Rob Portman

Mr. PORTMAN

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

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today the House considers the Drug Free Communities Act of 1997, legislation I introduced with the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert], the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin], and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel]. This bill provides needed support to our communities around the country to help them wage the war on drugs, community by community, child by child. There is no more important battle to fight for the future of our country, and in my view, there is no more effective way to win that war than to focus our energies at the community level. The bipartisan effort we have before us today is the result of months and months of work with communities around the country, with top experts in the field, with Members on both sides of the aisle, with the administration. It represents some new thinking. It takes existing Federal drug control resources and rechannels them to support community antidrug groups around the country that are actually working to reduce teenage drug abuse. I believe a shift in priorities to support effective, sustainable prevention efforts is long overdue. We all know the numbers. Tragically, after more than a decade of substantial progress in reducing substance abuse among our kids the trends have now reversed, and reversed dramatically. Teenage drug use of marijuana, cocaine, inhalants, heroin, and other drugs is up. LSD use is at its highest reported levels. Of course, it is not just about numbers. It is about our kids and their futures being ruined. The Drug Free Communities Act is designed to support something we know actually works in reducing drug abuse, community-based coalitions. It does so in a cost-effective manner. Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight the key features of this new approach. First, to qualify for a Federal matching grant under this program a local community must first demonstrate a comprehensive approach to the problem. Experience in the field, good research, and just common sense tells us that communities that have every major sector involved in this effort are those that are most effective. In March 1997, a GAO report confirms this for us. That is why this legislation supports only those communities that have mobilized youth, parents, businesses, law enforcement, the media, educators, and other key sectors that have been working together with a focused mission and targeted strategies. Second, the local community must demonstrate that it is not dependent on the Federal dollars. With local will and local financial support, we think a program is going to be more successful. Without them, a program simply cannot survive over the long haul. Not one Federal dollar will be spent under this program without a dollar or more first having been generated by a local community. A 100 percent match is required, and no grant can exceed $100,000. The Federal Government should be a catalyst to communities to do the right thing. It will then be able to sustain that effort over time, with or without that Federal support. Third, one of the most common and often deserved criticism of Federal programs is that they lack accountability. This bill requires that the local community have a system of evaluation in place that actually measures outcomes, consistent with well-accepted standards. Successful community efforts around the country already do that. They evaluate their effectiveness. In order to generate local financial support in the private sector they simply have to do that. Fourth, although the data indicates that broad-based local efforts work best, we also know that national and State leadership can play a very helpful role at the local level. For example, national and State experts in the field can assist local communities by sharing the best ideas from around the country, and by helping to put in place effective systems to sustain and evaluate the local efforts. This bill encourages local communities to involve their Federal and their State leaders. The 44 Members of Congress who have recently established or worked with community antidrug coalitions in their own districts can speak from their own experiences on this. Some of them will today. I can speak for mine. Over the past 2 years with Cincinnati in organizing the Coalition for a Drug-Free Greater Cincinnati in my hometown, we helped mobilize our local community, but we also brought national groups to the table, like the Partnership for a Drug Free America, the Community Antidrug Coalitions of America, CATCA, the National Parents Resource Institute for Drug Education, PRIDE, as well as others in the State level. Because the drug issue is best addressed at the local level, in my view, this bill encourages all of us to focus our efforts more there. Fifth, this is not a matter of new money, but getting more bang for the buck from existing resources. The bill redirects to communities less than three-tenths of 1 percent of our existing money from the $16 billion Federal drug control budget. We have been working with appropriators in the full committee and on the Treasury-Postal Subcommittee to help identify the appropriate offsets. Finally, Mr. Speaker, to ensure this program assists efforts that are truly working, and to ensure it gives communities the flexibility to continue to fashion innovative solutions to local problems, an advisory commission made up of local community leaders and national and State experts in the field of substance abuse will help select the administrator and actually oversee this program. The legislation has the support of hundreds of community groups in all 50 States; national leaders, such as former drug czar Bill Bennett, former HEW Secretary Joe Califano, National Drug Prevention Groups like CATCA, I mentioned PRIDE, the Partnership for Drug Free America; and because it is fiscally responsible, it has the support of the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste. Before I conclude, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all those groups around the country who have helped us put this effort together. Of course, I also want to commend my colleagues, the gentleman from Michigan Mr. Levin, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Barrett, the gentleman from Illinois, Denny Hastert, the gentleman from Indiana, Dan Burton, the gentleman from Maryland, Elijah Cummings, and many others who actually helped improve this legislation. Finally, I would like to pay tribute to somebody else who is here, my chief of staff, John Bridgeland. He actually conceived this idea, coordinated the drafting of the legislation, and helped get it through the process. I really believe that his good work and that of so many from both sides of the aisle is going to make a difference. It is actually going to make a meaningful difference in the lives of our kids around this country. I urge Members to support this legislation so that we can get on with the business of providing communities the needed support they need to reduce drug abuse. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to simply commend the gentleman from Michigan, [Mr. Levin], for his work at the local level. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Boehner], my neighbor.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to how much time remains on each side.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton].

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of House Concurrent Resolution 84, the fiscal year 1998 Budget Resolution. With the passage of this resolution, we are one step closer to the first balanced budget in 30 years. I support this balanced budget agreement because it controls the growth of federal spending by reducing the size and scope of the federal government, uses real numbers, provides tax relief for hard working families and reforms entitlement programs. This plan is a blueprint for ensuring America's long-term economic health by lowering interest rates and reducing the tax burden. Is this a perfect agreement? No. We still need to make fundamental, long-term reforms to ensure the continued financial stability of vital government programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. And, I'm concerned about the new spending on Presidential pet projects in this plan. But, it is a lot better than the alternative: more deficit spending and less economic opportunity for all Americans. Mr. Chairman, I support House Concurrent Resolution 84 and urge my colleagues to do so as well.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the legislation that provides supplemental funding for emergency flood assistance. Much of the massive flooding from winter storms occurred in four counties in Ohio that I represent. I personally visited these areas many times and have seen the devastation firsthand. The damage is simply staggering. Farmland in our area was affected severely by the floods. The legislation we are considering today provides needed funds to restore damaged agriculture. Especially important to my district are the Emergency Conservation Program, which provides cost-sharing assistance to farmers whose farmland was damaged as the result of flooding; the Conservation Reserve Program, which provides meaningful benefits for watershed-based approaches that achieve environmental benefits such as water quality, flood control, wetlands conservation and wildlife habitat; and the Natural Resources Conservation Program, for emergency watershed and flood prevention operations to repair damage to waterways and watersheds resulting from flooding. Funding is also provided in this legislation for the Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA]; for repair of transportation systems; for hazard mitigation, infrastructure and to rebuild levees; and to rebuild other flood control works and highways that were damaged by floods. I join with my colleagues today in support of this needed emergency disaster assistance legislation.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a friend and a prominent southwest Ohioan, Edward J. Parish, who has served as president of the Clermont County Chamber of Commerce for the past 18 years. As he retires this year, we thank him for the extraordinary leadership and service he has given to the Clermont County community. After earning both a bachelor's and a master's degree in engineering at the University of Michigan, where he was a member of Tau Beta Pi and a Donovan Scholar, Mr. Parish joined the Ingersoll-Rand Co. as a sales engineer; 35 years later, he retired from Ingersoll-Rand as executive vice president and director of the company. Then his second career of community service to Clermont County began. Under his leadership, Clermont County has achieved remarkable success in attracting and sustaining businesses and promoting economic development. Mr. Parish has also made tremendous contributions to the overall economic development of southwest Ohio through his involvement in other organizations, including the Cincinnati Consortium of Educational Resources, the Private Industry Council, the Community Chest United Fund, the Clermont/Warren Consortium, the Cincinnati Foundation, the Clermont College Advisory Board and the Greater Cincinnati Chamber Blue Chip Economic Development Committee. Mr. Parish has given generously of his time and talent and we are grateful for his many years of service and leadership. All of us in southwest Ohio congratulate him on his retirement and recognize him for his many accomplishments.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset, Members are talking a lot about the Founders. In the Constitution, of course, article I section 9 actually prohibits the kind of income tax that we currently have in this country, and that is why in 1913, Congress passed the 16th amendment. So if we are going to look back at the Founders, I think there is not a good argument for not changing the way we do business here. Let me just say that for the last year, as cochairman of the National Commission on Restructuring the IRS, I have been spending a lot of time delving into the tax system generally, and the IRS in particular. We are going to issue our final recommendations in June. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Coyne] on the other side of the aisle is on that Commission. I cochair with Senator Bob Kerrey. It is bipartisan, the administration is represented and it has a lot of good private sector expertise. Our goal, really, with this Commission is nothing short of having Americans in the future associate April 15 less with the frustration and anxiety and headaches connected with their tax system and more with pleasant things, like the beautiful spring day we are enjoying here in Washington today. Now, that is a tall order and it is difficult to get there. But, we think there are three ways we can do it. First, we have to restructure the IRS. We have to change the IRS from top to bottom so there is real accountability in terms of its management. Second, the IRS has to be more taxpayer friendly. A 21st century IRS has to be a customer-driven organization. Third, and I think most importantly, we have determined, after looking at the IRS from every angle over the last year, that we have to stop Congress from passing new, complex tax legislation. We have to give people a break from taxes. This relates to what we are talking about today. That is why I like so much what the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton] has been promoting, because it will force Congress to be more deliberative as we do tax legislation in this body. It will force Congress to analyze the impact of increasing taxes, which we clearly have not done over the years. And it will keep Congress from continuously changing the code, sometimes in a rather haphazard manner, because we will have this new requirement in place. So I want to commend the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton] and others for pushing this issue and frankly for shedding light on the reality that Congress does not act as deliberately and thoughtfully with regard to taxes as it should.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, for most Americans, the November elections and their aftermath clearly demonstrate the need for campaign finance reform. Unprecedented amounts of soft money were spent, special interests seemed to have played a disproportionate role, and there seemed to be no way to police the system. And now, very day seems to bring a new allegation of improper fundraising activities. The cumulative effect of these problems and the recent allegations of fundraising impropriety undermines the people's faith in their government. In my view, the only way to begin to restore that faith is to take a hard look at the problems with our existing campaign finance system and develop sensible changes to address them. Today, I am introducing the Restoring Trust in Government Act. It makes some specific changes that I think address these concerns and that I believe are long overdue. The bill reduces special interest influence, curbs soft money, expands disclosure, eliminates undue incumbent advantages, and, in general, restores faith in our political system. To curb special interests, it bans the increasingly influential activities of Political Action Committees [PAC's]. It will also reduce the influence of outside groups by requiring House candidates to raise 60 percent of funds in their own district, and Senate candidates to raise 60 percent of their funds from within their own State. It's an idea based on a simple premise--if you're going to represent the people of your area, you shouldn't take most of your money from outside special interest groups. The bill places significantly tighter restrictions on the use of so- called soft money given to national political parties. It would also require increased disclosure of soft money donations. And, it would address recent concerns about improper use of Federal property for political fundraising by making the solicitation of soft money on Federal property a criminal offense. The bill also clearly prohibits political contributions by noncitizens to eliminate any trace of foreign influence on our elections. Finally, the bill levels the playing field by reducing built-in incumbent advantages and puts some teeth in the important enforcement responsibility of the Federal Election Committee. Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve a new campaign finance system that addresses the 1996 soft money abuses, curbs special interest influence, requires disclosure and given the FEC the authority they need to better police the system. This bill represents a comprehensive approach that addresses each of these problems. I urge my colleagues to join with me in making these commonsense changes to restore trust in our campaign finance system and in our government. Let's make real campaign finance reform a priority this year.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Shriners Hospitals for Children and the Cincinnati Burns Institute for their continuing commitment to the treatment and care of burn-injured children in the Cincinnati area, and to congratulate the Shriners on their 75th anniversary. We thank them for the vision and service that they have so generously given to the Greater Cincinnati community. The Shriners Hospitals for Children is a network of 22 hospitals, 19 orthopedic units, and 3 burns institutes, offering specialized medical care to children up to the age of 18. The Cincinnati Burns Institute is one of the Shriners Hospitals specializing in acute and rehabilitative care of children suffering from burn injuries. As a regional referral hospital, the Cincinnati unit serves children who live within a 1,000- mile radius of Greater Cincinnati. The mission of the Shriners is to minimize the devastation of burn injuries and enhance the patient's potential and quality of life. The Shriners provide family-centered and holistic pediatric burn care of the highest quality. And, by providing all medical care to patients at no cost to them or their parents or a third party, the Shriners Hospitals and Burns Institutes not only care emotionally for their patients, but financially as well. Through public education and prevention efforts, the Cincinnati Burns Institute, along with the Shriners, has been instrumental in raising public awareness in the management of pediatric burns. The leadership of these truly dedicated organizations is an asset to our community and to our Nation. All of us in Cincinnati congratulate the Shriners Hospitals for Children on their 75th anniversary. We are grateful for all they have given to Greater Cincinnati.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of the Partial- Birth Abortion Ban Act, I wish to express my support for outlawing the troublesome practice of partial-birth abortions. I cosponsored and supported this legislation during the last session of Congress and voted to override the President's unfortunate veto of the bill. As my distinguished colleague from Illinois, Mr. Hyde, so eloquently pointed out earlier, partial-birth abortion is, in many respects, a polite term for infanticide. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I ask you: What will future generations think of a society that allows this practice? For the moral health of our country, and for future generations, we should take action today to ban partial birth abortions. Opponents of the ban suggest that partial-birth abortions are needed to protect mothers with pregnancy-related complications, but this argument simply does not hold up to the testimony of abortion providers and medical experts. Indeed, the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers has admitted that, in most cases, the partial-birth abortion procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus more than 20 weeks old. Former Surgeon General of the United States C. Everett Koop has said that there is ``no way'' he can see a medical necessity for this barbaric procedure. The American American Medical Association's legislative council has unanimously supported the partial-birth abortion ban. Congress has the opportunity today to do the right thing by banning partial-birth abortions. We have a duty to protect the unborn from this horrific procedure. I hope my colleagues will listen to their consciences and vote to make partial-birth abortions illegal once and for all.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I am rising today because I am in strong support of this approach, the Hastert amendment. I think it is a balanced and reasonable approach. As the gentleman said, I have been involved in this issue, actually not on the supply side, on the demand side. I have focused more on prevention, on education, on trying to help in our communities to change kids' attitudes so they do not do drugs, trying to make a real difference in reversing what is a very tragic trend around our country of younger and younger kids using drugs more and more. One thing I like about this amendment is I do not think it does point the finger at Mexico. Let me read something in the amendment. It clearly states in the findings, ``No single action is a sufficient response to the threat posed to our society by illegal drugs.'' It goes on. It talks about the need to emphasize in our drug control policy prevention, education, community action, parents, getting our parents to talk to their kids about the dangers of drug abuse, why it is wrong. If we do that, we are really going to make a difference. I do not think anything is more important. But this fight also needs to be fought at every level. How can we say we are really serious about fighting the drug war if, in the face of all the evidence we have, we simply certify Mexico? It just does not make any sense. It does not need to be partisan, it should be bipartisan, but how can we in our communities push this, do everything we can in Congress? And I was just testifying on the bill we have got before a subcommittee on the community side of this thing. We need to do more, all of us, both sides of the aisle. And Congress needs to do more. But how can we with any legitimacy be out there pushing this drug war and then say Mexico deserves certification? They cannot get a clean bill of health. It just does not make sense. Instead we need to do something reasonable. I think this is reasonable. We do not decertify Mexico. Instead we give the President 90 days. We say the President can work with Mexico for 90 days on 6 what I think are very tangible, very concrete and legitimate concerns. If the President works with Mexico during this 90-day period, certification can result. The effort to reduce drugs in this country, the future of our kids, is too important for us not to do all we can to get Mexico to do the right thing.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with my colleagues a wonderful event that has taken place at a primary school I visited back home in the district I represent. The students at Indian Hill Primary have been learning about the many opportunities available to them on the Internet. The teachers have made this new technology an integral part of their lesson plans which, as the principal said, makes their daily lessons come alive. For example, second grade students, motivated by the example set by Dr. Martin Luther King in his battle for equality through nonviolent protest, decided to share what peace means to them. With innovative leadership from teachers, facilitators, and the creativity of the students, their efforts culminated in the creation of the ``International Peace Museum.'' This museum web site includes the students' definitions of peace, while also displaying the second graders' illustrations. Because they invite other classes, students, leaders, and governments from around the world to contribute, the students at Indian Hill Primary have already heard from schools in Bermuda, Canada, and throughout the United States. Mr. Speaker, I commend Indian Hill Primary's International Peace Museum.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce with my colleagues, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert], the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin], and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel], the Drug-Free Communities Act of 1997. This bipartisan legislation represents a new effort in Congress to rechannel existing Federal drug control resources into support for locally-based, community anti-drug efforts that are working to reduce teenage drug abuse around the country. Now is clearly the time for action on this issue. Tragically, after more than a decade of substantial progress in reducing drug abuse in America from 1979 to 1991, the trends have now reversed. Marijuana use alone has tripled among 8th graders and more than doubled among 10th and 12th graders; significantly, daily use has increased dramatically during this period so that today, one in 20 of today's high school seniors use marijuana daily. And, the marijuana of today--because of the chemical THC content--is up to 15 times stronger than the marijuana of the 1970's. Use of cocaine, crack cocaine, amphetamine stimulants, barbiturates and heroin among teenagers are all on the rise. LSD use is at its highest recorded level. These statistics from the University of Michigan's Monitoring the Future Study are quite troubling, but the anecdotal evidence in the field--the real human stories about drug use and the impact it has on the lives of our young people--is even more compelling and brings home to each one of us the need to do something very tangible that can help address this problem, community by community. A courageous woman from my district, Patty Gilbert, came to Washington, D.C. to tell me about the tragic story of her 16-year-old son, Jeff Gardner. Jeff combined smoking marijuana with huffing gasoline one day and lost his life. A whole future gone because of a lack of understanding of the real risks of drug use. Twenty-one high school students were expelled from a public school in my district for LSD, cocaine and marijuana use. The stories of death and lost opportunities go on and on. And such stories are common today in every area of the country. If we are going to design sensible public policies, we have to understand what is driving increases in drug abuse among our young people. It is a complicated issue and there are no silver bullets. Two key factors seem to directly correlate with increases in drug use. When kids view drug use as socially acceptable--when peer norms are soft-- drug use rises. When our young people view drug use as less dangerous, again, drug use rises. So, basically, this problem comes down to a problem of eroding attitudes about the acceptability and risks associated with drug abuse. The good news is that we are not powerless to solve this problem. We have done it before as a Nation and we can do it again. The key question in my mind, however, is how do we do this over the long haul, and bring some national leadership where it ultimately has to be on this problem--at the community, neighborhood and family levels. The Drug-Free Communities Act of 1997 is designed to do just that and to do it in a smart, cost-efficient fashion. This bipartisan legislation is built on the belief that the local community commitment is absolutely essential to solving the drug problem, year in and year out. It recognizes that community venture capital and major sector involvement are the keys to solving our Nation's drug problem. In order to receive a Federal matching grant under this program, communities must first demonstrate a comprehensive, long-term commitment to reducing substance abuse. Experience in the field, good research and common sense tell us that communities that have every major sector involved in implementing strategies to reduce drug abuse are the most effective. That is why this legislation supports those communities that have mobilized youth, parents, businesses, faith leaders, law enforcement, educators and other key sectors and have been working together for at least 6 months with a focused mission and targeted strategies. The local community must also demonstrate that there is substantial local will to address the substance abuse problems in that community. Without that local will, no program can survive over the long-run. In fact, one of my concerns with the CSAP Community Partnership Program is that grants were given to communities that did not always have strong non-Federal financial and other support. During its 6-year life, the CSAP Community Partnership Program has made at least 252 grants, typically ranging from $350,000 to $700,000, to local community programs; today, we understand that only 137 of these programs survive. It seems to me that the Federal Government should be providing important early support to communities that will continue to sustain the effort with our without the Federal Government. Another key aspect of the Drug-Free Communities Act is that it requires the local coalition or effort to have a system of evaluation in place. One of the criticisms of Federal programs that support State and local initiatives has been that such programs lack any accountability. Instead of trying to measure outcomes and do evaluations at the Federal level, which would require a large bureaucracy and would not necessarily produce any better results, the onus is on the local coalition to put in place a system that measures its progress--including outcomes, such as whether teenage drug abuse is declining--over time. It is our experience that those efforts around the country that are making a difference already have good systems of evaluation in place. They have to have such systems in order to justify their continued existence. The question is how such efforts can add value and a system of performance measures is critical to determining that. The Federal support provided under this program redirects, at its height, less than three-tenths of 1 percent of existing money from the $16 billion Federal drug control budget to support, dollar for dollar up to $100,000 per community, local community efforts. This is another check to ensure that there is local will. Not one Federal dollar will be spent under this program without a dollar or more generated by the local community. Talking to community coalitions and groups around the country that are successfully implementing strategies to combat teenage drug abuse shores up the need for the Federal Government to provide incremental support. A few examples. Ronda Kopelke from the North Woods Coalition in Marshfield, WI, wrote: ``If you have Federal support based on community buy-in, then it can help us leverage support from the community. A small grant from the Federal Government--even $5,000--could enable our coalition to build a regional youth alliance, send youth to camp to learn drug and alcohol strategies and to hire a part-time person to marshal the volunteers necessary to sustain the effort over time.'' Marilyn Culp, executive director of the highly successful Miami Coalition covering 1.8 million people in Miami, FL, said that a $100,000 grant from the Federal Government would enable the coalition to leverage an additional $300,000-$400,000 from the private sector, expanding the effort to train parents, to communicate drug-free messages on billboards, and to enhance the many other activities that have made the Miami Coalition so effective. Ms. Culp also reports that under the current CSAP grant program the Federal reporting requirements are so cumbersome, that she had to hire a person just to comply with those requirements. Coalition leaders around the country have echoed this concern. Don Lynch of the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribes in the State of Washington is trying to develop a comprehensive adolescent treatment program. While there is substantial volunteer participation in the effort--in fact, one of the program's mottoes is ``chi-e-che'', which means ``helper''--some small support from the Federal Government will enable the hiring of a full-time adolescent counselor and additional private support can be leveraged to sustain the effort over time. Karen Hoff, Director of the Clean Focus Coalition in Charles Town, WV, is implementing a peer mediation program which helps kids resist peer pressure to take drugs and teaches them life-enhancing decision- making skills. This program could be fully up and running with $3,000. With $2,000 from the Federal Government, a locally supported parent education program could be expanded to reach 1,000 parents in the Charles Town area. The stories go on and on, but the point is that a small amount of Federal support that tracks strong local will can help local communities have a greater impact in their own regions. To ensure that this program maintains the sophistication to give support only to those efforts that are truly working, while maintaining the flexibility to permit communities to continue to fashion local solutions, an advisory commission or board of trustees is charged with helping to select the administrator and to overseeing the program. Local community leaders and experts at the national and State levels in the field of substance abuse prevention and treatment will be able to review grant applications, and policies and criteria relating to the program. Those who are working directly in the field--on the front lines of the drug problem--will be able to offer valuable input to those administering the program. The Drug-Free Communities Act of 1997 is our effort to redirect Federal drug control policy to help support local communities. We believe it is fully consistent with the National Drug Control Strategy, which includes as part of its No. 1 goal, support of community anti- drug coalition efforts. We look forward to working with our colleagues on a bipartisan basis and with the administration to help communities throughout our country reduce substance abuse.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I just arrived back in Washington from my district, which was hit very hard by the recent flooding. I want to commend the Clinton administration for agreeing to provide disaster aid, and urge this body to help those of us in my district and around the country that have been so devastated by these high waters. I am also here this morning, Mr. Speaker, to introduce new legislation, with the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel], the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert], and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin], called the Drug-Free Communities Act of 1997. This legislation recognizes that the very serious and growing drug problem in this country is not going to be solved here in Washington, but is going to be solved at the local level, in our communities and neighborhoods. The Federal Government has a role to play, of course, but even that role needs to be more focused on our communities. In order to receive Federal support under this new approach in our bill, a community must first show its commitment to reducing drug abuse in a comprehensive and long-term fashion. There has to be substantial volunteer participation from kids, parents, businesses, schools, law enforcement, the media, and so on. A community must also show that the local effort can be sustained without Federal support. We do not want them to be dependent on the Federal Government. There is accountability in this bill. A community must evaluate whether it is actually having an impact in reducing drug abuse. Importantly, this is not a matter of new money, but rechanneling existing monies will be used. We are rechanneling the existing $16 billion we spend every year in fighting the drug war. This bill, Mr. Speaker, has grassroots support from around the country, from hundreds of communities. I hope Members will join us in this bipartisan effort to create a drug-free America, neighborhood by neighborhood.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Reclaiming my time, it does not provide operating expenses.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, let me try to address the concerns once more and be very clear. This does not involve Federal funding. If we look at this legislation very carefully, it is all discretionary. The Secretary may coordinate, may enter into cooperative agreements and may work in partnership. It is all discretionary. It is ironic to me that we are going to sit here in Congress and oppose something that in fact will keep that good report from collecting dust on the shelf. This is something that will move the report forward. Here you have a private sector group representing the entire country, working on a coordinated basis with sites around the country. They want to set up an interpretive center, not a museum, to commemorate this experience in America's history that should have been commemorated a long time ago. All we are saying is, we want affiliated status to get the Park Service to work with us to provide technical support. It is ironic that we would be saying, no, we are going to stop this, it is not appropriate. I think it is a real shame. I think it is the kind of thing we should be doing. It is a private-sector effort to work in partnership with Government, not involving taxpayer funds. If Congress determines down the line other areas maybe should get that affiliated status, that is fine, too. They do not want Federal funds. That is what is so great about this. It is noncontroversial. I was led to believe that this was going to be noncontroversial in the committee, that we had minority-majority support. I was surprised to find out that that was not true. I just think it is exactly the kind of thing we ought to be promoting. I think it is a great effort. I think it is exactly the sort of thing that this Congress ought to be encouraging. I am sorry that the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. John Lewis, cosponsor of this legislation, was not aware of this; the gentleman from Ohio, Lou Stokes, and so many other Members of this Congress who are strongly supportive of this effort cannot be here to join with us today, to encourage this and to say that this is exactly the way we ought to be going in this Congress in terms of providing for strong public-private partnerships.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would love to hear from the gentleman from California and the gentleman from Utah, who have much more experience than I do, but it is very clear in this legislation, this involves no Federal funding. Congress could come back at a later date and decide that is appropriate. This involves a lot of private sector activity from around the country to support this effort. We should be encouraging that. This is exactly the kind of creative partnership that I think Mr. Miller and others who have been involved with the National Park Service have been trying to encourage. I would like to yield to the chairman and see how he would compare this to other projects. I think the analogies that have been made are not right. We are not asking for Federal funds. We encourage a private sector effort and allowing this report that Mr. Vento and others worked so hard on to become implemented through an interpretive center which commemorates the Underground Railroad experience throughout the country.

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

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I do not see anything in the legislation that has anything to do with construction or anything beyond an affiliate status that can be worked out over time. Congress would always have the ability to come in an further fund this relationship.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time just for a moment. The gentleman was involved in the study, and I commend him for that. I had thought that, perhaps, because he is in constant communication with the Park Service, that maybe he knew more about this. They have been working with us for at least a solid year, not only on the concepts of Cincinnati, where we have looked to them for guidance all along the way, but also this specific legislation. Let me say that if this private sector group were to move forward without additional technical assistance and without additional guidance from the Park Service, then the very goals that are outlined in that report might not be followed as closely as the gentleman might like or I might like. I think this is a way, in fact, to bring to fruition the kinds of things that the gentleman has been supporting. All it says is that there will be an affiliate status with the Park Service. There is no money in the bill. It is an authorization to allow the Park Service to enter into some sort of a technical assistance, some sort of a guidance relationship with this group in Cincinnati that has done so much work. Again, it is a national group. If you look at the members of the board, they are a national advisory group. This is a group that was brought together, academic experts and so on. I think what is going to happen is they are going to go ahead. They are going to move ahead. They have already raised over $400,000. They brought in the best experts from around the country to give them advice, did a feasibility study. They are going to move ahead. Let us be sure they move ahead with the advice of the Park Service, since the Park Service, because of the gentleman's good work, put so much time and effort into this report. I, too, wish there could be a hearing. I would love if there could be a hearing. There cannot be at this point. Yet we have this group moving ahead. I think this is the least we can do, to instead of slapping them and saying ``We discourage what you are doing,'' is to encourage what they are up to. I apologize for not communicating better with the gentleman in advance. I would have thought the Park Service would have done so. I hope that following this discussion we will be able to pass this legislation and then work more closely together.

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