Rob Portman

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this time. I am a little surprised by the discussion. I wanted to come out and clarify a few points. I apologize I was not out here earlier. I did not know it was to be on the floor. I would hope that other supporters of this legislation, including the gentleman from Ohio, Lou Stokes, the gentleman from Georgia, John Lewis, the gentleman from Louisiana, Bill Jefferson, the Ohio delegation in its entirety and others, will be able to come out on the floor to talk on it also. I want to go over, if I could, some of the background for the purposes of the gentleman from California and the gentleman from Minnesota just to give them a little more understanding of where we are and how we got here, and they try to address some of the concerns raised by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento]. This is bipartisan. This does not require any Federal funds, as the gentlemen know. It is an authorization simply for the Park Service to work with a private group that has been working with the Park Service in any case for the past couple of years. This group has indeed moved forward in a very constructive way, bringing in all elements of our community, as well as the entire country in terms of underground railroad experience, to come up with an Underground Railroad Freedom Center, which would be an interpretive center. This would not be the kind of more traditional museum one might think of, but instead would commemorate the underground railroad experience across the country, at all the sites the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] mentioned, including the sites in the greater Cincinnati area that he mentioned. The Ripley, OH, sites happen to be in my district that the gentleman mentioned, and Cincinnati does have a rich heritage with regard to the underground railroad. I just am amazed this Congress would oppose this type of activity. We are not asking for any money or any commitment from this Congress in terms of the tens of millions of dollars Mr. Vento talked about. We are talking about a wonderful partnership between the Park Service and the private sector to be able to move forward with this project, for which in the private sector has already been raised over $400,000. It is clearly the No. 1 project of this kind in the country. It is an event in our history that must be commemorated. I think it is an outrage it has not been commemorated. And I think it would be a slap in the face to these efforts and exactly the wrong way to go for us as a Congress now to say we are not even going to allow the Park Service to enjoy this affiliate status which requires no funding with this group that has done so much, because I think it would discourage them. Let me say also that this is in Cincinnati for two important reasons. One is, frankly, Cincinnati is way out front on it; but, second, Cincinnati does have a rich history and tradition with regard to the underground railroad. In fact, slaves from as far away as New Orleans and so on equated Cincinnati with the word ``freedom'' because it was such a center for this. The Harriet Beecher Stowe Home, of course, is in Cincinnati. Harriet Beecher Stowe is from Cincinnati. There is a lot of underground railroad archeological evidence in the Cincinnati area, including the sites, again, that Mr. Miller talked about in Ripley, OH, the Rankin House, the John Parker House, and so on. Let me also say that the Park Service has been working with us for over a year on this project. I know Mr. Miller reads carefully all the correspondence he gets from the Park Service and the acknowledgment letter that came with the report that he mentioned earlier specifically talks about Cincinnati, and let me quote from it. This is from the Park Service in February of this year, when they submitted the statutorily required report on the underground railroad. We are especially encouraged to see that the private sector already has expressed a strong interest in these concepts, as evidenced by substantial progress in planning for an Underground Railroad freedom center to be developed by private, State and local funding sources in Cincinnati, Ohio. The Park Service foresees the possibility of collaborating with this organization in the future to implement some of the goals of this report. This is signed by George Frampton, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Assistant Secretary of the Department of the Interior. Again, we have worked carefully with the Park Service, not only in terms of this development of the underground railroad freedom center in Cincinnati, we have raised over $400,000 locally, all from private sources, not 1 Government dollar; and, importantly, we have worked closely with the National Park Service in coming up with this legislation. So I do not know what more to say. I think it would be exactly the wrong thing for this Congress not to at least acknowledge the good work these folks have done. And these are people from all around the country. Their national advisory group includes people who are from all the areas, I think, that Mr. Miller talked about. They have a lot of academic support from various places around the country. Again, if we look at the cosponsorship of this, it includes people who have been involved in this issue in the past. I hope that the gentleman from Georgia, John Lewis, the gentleman from Ohio, Lou Stokes, and others will be able to come down to the floor; I happened to be in another meeting when I heard about this, to be able to also talk on behalf of this. Mr. Vento, I think maybe that answers some of your questions, I hope it does. But if the gentleman would like me to yield, maybe there are some other more specific ones.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of a particular provision contained in the Water Resources Development Act conference report. This provision directs the Secretary of the Army to convey a parcel of land under the jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers to the Village of Mariemont, OH. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is very important to Mariemont because it will enable the village to relocate its maintenance facility to the former Army Corps land, and move MariElders, a center for older adults that has been displaced from its site, to the refurbished maintenance facility. This legislation also makes good fiscal sense. The Army Corps land has an appraised value of $85,000. Mr. Speaker, the conference report transfers the land to Mariemont for the appraised amount and will put the property to productive use. In addition, the property has been screened by the General Services Administration [GSA] and no other Federal agency has expressed interest in the site. I commend chairman Shuster, chairman Boehlert, and the conferees for incorporating this provision in the conference report, and urge all my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would now yield to the other gentleman from Florida who has arrived.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to take a few minutes to talk about the drug crisis in America, the problem we are faced with, some of the reasons for it, and at least one very good idea to address the problem. I have devoted a lot of my time and my staff's time over the last year and a half on this issue, because I am convinced that our national leaders must take tangible steps to help communities across our country to send a clear and consistent message at every level that drugs are wrong and that they are dangerous. If we do not, I believe our society will be in real trouble. It is not just about drug abuse, as I will explain later with the chart, because drug abuse impacts a whole host of other social problems we face in this country. I am actually encouraged by the recent press attention we see on this issue. This chart shows that in fact the headlines are starting to appear, people are starting to pay attention to the fact that we do, once again, have what is becoming a drug epidemic in this country. Though politics are certainly playing a role in it, I am glad the President is finally talking about this issue. I am glad that he has appointed a real leader, Gen. Barry McCaffrey, to be his new drug czar. But so much more needs to be done. I have three children of my own. I know that what influences their decisions, what shapes their attitudes, is what my wife and I say, what we do, what their teachers tell them, what they hear in church, what they see on television, what they hear on the radio, what their friends tell them. We need to work together to fashion innovative solutions to this terrible drug problem in this country that will actually make a difference in the lives of my kids and all of our children. This is why I have spent the last year and a half working with people in the field, those who have devoted literally decades to this issue, to reducing substance abuse, activists back home like Jackie Butler, Hope Taft, Tammy Sullivan; people at the State level, including my Governor, George Voinovich and his director of Alcohol and Drug Addiction Services, Lucille Fleming; people at the national level like Jim Burke, Tom Hedrick, with the Partnership for a Drug Free America, Jim Koppel of CADCA, Bill Oliver, Doug Hall of PRIDE, and many others. We have also spent a lot of time talking to kids and parents, teachers and coaches, religious leaders, business people, and many others about the problem at the local level, and what we should do about it. Two clear things have emerged. First, national leadership is important. It is critical. It keeps the issue on the agenda, it keeps it in the media, as we see here, and helps send a clear and consistent message that has a direct impact on the use of drugs. The research could not be clearer on this issue. As important as national leadership, of course, is sustained national leadership, not on again-off again. The second thing we have learned is that leadership must recognize that this problem is probably best addressed at the community level, at the local level. We need everyone who influences the decision of a child to be involved: The parents, the coaches, the teachers, our President, Members of Congress, community leaders, kids themselves. Until we understand that leadership has to be used to mobilize at each of these levels, I do not think we will ever adequately address the problem. Mr. Speaker, the community anti-drug coalition initiative that we have started here in the Congress, that has been spreading around the country for the last few years, is one attempt to bring sustained national leadership where we will have the most impact. Alex de Tocqueville, when he visited this country over a century ago, he tried to describe America to people in Europe. One thing he said was, ``All of the efforts and resources of the citizens'', the citizens of America, ``are turned to the eternal well-being of the community.'' I think that is a pretty good observation. I think it continues to be true today, the recognition that people's energies are often devoted primarily at their neighborhoods and at their communities, where they feel they can have the most direct impact. I think that tells us a lot where we as Members of Congress ought to be devoting some of our energies, at the community level. Drugs are a serious concern among all Americans. If you look at the most recent Gallup Poll results, or you look at the most recent Wall Street Journal NBC Poll, it is clear drugs and crimes are the number one issue most Americans believe we must address. It is also interesting when you ask parents what the most serious problem is facing our youth, they say drug abuse. As interesting, when you ask kids themselves, when you ask our young people, what is the most serious concern you face, and this is teenagers, they do not say it is getting a job, they do not say it is their education. What do they say? Drugs. So kids themselves and their parents have recognized that. Frankly, I think they are far out in front of their elected leaders. Just how big is this problem? to try to put it in some perspective, I will say that in just over a generation, the use of illegal drugs in this country has increased 40-fold, 40-fold. It is a huge problem. As I said earlier, it is not just about drug abuse, because drug abuse affects so many other things in this country. Let me give the Members just a few examples on this chart. Crime and violence; over half of the violent crime committed in America today is directly related to illegal drug use. School dropouts; kids that use drugs are 2 to 5 times more likely to drop out of school. Health care costs; fully a quarter of our trillion dollar health care cost in this country is directly related to substance abuse. More than half of the new HIV cases are illegal drug related. Spousal and child abuse; again, data will show us that about half of the family abuse in this country is directly related to substance abuse. Finally, productivity. Yes, it affects American businesses. Because of absenteeism, increased medical claims, businesses in America take a $60 billion hit every year, $60 billion, just because of illegal drugs. If you add alcohol abuse to that, it is another $80 billion a year. This is an issue that affects all of us. This next chart I want to show is actually a hopeful one because it shows that we are not powerless to solve this problem. In fact, from 1979 until 1992, we saw a substantial decrease in the use of drugs. This chart will show that, among teenagers, we saw over a 70-percent decrease during that period. Folks love to ridicule the Just Say No campaign. This is when it was in its heyday. It works. It works in concert with a lot of other things. A clear and consistent message from the White House on down is effective in reducing drug abuse. The chart also shows, of course, that since 1992, there has been a sharp increase. Unfortunately, everything we know leads us to believe that that line, if anything, is increasing even more sharply. The tragedy is that it is among our younger and younger kids, too. We have found, particularly with regard to marijuana use, the most dramatic increases are among our young people. Look at this. Among 8th graders, we see a 167-percent increase from 1991 to 1995. That means in a typical 8th grade class in America, 25 kids, 5 of them in the 8th grade have used marijuana. All of the other drugs are also increasing, whether it is inhalants, whether it is stimulants, and here is a chart on stimulants which would be cocaine, amphetamines, methamphetamine. Look at these increases, 8th, 10th and 12th graders, the use of cocaine and other stimulants. Some people who grew up in the 1960's might say, ``Well, what's the big deal about some of these drugs increasing?'' Well, look at this. LSD is now at record levels. This is record levels of LSD used in this country, again, 8th, 10th and 12th graders. Some people will say, ``Marijuana is not that big a deal. Yes, these other drugs concern me.'' Well, marijuana today is about 2 to 5 times stronger than it was back in the 1970's. Also, we know a lot more today about marijuana. We know, for example, that marijuana does in fact impair judgment, it does impair learning, it does keep kids from reaching their potential. It is also a powerful gateway to other drugs. So you might ask, there is the problem; why is it occurring? Well, it is a complicated issue in some respects, but in other ways, it is not at all. This is very good research, well documented by the University of Michigan. Lloyd Johnson, every year with Monitoring the Future, does this study and it is widely accepted in the field as being very accurate and helpful. What does it show? It shows, among other things, that drug use is not related so much to how much somebody makes, how much their parents make, what their race is, where they live, suburbs or urban areas. What it really relates to is their attitudes about drugs. Look at the incredible correlation here between social disapproval, a sense that a teenager has of social disapproval and the use of drugs. As disapproval goes up, and you can see, between 1979 and 1992, it did go up, the sense of disapproval, use goes down dramatically. As the sense of social disapproval goes down, what happens? Use shoots up. It is about attitudes. It is about society sending kids the right message, that it is not OK to use drugs. The other important factor, other than the sense of social disapproval, is the sense of risk. Not only is it wrong to use drugs, it is harmful. When kids are told that, again use is reduced dramatically. Look at this chart. This shows the sense out there that there is a risk, a danger in using drugs. Again between 1979 and 1992, we see an increase in the sense of risk, the perception of risk. At the same time, what happens to use? It goes down dramatically. When that sense of risk or danger begins to go down after 1992, again what do we see? Use shooting up. It is a question of attitudes. I think we know enough about it now to know that we have got to get to kids and get this message to them clearly, again at every level, from the White House right down to our communities. The next question I often get asked back home is, Well, why are these antidrug attitudes weakening? What is going on out there? The first thing I would say is that opinion leaders from the White House on down, including the U.S. Congress, have not until very recently been speaking out on this issue. There has also been declining media attention. This can be shown quantitatively. In 1989, during the height of the so-called drug war, there were over 500 network news stories, not public service announcements--news stories--on the drug issue and the drug problem in this country. Over the last 4 years, there have been on average fewer than 100 stories. As public opinion leaders speak out, there is more media attention, and that is important to changing those attitudes we talked about earlier, baby boomer parents being conflicted. We talked about people's attitudes toward marijuana. We saw last week with the results from the CASA survey, Joe Califano's group, that in fact a lot of parents who used drugs are conflicted about whether their kids are going to use drugs or not. The expectations, in fact, are very low for their kids. As long as that is true, parents are not doing their job. Finally, more pro-drug information out there, including reglamorization, whether it is MTV, whether it is Hollywood, whether it is our rock stars, our sports figures. We have seen a lot more reglamorization of drugs. Finally, legalization discussion, whether it is Jocelyn Elders or whether it is Bill Buckley, that has an impact on kids. How do we go about reversing this trend? How do we go about changing our policies and actually making a difference in the lives of our kids? Here are the four traditional approaches that we have taken: interdiction, criminal justice, treatment, and prevention. At the Federal level, just to put this in some perspective, we spend about $1.5 billion a year on interdiction. In our criminal justice system for incarcerating and prosecuting drug offenders, we spend about $6.5 billion; treatment, about $2.6 billion; and prevention and education, about $1.4 billion. In my view, we need to do all of these things. We need to increase interdiction, we need to lock up drug criminals, we need to increase treatment. But I think most of our effort should be devoted toward improving the education and the prevention side of this, because, again, it is a matter of attitudes. That is where I think we can get the most bang for the buck, frankly. We need all of the other things, including a tough criminal justice system, but in my view, until we go back to the grassroots, go back to the community level and deal with this in terms of prevention and education, we will not ultimately be successful. The idea I have is to do these community coalitions around the country. Let me give you a great story. This is about the Miami coalition. At one time Miami had the worst drug problem in America. In fact, Miami's drug rates were the highest, I think, among the top six cities in America. Once their coalition got going and they attacked it on a concerted basis, Miami's drug problem decreased significantly, so much so that by 1994, Miami not only saw its drug use going down dramatically, it was significantly less than the national average. Community coalitions work. There are now several thousand community coalitions around the country. In our case, in greater Cincinnati, we have brought together business leaders; the media, very important; the faith community, nothing is more effective in my view, especially in terms of prevention, than faith-based prevention programs; parents, of course, which is a critical part we talked about before; youth themselves; law enforcement. No one is more eager to attack this problem than our law enforcement. No one is more frustrated. Our educators, teachers, coaches and so on, people who have been at this for a long time at the grassroots, and of course again national and State help which we have had. Our mission in Cincinnati is quite simple. It is, to develop and implement a comprehensive. long-term strategy to reduce and treat substance abuse one person at a time. I would like to focus on three points in there. One is comprehensive, another is long-term; this is not going to be solved overnight. And finally one person at a time. This is not a Washington ``one size fits all,'' top-down solution. This is trying to affect again all of those decisions that our kids make by affecting the various people that influence them. In Cincinnati, we have divided our work into five task forces. One is the media task force. We now have one of the most aggressive antidrug media campaigns in the country. All of our major TV stations, all of our radio stations are playing public service announcements, talking about the issue. We have done some local radio spots, as an example, with a rock and roll band, a local band that kids know, and that has the ability, I think, to get to kids a lot better than having parents or adults talking to them. The workplace task force: Here for the first time ever, we have got health insurance companies being able and willing to offer discounts to companies that offer drug-free workplace plans. Why is this so important? Well, most people who abuse drugs go to work every day. Second, that is where the parents are. So if we can get companies, particularly smaller companies and mid-size companies that up to now do not have a drug-free workplace plan in place, to do that, we will be able to affect this problem. Why should insurance companies give a discount? Because it is a bottom line concern. It actually is in their interest to give a discount. Because if you have a drug-free workplace, you are going to have fewer accidents, fewer medical claims. We have convinced, again, major health care providers in our area to do that, and I think that can be done around the country. We also have convinced our Bureau of Workers Compensation, an entity that is not looked upon with favor by a lot of our small businesses, to offer the same kinds of discounts to companies that, again, have drug- free workplace plans. We are working with these companies to develop these plans and giving them a bottom line incentive to do so. It works. One quick story on that. One of the members of our coalition recently put a drug-free workplace program in place which included drug testing, and one day a young man came to his office, sat down and said, ``I understand there's going to be random drug testing as part of this program.'' And the manager said, ``Yes, there will.'' He said, ``Well, I would like to tell you something,'' and the man broke down. He said, ``I'm a cocaine addict, have been for over a decade. I have had six different jobs. I have been able to hide it at every one of those places where I have worked. You're now giving me the opportunity to come forward.'' That manager did not fire the guy. He got the guy in a treatment program. The guy is now more productive at work, of course, but much more importantly, his life has been changed in a fundamental way.

Mr. PORTMAN. We talked about the impact of illegal drug use on violent crime, and the gentleman is right. When we ask police chiefs around the country what the best way would be to reduce violent crime, guess what they say?

Mr. PORTMAN. Reducing drug abuse. They do not talk, frankly, about gun control, they do not talk about the death penalty, they do not talk about a lot of other issues that are ones we might naturally think would be the best way to reduce violent crimes. The No. 1 issue by far, for them, is illegal drug use. By far the No. 1 way to reduce violent crime in this country. These are the police chiefs, who are on the line.

Mr. PORTMAN. It sends a strong signal. In our area, Procter & Gamble has taken the lead in helping our smaller and mid-size companies because they have the resources, the staff, the expertise to help these smaller businesses. But imagine what would happen if across America, health care insurers were to say to those small- and mid-size companies, we will give you a discount, say 5 percent, on your health care if you have a drug-free workplace plan in place. Of if the Bureau of Workers' Comp in Florida, I think Florida is not yet there but perhaps you are working on it, that that too will help to get these companies to do so and will help to solve this problem. Let me just finish with the final two task forces, then I would like to open it up to some of my colleagues who have arrived. But after the workplace task force, I want to talk a little about the parent task force, what we did there, because as I said earlier, parents are key to this problem. The greatest social service agency in America is our parents. They are open at 11 on Saturday night, among other things, and if you can get our parents reengaged in this issue, we know it can make a difference. PRIDE [Parent Resource Institute for Drug Education] has a good survey out which shows that if parents would simply talk to their kids about the issue of drug abuse, we could see drug abuse rates among our kids decrease by as much as 30 percent, just talking to their kids about it. What have we done? Well, PRIDE has come into our district, and they have done a pilot program where they have trained parents, who then go out and train other parents. We started with 15 parents, went through an intensive couple of weeks training session; they are now out training an additional 600 parents. We are trying to do it in every school district in my area. Again, I think it is very important that we get the parents back, engaged in this problem. The final two task forces are the community task force, and there I think some of the potential is in the religious community. Our faith-based programs work, and frankly, on a Sunday or on a Saturday in a church, in a temple, a synagogue, people I think are in a more reflective moment and willing to hear about this issue. I think it is incumbent upon our religious leaders to get the message out. We have a commitment from a number of the churches, synagogues, and temples in our area to get that drug-free message out at least once a year and maybe twice a year on a concerted basis to complement all the other efforts we talked about. The final task force we have is criminal justice. As I said earlier, no group is more desperate to find a solution to this problem than our law enforcement community. What we have done is, we have organized sort of a broad DARE Program. The DARE Program works very well in my area, as it does around the country, but there were some gaps in it. So our law enforcement, county by county, have sent out flyers to our schools, community centers, churches, and so on to offer educated speakers who can come in and talk about this issue and relate to the kids, to supplement the DARE Program. We also have an innovative program to enlist citizens to close down crack houses in our inner city in Cincinnati. This is being led primarily by our city councilman Charlie Winburn in Cincinnati. And that will be effective, we think, in not only closing down crack houses and patrolling street corners, but getting the community involved in this effort because it is a community outreach effort. Again, I will just say that I think Members of Congress can play a very effective role. It is not a traditional role. It is not about passing new laws. It is not about more Federal money, frankly. It is about acting as a facilitator back home to try to solve this problem, where I think it can be most effectively solved, which is at the community level. Speaker Gingrich has been supportive of this; Gen. Barry McCaffrey has been in our area, he has been supportive of it; and Senator Dole has been supportive of it. Each has come and spent time with our coalition and helped us in our efforts. The initiative recognizes that the problem is not going to be solved solely by looking to Washington. It is going to be solved one kid at a time in our families and in our communities. And for the sake of our kids and our communities, I would urge all Members of Congress to engage in this. We have about 20 to 25 Members of Congress who have already either established a coalition or are supporting existing coalitions. The goal is nothing short of getting every single Member of Congress involved in this effort. There is no reason we should not all be involved. We can blanket the country, all 435 districts. The facts are in. Drug use is skyrocketing. Community coalitions work to address this problem. I think it is time we roll up our sleeves and get to work. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Florida.

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

Mr. PORTMAN. Certainly.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica] for putting this in perspective for us and also for all the time and effort that he has put into this issue. He has become a true expert on it. He is one of our leading policy makers on this issue now, and I wish him luck in his hearing tomorrow in getting some answers. We have a little time left, and I would like to yield to the other gentleman from Florida who has joined us.

Mr. PORTMAN. If the gentleman will yield back for a moment on that briefly.

Mr. PORTMAN. Let me add, Mr. Miller, what I view as a hopeful statistic to those that you have mentioned. That is, if you can keep a kid drug-free until that kid is 19 years old, then he or she has a 90- percent chance of being drug-free for the rest of his or her life. Those are those critical years, those teenage years. This is why, as I said earlier, it is tragic that this drug use is occurring at an earlier and earlier age. We talked about the eighth graders. In a typical class of eighth graders, five kids have now tried marijuana. What we have got to do is address this problem at every level. Mr. Mica talked about it in terms of interdiction, source country, treatment, our criminal justice system, and finally prevention and education. Mr. Speaker, I would again like to close by saying that it is my view that part of what we need to do is to increase our efforts at the community level, the grassroots level. It is a philosophy that I think is very consistent with where this Congress is headed in terms of giving people more a sense of personal responsibility, the sense that our communities are where we are going to solve a lot of our problems. Certainly, the drug problem is one of those. I urge all of my colleagues to do whatever they can, not only at the national level where it is very important but also in their communities, in their homes, in their neighborhoods, in the school districts they represent, to attack this problem. We know it can help. We know it can begin to reduce the dramatic increase in drug use that we have seen since 1992. And with that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for H.R. 3803, The George Bush School of Government and Public Service Act. As former staff member in the Bush White House, I had the true honor of learning first-hand the values and principles of public service life that President Bush exemplified. He taught that honor, integrity and responsibility are the most important code of conduct for a public official, and he also taught the importance of public officials teaching those values to others. Now, through this legislation, Congress can help to instill these values in the new generation of leaders. As a former President, Vice President, Ambassador, Party Chairman, CIA Director, and Member of Congress, George Bush saw many different sides of public service during his long and distinguished career. By creating the George H.W. Bush Fellowship Program today, we pass that experience on to future leaders--and provide young scholars with access to programs that develop the leadership skills they will need to guide this Nation in the next century. In addition to learning directly from President and Mrs. Bush, Fellows will have the chance to learn from distinguished world leaders such as Margaret Thatcher and Brian Mulroney--who have both agreed to participate in the program. Their experience, knowledge and wisdom will be a tremendous gift for our future generations. I know there are some who are concerned about the $3 million authorization provided by this bill--and that is a legitimate concern that President Bush himself would have raised in his days as a Member. But we have to remember that this is ``seed money'' that will lead to many millions more being spent by the private sector and the State of Texas to promote this worthy project. This is an authorization for a one-time appropriation to ensure that this program gets up and running for the first year. I would also note that it is very much in line with what we have done to honor other former Presidents, and that private funds will be used to endow the program in future years. It is, as Mr. Goodling noted, a living monument that will benefit future generations of American leaders. I know that I would not be here in this Chamber today if it were not for the tremendous learning opportunity that George Bush gave me. Let's do a little to ensure that same opportunity for so many young people. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this measure.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, today I am going to introduce legislation commemorating an important story in our Nation's history, the underground railroad in my hometown of Cincinnati, which was a major stop in the underground railroad, a vital means for thousands of slaves to escape to freedom until the end of the Civil War. The stories of the brave men, women, and children of all races that comprised the underground railroad experience have tremendous power to inspire us and teach us about racial understanding, about cooperation, reconciliation today, 130 years later. The legislation I am introducing today is simple. It authorizes no additional Federal funding. The citizens of Cincinnati have already raised more than $400,000 in private contributions for this effort. The bill designates the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center in Cincinnati as an affiliated area within the National Park Service, and establishes a framework for cooperation between the Underground Railroad Center and the National Park Service. People from around the country will be able to come to this center to learn more about this important chapter in our history. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the dedicated Cincinnatians who have led this effort, and I would urge all of my colleagues to join me in this.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, because of a death in my family, I was not in attendance for rollcall votes Nos. 407, 408, 409, 410, 411, and 412. Had I been in attendance, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes Nos. 407, 409, 410, and 411, and ``nay'' on rollcall votes Nos. 408 and 412.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, because inclement weather delayed my return flight from my district, I was not in attendance for one recorded vote, rollcall vote No. 402. Had I been in attendance, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 402.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] for the time. This is a guy who has had his own legislative marathon this week during the Olympics, and he deserves a medal because he has achieved a lot of good legislation for America. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about a gem hidden in this bill, and I do not want it to be lost. It is simplification of our pension laws and strengthening of retirement savings for all Americans. My friend from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] and I have pushed this legislation, because we want to expand retirement security for all Americans. It is in this bill and something very important for America and for American workers. These days 401(k)'s profit-sharing plans, and other pension plans are being used less and less because, frankly, they are overregulated. Today small businesses, for the most part, do not offer any kind of retirement savings at all. Of those companies under 20 employees, fewer than 20 percent of them offer any pension savings plans at all. Since 1980, Congress has passed an average of one law per year affecting private sector pensions. Congress has increasingly complicated this area, and as these rules and regulations have multiplied, retirement savings plans have become less and less attractive. They are too costly to set up and too costly and burdensome to maintain, particularly for small businesses that cannot afford either the inside or outside professional help to make their way through the bureaucratic maze. As a result, these days pension plans are being terminated around this country faster than they are being established. The bottom line is that if this legislation is enacted, which I think it will be now, it will encourage private savings, it will help the economy because we need to increase our savings rate, and, most importantly, it will allow more people to plan for their future. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], as well as the other conferees, for including this legislation in this report, and I hope that this legislation receives the support of all Members of the House. Despite the fact that these important pension simplification provisions are included in the conference report, I am concerned that this bill will also raise the minimum wage. In my view, this is a misguided and regrettable effort, because I fear it will hurt the very working people we are trying to help. Thankfully, because of Chairman Archer's leadership, we added the pension reform and other provisions that will help to mollify the effect of his legislation on small business. For that reason, I will vote in favor of this bill, despite my deep concerns about the effects of the minimum-wage increase on working people at the low end of the economic ladder, on small businesses and on local and State governments.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, due to a previous speaking commitment located off Capitol Hill earlier today, I missed votes on rollcall No. 379, to permit the use of an exhibit, and rollcall No. 380, to table the motion to reconsider. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcoll No. 379 and ``yes'' on rollcall No. 380.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Energy and Water appropriations bill. I applaud the Appropriations Committee for their thoughtful approach to the difficult task of balancing our Nation's energy and water priorities during this era of fiscal restraint. I commend Chairman Myers and the other members of the committee for their efforts. I am particularly interested in the provisions of this bill relating to the Department of Energy's Environmental Restoration and Waste Management budget. There are many contaminated sites around the country left over from nuclear energy and nuclear weapons research and production. Those of us who represent the areas affected by these sites know that people are concerned about the health effects of these sites to themselves and their children--and concerned that no one will fix the problem. I believe this bill sends a strong message that the Federal Government will continue to meet its cleanup obligations. Within the context of our increasingly tight budget constraints, the Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Budget appropriation is a reasonable investment of public money. Administrative and support costs have been streamlined, while funding for cleanup activities--the true heart of this budget--has been protected. In my district, the Fernald site--a former uranium processing center--has potentially caused thousands of people, through no fault of their own, to be exposed to hazardous contaminants in the air, in the soil, and in the water. Although problems at the site still persist, and I have requested a GAO investigation into certain serious allegations relating to the management of the site, considerable progress has been made in cleaning up Fernald. The Fernald site is operating under an accelerated remediation schedule, so that the site will be clean in 9 years, and not the 25 years originally planned--creating a savings to the taxpayer of approximately $2 billion. This accelerated remediation program, if successful could serve as a model for other clean-up efforts around the country. In fact, the Appropriations Committee's report specifically commends the efforts underway at Fernald. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. It continues to provide reasonable funding to protect our natural resources. It still helps us to achieve our goal of balancing the budget by 2002--and it will help us to fix an environmental hazard that has placed thousands of people at risk.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for the time. Mr. Chairman, I have to tell my colleagues it is tough as incumbents to change the rules that affect us. That is why campaign finance reform is always a hard thing to do. It is also tough because it is complicated; we have unintended consequences, as we did after the 1974 post-Watergate reforms. We now have PAC's that I think are more of a problem than a solution. But the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] has done a good job. He has taken a very tough problem, and he is tried to make a difference, and he has, and I commend him for it. I hear my colleagues going on and on about how terrible this bill is, and how it does not help this and does not help that. As my colleagues know, I do not take PAC money. I raised almost all the money in my district. This is not perfect. I would like to see a total PAC ban. This is a great step forward. That is the point. We make incremental steps around here. Maybe next year we will do even better. What is good about this bill? It bans leadership PAC's. Who is not for banning leadership PAC's, raise their hand. I mean over there. It is a good thing. It is a good thing we are doing. It eliminates bundling by PAC's and lobbyists. It requires candidates to raise a majority of funds in their own districts. I heard someone earlier saying that is not a good provision. I am not sure why they said it. I mean that is true for everybody. It is going to be true for every candidate. They have to raise the majority of funds in their own districts so their own voters, not the special interests, the people who they are really accountable to, their voters, have more of a say. Political parties, look at this chart. Despite what the last speaker said, it turns out that the chairman of the Democratic Party also feels that the great organizers of democracy, our political parties, ought to play a bigger role. They can scream they are the people in this country who do not have a special interest. They have a political interest which is the party's, Republican and Democrat. And yes, we should increase, I think, and strengthen their role in the political process and get this special interest influence that is undue, that is too great, out of the process. So I do not know what the last speaker was talking about. He should talk to his own chairman of the Democrat National Party, who seems to agree with us on this. Finally, it does something incredible about the war chest that people can build up, the insurance policy, essentially roll over year to year. It actually discourages people from building up these war chests. That is anti-incumbent. I think there are two major purposes to campaign finance reform, cutting down on the special interests influences, first; and second, taking away the tremendous advantage that incumbents have, and that is precisely what this legislation does. Again it is a tremendous first step, and I support it. I will say I would like to see a total PAC ban. I think we are not really going to get to the root of the problem in terms of special interests until we have a total ban. But at least we take 50 percent of the PAC money away. More than half the money now in House elections is PAC money. It goes mostly to incumbents, of course. It is a problem in a system. We take it away, 50 percent of it away. That is a vast improvement of the current system. I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Thomas bill, a bill that represents a good--and long overdue--first step in giving our elections back to the voters. The bill we are considering on the House floor today takes some very important steps toward reducing the advantages enjoyed by incumbents and the undue influence of special interests. This bill bans leadership PAC's; eliminates bundling by PAC's and lobbyists; requires candidates to raise a majority of their campaign funds from their own district; and bans non-Federal money from Federal elections. These are all positive steps. I am also pleased that the Solomon amendment codifies the worker right-to-know provisions that were set forth in the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Beck. I also agree with the provisions of he new bill that would strengthen political parties. These measures will increase accountability to the voters and make elections a better representation of the people they serve. Although this bill is a good first step, I am disappointed that it does not ban PAC's. The new bill keeps the individual limit a $1,000 and reduces the PAC limit to $2,500. Adjusting the contribution limits, in my view, is mere tinkering at the edges. I believe that the only way to reduce both the advantages of incumbents and the undue influence of special interests is to ban Political Action Committees [PAC's]. In my view, it is wrong for corporations, labor unions, or trade associations to use money that would be an illegal contribution if made directly to the campaign for fundraising or administrative subsidies to their PAC's. I believe banning those subsidies or PAC's that receive those subsidies would clearly stand up to any constitutional test. At the very least, we should ban these so-called connected PAC's, which constitute a majority of PAC contributions. Some have said that a ban on PAC's may be unconstitutional, citing the 1976 Supreme Court case Buckley versus Valeo, which upheld the Federal Election Campaign Act's limitations on contributions. Three points of clarification. First, the Court has never directly considered the issue of whether a PAC ban would be unconstitutional. In fact, there is helpful language in the opinion that says that limits on contributions are reasonable if they stem actual or apparent corruption. Second, there are other forms of association that are recognized under the Federal Election Campaign Act--for example, partnerships. If an individual gives money to a partnership, and the partnership in turn donates the money to candidates, that individual's contribution is attributed to the individual. This is not the case with PAC contributions. Individuals can give to PAC's and that amount is not attributed back to them for purposes of their own contribution limits. In essence, I do not believe there is a constitutional right to give an enhanced contribution merely because one affiliates. For these reasons and the obvious fact that the makeup of the Supreme Court has changed in the 19 years since the Buckley decision, I think it is not at all clear that a total ban on PAC's would be found unconstitutional. We are all aware of the tremendous growth of PAC's, both in number-- from 608 in 1974 to almost 4,000 in 1995--and in influence--PAC contributions now account for more than half of the money in the typical House race. PAC's also contribute substantially to the advantages incumbents enjoy. According to the Federal Election Commission [FEC], in recent years more than 70 percent of PAC contributions have gone to incumbents. In my own State of Ohio, PAC's supported incumbents over challengers by a margin of 10 to 1 during the past election cycle. Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill--and I commend Chairman Thomas on his leadership--but it is just the first step. I hope the next phase of campaign finance reform will ban PAC's altogether--an important step that will make elections more competitive, more fair, and a better reflection of the wishes of our citizens.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for H.R. 3814. I believe this legislation represents a solid approach to our Nation's commitment in fighting drug abuse and protecting our borders. The bill provides more than $7.1 billion in funding for the Drug Enforcement Administration in order to renew a counternarcotics attack, and an additional $75 million for the DEA to target source countries and restore the successful international drug efforts to 1992 levels. H.R. 3814 also places a priority on protecting our borders. As you know, it adds 1,100 new border control agents and 2,700 more detention cells to ensure the deportation of illegal aliens residing in the United States. I am concerned, however, about the significant increase in Federal money that goes toward fighting crime. I simply believe that it is bad policy in light of the Federal Government's limited role in fighting crime and our very serious debt crisis. Congress plays an important and appropriate role in clarifying rights under the Constitution and protecting our borders. These issues were addressed in legislation passed in the Contract With America, for example: Victim Restitution, Effective Death Penalty Act, Criminal Alien Deportation Acts. Community policing on the other hand, has always been viewed as a local responsibility. I cannot justify committing billions of dollars in Federal funds for a responsibility that is truly a responsibility of State and local governments. I fear that efforts by Congress to assert control in areas that, under the Constitution, are clearly left to State and local agencies, will result in politicizing the crime issue, too much Federal control, and an unjustified increase in our budget deficit. It makes more sense to let localities raise money to meet local needs; sending taxpayer dollars to Washington results in less money coming back because of administration costs. Because of the overall funding levels in the bill, I supported the Gutknecht amendment to reduce spending by 1.9 percent across-the-board, which would further help our deficit reduction efforts.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of real welfare reform--something that is long, long overdue. The current welfare system is broken. It needs a major overhaul. No one can doubt the fact the war on poverty has failed--no one. We have spent over $5.4 trillion on welfare in the last generation, but, in the long term, the current system has more often harmed the very people it was designed to help. Madam Chairman, the welfare reform issue has been thoroughly and, I believe, thoughtfully studies and debated by this Congress. Remember, this marks the third time this session that this Congress will pass a welfare reform bill and sent it to the President. This new proposal is a fundamental change in the direction of our welfare system. It is the product of many, many hours of hearings and many sensible compromises. We are not, as some might have you believe, turning our backs on welfare recipients, nor should we. This bill continues to protect the children that are the most vulnerable people affected by our broken welfare system. It will continue to protect and to strengthen the role of families. But, it also protects our taxpayers. We're telling our taxpayers that, for now on, welfare will be a helping hand, not a handout. The new plan contains the major provisions I have worked for--work requirements, flexibility to allow States to address their own unique needs, and a 5-year time limit for those on welfare. My home State of Ohio has developed creative and innovative solutions closer to the real needs of people on welfare. I applaud Subcommittee Chairman Shaw, Chairman Archer, and Chairman Kasich for their leadership and urge my colleagues to support this bill. I think this bill is long overdue and urge the President to sign it.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong support for the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning]. As you know, a recent General Accounting Office [GAO] report brought to our attention the recent surge in taxpayer-financed spending for union activities at the Social Security Administration. Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe we need to protect the Social Security trust funds to ensure the security of the benefits that our seniors deserve. I do not challenge the right of Social Security Administration employees to have representation--but I do challenge the fact that money from the Social Security trust funds, which is collected from the payroll taxes of millions of hard-working Americans, is being used to finance greatly expanded union activity over the past few years. Let's insure the integrity of the Social Security trust funds and put an end to this abuse of taxpayer dollars. I urge my colleagues to support the Bunning amendment.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I have listened to the concerns expressed this afternoon and I share them. I have heard about human rights violations, heard about the inability of the Chinese to properly be concerned about Hong Kong's future and Taiwan, the access to the Chinese market. We have heard a lot about nuclear proliferation. We just heard about arms sales. So I have just a very practical question; how will revoking MFN address any of these concerns? How will it help? I think that a disengaged China is less likely to care about basic human rights, less likely to care about Hong Kong's economic liberties, less likely to care about living within accepted international norms. I think we only have to look back to the Cultural Revolution to see that. Instead we should be engaging. Among other things, they think we should be doing all we can, using what leverage and influence we have, to get China into the World Trade Organization, the successor organization to GATT. By that we force China to live by the international trading rules, to ensure that we have access to the Chinese market and improve the very conditions we all implore. That is the approach we ought to be taking as a Government, not revoking MFN status. I think voting against MFN may make people feel better, but that is not a good enough reason. It is not the right tool to use. I urge Members not to follow this course of action and instead to do the other things we need to do by engaging China to advance the interests we share.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, because of an unforeseen conflict, I was not in attendance for one recorded vote, rollcall vote No. 287. Had I been in attendance, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 287.