Rob Portman

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, today I rise to pay tribute to my friend and colleague from Ohio, the Honorable Louis Stokes, and to honor him for the many accomplishments of his distinguished career. It has been an honor to serve with him in the United States Congress. I had the pleasure of working closely with Lou Stokes and his dedicated staff on the Underground Railroad legislation. This legislation will create the first link of sites connected to the Underground Railroad, many of which are in danger of being lost. During our three years of hard work on this bill, I had the benefit of his guidance and counsel. Lou was willing to make this effort a completely bipartisan one. His commitment to the passage of the legislation never wavered, and President Clinton signed the bill this week. Lou's accomplishments are numerous. He successfully argued a landmark case before the U.S. Supreme Court. He served as Chairman of the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and Chairman of the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Most importantly, he met the needs of his constituents as only a true public servant could do. I have seen firsthand the enormous respect Lou has both at home and nationwide. All of us in Congress will greatly miss him.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of renewing normal trade relations (NTR) with China. As you know, the IRS reform legislation, signed by the President today, changes the designation of ``Most Favored Nation'' trading status to a name more representative of what we are trying to do--establish normal trade relations. This is a status held by every single one or our trading partners, except those that have been specifically denied by statutory authority. I strongly believe that renewing NTR is critical to advancing U.S. interests and relationships in Asia. Revoking NTR would significantly raise tariffs on Chinese imports--costing U.S. consumers more of their hard earned money--and would effectively sever our economic relationship with China, making it impossible to influence China in several areas, including human rights. Failure to extend NTR would also hurt our economic interests. U.S. exports have been steadily growing every year and support thousands of U.S. jobs. In my home State of Ohio, the 8th largest export State, Ohio firms exported $283.5 million worth of products to China in 1997--an 18.4 percent increase for the year, which has led to more jobs, increases in their wages and higher standards of living in Ohio. The Chinese would undoubtedly retaliate, putting our jobs and exports at risk. We would be giving our competitors a competitive advantage in one of the world's fastest growing markets. A policy of engagement with China, however, does not mean that we approve of its practices. I have grave concerns about China's human rights record. But it is through active engagement with China that we can make the most progress in this and other areas. The Chinese are becoming increasingly familiar with the benefits of an open market system and an open society through our contact with them, Revoking NTR would cut us off from the Chinese, limiting our ability to engage the world's other emerging superpower. Mr. Speaker, renewal of NTR has been supported by every President who has faced this issue, and is supported throughout Asia, including Japan and Taiwan. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the disapproval resolution and support renewing normal trade relations status to China. Continued engagement with China is the best way to help China become a constructive force for stability and prosperity in Asia, and advance important American interests. Thank you.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I want to thank the chairman for that explanation of the changes in the bill, and tell him that I very much appreciate his willingness to work closely with us over the past several months in putting this product together. It was his willingness to take this bill to his committee and expedite it that enabled us to be here today on the floor to pass what is truly historic legislation. As the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) said, we passed this bill on March 19 by a strong vote of 356 to 61. Since then, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) has said, we worked closely with the Senate on a day-to-day basis. They made what I think were very good and technical and clarifying changes, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) has just explained, and actually improves the legislation and makes it a better bill. I want to thank Senator Lugar, who took the lead in the Senate, and also Senator Brownback, who improved the bill, and Senators Biden, Chafee, and Leahy for their hard work on this legislation. The bill links two very important facts of life. One is that tropical forests are disappearing at a very rapid rate. He mentioned the state of Pennsylvania. An area larger than the State of Ohio is being destroyed every year in terms of our tropical forests worldwide. This has an impact on us, directly on our environment, our air quality, but also with regard to medicinal benefits and so on, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) said. That is one fact of life. The second is that these tropical forests happen to be located in countries that have tremendous debts to the United States. Therefore, we have an opportunity here, and this bill does in 3 years what is cost-free to the taxpayers, which is debt buybacks authorized by this bill. Building on President Bush's Enterprise for the Americas initiative, it also permits us as a Congress to be able to do what are called debt- for-nature swaps; in other words, the so-called swapping their debt for their ability to preserve tropical forests in their countries. Next is to allow third parties to come in and purchase debt, which will save tropical forests worldwide. It is a very commonsense free market approach to one of our most pressing environmental problems globally. I want to again thank the chairman for taking the lead on this. I also want to thank two other Members who could not be here with us right now. One is the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton) on the other side of the aisle, and the other is the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) who took the lead as being original cosponsors of this legislation and pushing it through the process. There are many other people to thank: the Nature Conservancy, Conservation International, World Wildlife Fund and other outside groups, my chief of staff, John Bridgeland. This is a great example of how working together we can truly address pressing problems, in this case a pressing environmental problem. I look forward to working with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and others to ensure this bill is funded this year. Again, we have expedited it so that that is possible, also that it be implemented in a manner that truly protects these invaluable resources round the globe. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation of objection, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), to explain the measure.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to celebrate the life of Eric Bachmann, a remarkable young man who was working to preserve an important chapter in our nation's history. Tragically, Eric died on Saturday, July 11, one day before his 27th birthday. Eric was the Assistant to the President and CEO at the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center in Cincinnati, Ohio. He also helped us develop the National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom Act which will be signed into law soon. As we move forward to promote racial cooperation, we will continue to be motivated by Eric's spirit. Eric graduated from Texas Tech in 1993 with a degree in history. Eric then moved on to the National Conference for Community and Justice (formerly the NCCJ), before beginning his service as an official of the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center. Healing the wounds of racial and social injustice was one of Eric's true passions, and he admired those who worked for freedom. These ideals led him to work diligently to honor the courage of those involved with the Underground Railroad. Eric was loyal and dedicated. He served his community and country through his good work. All of us in Cincinnati will miss him as a colleague and friend.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have heard a lot about the do-nothing Congress. I am getting kind of tired of it. The 105th Congress has been a very active Congress. The balanced budget we all know about, the first balanced budget in over 30 years, the first tax cuts in over 16 years, welfare reform that has moved people from dependency to dignity. This year we continue to be busy. Later today we are going to hear from the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and others on major environmental legislation called the Tropical Forest Conservation Act. It comes out of this Congress. We will be saving millions of acres of rain forests every year around the world through this legislation. We just heard about the Salton Sea Restoration Act Congress is going to pass today. The IRS reforms, just last week the Senate passed historic IRS reforms. Since 1952 the IRS has not seen major reform. We are going to actually make the IRS work for the taxpayers, rather than the other way around. A do-nothing Congress? It sounds more to me like a Congress that is doing plenty, in response to the concerns of the American people.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, for those kind words and for all his leadership on this legislation. It was exactly one year ago today that the National Commission on Restructuring the Internal Revenue Service announced its recommendations after a year-long audit of the IRS. That commission has been referred to by the gentleman from New York and by the chairman. It was cochaired by Senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska and myself. What we did was to recommend the first comprehensive changes to the IRS since 1952. When we released our report, again a year ago today, to fundamentally reform the IRS, change the way it does business and protect taxpayers, I cannot say that everybody in Washington was hoping that it would end up here on the floor. In fact there were many who probably hoped it would gather dust on a shelf, including some in the Clinton administration. At that time there was opposition from the Treasury Department over the degree to which we were reforming the IRS. The next step in that process was legislation. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and I introduced House legislation, and Senators Kerrey and Grassley introduced legislation in the Senate that was based on those recommendations. And then it was the chairman who prioritized it, put the Committee on Ways and Means at the front of this effort, and moved the legislation so expeditiously. Again this was before the legislation was as widely acclaimed as it will be today, I think, as we have listened to Members speak on the floor. Mr. Speaker, Americans are grateful for the leadership the gentleman from Texas showed and that the committee showed on a bipartisan basis. This is the agency that directly impacts the lives of more Americans than any other agency of government. Of course we owe it to the taxpayers to pass this bill today, and I am very confident that we will. But let me say something else. I think that once we have finished our voting today and we are done congratulating ourselves over this very good legislation this afternoon, we then have to turn our focus to the real work. We owe it to the taxpayers to ensure that the provisions in this legislation are actually implemented, and we owe it to them because we have to ensure that we do have a fundamental cultural change at the IRS. Members have heard about some of the bill's key provisions from the gentleman from Texas and the gentleman from New York. Let me just say it is a very comprehensive approach. It contains a wide range of reforms. When you take those reforms as a whole, it will transform the IRS from an antiquated sort of an enforcement mentality to a modern, more taxpayer service-oriented organization. It will refocus the mission of the IRS to provide respectful and efficient service to the taxpayer. It does so in a number of different ways. One is by creating this new oversight board that the gentleman from New York mentioned. This is unprecedented in government. We will have nine members of the board, mostly from the private sector, who will bring needed expertise and customer service, information technology, and how to transform a large service organization. They will be there to ensure that the IRS will be more accountable to the taxpayer and be more accountable over a long period of time. It does so by leveling the playing field between the taxpayers and the IRS. It has over 50 new taxpayer rights. These include shifting the burden of proof from the taxpayer to the IRS in court cases, providing long overdue relief for innocent spouses, most of whom are women who are unfairly targeted today by the IRS; it creates new due process rights for taxpayers, and even creates the right to be compensated for overzealous IRS actions. Very importantly, the legislation also reforms the IRS management structure to increase accountability and performance. It gives the IRS Commissioner new personnel flexibilities to drive change through the agency, such as the ability to bring in experts from the private sector at a high level in the IRS, the ability to reward IRS employees for taxpayer service, and fire employees who provide inferior service. It also increases the accountability of IRS employees and managers in the collection area to stop the tactics of intimidation. Finally, and significantly, let me just emphasize that the bill will increase congressional accountability for the IRS. That is a major victory for those of us in this body, in the House, who believe that it is not enough just to point the finger at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, that in fact much of the blame resides right here in the Capitol. As a result of our work, there are three significant congressional accountability provisions. First, we streamline congressional oversight, requiring the seven committees to come together and coordinate their activities, including one mandated meeting a year to review the IRS budget, review the IRS strategic plan, and send a clear and consistent message from Capitol Hill to the IRS. Second, we get the IRS at the table as the committees are working on tax legislation to ensure that on a more consistent basis we get expertise from the field to be sure that tax law changes are going to actually work to help the taxpayer and can work within the IRS system, what new forms or schedules will be required, how is that going to affect the IRS, how is that going to affect individuals. Finally, and perhaps most significantly, it requires Congress to conduct a new taxpayer complexity analysis of every new piece of tax legislation that reaches the House or Senate floor. It will work kind of like the budget scoring process. We will now be forced to ``score'' tax legislation to see what its complexity is for the taxpayer and for the IRS. And in the House we put teeth in that with a point of order to make sure that it actually happens. This will force us to consider the implications of what might otherwise be great sounding tax legislation. Again, for the first time ever now we will have incentives in place that actually encourage us to simplify rather than all the incentives that are out there right now for more complexity. Anybody who looked at this year's Schedule D for capital gains knows what we are talking about. There are a lot of other provisions in this bill. We do not have time to mention them all. Suffice it to say the overall package will ensure that the IRS will now work for the taxpayer rather than the other way around. Let me close with one final point, if I might. On a bipartisan basis within a short period of time, this Congress for the first time in 46 years fundamentally restructured the second biggest agency in government to make it far more responsive to taxpayers. That is in large measure because of the leadership of this Congress. Newt Gingrich took personal interest in this, talked to the Commission, supported it, expedited it. It is also, of course, the result of the hard work and dedication of the Restructuring Commission, its staff; the Committees on Ways and Means and Finance. Barbara Pate of my own staff put many hours into this project. I think the process worked, though, because we took partisanship out and brought expertise in. It just might be a model for other challenging issues we face. I again commend the chairman for his work. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to thank the staff of the National Commission on Restructuring the Internet Revenue Service for important work on this legislation. We would not have the strong reform legislation before us today without the hard work and patience of these individuals. They staffed dozens of public hearings, 3 town-hall meetings around the country and hundreds of hours of closed-door sessions with Restructuring Commission members. They also interviewed hundreds of present and former IRS officials, representatives of key stakeholder groups, and average taxpayers. The product of their work is the Commission's final report, ``A Vision for a New IRS,'' which served as the foundation of the legislation we have before us today. Congress, and the taxpaying public, thank them for their fine efforts. The Commission staff members were: Jeffery Trinca, Chief of Staff; Anita Horn, Deputy Chief of Staff; Douglas Shulman, Senior Policy Advisor and Chief of Staff from June to September of 1997; Charles Lacijan, Senior Policy Advisor; Dean Zerbe, Senior Policy Advisor; Armando Gomez, Chief Counsel; George Guttman, Counsel; Lisa McHenry, Director of Communications and Research; James Dennis, Counsel; John Jungers, Research Assistant; Andrew Siracuse, Research Assistant; Damien McAndrews, Research Assistant; Margie Knowles, Office Manager; and Janise Haman, Secretary.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize the distinguished career of a friend and constituent, John J. Young, upon his retirement as Executive Director of the Hamilton County Alcohol and Drug Addiction Services Board. The ADAS Board is responsible for planning and coordinating alcohol and drug addiction services in Hamilton County, Ohio. Mr. Young received his Bachelor of Science degree from Xavier University in 1967, and received his Masters in Education from the University of Cincinnati in 1972. He has been an Advanced Member of the American College of Addiction Treatment Administrators since 1989. Prior to his current executive leadership with the ADAS Board, John served over 20 years managing and delivering alcohol and other drug addiction services in the Greater Cincinnati area. John was instrumental in the conversion of the former Rollman Psychiatric Institute to the Hamilton County Alcohol and Drug Addiction Services Center. His efforts have resulted in developing the alcohol and drug treatment component of the Hamilton County Drug Court, the first such initiative in the state of Ohio. John is also currently co- chair of the Community Task Force of the Coalition for a Drug Free Greater Cincinnati. He is a member of the Governor's Council on Alcohol and Drug Addiction for the State of Ohio, and is a founding member of Ohio's Federation of Alcohol and Drug Addiction Services Boards. John has not limited his community involvement to just alcohol and drug addiction services. He is Vice President of the Executive Committee of the Hamilton County Family and Children First Council. He is a member of Leadership Cincinnati, Leadership Ohio, the Cincinnatus Association, and the Hamilton County Corrections Planning Board and the Hamilton County Human Services Planning Board. John Young has devoted much of his career to serving others in our community, and all of us in Cincinnati thank John for his service and wish him well in his future pursuits.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, for allowing me to talk on the legislation, and for all the good work he did in shepherding this bill through his subcommittee and through the Committee on Small Business. The markup that he just explained was a rather comprehensive and sometimes long series of exchanges, but I think it was good in terms of perfecting the legislation. I applaud the full committee for doing that. I want to particularly commend the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent) for his support of drug-free workplace programs, and in particular, his willingness to expedite this legislation. Notwithstanding some concerns that the gentlewoman has expressed this morning, I want to also thank the ranking member, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Nydia Velazquez) for her support of the legislation, and again, for working with us to help to perfect it. Let me try to put this bill in some kind of perspective. It is really part of what we hope will be a measured response here in Congress to a vexing national problem, which is how to substantially reduce the growing problem in this country of substance abuse and move towards a drug-free America. Unfortunately, we are far from that today. In the 1960s about 3 percent of the American population had used illegal drugs. Today that figure is close to about 40 percent. The trends are not helpful. When we look at the last 5 years, for instance, we see a doubling of teenage drug use in this country. Congress has attacked the problem on a number of fronts. We have expanded efforts to cut off the supply of drugs by increasing funding for so-called source country efforts: destroying coca fields, using the military more efficiently to interdict drugs. We have passed legislation just last month, in fact, to tighten border controls in our country. Even more encouraging, from my perspective, we have begun a concerted effort here in Congress to get at the heart of the problem by reducing the demand for illegal drugs. That is why this Congress took the unprecedented step last year of working in partnership with the private sector to launch the most aggressive antidrug public service campaign in history. Working with the Partnership for a Drug-Free America and the Office of National Drug Control Policy, we have started a $380 million campaign to change the hearts and minds of America's young people, and to engage parents again in this battle to turn the tide before it is too late. That is why we passed the Drug-Free Communities Act last year, to jumpstart prevention and education efforts at the local level that are actually working in our communities to mobilize parents, teachers, coaches, ministers, rabbis, law enforcement officials, kids, and yes, employers, in a concerted effort to make our streets safer, to allow our schools to teach, and to reverse the troubling trends we talked about in the last 5 years. That is why we are putting existing Federal prevention programs under the microscope, to see which ones are working and which ones are not, and to try to maximize the impact of the Federal dollars we are spending on prevention, education, and treatment. That is why we are working on innovative strategies to try to improve the frankly very disappointing treatment outcomes we see around the country for addicts, and why we are moving legislation this session to put effective treatment into our prisons and our jails. Today's bill is a part of this overall strategy. It is a critical part of it, because if we do not deal with the workplace, we are not going to get America to kick the habit. The Drug-Free Workplace Act, as the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) have already talked about, is bipartisan legislation that addresses the workplace. The data tells us that targeting the workplace makes a lot of sense. Over 74 percent of drug users are employed. Substance abusers file 5 times, 5 times the number of workers' compensation claims in this country. Those who use drugs will have 3 to 4 times the number of workplace accidents as nonabusers, and drug users are 2\1/2\ times more likely to have absences of 8 days or more. These numbers highlight the fact that drug abuse threatens safety, it raises costs, it lowers productivity, and most significantly, it has a detrimental impact on the worker that can and must be addressed. Fortunately, there does seem to be a growing consensus, I think, on both sides of the aisle, cutting across all partisan and really ideological lines, that the workplace is one of the key sectors where we have to address the drug abuse problem. The bill has garnered strong bipartisan support. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Sanford Bishop), who we will hear from in a moment, a Democrat from Georgia, and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Mark Souder), a Republican, join me as original cosponsors of this legislation. General Barry McCaffrey, the Administration's drug czar, director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, sent a letter expressing the Administration's support of this legislation. Both sides of the Committee on Small Business, as we have said earlier, have worked hard together constructively to perfect a bill. The amendments from the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Christian-Green) the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald), and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) all offered thoughtful, well-considered amendments, and I am glad they were included in the legislation before us today. Fortunately, the private sector already recognizes that drug-free workplace policies are good for employees, the community, and businesses. But while 98 percent, 98 percent, of Fortune 200 companies have drug-free workplace policies, only 3 percent of companies with fewer than 100 employees have such policies. So larger businesses are fully engaged in this. It is the smaller businesses where we are not seeing the kinds of results that we would like. It is certainly not due to any failure on small business's part to recognize the importance of the programs. Like the Fortune 200, small businesses understand that drug-free workplaces will reduce absenteeism and accidents, lower workers' comp costs, health care costs, help to educate parents in the workplace to talk to their kids about the dangers of drugs, and most important, I think, help workers, both those who are not substance abusers who want and demand and deserve a safe workplace, and those who are struggling with addiction and need help. But the challenges that small businesses face are daunting. Without the economies of scale achieved by larger companies, it is costly. Without human resources staffs, developing written anti-drug policies and providing employee assistance programs can be risky from a liability perspective. Small businesses are starting to recognize the need for drug-free workplace programs, but they need assistance in implementing these important programs. The high costs of workers' comp insurance for drug- related accidents, the expense of replacing stolen inventory, stolen to pay for a drug habit, the lost productivity of somebody dealing with substance abuse in their family, all are issues small business owners need to address. Just as we provide technical assistance in developing business plans, identifying loans and other small business services, we need to provide assistance for drug-free workplace programs. This legislation has three components. First, it urges States to help make drug-free workplace programs more affordable for all companies through innovative programs like workers' compensation premium discounts. Second, it provides grants to nonprofits to help empower small businesses to work together on developing drug-free workplace policies, and to save money by forming consortia to contract for employee assistance and drug testing programs. Finally, it uses the existing network of over 900 Small Business Development Centers all over the country to provide technical assistance to small businesses as they develop drug-free workplace policies. Workers' compensation is a natural; in Ohio, we now have a 20 percent discount in place. Seven other States are doing it. It is working well. If we can get more States to do it, we will see a lot more businesses having that financial incentive getting involved in drug-free workplaces. The nonprofit program in the bill I mentioned will help expand small networks of programs, like the Regional Drug-free Workplace Initiative in Portland, Oregon, the Houston Drug-free Workplace Business Initiative, and the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce plans, to help these small businesses develop written workplace policies and achieve economies of scale in testing and employee assistance programs. These programs have met with great success wherever they have been used, and small businesses participate with enthusiasm when they are available. We can spread the success with a very small Federal investment in a short-term grant program that authorizes the program just for one year to jump start this effort. Nationwide, communities that implement these programs find that businesses and charitable organizations have been eager to support the programs once they see the effect that they have. Finally, the last part of the bill, the technical assistance provided by the Small Business Development Centers, will greatly expand access to policy development resources. Over 900 centers would provide support to small businesses in developing drug-free workplace programs, expanding on the excellent work those current SBDCs do in other areas. We have to remember that small businesses employ over 50 percent of the workers in this country and generate the majority of new jobs in this country. If we are to achieve our goal of a Drug-Free America, they cannot be left out. With this targeted legislation, we can make a difference with a modest, one-time investment. By reaching out to small businesses that are increasingly interested in getting involved in drug-free workplace programs, we can reach out to them and dramatically expand the reach of these programs to cover 74 percent of the drug users in this country who are employed, and, just as importantly, the working parents of 84 percent of our children. By expanding these efforts to identify and combat drug use in the workplace, we can reduce the human cost to our society and the direct costs to our economy of drug use. But we will also create a safer work environment for those who work in smaller companies, help the bottom line, and educate parents on getting the message to kids that drug use is wrong and harmful. For all these reason, this legislation has the strong support of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Institute for a Drug-Free Workplace, the National Alliance for Model State Drug Laws, the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, the Small Business Administration, the Office of National Drug Control Policy, and the Association of Small Business Development Centers. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join us in supporting this important bipartisan bill to make workplaces all across America drug-free, safe, and healthy environments. I commend the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) who led this fight in the committee.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, a town meeting in my district that was scheduled at a time when the House was not expected to be in session prevented me from being here for yesterday's vote on H.R. 4060, the FY 1999 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill. I strongly support H.R. 4060. Had I been present, I would have voted YES. This bill contains $275,347,000 for the Fernald Environmental Management Project (FEMP), which is based in my Congressional District near Cincinnati, Ohio. The former Fernald Feed Materials Production Center, now the FEMP, was a Department of Energy facility that was part of the United States' nuclear weapons production complex for nearly forty years from 1951 to 1988. The site is heavily contaminated with nuclear waste and other hazardous materials, and has been the focus of extensive cleanup efforts for several years. H.R. 4060 fully funds the President's request for the Fernald cleanup under the Defense Facilities Closure Account. The Closure Account is designed to ensure the accelerated cleanup of this site under budget and ahead of the original schedule. Accelerated cleanup will not only result in a considerable savings to the taxpayers but also help to protect public health. I would like to point to a disturbing study recently released by the Center for Disease Control that estimates a 1 to 12 percent increase in lung cancer deaths to residents in the Fernald study area as a result of exposure to radon gas emitted from the site's K-65 Silos. The CDC's findings serve to emphasize the need to fully fund the Closure Account, which would ensure that the accelerated cleanup proceeds on schedule to safeguard the residents in the community from future radioactive exposure. Mr. Speaker, I believe this funding for the FEMP strongly serves the public interest. I commend Chairman Livingston, Ranking Member Obey, Chairman McDade, and Ranking Member Fazio as well as their colleagues on the Appropriations Committee and the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee for including these vital funds in the bill. I also want to thank the House for overwhelmingly approving H.R. 4060 by a vote of 405-4.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, because I was in my district conducting a town meeting, I was absent for rollcall votes 252, 253, 254, 255 and 256. Had I been in attendance, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 252, 253, 254, 255, and 256.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me and mostly for all the help he has given us to this point. We would not be here this afternoon on the floor if not for the subcommittee Chairman's willingness to hold a hearing and then mark up this legislation, and I want him to know that both the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes) and I greatly appreciate that and moving it through the process. I, of course, rise in very strong support of this historic legislation that will help preserve this powerful and often untold chapter in our Nation's history. I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes), who is seated on the other side of the aisle, for his leadership on this project. We have worked for the last few years on putting this legislation together and making this a reality. In addition to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), I also want to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), and the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega), who just spoke a moment ago, and the 150 other bipartisan cosponsors of this legislation. Specifically the bill does three things. First it creates within the National Park Service a National Underground Railroad Network for the first time of all the existing sites, historic buildings, interpretive centers, research facilities, community projects and activities directly related to the Underground Railroad. The purpose is to commemorate and retell the future generations the important story of the Underground Railroad. So much of what we know, of course, about the Underground Railroad today has been handed down through oral traditions, and over the years as a result, as a recent Park Service study has told us, a lot of that tangible evidence is now in danger of being lost forever. So this bill will help collect, preserve and integrate all the pieces of this fascinating and important part of our history. Second, it will require the Park Service to produce and disseminate educational materials, maps, handbooks, interpretive guides, electronic information; enter into cooperative agreements to help technical assistance facilities around the country that have a verifiable connection to the Underground Railroad; and will create a uniform official symbol for the national network and issue regulations for how that symbol can be used. Third, and I think very importantly, it requires appropriate public- private partnerships so that we can facilitate strong private support for this important part of our history. I think this is perhaps one of the most significant parts of the legislation because it represents a way for us to maximize and leverage the resources from the private sector to enhance a national public network. One brief example the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega) talked about, the funding in the bill, there is some funding in the bill, but in our own area of Cincinnati that I represent, we hope to raise up to $80 million for a National Freedom Center, which would be part of this linkage, and with those kinds of private sector funds we can do much more with regard to commemorating this part of our history. The legislation, I think, really can foster a sense of racial harmony, and just as the Underground Railroad itself bridged a divide of race and religion and nationality, joined people together in common purpose, so has this bill. The powerful and largely untold stories of the brave men and women of the Underground Railroad can inspire us even today, and must, about racial cooperation, about reconciliation, about determination and about courage. In a very real sense this act, I think, is a tangible effort that is bringing together people of different races today that helps to advance our ongoing national dialogue we must have about race relations in this great country. Like so many other people in this Chamber and around this country, I have a personal connection to the Underground Railroad. I knew about it before this project got started, but I learned a lot more about it. The family home of my namesake and grandfather, whose name was Robert Jones, was a stop on the railroad. His great-grandparents and grandparents were Quakers and abolitionists who lived in a farmhouse near West Milton, Ohio, just north of Dayton. In fact, I visited their home a couple of weeks ago with my family and was able to show my three children the attic above the kitchen where my grandfather told me that, in fact, slaves were harbored as they sought freedom. Many of the prominent figures of the Underground Railroad, it turns out, lived and worked in the district I represent. Levi Coffin, considered by many to be the president of Underground Railroad, worked for most of the time out of Cincinnati, also a Quaker. Harriet Beecher Stowe was a native of Cincinnati who wrote portions of Uncle Tom's Cabin, which helped in Cincinnati, and of course that book help galvanize antislavery forces in the 1850s and 1860s. John Parker of Ripley, Ohio, in my district was a former slave who bought his freedom, was a successful inventor and foundry owner and entrepreneur, and became a major conductor on the Underground Railroad. We are now trying to restore his home in Ripley, Ohio. The Reverend John Rankin, also of Ripley, sheltered over a thousand people fleeing slavery. His home is restored. It is a site that sits on the hill above Ripley, Ohio, and one of the people who he saved was the character of Eliza actually in Uncle Tom's Cabin. Another town in my district, Springboro, Ohio, has a number of stations, they think 15 or 16 stops, on the Underground Railroad, and they are now doing more work to uncover and authenticate those sites. One of the very exciting aspects of this bill is its encouragement of public-private partnerships. In the greater Cincinnati region I represent, a national Underground Railroad Freedom Center, which expects to raise about, as I said, $70 million of private sector money, has been started. The freedom center is expected to open in the year 2003 on the banks of the Ohio River, an appropriate place, the dividing line between free and slave States. It will employ state-of-the-art technology and advance interdisciplinary education to commemorate, educate, and inspire and promote reconciliation, assisted by a national advisory board of distinguished leaders in their number. I will just list a few: Desmond Tutu; Rosa Parks; Dick Cheney, a former Member of this Chamber, and others. This center will be an international resource for scholarship, human relations education and genealogical study. It will be one of the first distributive museums around the country, meaning it will be in contact with this linkage that we are setting up through this legislation, the networking, and it will also be the first major museum focused exclusively on the Underground Railroad experience. The center will create cooperative programming and educational opportunities across the continent. It has already attracted substantial private sector support, and again it should be a critical and leading link in the network envisioned by the legislation. I would like to give special thanks today to a friend and a fellow Cincinnatian, Ed Rigaud, who is leading that effort in Cincinnati and has taught me a lot about the national significance of the Underground Railroad. Also, Iantha Gantt-Wright is with the National Parks and Conservation Association, and that group has worked with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes) and myself over the last couple of years, gave us a lot of input in the process of putting together the legislation. Finally, I want to single out Jan Oliver of my staff and the staff of the House Committee on Resources for all their good work on the legislation. I urge bipartisan support of this important and I think landmark legislation, to preserve the story of the Underground Railroad, the lessons of which can guide us in our quest for racial cooperation and understanding even today.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I and my colleagues, John Boehner, David Hobson and Tony Hall, rise today so that my colleagues and I may recognize the life of a giant of American business and philanthropy, John Berry, Sr., a friend and entrepreneur who passed away on May 20, 1998. When Mr. Berry took over his father's small telephone book company in 1946, it employed 50 people and generated $2 million in annual revenue. Under his leadership, the company became the largest independent publisher of the Yellow Pages in the United States and grew to $1 billion in annual revenue by 1986 and employed 3,000. It went international in the mid-sixties with a joint venture with ITT World Directories, which grew to become the largest publisher of the Yellow Pages outside of the United States. Mr. Berry was a graduate of Dartmouth College, a school he loved and generously supported over the years. Most recently, the college library was renamed ``Berry Baker'' due to his strong support for the college and its mission. He served in the Army during World War II and was a committed community volunteer, serving as Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Air Force Museum Foundation and on the Boards of Trustees of the University of Dayton and The Ohio State University and The Ohio State University Foundation. He was also a member of the Dayton Chamber of Commerce, Dayton Urban League and Junior Achievement of Dayton and Miami Valley. Mr. Berry received several honorary degrees, including Doctor of Laws from Dartmouth College, Doctor of Humane Letters from University of Dayton, Doctor of Public Service from Rio Grande College, and Doctor of Business Administration from the Ohio State University. He also received the Everett D. Reese Medal from The Ohio State University in recognition of his service. Those who knew John Berry knew him as a remarkably successful entrepreneur and a community leader. But they also knew that nothing was more important to him than his family. He is survived by his wife, Marilynn; five sons: George, John Jr., David, Richard, and Charles; two daughters: Vickie and Lynne; and 18 grandchildren. John Berry was the quintessential American success story, but also had a quintessential American spirit of giving back to his country. He will be missed by all.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend a leader in the Cincinnati community, Mr. Tom Conlan. On June 15, Tom will receive the Peace of the City Award from the Jewish Community Relations Council of Cincinnati. This award is presented annually to citizens who contribute greatly to the life of their community and whose lives are dedicated to creating a fair, equitable and just society for all. Throughout his life, Tom has assisted others through his professional career and charitable activities. Tom's professional career has included financial analysis and feasibility of higher education, energy, housing and health care. For example, he has served as executive director of the Ohio Energy Advisory Committee, where he spearheaded the development of the Winter Heating Assistance Program. Importantly, Tom and his father co-founded Student Loan Funding in 1981, an organization dedicated to ensuring access to higher education in Ohio and throughout the nation. Over the past 17 years, Student Loan funding has helped over 600,000 students achieve their dreams of higher education with more than $4 billion in financial aid. Most recently, Tom demonstrated his commitment to education through the formation of the Thomas L. Conlan Education Foundation, named after his late father. It is dedicated to supporting education access through grants, research and advocacy. With approximately $100 million in assets, the Foundation will be one of the premier education support organizations in Ohio. Tom's charitable activities have included service on the Boards of the Hamilton County Alcohol and Drug Addiction Services, the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center, the Queen City Foundation, the Greater Cincinnati Tall Stacks Commission and the Catholic Big Brothers Association of Cincinnati. The Peace of the City Award is a well-deserved recognition for a man whose efforts have significantly increased educational attainment in Ohio, and whose community involvement has contributed to the quality of life in Greater Cincinnati.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, the last speaker said it is just like 1995. It is just like 1995. We have, again, on the other side folks saying we are cutting spending to give tax cuts to the rich. Neither is true. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) may not like the idea of eliminating the marriage penalty but that is something that actually will benefit middle income families, and he may not like the idea of not spending as much as we would otherwise would have spent, but that does not make it a cut. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) specifically talked about the Medicare numbers. Those numbers apply to the entire budget. We are talking about spending a little less than we would otherwise have spent. This is where we are. Last year we all got together and we passed a balanced budget agreement to balance the budget over five years. The American people, through their hard work and productivity, did it quicker than that, but there was a lot of pain, a lot of agony. We gave. The Democrats gave. The Clinton administration and the House Democrats and Senate Democrats gave, and we ended up with this common ground balanced budget agreement. It is only natural that this year we Republicans would come back and we would say, okay, we gave a little, now we are going to get back to our fundamentals. We are going to roll up our sleeves and we are going to spend a little bit less than the $9.1 trillion that was agreed to. We are going to spend 1 percent less, and we are going to give some of that back in terms of tax cuts because we are actually spending, as a percentage of GDP, more in taxes every year as Americans than we have historically in this country, so we have a relatively high tax burden right now even with the good economy. It is also natural Democrats would do the same thing. They are back this year saying they want to go beyond the balanced budget agreement that was agreed to last year also, but they are saying that they want to spend more. The President's budget, 85 new spending programs, 39 new entitlement programs, over $150 billion in new spending, over $150 billion in new spending over five years. $129 billion in tax increases over 5 years is how it is paid for, largely, again, from the same President who in 1993 put in place the largest tax increase in our history. So that is where we are, and I would just say I would cast my lot with those who believe we can do more. I would cast my lot with those who think we can do a little better. Yes, the chairman gave some examples earlier in response to the gentlewoman from Michigan. She criticized the chairman. Today on a partisan basis in this House we voted to reform the SSDI program. We improved the program and we saved $40 million to the American taxpayer. There is darn good example. Yes, we can streamline. Yes, we can consolidate. Yes, it takes rolling up our sleeves and looking anew and thinking outside the box on some of these Federal programs, but sure we can do that. Instead of spending $9.1 trillion, we are going to spend $9 trillion over the next five years. And remember, we only spent $7.8 trillion over the last five years. So I thank the chairman for putting together this good budget, and the Committee on the Budget. I wholeheartedly endorse it.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to start by commending the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) for spending the last couple of years putting together this legislation. It was a great example of rolling up your sleeves and working on a tough problem that not many people want to face. I also want to congratulate the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Kennelly) who worked on a bipartisan basis with the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning). We have heard over the last couple years on the subcommittee from a lot of people who have disabilities but they truly want to work, and technological as well as medical advances might permit them to work, might make it possible for them to work. Unfortunately, the current Social Security disability program has an inherent number of obstacles and disincentives that make it pretty difficult and undesirable for people to leave the rolls and seek gainful employment, because they might lose cash or critical Medicare benefits. This proposal is designed today to eliminate obstacles. I know there has been a lot of discussion on it already. Again, I want to say it is good common sense work. It took a lot of time to put together something that makes sense. It is bipartisan. In the end, what is exciting about this is it is going to help people to work, to be able to have gainful employment, to be able to take care of themselves. It also, in the end, saves the taxpayer money. The information we have is that it will save the Social Security system nearly $40 million over the next 5 years alone. Again, the key to it is it can provide people with opportunities and means that they have asked for to become productive members of society. It is a good, fiscally responsible bill, and I want to congratulate again the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) for spending the time and effort to put this together, and his cosponsor, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Kennelly).

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, it was a long year and actually more than a year. In the end, the commission spent about a year and a half studying the various problems at the IRS; in some senses, turning the table and sort of auditing the IRS, and came back to Congress with a list of recommendations which were then, with the help of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), implemented in the form of legislation. That legislation was introduced in October, I believe. The House passed the legislation in November. The Senate, in turn, passed its legislation which is building on the House bill a few weeks ago. I, as you know, believed that we could have done all of this last year. So, certainly, I am not for delay, and I want to commend the authors of the motion to instruct with regard to their focus on the interests of moving this forward quickly and not having further delay. However, I will say, in all fairness, I think the Senate did improve the legislation in a few respects, and I hope that, while I will support this motion, that it is in the context of giving the conferees some flexibility to be able to accept certain Senate provisions that are an improvement. I would mention, as an example, the Inspector General provisions. I think those are an improvement. It is something the commission, which did spend a year and a half studying the IRS but did not, frankly, get into that issue at any depth and did not make a recommendation on, and the Senate then picked up and I think improved. So the Inspector General Service at the Treasury Department will be able to play a more effective and forceful role at the IRS, which is desperately needed. I will also mention that the Senate added some taxpayer rights provisions which I think are quite helpful, particularly the expansion of innocent spouse relief that the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) has worked hard over here in the House on as well. I do think there are some things in the Senate bill which are going to make the IRS work even better. But it does build on the structure of the House bill; and certainly the House, having passed its legislation with such an overwhelming margin, will want to support the general direction that the House legislation took, which I think the Senate bill does. It really is the House bill, and it is something this House I think can be very proud of because it was done on a bipartisan bases and it was done with the interests of the American taxpayer in mind. In the end, I am convinced it will lead to a new IRS. Let me just mention three aspects of the legislation. I think they probably have already been mentioned earlier. I apologize I was not here for all of the debate. One is in the area of taxpayer rights. There are 28 new taxpayer rights in the House bill. The Senate, as I say, adds a few other taxpayer rights that are very important, taxpayer rights in being able to suspend interest and penalties if there has not been adequate notice given to the taxpayer. But when you add up all these taxpayer rights, what they will result in is, indeed, a new way of thinking at the IRS. Shifting the burden of proof at the tax court level is a great example of that. Now the IRS, when they are in a dispute with a taxpayer, will be thinking about litigation strategy, whether in fact they can, as the IRS, bear that new burden of proof we are putting on them just as in the case of criminal law in this country. I think it will change the way they deal with taxpayers. It will help taxpayers who will end up with the right result for many taxpayers who, right now, are forced to settle with the IRS because the taxpayer carries that burden of proof. I would say that that set of taxpayer rights provisions, when taken together as a whole, will definitely make a difference in terms of the attitudes and really the culture of the IRS. The second one I will mention, I know my friend from Maryland I think was talking about it a moment ago, and this is the oversight board. This oversight board, perhaps, has been described inaccurately by both sides at times, but the thought is very simple. You need to have at the IRS a group that has the experience in the problems that the IRS currently faces, which is information technology, taxpayer service, running a large service organization. You need to have continuity. This is why we have these 5-year staggered terms on this board, so that they will actually be able not only to talk about important reforms but implement them over time, because it will take time. Finally, accountability. Without this kind of a board that brings in this private sector expertise I talked about and that has that kind of continuity, in other words, the follow-through to make sure these changes get made so that we do indeed create a new IRS, you are not going to have accountability. So this is a very important aspect of the change. The final one I will mention which has not gotten much play but is very important in this legislation is changing the personnel flexibilities at the IRS to make it easier, frankly, to fire bad apples at the IRS and easier to promote people who, indeed, are doing a competent job or professional job and respecting taxpayer rights. Taxpayer service will be a new measurement at the IRS. Rather than measuring whether taxpayer service representatives at the IRS and whether people in the compliance side are collecting more money from taxpayers, we will be measuring what kind of service employees at the IRS provide to taxpayers. That, again, is a change in direction at the IRS. It will lead, along with these other changes, and there are 50 some odd changes to the IRS in this legislation, to a new IRS and indeed a new culture at the IRS and, in the end, will benefit our taxpayers greatly. I would also like to, again, make the point that we have made throughout this process, that we need to do more here on Capitol Hill, both in terms of simplifying the tax code, and there is for prospective legislation a provision in this legislation which does that. It puts forth a complexity analysis. We think the House version is stronger on that. It has teeth in it. It has a point of order. It will enable us actually to enforce it. Finally, we feel very strongly we need to consolidate the oversight on Capitol Hill. Part of the problem, of course, is that the Treasury Department is the IRS, but part of the problem resides right here in Congress. The Senate chose to delete that provision in the legislation. I think the House conferees, I hope this is a unanimous view, will fight hard to get the House position accepted, which would be, in fact, to consolidate oversight so that we are speaking more with one voice from Capitol Hill to the IRS and be able to improve oversight in communication between lawmakers here on Capitol Hill who are elected to represent taxpayers and the Internal Revenue Service. Mr. Speaker, I would just say in conclusion that I will be voting for this motion to instruct with the understanding that it is not going to tie our hands in terms of accepting some provisions in the Senate that perhaps were not looked at as carefully as they might have been when the House completed its legislative task. I want to commend the authors of it and hope that we can, indeed, move forward as rapidly as possible to finally give the taxpayers what is long overdue, which is, indeed, a new IRS.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the contributions of Michael J. Burke, a constituent and community leader who will receive Cincinnati's Boys Hope/Girls Hope's highest honor, the Heart of Gold Award, on May 26, 1998. Mike Burke's personal commitment to numerous charities in our region reflects his philosophy of giving back to our community. For over 10 years, Boys Hope/Girls Hope has been blessed by Mike's tireless energy, talent and dedication. Boys Hope provides talented, underprivileged grade and high school children and young men with a safe, wholesome living environment from which they can pursue their studies and prepare for college. The goal of Boys Hope/Girls Hope is to overcome the obstacles of poverty, abuse and neglect and provide a structured, caring educational experience for students through high school and college. Through Mike's leadership, Boys Hope is concluding a successful effort to bring Girls Hope to Cincinnati. Girls Hope will permit the expansion of services to include young women in Greater Cincinnati. Mike's vision has provided so many young people in our area with an exceptional opportunity to succeed. All of us in Greater Cincinnati owe Mike a debt of gratitude and congratulate him on receiving the Heart of Gold Award.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce The Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act of 1998, legislation to streamline and improve the federal grant process. I'm sure all of us have heard from state and local governments or non-profit organizations in our districts who have grown frustrated with the federal grant application process. Most recently, I have heard concerns express from around the country about the implementation of the Drug-Free Communities Act, legislation I sponsored that was enacted last year. Anyone who has attempted to apply for a federal grant has grown frustrated by the miles of red tape, regulations and duplicative procedures they encounter. Applying for the grant is just the beginning of the problem--the administrative and reporting requirements attached to certain grants often make potential recipients wonder whether to apply for funding in the first place. The legislation we have introduced addresses these concerns. 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 of OMB 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 Act sunsets in five years and the National Academy for Public Administrators (NAPA) would submit an evaluation of the Act's effectiveness 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 Act and Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 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. Identical legislation, sponsored by Senators Glenn and Thompson, was recently reported out of the Senate Government Affairs Committee. This is a good government measure that will make it easier to interact with our federal government, and result in cost savings for grant applicants and federal agencies. I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Hoyer, and the other original cosponsors for joining me in this bipartisan effort and I encourage my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to reluctantly oppose the amendment. We are just looking at the language over here. But, in essence, what this does, as I see it, is it builds on the Waxman amendment we debated previously regarding the environment and says that, with regard to any civil right or constitutionally protected right where there is a lessening of some requirement, that there be a point of order. Again, it is not what this legislation is about. We specifically in the legislation, the underlying bill, which is the Unfunded Mandates Relief Act of 1995, exclude all civil rights, all constitutionally protected rights. And that is very clear. And I think that carve-out was appropriate, although it was debated, as some will remember, 3 years ago; and I think that is appropriate. What this legislation would purport to do or this amendment would purport to do is to go well beyond that and say that, any time there is a determination by somebody that there has been a diminution of some kinds of rights, then there be a point of order. Again, it may be a good idea to do if the gentleman would like to sit down and work on some legislation. It took Mr. Condit and I about a year to come up with this legislation on private-sector mandates. There might be some way to do it. But it does not fit into this legislation. CBO is not able to do this. It is not their job. They do cost analysis and budget. That is who we are relying on here. And if we learned anything in the experience of the Unfunded Mandates Relief Act over the last 3 years, and it has worked well, it is that we need to clearly define the terms. We need to have the minimum of ambiguity and the maximum of clear, concise definitions to be able to make this work right so that at the committee level we come up with better legislation that does not mandate on State and local government and now with this legislation mandate on the private sector without fully understanding the cost and coming up with the least costly way to achieve the same results. I would just say to the gentleman it is an interesting idea. Maybe there is some legislation that could be crafted to achieve his objective. But this is not the place to do it.

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

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

Mr. PORTMAN. Reclaiming my time for a moment, let us back up and talk about the fundamental philosophy on this legislation. This is with regards to new mandates on business. The previous legislation was new mandates on the public sector. We chose to carve out the situation of constitutionally protected rights or civil rights. In other words, even if there is a new mandate on the public sector, it is not subject to this informational requirement if it relates to civil rights. In other words, it is a carve-out; it protects it. The gentleman just made the assertion that somehow this legislation could affect civil rights law negatively by diminishing civil rights. It would have no impact on that. This legislation would not apply. In fact, this legislation goes out of its way to make sure that we are not going to put any barriers in place of any kinds of civil rights. There is a legitimate debate we would have as to whether we should have excluded included all civil rights from the requirements on this bill. After all, it is just informational. But we thought civil rights is so important and it is defined as constitutionally protected rights that we did not subject it to the information requirements in this legislation. The situation that the gentleman is describing of diminishing civil rights simply would not be affected by this legislation one way or the other.