Rob Portman

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on Monday, April 29, 2002, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, April 30, for morning hour debates.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. If the gentlewoman will continue to yield, I believe the first three measures, which is the Ex-Im Bank, the multinational development banks, and the resolution of disapproval, would be on Wednesday, and the fourth measure we mentioned, the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act, is likely to be on Thursday.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I thank her for her inquiry. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that the House has completed its legislative business for the week. The House will next meet for legislative business on Tuesday, April 30 at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour and 2 o'clock for legislative business. On Tuesday, the majority leader will schedule a number of measures under suspension of the rules, a list of which will be distributed to the Members' offices tomorrow. Recorded votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. For Wednesday and Thursday, the majority leader has scheduled a number of measures, including H.R. 2871, the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act of 2002; H.R. 2604, the Multinational Development Banks Authorization Act; H.J. Res. 84, a resolution disapproving the action taken by the President under section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974; and H.R. 3994, the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act of 2002. Additionally, Speaker Hastert advises us that he may be ready to name conferees to the election reform legislation which passed both the House and the Senate; and, therefore, the majority leader will likely schedule a motion to go to conference on that bill next week. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 112, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time on the legislative day of Wednesday, May 1, 2002 for the Speaker to entertain a motion that the House suspend the rules relating to H.R. 2604.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Sandra W. Heimann, a distinguished constituent, who will be honored as the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation's (JDRF) 2002 Cincinnatian of the Year at JDRF's Cincinnati Chapter Gala on April 27, 2002. The JDRF Cincinnati chapter has done an excellent job of both raising awareness of the issue of juvenile diabetes and raising needed funds for medical research on this debilitating disease and possible cures. In selecting Sandy Heimann as this year's honoree, JDRF has chosen well. Sandy is well deserving of this honor. She has worked tirelessly to make our community a better place and has done so quietly, without seeking public recognition for her service. Sandy is a director of the Drake Planetarium, the Tri-State Foundation, the Cincinnati Zoo, the Medical Center Fund at the University of Cincinnati, and the UCATS, the University of Cincinnati's booster organization. She is a member of the Board of Trustees and Administrative Board of Hyde Park Community United Methodist Church, where she chairs the Endowment Committee. A director emeritus for the Hospice of Cincinnati, in 1998 Sandy received Hospice of Cincinnati's prestigious Donna West Award. She has served with great distinction on the Bethesda Foundation Board, Downtown Council Board, Fine Arts Board and the Cincinnati Zoo's Center for Reproduction of Endangered Species. Sandy is also a founding member of the Metropolitan Club and co-founder of Cincinnati Aquatics Swim Team. Sandy has a special interest in higher education. In addition to her work with the University of Cincinnati, she is Vice President of the National Executive Board of the Jefferson Scholar Program at the University of Virginia (UVA), Chairman of the Regional Selection Committee for UVA, and is on the National Selection Committee for Jefferson Scholars. She also served as Chairman of the Parents Committee at UVA. Currently, Sandy is Vice President of American Financial Corporation and Great American Insurance Company, and is a former director of American Financial Enterprises. She has served American Financial in various management capacities since the company was founded in 1959. Devoted to her family, Sandy and her husband, Bob, have a son, Rob, and a daughter, Paige. All of us in the Cincinnati area congratulate Sandy Heimann on receiving the JDRF's Cincinnatian of the Year award in recognition of her exemplary service to our region.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding time to me, and I want to congratulate the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof) for bringing this bill to the floor. All we are doing is reaffirming what this House did last spring. I suppose it is going to be tough for some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who did not join some of their colleagues, because it was a bipartisan vote last spring, to change their vote and now support tax relief. But they ought to think about it, for a couple of reasons. First, what do we know since last spring? We know these tax cuts were extremely important in keeping us out of a deep recession, and now helping this economy to grow. Economists right, left, and center, including the chairman of the Federal Reserve, have said that: low inflation, low interest rates, lower taxes. So if they are interested in getting us back into a surplus position so we can take care of the needs of our seniors through Social Security and Medicare, I would think they would want to think again about maybe supporting this tax relief. Second, even though we have passed a good bill out of the House, the Senate put this 10-year limit on it. That does not make any sense. Why would we want to have tax relief only last for 10 years? We cannot plan. The whole idea with taxes is to be able to plan. Otherwise, we have a huge cost to the economy, to people, to businesses. Not being able to plan means incredibly increased costs and incredible new complexity. Think about it. If somebody is trying to plan what they are going to do, their accountants and planners are going to say, well, in the ninth year this thing ends and in the tenth year it starts up again, so we really cannot give you any advice about planning, so you have to plan for both. That is a terrible inefficiency in the economy. I would hope my colleagues would think about that. I will just give one example. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof) mentioned the retirement security provisions. They were very popular on a bipartisan basis because they make a lot of sense. They simplify the plans so the small businesses can get into them. They let people take the plan from job to job. They let people save more for their retirement. This year, people can save 50 percent more for their IRA, in their 401(k). If you are over 50, you can save even more. This is great stuff. Do we want this to expire in 9 years? This does not make any sense. Let us not pull out the rug from the American people. Let us support this permanence.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the over 4,500 youth and adult participants of the 2002 PRIDE (Parents Resource Institute for Drug Education) World Drug Prevention Conference currently being held in Cincinnati, Ohio. The PRIDE conference is the world's largest youth conference focusing on drug and violence prevention and one of the few that provides a forum where youth and adults meet to find solutions. PRIDE was started in 1977 with the primary goal of educating, promoting and supporting drug free youth who care for the safety and health of self, peers, family and community. Today, as PRIDE celebrates its 25th anniversary as an organization dedicated to youth, it enjoys one of its most successful conferences to date. This year's participants represent 40 countries, many ethnic groups, as well as urban, suburban and rural communities. I am pleased to serve as PRIDE statewide co-chair along with Hope Taft, First Lady of Ohio, and Luceille Fleming, Director of the Ohio Department of Drug and Alcohol Prevention. The Coalition for a Drug-Free Greater Cincinnati, an organization I and other community leaders founded in 1996, has acted as a local partner. The 2002 conference has drawn an impressive host of nationally recognized speakers including John Walters, Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy; Hope Taft, First Lady of Ohio; Ruth Sanchez-Way, Director of the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention; Charles Currie, Director of Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; Major General Arthur Dean, Chairman/CEO Community Anti- Drug Coalitions of America. The conference offers numerous workshops that help youth learn how to be leaders in their schools and communities, and teaches techniques that can be used to encourage peers to maintain a healthy and substance-free lifestyle. Importantly, the conference also demonstrates that, although there is still a great deal of work to do in the struggle to keep our youth off drugs and away from alcohol and tobacco, the majority of our teens are making responsible decisions regarding substance abuse and deserve to be commended for their efforts. Teen alcohol and drug abuse has a devastating effect on families and communities nationwide. Youth PRIDE participants, as well as the parents, coaches and other mentors who help guide them, deserve accolades for their willingness to act as leaders with regard to this often difficult decision to stand up and be recognized as a model for healthy, substance free living. The 25th annual PRIDE conference has also provided a unique partnership between the Cincinnati Police Department, the Hamilton County Prosecutor's Office, and Cincinnati CAN that has raised over $40,000 to provide scholarships for 200 Cincinnati youth to attend the conference. This has been a remarkable opportunity for the youth who, without this generous assistance, would have been unable to attend the conference. We congratulate these organizations for their community partnerships that help to reduce demand for drugs and alcohol. All of us in Greater Cincinnati are pleased to welcome such an important conference to our area and thank all of the youths and adults who have worked to make the 2002 PRIDE conference a success.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp).

Mr. PORTMAN. Could we have a division of time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), a valued member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman said that there is a New York Times article that has not been responded to. We have spent a good part of today responding to it and its inaccuracies. Just to do it once more, because the gentleman said we had not responded, the provision we are talking about is to be able to use a facts-and-circumstances test at the Department of Treasury when a plan is fair on its face. It is entirely within the discretion of the Department of Treasury to determine the procedures for that. It is entirely within their discretion to say even though your plan is fair, even though it treats everybody the same, even though you have a uniform benefit all the way through, still you do not meet the test. There are circumstances where a plan is perfectly fair. In fact, you could have a uniform benefit for every level of paid worker in the plan, but because one of the workers at the middle or higher level came on to the plan at an earlier age, it might not meet the specific mathematical tests that the Treasury Department uses. There needs to be some kind of test, but tests are just that; they are mathematical, they are specific. Sometimes they do not work to determine whether something is fair or not. Should there not be some safety valve? The junior senator from New York thinks there should. It is in the Grassley bill that she has cosponsored. It has passed this House five times, by votes of over 400 votes it has passed this House. It is something that has been totally bipartisan from the start. This is nothing new. I would just like to be clear, finally, that the legislation before us does address problems that have arisen because of what happened at Enron, but it affects all folks who are in defined contribution plans in this country. It does make significant steps forward. announcement by the speaker pro tempore

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, that was pretty good theater, and I guess I have to compliment the gentleman for his partisanship, but there was no basis in fact for almost anything he just said. This was done without the Democrats knowing about it? It is the Portman-Cardin legislation that has been voted five times on the floor of this House. You have voted for it, sir. There was a 36-to-2 vote out of the Committee on Ways and Means. It was in H.R. 10. It was in all the previous legislation that has come before this floor. It was passed by this House by over 400 votes. It has been fully vetted. The way in which the gentleman described it is, frankly, inaccurate. Let me quote the gentleman: ``There is no requirement for any nondiscrimination testing.'' Where does that come from? The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) is on the floor here, as is the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) on the other side of the aisle. They have worked well on a bipartisan basis with us to put forward this legislation over the years. Frankly I am, again, very disappointed that we cannot have a debate on the merits. Let us talk about the facts. I know the gentleman has a disagreement with some of the facts. I know the gentleman is not for the investment advice part of this bill. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) made it clear he is not. I respect that. But I would urge on both sides of the aisle that we try to stick to the facts as we are talking about pension reform, not that we should not on every issue, but this one has been historically bipartisan, and it is so important to the workers of this country, including the 55 million people who now take advantage of defined contribution plans. It is the 70 million Americans who have no plan, primarily because small businesses do not offer them, that need our help. That is what this relatively modest provision that the gentleman referenced as being ``a Republican idea that was brought up in the dark of the night'' is all about. It is one that has been supported by Democrats and Republicans alike, it is one that was fully vetted over a 5-year period, it is one that has been the subject of hearings and markups; it is one that will help small businesses to be able to offer plans by giving them just a little relief from the rules, the regulations, the costs and burdens under the pension rules, and it does not, does not, I repeat, eliminate the need for nondiscrimination testing. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller). (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I would like to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) for the good work he did on this legislation. As he says, the majority of this legislation is the product of the Committee on Ways and Means and the Portman-Cardin legislation. He indicated that there were two areas he had disagreements: The workability of the 3-year rolling provision, that of course can be done as an option for the company. Second, he talked about his concern about the conflict situation of giving investment advice. We are very close on that one as well. I just want to underline the fact that we are very close in this legislation. I think, in fact, that this legislation is bipartisan still. I assume it will be. I look forward to working with him into the future to addressing those relatively small concerns in a good bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) who has been instrumental in ensuring that we have broad coverage under our 401(k) plans.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. That is correct. Reclaiming my time, does the gentleman disagree with that provision?

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, 20 percent the first year, 20 percent the second year, 20 percent the third year, 20 percent the fourth year, 20 percent the fifth year.

Mr. PORTMAN. I would be pleased to yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I know at the end of the day, some of my colleagues have some substantive differences with the legislation and they also have some politics that they would like to talk about; and I would love to address the gentleman from Texas's quote from the New York Times, because there are some other quotes from that story that are more accurate. This is not about us versus them; this is not about the big guy versus the little guy. This is about something that will help the workers in this country. But I do believe that it would be in the interests of this House to stick to the facts, and that is what I have tried to do.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, my colleague just stood before the well of the House and told our colleagues and the American people, to the extent they are listening, that an employee would have to wait 5, 6 or 7 years holding on to its stock, while other people could dump the stock. I do not know what he is talking about. In this legislation, it says that you have to hold the stock, if the employer requires it, for a period of 3 years as compared to an unlimited time now. That is the difference. Let me finish and tell the gentleman what is in the bill, because this legislation came out of the gentleman's committee and my committee. I assume the gentleman has read it, but the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and I put together this part of the bill, and I will just tell the gentleman what is in the legislation. When the legislation goes into effect, we were very careful not to have a dumping of stock on to the market, which is going to hurt not just the American consumer and our economy, but those very employees who care about having the corporate stock continue to have the value that it deserves. If we allowed immediately for everyone who has corporate stock in America in their 401(k) plan to unload that stock, it would be detrimental. So we say it should be done over a 5-year period initially, with 20 percent per year, doing the math. That is, after 5 years one could, if one chose, have all of the stock out of their account. Then once that is completed, that is just the first 5 years after the legislation, then the 3-year period begins. So that is how the legislation was drafted. I see the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) has now come into the Chamber. That is how we drafted it.

Mr. PORTMAN. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, just to respond briefly, if the gentleman would like to take the mike, that is fine, but he said somehow I was not describing the bill that is before us. I would like him to tell me one thing that I said about the bill that is not in the legislation.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Georgia for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, again I would make the point what we are proposing here today, what is before us, is a substantial change from current law, and it does address the Enron issue. My friend across the aisle just said that he believed that no one was looking after the employees' interests over the last 20-some years as we put together defined contribution plans. I would respectfully disagree. I would ask him to ask the thousands of constituents in his district how they feel about it, maybe ask the 55 million Americans who currently have the benefits of defined contribution plans. I would ask him to go to some of the smaller businesses in his community that would never have offered a defined benefit plan, never had one, who now offer a SEP or a simple plan or a 401(k) or a safe harbor 401(k) and are giving people the ability to save for their own retirement. There are people who will retire today in my hometown of Cincinnati with hundreds of thousands of dollars in their account, even with what the market has done in the last year, who turned a wrench their entire lives. They were technicians or mechanics and never had access to any kind of retirement savings. These are some of the 55 million people who now have a defined contribution plan. We do not want, in response to the Enron situation, to have those plans and those people lose their promise, lose their dreams, lose their ability to do that. I think we have achieved the right balance here. Frankly, the business community is not wild about this bill. Why? Because it does not let the employer tie people to the company stock the way they currently can. Now, my friend said he wanted to go to 1 year instead of 3 years. Well, it is unlimited years now. So we could debate whether it is 1 year or 2 years or 3 years or 4 years or 5 years. That is as compared to saying to one your constituents, you have to keep in this stock until you retire, which could be 40 years, or 45 years, or even 50 years. So, I think we are talking about some relatively small differences between where you would like to end up and what you proposed to the Committee on Rules last night and where we are today. I would again just urge those who are listening to this debate, let us be very clear: There are substantial differences between current practice and what we are proposing, and these do not just relate to the Enron situation. It relates to millions of Americans who have the benefit of getting a match from their employer in employer stock. We want to continue that. What the employer community tells us is they are not wild about our bill, but they certainly do not want it to go down to 1 year because they like the idea of giving corporate stock, in part because they want the employee to feel some stake in the company. They like the idea of employee ownership and employee empowerment through the company. We are, frankly, not going to permit them to have the kind of ownership that many of them would like to have over a longer period of time. We are doing it for a simple reason, because we believe employees ought to have more choice. Again, we combined that with information, including notice periods that are not there now, and better education.