Rob Portman

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think it is irrelevant to what we are debating today because it does not affect a diminution of civil rights one way or the other; and, specifically, civil rights were excluded from the requirement of information that is in the legislation.

Mr. PORTMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) has expressed my views on this; we are happy to sit down and have a dialogue about it.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would make two points. One is that my colleague should like this amendment in that case because it is more likely that some kind of tobacco legislation I guess would not get through because the point of order would lie without the Dreier language in both of those scenarios. The point of order would lie in the case where there was more spending, and the point of order would lie in the case where there was a net tax decrease. All the Dreier amendment is trying to do is, in the case where there is a net tax decrease, partly for philosophical reasons and partly because of this absurdity where we are told if we have tax decreases we have to mandate, so then why should the mandate be subject to this? So I really do not understand how it relates at all to the tobacco legislation. If anything, I would hope that my colleague would stand up and support the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) because he might help him here. He is carving out at least some area where we would not subject it to this information requirement. I would also say, to make the point that was made earlier by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), if the majority of this House determines that they would like to spend that money, fine. This is an informational process; and if in the end, after a 20-minute debate, 10 minutes on each side, regarding this new private sector mandate or this new tax increase, this House determines that it is in the interest of the country to move forward with the legislation, we would simply vote by a majority vote, as we did with regard to minimum wage last year, to move forward with the legislation. So I do not understand quite what the big concern is about this language. I think it is logical, given our budget rules that we have to live under; and I would support the language and oppose the Moakley amendment.

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

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman from Massachusetts offering an amendment to change the budget rules? Because I do not think it would be germane here. We have to live under these rules. They are the rules that we have.

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

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

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think what the gentleman is saying, in essence, is that there is discrimination in this legislation against new spending. I guess I would answer him by saying, getting back to this philosophical question, you are probably right. We have a $5.5 trillion debt in this country. I think the problem that we are trying to address here is not on the tax side in terms of tax increases. It is more in terms of spending being out of control and a need to begin it get some control over the mandates on the private sector. That is the bias here. As I said earlier, there is a philosophical difference here.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would also say that if you look at the budget rules when we are talking about taxes, this is just a carve-out for taxes, it just has to do with situations where you have a net decrease in taxes in a tax package. Right now, we are living under rules that I think, despite what the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) may believe about those rules, we are going to continue to have to live under, which say that every time you want to give tax relief, you have to mandate. It seems to me, again, it would be absurd, then, to require those mandates to be subject to this if we are requiring ourselves to mandate.

Mr. PORTMAN. I will be happy to yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I think it is the converse of what the gentleman just explained.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, let me just make a couple of points. First of all, this well-intended effort by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) I think just does not work in the context of this legislation. I think it has very serious problems. CBO cannot do the analysis. The gentleman is in the Chamber, and I hope he will listen to some of my concerns and perhaps answer some of them. Not only does it substantially increase CBO's workload, and we have talked to CBO about this, and also degrade its ability to do its core function, which its core function is budget analysis and mandate analysis. That is what they do. That is what the Congressional Budget Office is all about. But also, CBO just cannot add anything new to this debate. They cannot do the benefit analysis that the gentlewoman just talked about prior to my taking the mike. They analyze cost information. They do not do noneconomic benefit analysis. If the goal here is to prevent efforts to weaken or remove mandates, then Members should simply vote against such proposals on the floor. I can recall very well those riders coming up and a lot of debate right here in the well of the House on that, and that is fine. The purpose of the point of order in the underlying legislation is to give Members the opportunity to consider private sector mandates, hidden mandates in the legislation, and to get information on those mandates from the experts at CBO that can objectively provide that information. This is an objective informational requirement. And these are mandates and information that we do not otherwise systematically consider. That is the way this legislation has been drafted. If the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and others would like to add some rider legislation, maybe they can spend the next year as we spent the last year, putting something together that makes sense on riders, but it does not fit with this legislation. It creates another point of order that I think is so vaguely defined that it could be used to hold practically any bill up. I have a lot of questions with it. Let me just ask a few right now. The Waxman amendment, as drafted, has a lot of flaws that do not work with the underlying bill and it has some very serious implications that just have not been thought through. Who determines whether the mandate is weakened or not? Let me just go through these questions, if I might. Is that driven by reduction in direct or indirect costs to the private sector? What if the private sector becomes more efficient in implementing mandates, which happens all the time. Look at all the environmental legislation that was talked about here earlier today. The private sector is learning to meet the same goals with fewer resources. With less of a burden on the private sector, is that a reduction in the mandate? The way I read the legislation, it would be, because it is a reduction in cost. Does that trigger this legislation, even though the goals are still being met? Is there any credit given when the net costs are less because the private sector is being more efficient? Is that requirement lessened? I just think these questions have not been thought out. The threshold. There is no threshold in this legislation. How much costs have to be reduced for this to apply? As I read the legislation, if the costs are reduced by $1, if it is $1 less, then that is somehow a reduction in the mandate and there is no threshold. As we know, in the underlying legislation we purposely worked through this. We have a $100 million threshold before the information requirement even applies on the private sector mandates. I guess the bottom line is, this is a well-intended effort by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) I am sure, and I know he is well-intended on the environment, but if there is any lesson we can draw from the Unfunded Mandate Relief Act of 1995, it is that we need to define the terms very carefully. The Parliamentarian's Office, the Congressional Budget Office will tell us that. The reason it has worked over the last 3 years is we took our time, we defined the terms. I think in the estimation even of those who voted against the legislation, some of whom are here today, it has worked very well. Why? Because at the committee level, the committees have dealt with the mandates to try to lesson the mandates and come up with the most cost-effective way to meet the same targets. That is what is likely to happen on this legislation. If we go ahead with the Waxman amendment, it is my concern, very, very strong concern, that we are going to essentially have an unworkable piece of legislation that will not work in the way that the Unfunded Mandate Relief Act of 1995 works and the way that this bill is intended after a year's worth of drafting.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to yield to both of my colleagues from California. I will first yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), who is standing.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield back to my colleague from California, who is again the lead sponsor of this legislation, to get his thoughts.

Mr. PORTMAN. Again, Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I understand what the gentleman is trying to get at, and certainly agree that that is a concern. I would also remind the gentleman that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) has already mentioned that our experience in the Unfunded Mandate Relief Act of 1995, which has been in place for almost 3 years, is in fact what happens is at the committee level we come up with better legislation. And that indeed when we talk about the mandate, and this is public sector mandates, albeit it is 10 minutes on each side, the debate tends to be about whether to move forward with the legislation because of the benefits. In other words, we do not just focus on the cost. So I would say it has not been a problem in our experience with the Unfunded Mandates Relief Act that passed 3 years ago that dealt with the public sector. With the private sector, there may be the possibility for some additional concerns. I also would remind the gentleman that with regard to private sector mandates, two things are different. One is that the threshold is raised to $100 million from $50 million, so it will apply to fewer mandates. Second is that one must consolidate the point of order. In other words, we cannot have a point of order on every private mandate that is in a piece of legislation or, for that matter, in an amendment. Instead, we have to consolidate all of those various point of order mandates into one point of order and then have the debate. That is to avoid the dilatory tactics that some were concerned about with regard to this legislation. So it is a little different from that, in a sense provides even more safeguards, but if the gentleman would be willing to talk about the possibility of taking out of consideration these broad-based amendments that would, in effect, be the legislation, maybe there is a way we can resolve this.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague and the lead sponsor of the legislation, the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) for yielding. I would like to give the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) the opportunity to discuss the possibility that if we were not to permit the informational requirement to apply to any amendments, would we not, in effect, circumvent the intent of the legislation by having an amendment which is in essence the legislation, such as a manager's amendment, which sometimes we do consider on the floor, or a substitute amendment for the legislation, and if he had any ideas as to how perhaps his amendment could be altered to take into account that possibility.

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

Mr. PORTMAN. That is along the lines we tried to do earlier in changing the subject, but keeping on the subject of mandates, seriously, I wonder if the gentleman has a response to that concern.

Mr. PORTMAN. If the gentleman from Virginia will continue to yield, I know the gentleman is very engaged in this legislation and spent a lot of time on it, and I would like to hear what he thinks.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman raising the questions, and I would ask the author of the amendment, again, what he would do in a situation where we had a manager's amendment on the floor, where we had a substitute amendment? This is a loophole big enough to drive a very large semi trailer through, because we could essentially put all the mandates in the manager's amendment or the substitute amendment and it would have gotten around the informational requirements in the legislation. I wonder if the gentleman has thought through that scenario or that possibility and what his response would be.

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

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman just made a great point, which is the underlying intent of this legislation in sunshine. It is trying to get at these private sector unfunded mandates. It is not about the merits or demerits of any new environmental legislation, any new civil rights legislation. It is about having information on something that is now a hidden tax on the American people, something we ought to know about. As I said earlier, the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) and I worked for a year on this, working with CBO, working with the Parliamentarian's office, working folks that actually have to make this place work day to day, as we did with the Unfunded Mandates Relief Act 3 years ago that dealt with State and local government mandates. We have come up with what we think is a balanced approach that actually works because CBO can do this. They can assess the cost. What they cannot do and, again, to reiterate what my colleague from California just said, what they cannot do is they cannot assess the benefits. The Waxman legislation is well-intended. Again, he may want to spend some time putting together something more thoughtful that deals with riders, but this is not the right place or time for this legislation. It will not work. This amendment will not work in the context of the bill that the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) just explained. I just feel very strongly that it is time for us to be more accountable around here. It is time for us to have good government. It is time for us to know what we are doing. It is time for us to legislate with good information. That is all this says. Just as in the case of the Unfunded Mandate Relief Act of 3 years ago, we will still continue to mandate when it is the will of this Congress and in the public interest to do so, but we will do so with information we do not have now. So I want to commend my colleague from California (Mr. Condit) for working on this legislation so hard over the last year. He is the lead sponsor of this legislation. I urge my colleagues to defeat the Waxman amendment and to move on to final passage.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I find that hard to believe. I do not know how the Congressional Budget Office is going to determine, in these complicated situations, whether in fact there has been a reduction in the requirement. I talked earlier about the lack of a threshold, for instance.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Reading Community City Schools on their Celebration of Excellence, which will be held on May 20, 1998. Reading Community City Schools have demonstrated a strong track record of academic excellence, parental involvement and community support. In fact, several Reading schools have been recognized as Blue Ribbon award winners by the State of Ohio. In particular, Reading Central Community Elementary School has received national recognition for excellence by being named as a National Blue Ribbon School for 1996-1997. This designation--given to only 268 public and private elementary schools nationwide--is a real tribute to the faculty, staff, students and parents who have shown a great deal of dedication, leadership and hard work. Too often, newspaper headlines are filled with stories about inadequate performance by our schools and our students. It is my hope that the achievements of Reading Community City Schools will serve as a model and will inspire other schools in our region and throughout the country to work toward new levels of academic excellence. I commend Superintendent John Varis, Board of Education President Albert Kretschmar, the faculty, staff, parents and--most importantly-- the students themselves, for their hard work and dedication that have made this Celebration of Excellence so richly deserved.