector. I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) and the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Abraham) who have led the efforts to include the private sector. They have put a lot of hard work into the bill and they have taken what is the next logical step, to offer not all but similar protections to the private sector. I also want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) who was speaking earlier today. He and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) have been supportive of perfecting UMRA through this legislation. They have done a great job of coming up with legislation that State and local governments strongly support that makes clear that when those State and local governments are given new or expanded authority to meet the programmatic responsibilities if additional costs were imposed on them through entitlements reform, they could indeed change the way they do business. This is very important to State and local government. We have worked closely with them on that aspect of this legislation and I want to thank them for their support. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) made a great point earlier today about privatization with regard to the private sector side of this. Again I want to thank him for his support not just of perfecting UMRA but also of this legislation, H.R. 350. Let me just take a second to review how these procedures work in the House because we have had a lot of debate this morning, but we need to back up and talk about what it actually results in. Just as in the case of UMRA, any Member can upon consideration of legislation raise a point of order if there is an unfunded mandate. That results in a 20-minute debate on the question of whether the House should continue to consider the legislation notwithstanding the unfunded mandate, this time on the private sector. Again, much more importantly, we believe the possibility that this could occur will force the committees to do their best to minimize new mandates, to make legislation more cost effective. The process of this debate and vote is a far more significant tool as UMRA has already proven with the public sector mandates than simply requiring the committees to include the CBO estimate in the committee report which currently exists under UMRA. In fact, on Tuesday, before the Committee on Rules, CBO testified that since UMRA was enacted, quote, demand and supply for information about the costs of Federal mandates has increased, and in many instances CBO has been able to provide informal guidance on how the proposal might be restructured to eliminate the mandate or to reduce its costs. Again that is the point. Ask CBO, they will tell you, it has worked. A lot of Members have talked this morning who want to offer amendments to in essence gut this bill and have said that they are supportive of reducing or eliminating mandates on the public sector and reducing them on the private sector. That is what this is all about. We have reached that balance in this legislation over a couple of year period, working with the Committee on Rules, the parliamentarian, working with the committees, working with the Congressional Budget Office. This legislation creates the right incentive; that is, to address mandates even before they reach the floor. If the rule waives the point of order, then a Member can raise a point of order against the rule. That has been done. The House votes and that is it. The rule can pass and the bill moves forward without the ability to raise the mandates question again with a point of order on the bill. So once they had that vote on the rule, that is all they get, assuming the Committee on Rules does waive the mandates point of order. There are a few differences between UMRA, again the public sector bill, and this new private sector bill that ought to be focused on, each of these put in place with the encouragement of the Committee on Rules and others to ensure that the bill does not unnecessarily delay or cause other procedural problems on the floor. First, recognizing that there are likely to be more private sector mandates, the threshold is raised. It is doubled. Under UMRA the threshold is $50 million. Under this legislation it is $100 million. Secondly, in order to address the concern that the the point of order could be dilatory, it permits only one point of order. Third, there is a net tax decrease piece of legislation. Mr. Chairman, let me just conclude by saying that the purpose of this legislation is for us to be able to legislate better and with more accountability. That means accountability to small businesses and consumers who are impacted, but it also means accountability to those back home who care deeply about legislation like the Clean Water Act and others. It is a good piece of legislation. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to day with my colleague, Mr. Hoyer, to introduce the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act of 1999. Mr. Speaker, this bill is identical to legislation sponsored by Senator Glenn and Thompson that passed the Senate in the unanimous consent in the waning hours of last Session. Mr. Speaker, I often hear from state and local governments and constituents involved in non-profit organizations who, in an attempt to gain assistance for many worthy programs, are frustrated by the miles of red tape, regulations and duplicative procedures they encounter. Applying for the grant is not the only problem. The administrative and reporting requirements attached to certain grants often makes these entities question the cost effectiveness of entering the program in the first place. To address this concern we have introduced this short and straight forward legislation. It requires relevant Federal agencies, with oversight from OMB, to develop plans within 18 months that do the following: streamline application, administrative, and reporting requirements; develop a uniform application (or set of applications) for related programs; develop and expand the use of electronic applications and reporting via the Internet; demonstrate interagency coordination in simplifying requirements for cross-cutting programs; and set annual goals to further the purposes of the Act. Agencies would consult with outside parties in the development of the plans. Plans and follow-up annual reports would be submitted to Congress and the Director and could be included as part of other management reports required under law. In addition to overseeing and coordinating agency activities, OMB would be responsible for developing common rules that cut across program and agency lines by creating a release form that allows grant information to be shared by programs. The bill sunsets in five years and The National Academy for Public Administrators (NAPA) would submit an evaluation just prior to its sunsetting. The bill builds on past efforts to improve program performance through the Government Performance Results Act and to reduce Federal burdens through the Paperwork Reduction & Unfunded Mandates Acts. It has been endorsed by state and local organizations such as the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislators, the National Association of Counties, and the National League of Cities. I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Hoyer and the other original cosponsors for joining me in this effort and I encourage my colleagues to join in support of this bipartisan effort.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, on December 29, 1998, the Greater Cincinnati area lost one of its finest citizens. John L. Holden, an inspiration to many people, passed away at the age of 75. He was many different things to many different people: author, philanthropist, Navy officer, a national leader in camping, and business executive. But it was his fervent desire to counsel and provide learning experiences to young people that has left a lasting impression on a countless number of people throughout the community. Mr. Holden graduated from Cornell University in 1943. He served his country as a communications officer in the Pacific Ocean during World War II, and later commanded a Landing Ship Tank which supported Chinese Naitonalists in their fight against Communism. Upon his return home, he founded and directed Standard Laundry and Linen Service. He also served as a Vice President of Krause Hardware Company and as an estimator for Fisher-DeVore Construction Company. However, as anyone who was acquainted with him knows, his real love and passion was camping. In 1948, he and others purchased Camp Kooch-i- ching. He later succeeded his mentor, Mr. Bernard S. Mason, as director of the camp, as well as the Wasaka Boys Club, a year-round program of camping and sports in Cincinnati. He later founded the Camping and Education Foundation to which he donated the camp. In 1969, he founded the Kee-Way-Din Ski Club, of which I was a member. This group takes youngsters on skiing trips throughout the western and northern United States. Most importantly, however, was Mr. Holden's ability to be a positive role model in the lives of so many young people. Leading by example, he helped guide many children in their search for the difference between right and wrong. Mr. Holden had an uncanny way of opening the eyes of his campers if a problem existed. He would then lead them in finding a solution to that problem on their own. By helping them help themselves, Mr. Holden bolstered their self esteem and self worth. It also instilled a problem solving method in the children that could be used well into adulthood. Mr. Holden's unfailing leadership and dedication to the youth of Cincinnati has touched and inspired many people. Mr. Holden's life is proof positive that one person can certainly make a difference. That difference will surely be felt for years to come.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, on October 19, 1998, the Greater Cincinnati religious community lost one of its finest leaders. Ahmed Samawi, a friend and a man who treasured his faith and the freedom to worship without consequence, passed away at the age of 65. A devoted family man and successful businessman, he will perhaps be best remembered for his vision of better understanding and closer relations between the Christian, Islamic, and Jewish communities. Born in Damascus, Syria, Mr. Samawi realized that simple misunderstandings could create problems among people of different religions. His dream was to build an Islamic Center in the Cincinnati area to help bring an end to those misunderstandings. He spent his own resources and the last years of his life working towards that goal. His dream became a reality in 1995. What began as a plan for a modest meeting place blossomed into a glorious building. However, it was not the building for which he will be remembered for, but rather his vision for a better understanding of the Islamic religion. One of the Center's missions, in addition to providing a place of worship for Muslims in the Cincinnati area, is to reach out to area Christians and Jews. Mr. Samawi felt that the Islamic faith was plagued by misunderstanding. He spent a great deal of his life trying to remove the barriers of misunderstanding so that all faithful people could live together. When he passed away, he was working toward expanding the Center to include a museum, library, and school. He wanted to create a place that Muslims would be proud of, and Christians and Jews would be comfortable exploring. Mr. Samawi has inspired us all with his vision for a more spiritually united Greater Cincinnati. He will be missed by the entire religious community.