Rob Portman

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Bob Stout, a dear friend and a community leader who has left us saddened by his death but richer for having known him. We give thanks for his long service to his neighborhood, the city of Norwood, the State of Ohio and his beloved country. Mr. Stout's involvement with his community was extensive. He kept close track of needy individuals and families in his community of Norwood, helped them where he could, and solicited help from others where necessary. He loved helping kids and was active with the Allison Street Elementary School where he helped create the Caught Being Good program. This effective program rewards students for academic achievement and service to the community with prizes and parties. He was also known for his empathy and caring for the elderly, and for his prowess at fundraising for good causes. His efforts stemmed from a deep belief in the human spirit and his conviction that if given the opportunity people will seize it and help themselves. Robert Stout, Jr., said of his father, ``He was a very difficult person to figure out: politically conservative but when it came to the poor and needy he was the most liberal minded person.'' Mr. Stout was active in the Norwood Republican Party, served on the Hamilton County Republican Board of Directors and Board of Elections, and helped countless candidates. Mr. Stout also served his country in the Korean war and upon returning home earned a degree in accounting from Miami University, then went on to be an accountant with the U.S. Playing Card Co. Dr. Joanne Sizoo, minister at Norwood Presbyterian Church, put it well when she said, ``Bob's life was really a sermon. He really did live what he believed. The proof of our love for Bob Stout is not whether we sit here today, but whether we carry on the work of caring for the poor without Bob to urge us on and hold us accountable.'' As is the case with so many people whose lives he touched, I feel blessed to have known him and to have learned from him.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh].

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Sam Johnson.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order against this amendment.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 425(a) of the Congressional Budget Act, it is not in order for the House to consider any amendment that would increase the direct costs of Federal intergovernmental mandates in excess of $50 million annually. The precise language in the amendment before us on which this is based is ``Paragraph 1 of section 6(a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 is amended to read as follows: Not less than $4.75 an hour during the year beginning July 1, 1996, and not less than $5.15 an hour after the expiration of such year.'' It is upon this basis and the impact this amendment would have on State and local government as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office that I raise this point of order, and ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, last year 394 Members of this House voted to pass the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, which, for the first time, ensures that before we vote on measures that impose unfunded mandates on State and local government, that we have three things: First, we have an analysis of what the cost is; second, we have an informed debate on whether the mandate should be imposed; and third, and that is what we are up to today, we have a recorded vote on whether to impose such a mandate. It does not mean we never mandate, but it means we do so in the full light of day, and that is what this is all about. Having this point of order is about keeping the promise Congress made a year ago to know the cost information, to have a separate debate, and to make a decision in the clear light of day as to whether we impose this additional mandate. I have a letter here from the Congressional Budget Office which states as follows: ``This amendment would impose both an intergovernmental and a private sector mandate, as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, that would exceed the $50 million annual threshold for intergovernmental mandates beginning in fiscal year 1997. For 1998, the first full year in which the minimum wage would be $5.15, the direct cost of the mandate would total $310 million for State and local governments, and $3.7 billion for the private sector.'' That is from CBO. Thanks to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Law, we now have the facts, and we now have the opportunity as a Congress to decide, do we want to impose these additional costs on the private sector and also on State and local government? Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind my colleagues that if you do not believe we should impose these costs, this would be a no vote. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the last speaker, this is part of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act. It is not a dilatory tactic. It is to decide whether we want to impose a mandate. I think it is great we are having this informed debate. We are going to hear from other speakers now. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Largent].

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on this side?

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to say briefly, because there has been some confusion in some of the discussion, that a ``no'' vote is the right vote if Members do not want to impose additional mandates on State and local government. There are also huge private sector mandates here which were required to be analyzed by the Unfunded Mandates Relief Act, but a ``no'' vote is the correct vote if Members do not want to impose these additional mandates. In closing, I would just say that this is exactly the kind of debate we hoped to have with the Unfunded Mandates Relief Act. We now have it out in the open. This is an unfunded mandate on State and local government. If Members do not want to impose those mandates, they now have the opportunity to stand up and be counted.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Bartlett].

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner].

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say quickly to my colleague that both the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett] have talked about the Unfunded Mandates Relief Act, as has the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior]. All three of them voted for the act, and I am glad they did. I am glad we are having this debate today. I would say that the one rule that I know of where we waived a point of order, there were no unfunded mandates in the underlying legislation. And in that case, indeed, Mr. Doggett or anyone else could have raised a point of order on the rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Chrysler].

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Shadegg].

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, on May 21, 1996, I was unavoidably detained and missed Rollcall vote No. 180. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on Rollcall No. 180.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for those words, and I will return the compliment. We would not have the small business package on the floor if not for his support of it, and I think if we can make these changes, we will see immediate benefits to small business America and to the jobs they create. After all, that is what this is all about. Mr. Speaker, last year the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Ben Cardin, and I introduced legislation to simplify the pension system in this country. It was in the Balanced Budget Act that was vetoed by the President. It is a common sense approach. There is strong bipartisan support for it. The idea is to make it just a lot easier for companies to offer a pension plan, particularly smaller businesses. The current system cries out for reform because of its cost and complexity. Let me give my colleagues a statistic. Only 20 percent of businesses with less than 25 employees offer any kind of pension plan today, any kind of profit sharing plan, 401(k), or any other pension system. I think there are three main reasons this pension reform is long overdue. First, it will help the savings rate, by which economists will tell us it will help productivity and result in more jobs in this country. We now have the lowest savings rate of all the industrialized worlds and it is hurting us. It gives us a competitive disadvantage. Second, I think we need to do all we can to encourage private savings in this country for retirement. The reason for that is we need to backstop our Social Security System. The American people are way ahead of us on this. They understand that Social Security is at risk and we need to encourage private savings so it will be there, particularly when the baby boom generation begins to retire. Third, and most important, this provision is going to help American workers, the workers who are caught in the wage and benefits squeeze, because this makes more generous a very important fringe benefit, and that is the pension benefit. That is the most important part of this. It is a win-win situation. It is overdue, something we should have done already, and I am very pleased it is part of this legislation. Let us simplify our retirement security system in this country. Let us do this for our workers. Let us enable more working Americans to save and let us increase retirement security.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my friends, the blue dogs on this side of the aisle, for bringing forth this budget today. I think it is a great improvement over the budget we are going to see next, which is the President's budget. I think the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] is going to bring it to the floor. I say that because the President's budget does not even balance over the 6-year period based on CBO numbers, unless you add some late year gimmicks the last 2 years on some contingencies. So I commend them for having a product that does get to balance. I have a few problems with it as I look at it. No. 1, in the entitlement area, which is where most of our spending increases are now, they do not get at the real problems, in my view, in Medicaid. I think there could be an unfunded mandate in Medicaid because there is a lack of flexibility, as compared with the Republican approach. With regard to Medicare, you cannot tell how long the part A trust fund remains solvent based on this approach. It looks like we have a shift from the part A trust fund to the taxpayer-paid part B trust fund. Finally, and this is the fundamental point, it has higher taxes and higher spending than the Republican plan which gets to balance in the same time period. So why vote for something that does not have the attributes of the Republican plan in terms of entitlement reform, fundamental reforms and has higher taxes and higher spending and gets there at the same time? I guess my view is, why not the best? We have a plan that has lower taxes and less spending that gets us to balance. That is what we need to do.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say I support this budget without reservation. It is a great budget for all the reasons we have heard up here today. I have got three kids at home. It is about the kids, it is about the next generation. We do not want to leave them with this crushing debt, now $5 trillion. We do not want to increase their taxes to the extent we would have to in order to service that debt. We want them to have a shot at the American dream. So this budget is at least one important step toward getting that budget under control and to get it into balance in 6 years. But let me mention something else, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] talks about it a lot. Forget the numbers. This is also about shifting power and responsibility and authority and money out of this city, out of Washington and back to our States, back to our local communities and back to people, and that is very important, and it is a big distinction between the way we have been going and the way we like to go. For 40 years we have increasingly aggregated that power and authority here in Washington. This budget is all about getting it out. Medicaid is a good example of that. Education is a good example of that. Welfare is a great example of that. Let me give my colleagues one example in Ohio. For years Ohio tried to get a waiver to be able to do something innovative and creative in the area of welfare to try to help people actually move from welfare rolls to payrolls. Finally we got some of the waivers. We were able, in the last 3 years, to reduce our welfare rolls in Ohio by 23 percent. We could do twice that well, maybe three times that well, if we could get real flexibility that is in this budget proposal in the area of welfare reform. Let us trust the people that sent us here. Let us do this budget because it is the right thing to do for our kids, to get our fiscal house in order, but also let us do it because it is time to start moving some of the power and authority out of Washington where it is increasingly aggregated and reverse that trend. This is one small step and an important step toward doing that.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, due to a family emergency, on May 10, 1996, I was absent from the Capitol and missed votes on rollcall No. 163, approving the Journal; rollcall No. 164, the Young amendment to H.R. 3286; rollcall No. 165, passage of H.R. 3286; and rollcall No. 166, passage of House Resolution 430. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall No. 163, ``no'' on rollcall No. 164, ``yes'' on rollcall No. 165, and ``yes'' on rollcall No. 166.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Jewish Federation of Cincinnati. The federation has a proud history. Its predecessor organization was founded in 1896 to help those many immigrants from Central and Eastern Europe who fled repressive policies and practices of their native countries. Its efforts to help refugees and immigrants continued through the events leading up to and following the Holocaust in Europe in the 1940's and have been renewed in this decade as a result of the opening of the borders of the former Soviet States and the Eastern bloc countries. As Jewish immigrants stream out of Eastern Europe, the Jewish Federation has helped local agencies provide relocation and resettlement services in the Cincinnati area and in Israel. Since 1989, the federation has assisted with the resettlement of more than 1,200 Jewish immigrants and refugees in Cincinnati alone. During the same period, the federation has supported programs to help over 600,000 Jewish immigrants who have taken refuge in Israel. Over time, the Jewish Federation has expanded its activities to include educational, cultural, and humanitarian programs for all members of the community. For example, it works with community organizations to provide services for Jewish youth and the elderly. The federation should also be commended for its commitment to improve interfaith and intergroup relations in Cincinnati and around the world. I would like to offer my warmest congratulations to the Jewish Federation for 100 years of excellent and meaningful contributions to the Jewish community and to the promotion of international human rights. I wish the Jewish Federation of Cincinnati and all its members continued success in the coming century.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to rise today in recognition of Ms. Dale P. Brown, a distinguished citizen of Cincinnati. On Wednesday, May 1, Ms. Brown will receive the prestigious Human Relations Award from the Cincinnati Chapter of the American Jewish Committee, a much deserved honor for all of the work she has done both professionally and for her community. Ms. Brown has made quite a mark on Cincinnati. As the president and CEO of the Sive/Young & Rubicam advertising firm, Dale Brown has led her company through a period of rapid growth and deep community involvement. Dale Brown also helped reengineer the United Way ``Shaping the Future'' Task Force, is the communications chair for the 1996 United Way campaign, and was named a Career Woman of Achievement by the Cincinnati YWCA. And I have had the pleasure of working with Ms. Brown, in her role as a founding member of the steering committee of the Coalition for a Drug-Free Greater Cincinnati, a grassroots group that I organized to fight the war on drugs at the local level. Mr. Speaker, I hope that you will join me and the rest of my colleagues in recognizing Dale Brown for all her selfless contributions to her community. Whether leading her business to unprecedented success or volunteering in the fight against teenage drug use, Brown is an inspiration to those around her. Cincinnati is fortunate to have someone of her caliber in our midst.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for giving me the opportunity to speak. I was over at my office and I heard this, and I wanted to be here. Twelve years ago, fresh out of law school, I worked with Ron Brown as an international trade lawyer. At the time I was doing volunteer work for then Vice President Bush. So clearly we were on opposite sides of the political aisle. Yet Ron reached out to me and befriended me, and for the past 12 years that friendship continued. Most recently at home on a Sunday he called me to talk about preserving the international trade functions at the Department of Commerce, a function that he exercised as well as any Secretary of Commerce in history, I think better than any Secretary of Commerce in history. As Ron was so good at doing, he reached out to me again and found common ground, in this case our mutual back problems we were experiencing. Unfortunately, my back surgery kept me away from his funeral last week. Toby Roth said he called him his favorite Republican, and apparently he called some other Republicans that. He never called me that, but he did call me his friend, and I cherish that, and will cherish that forever.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank Chairman Johnson for her excellent leadership in crafting this bill. She and her Oversight Subcommittee staff have worked tirelessly on behalf of the American taxpayer. Mr. Speaker, yesterday's deadline to file income tax returns reminds us of how much power the Internal Revenue Service has over the honest taxpayers of this country. We must ensure that the IRS isn't heavy- handed in enforcing regulations and that the taxpayer has adequate protections. One of my constituents learned the hard way about how the IRS sometimes does business. While she was married, she and her self- employed husband filed a joint tax return. But after her divorce was finalized, the IRS determined that she was responsible for paying off almost all of the $30,000 in taxes her ex-husband owed the Federal Government. The IRS rejected her plea for relief under the innocent spouse provision in the Tax Code because she had signed the joint tax returns. Her ex-husband is now off the hook, having settled with the IRS for about $5,000. Meanwhile, this divorcee currently owes the IRS $20,000, a burden that could affect her for the rest of her life. She says she feels like she's being punished for being a good citizen and for working hard. It certainly looks that way to me, too. We owe it to the hardworking citizens of our country to prevent the IRS from unfairly pushing them around. Most people come away from a confrontation with the IRS feeling bruised and battered. This legislation at least will give them a fighting chance--it includes more than 30 items that give the taxpayers rights and powers in dealing with the IRS. Some of these provisions will help ensure that divorced filers are not victimized. I urge my colleagues in the House to vote in favor of passage of this Taxpayer Bill of Rights--it will guard against unreasonable IRS positions and protect the rights of taxpayers.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the bill and I do so because I think it will provide greater security to millions of working Americans by eliminating some significant obstacles to health care. I think this is precisely the kind of health care reform, Mr. Speaker, that the American people have called for. It is targeted reform. It is incremental reform. It makes commonsense improvements to an imperfect system. Let me give my colleagues an example. This bill helps level the playing field between those who are self-employed and those who work for corporations. The health insurance deduction for the self-employed goes from 30 percent to 50 percent over a 7-year period. With this single step, we are making health care more affordable for 3.2 million Americans, many of those Americans who are now caught in the net, Americans who are now uninsured. That means the mon and pop grocery store down the street. That means that our favorite barber. That means that our local mechanic. All of these people may be self-employed. In my State of Ohio alone, this enhanced deduction will affect more than 50,000 farm families. It makes sense. Corporations receive a significant deduction, and it is only fair that the self-employed do, too.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, because of an unforeseen scheduling conflict, I was not in attendance for one recorded vote, rollcall vote No. 48. Had I been in attendance, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 48. 12-YEAR-OLD HAS POEM PUBLISHED