Rob Portman

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I do rise in support of the amendment tonight. I also want though to take a moment to correct some of the misstatements that were made earlier during this debate about the unfunded mandates bill and its application to the farm bill. The unfunded mandates bill is working. In this farm bill there are no public sector mandates. If there were, there could be a point of order on the floor, we can have a vote on it, and I would be the first to raise that point of order. There are private sector mandates in this bill. Private sector mandates under the unfunded mandate bill have to be costed out by CBO; the committees have to put it in the report. The Committee on Agriculture did that. The Committee on Agriculture therefore complied with the legislation. The unfunded mandates bill worked in the Telco bill to take out a mandate, and it is working here in the ag bill. I do rise today to support this amendment. I think it is time for Congress to phase out the sugar program, past time. I think this is a fair 5-year phaseout. The current program just has not worked. It has reduced competition, it restricted imports, and it has inflated the U.S. sugar prices to more than double the world price. It is time to make a change. To put it bluntly, I think the sugar program as it stands has cost jobs. Since 1981, when the Federal price support program for sugar was first enacted, half of our Nation's sugar cane refineries have been closed and others are shut down temporarily due to a lack of raw sugar supply. Finally, deficit hawks beware. The Federal Government is paying a lot more for sugar, about $90 million more a year for various Government- assisted programs. Government interference in the sugar program in my view has done more harm than good. It is time to move the sugar industry toward the open market in an orderly manner. That is what this amendment does. I support it this evening. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur].

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call your attention to a constituent of mine, Robert Groh, who has devoted over two and a half decades of service to the State of Ohio and the Town of Amelia. He retired on Sunday January 1, 1995 and Mayor of Amelia, ending his 18 years of public life. Mayor Groh first served in the early 1950's when the town of Amelia was a rural community with roughly 500 residents and only one two-lane road. Today, thanks to Robert Groh's dedication, Amelia has bloomed into a community of over 2,200. Mr. Groh is credited with being able to ease the ``growing pains'' of this developing community with his ability to understand the concerns of the parties involved and to create solutions meeting the needs of all concerned. As a father of three, and a grandfather of six, Robert Groh balanced a career at Proctor & Gamble with his family-run monument business, and his 26 years of service to Amelia as Mayor and Councilman. He was responsible for developing the Amanda Acres senior-citizen facility and the village municipal building. He also assisted in developing the town's infrastructure from his position on the Public Works District Integrating Committee. Robert W. Groh is the heart and soul of Amelia and has made this town a wonderful place in which to live and work. He has unselfishly given his time and energy to the community and to our country. Robert Groh is a special man to Amelia and its citizens and he will always be a valued member of the community. I am proud to know Mayor Groh, have him as a constituent, and call him a friend. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House of Representatives, please join me in saluting Robert W. Groh for his many years of service and wishing him the best for many years to come.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the Communications Act of 1995 and, more specifically, provisions in the conference report which preserve the ability of local authorities to protect their rights-of-way and public property. As you may recall, 1 year ago, I stood before this body to ask for your support in passing H.R. 5, the Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995, in order to bring a new level of accountability to the Federal Government. This legislation, the principal provisions of which took effect on January 1, 1996, forces Congress to end the increasing practice of imposing crippling mandates on States and local governments without regard for their costs. Now the Federal Government must work cooperatively with State and local governments to avoid new mandates. Today, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 passed its first real test, the Communications Act of 1995. Thanks to local governments, the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the Congressional Budget Office, all of whom assisted in identifying legitimate concerns about potential unfunded mandates in this bill, we were prepared to raise points of order on the floor to stop the mandates. The Commerce Committee has worked with us, representatives of the State and local governments and other interested parties to avoid potential unfunded mandates and protect local control over public property and rights-of-way. We secured language that ensured local governments retained their control over rights-of-way. The language included in the Communications Act now adequately addresses the key concerns that have been raised by State and local governments about potential unfunded mandates. As proponents of unfunded mandates reform and protecting local control over rights-of-way, we were pleased to see this result. I would like to express my gratitude to my mandates counterpart and original cosponsor on the other side of the aisle, Representative Condit, for his assistance as well as Representative Joe Barton, and Representative Bart Stupak, true champions of State and local rights. Mr. Speaker, unfunded mandates reform is a reality and I look forward to working with all my colleagues committed to reflecting the concerns of State and local governments in Federal legislation.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, because of inclement weather in my district, I was not in attendance for two recorded votes, rollcall vote No. 1 and rollcall vote No. 2. Had I been in attendance, I would have voted ``present'' on rollcall vote No. 1 and ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 2.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, as the tragedy of the Balkan conflict has unfolded before us in the newspapers, on television, and here, on the floor of the House, I have spent many hours talking with constituents, talking to colleagues, and thinking through the appropriate United States response, as well as the appropriate role for Congress. I continue to believe that the deployment of U.S. ground troops is the wrong approach. I do think the United States has an interest in stopping the fighting and in preserving NATO. But I also believe that military instability in Bosnia and Herzegovina presents tantamount risk to our ground troops and throws into question the achievability of our mission there. A more appropriate U.S. role might have been limited to logistical support and providing air cover. It is, of course, crucial that Congress voice its support for our troops, for our young men and women who are already in Bosnia. And as much as I disagree with President Clinton about some of his foreign policy decisions, I think when you elect a President as Commander in Chief, you have to give some flexibility. Tonight I will reluctantly vote against H.R. 2770, Representative Doran's bill to cut off all funding for our troops, primarily because I think it is not fair to our men and women in uniform who are already there. It would be irresponsible for Congress to jeopardize the safety of those already deployed and the thousands more that are in the process of being deployed--regardless of this vote--in the coming weeks. I think of Annah Castellini, a constituent and graduate of West Point, who is headed to Bosnia soon as a platoon leader. Remembering the Vietnam era, she worries about whether the American people will support her. Further, I do feel that the passage of H.R. 2770 begins to infringe on the President's power as Commander in Chief and could threaten confidence in U.S. leadership. I think it would be unwise at this time to send conflicting messages to the factions of the Balkan conflict and the rest of the world. In my opinion, the Buyer resolution, House Resolution 302, strikes a better balance between opposing the decision to send them, yet supporting our troops in their duties. I will support Buyer. I cannot support House Resolution 306, the Hamilton resolution, because it implicitly expresses support, not just for the troops, but also for the President's decision to send them. Former President Bush said recently, ``Sincere people can have honest differences as to whether President Clinton has made the right decision. I am nevertheless certain in my mind that at this point we must support our troops--and that support should come from Republicans and Democrats alike.'' I agree. As one who believes President Clinton made the wrong decision, I nonetheless will support our troops in any way I can and pray for their safe return.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 839, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2684, the Senior Citizens' Right to Work Act. As you know, in 1935 Congress passed the Social Security Act to provide a stable source of income to older Americans. This program, however, includes an earnings limit that unfairly penalizes those senior citizens who want to work beyond the retirement age. Mr. Chairman, by raising the Social Security earnings limit to $30,000 by the year 2002, H.R. 2684, in part, fulfills our promises made to senior citizens in the Contract With America. Let me explain. First, it is a matter of fairness for seniors. Under current law, a senior citizen loses $1 in benefits for every $3 earned, above the $11,280 limit. This limit hurts low and middle-income senior citizens the most. These are individuals who work out of necessity--and need the income. Raising the earnings limit will enable these individuals to work so that they can make ends meet. Second, the low earnings limit penalizes senior citizens for remaining in our workforce. Our economy suffers from the loss of experience and skills that seniors bring to the work force. I have heard first hand from constituents in my district, that the earnings limit actually inhibits some seniors from working because the lose a portion of their Social Security benefits. Third, raising the earnings limit will help stimulate the economy. Obviously , senior citizens will be paying more taxes if they are working, and at the same time, have more money in their pockets to spend. Significantly, this legislation is paid for by spending cuts that make sense. Among other things, the bill eliminates the current practice of providing disability benefits to individuals that are considered disabled only because they are alcoholics or drug addicts. It also creates a revolving fund to finance continuing disability reviews to determine whether individuals receiving disability benefits are still disabled. Based on government studies, these reviews will result in fewer beneficiaries and substantial savings to the taxpayer. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation. By increasing the Social Security earnings limit, it lessens the penalty for many senior citizens and it does so, in the most fiscally responsible manner.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Speaker Gingrich's substitute to H. Res. 250, the gift ban legislation. The Speaker's substitute is the only version that would ban all gifts. This is a tough issue. There is no easy way to monitor or regulate items that we as Members of Congress receive for free. Once you start down the path of regulating these gifts, which we already have under current law, it gets messy. We must then ask ourselves: Was the gift under ten dollars? Did I report it in a timely manner? Was he or she a lobbyist? If we've decided it's important to go down this path, I just think it's easier, simpler and safer to establish as a general rule that all gifts should be turned down--there are fewer pitfalls to this path. However, you need two exceptions to make it workable. One, a common sense friends and family exception is necessary. Two, we need a widely attended gathering exception to allow us to attend receptions and accept meals, for example at Rotary speeches and political events. These exceptions are in this amendment. Even with the common sense exceptions, some wonder whether this path is workable. I think the bright line test is as workable as any other set of rules, and again, is easier and safer to comply with. I lived under these rules in the Bush White House, where I had the unenviable job of enforcing them, and here in my own Congressional office. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment as the best way to demonstrate that real reform has come to this House.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see we are talking about the facts. As you know, last Saturday we sent the President a bill that would extend the debt limit, and at the same time protect the Social Security, Medicare, and civil service trust funds. The bill says that the funds cannot be disinvested during this debt crisis period. Unfortunately, the President decided to veto the bill. Among the reasons for vetoing it was because it would have prevented the Secretary of the Treasury from using these trust funds to artificially extend the debt limit. I think this is unacceptable. That is why we are here today with this legislation, H.R. 2621, a bill to enforce the debt limit and to protect the trust funds. It focuses on that issue. Among other things, this bill tells the 43 million Americans who get Social Security and the 140 million workers that pay into it that it is not OK to play games with the $483 billion in assets of the trust funds. It tells the President that it is not OK to play games with the $30 billion in payroll taxes that workers pay each month and that retirees rely on to finance their benefit checks. It is helpful to review history here. What we do not want, Mr. Speaker, is a repeat of 1985, when in fact there was a gaming of the trust funds. As a result, the Social Security trust funds lost $382 million in interest, and long-term bonds were cashed in early. It is correct that Congress did pass legislation to restore the lost interest and to reconstruct the bond portfolio, but no legislation could ever restore the public confidence that was lost during that period. What we are considering today is not just about protecting the trust funds. It is also about protecting public confidence in those trust funds. Simply put, without this bill, there are no laws to prevent a repeat of what happened in 1985. It was difficult for many of us to vote to extend the debt limit last week. But, having done that, Congress should also take action to restore public confidence in these trust funds. We have a chance to do that today. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, because of an unforeseen scheduling conflict, I was not in attendance for one recorded vote, rollcall vote No. 769 on the resolution regarding Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Had I been in attendance, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 769.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this conference report. I believe it represents a thoughtful approach to the difficult task of balancing our Nation's energy and water priorities in an era of fiscal restraint. I commend the chairman and the conferees for coming up with a great product. Included in this bill is a $5.5 billion appropriation for the Department of Energy's environmental restoration and waste management budget--this part of the bill is actually an increase in spending over last year's funding level and it represents an acknowledgment on the part of the Federal Government that it indeed, does have a responsibility to clean up hazardous waste sites that it created: in particular the Department of Energy's nuclear energy production facilities. Most of the land connected with the Fernald site, a former uranium processing center, lies in my congressional district. Thousands of people living near Fernald may have already been exposed to radioactive contaminants in the air, water and soil. With DOE oversight, some progress has been made at Fernald in cleaning up these hazards. But we still have a long way to go. My approach has been to be certain that these substantial taxpayer funds directed to Fernald are used in the most cost-effective manner possible to actually clean up the site. I have supported an accelerated and innovative cleanup plan to achieve these goals and I am pleased that the committee report expresses support for this approach. I am convinced it is the best plan. It has widespread local support, and could serve as a model for cleanup efforts around the country. And it actually saves taxpayer dollars: accelerating the schedule from 25 years to 10 years will result in a savings to the taxpayer of about $1.4 billion. Of course, it also cleans up the site sooner--protecting health and safety of the community. It's a good example of doing more with less. I urge my colleagues to support this conference report. It helps us meet our energy and water priorities responsibly while still achieving the necessary savings to enable us to balance the Federal budget in 7 years. I commend the chairman.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut for yielding me the time, and I commend him for his unwavering support over the years for fiscal sanity and say that I am very proud to stand up here today and support this bill that leads us to the first balanced budget in 26 years. But I also want to talk about some other things. As the gentleman from Michigan says, many of us are eager to talk about some of the good things in this bill beyond the fact that we come to the first balanced budget in 26 years, which is of paramount importance. This afternoon, I want to highlight a few of the small business incentives in this package that go beyond that critical task of getting spending under control but will encourage saving and job creation to lead to real long-term economic growth. Let me give a good example. It is not too glamorous, but it is extremely important to small businesses, to workers and employers in small businesses around this country. It is the long-overdue, comprehensive simplification of our pension laws in this country. And it is in this bill. These changes which the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] and others on both sides of the aisle have been working on will make it easier and less expensive for businesses to both establish plans and to maintain pension plans, thus encouraging and enabling people to save, an important public policy goal in its own right, and also will encourage people to plan and to take responsibility for their futures and for their retirement. Pension law is a great example of an area where Congress, by meddling, has hurt workers and employers who are trying to do the right thing. Quite simply, as the rules and regulations have multiplied in this area, fewer and fewer employers are able to offer pension plans. It has gotten to the point where today only 20 percent of those employers with less than 25 employees offer any kind of pension plan at all. It is no surprise that our savings rate is among the lowest, if not the lowest, in the industrialized countries. Another example of rules that are outdated, overly complex and impede job creation are the subchapter S corporation rules and regulations. That includes most of the small and family-owned businesses in America. The sub-S changes that we have made, and they are in this bill, will help companies grow and flourish, create new jobs and will keep family businesses family-owned. The point I want to emphasize is that the pension, subchapter S and other reforms in this legislation are going to stimulate national investment and savings, foster business growth, and they are good for America, and they are all in this bill.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, as important as budget reconciliation is, and it is very important, this morning I would like to address something else. This is National Red Ribbon Week; my colleagues may have seen people wearing these red ribbons on the floor of this House and around the country. It is a week to call on our Nation's citizens, particularly our young people, to stay healthy and drug-free. Mr. Speaker, this is a critical and timely message because unfortunately in one generation it appears that normalized attitudes toward drug abuse has led to an epidemic increase in the number of drug users. The frightening fact is that although we seem to be winning the war on drugs in the 1980's those trends have been dramatically reversed. According to the most recent National household survey on drug abuse, marijuana use among teenagers nearly doubled between 1990 and 1994, after 13 straight years of decline. Cocaine use is also up, and today more and more teenagers and young adults are resorting to drugs from the past like heroin and LSD. In my own congressional district, drug use is back up to its highest levels ever. In Hamilton County, OH there has been a documented and dramatic increase in the past 12 months in the use of marijuana and harder drugs. And most frightening is that drug abuse is occurring among children at younger and younger ages. Mr. Speaker, we must take bold and aggressive action. All Americans must be involved. The fight against drug abuse has to be handled community by community, and everyone needs to be involved.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. We have heard a lot today from the other side of the aisle about how the increases in spending in our Medicare plan will not keep up with the private sector growth. We just heard from the gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott]. I wish his chart were still up. Maybe it can be put up again. It might be useful to have it. It is just not accurate. It is not accurate. The charts we just saw from the gentleman compares apples to oranges. It is full of unknowns. It is full of false assumptions. Let me give Members a couple. First of all, the Medicare figures are per beneficiary. The private sector figures are not per beneficiary. How can we compare those two? The private sector figures are, thus, inflated. Second, the Medicare figures the Democrats use do not include a lot of other costs, including administrative costs. It is comparing apples to oranges. Here is a better chart that illustrates clearly what the gentleman from New [[Page H 10341]] York [Mr. Houghton] and others have been trying to explain, which is that under this bill before us Medicare spending actually goes up. Guess what? It actually keeps pace with the private sector. It will be higher than the private sector 7 years from now as it is today. This chart compares apples to apples. It compares what employers will pay per employee for health care in the private sector to what the government will pay per beneficiary under the Medicare Preservation Act. It clearly shows that, even when we assume a growth rate of 7 percent, as the gentleman from Washington did, Medicare will still pay more in each year through the year 2002 than we pay in the private sector. In fact, that 7 percent private sector health care figure is inflated. I will give Members a couple of reasons it is. First, the private health care cost increases have been far lower over recent years than 7 percent. The administration's own Department of Labor tells us last year health care costs were nationally at about 4.5 percent. Mr. Chairman, we have seen reports recently, including a story in the Washington Post of just a couple weeks ago, which indicates that recent surveys, comprehensive surveys have shown us that for the first time in 10 years health care costs nationally are below inflation. All this, incidentally, was included in a recent CBO report that I would encourage everyone to read. The point is that the private sector numbers are nowhere near that 7 percent. But even when we include the 7 percent numbers, the Medicare spending continues to be higher than the private sector spending. This is a generous program, folks. What we have come up with is a very generous plan. It is a responsible approach to a very real problem. I would encourage all Members to support the Republican plan.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, Medicare's problems are now well known. The question is whether official Washington has the courage and foresight to fix them. If the partisan bickering continues and nothing is done, the Federal program providing health care insurance for roughly 33 million seniors and 4 million disabled Americans won't be there for anyone. We know that skyrocketing medical costs, an aging population and a decline in the ratio of workers paying into the system have placed Medicare in dire financial straits. We know about the alarming Medicare Trustees' report--the Part A Trust Fund--which covers hospital, skilled nursing and home health services--starts paying out more than it takes in next year and goes broke 6 years later. We also know that Medicare offers limited choices to beneficiaries, is rife with fraud and abuse and, typical and entitlement programs, lacks a cost control mechanism. Such cost increases are simply unsustainable in a program that now accounts for over 11 percent of the Federal budget. This has led to annual cost increases in excess of 10 percent, at least twice as high as private health care costs. With all of this knowledge and after more than two dozen public hearings and hundreds of town hall meetings, comprehensive Medicare reform legislation was introduced in the House at the end of September. Democrats have dismissed the plan as a mere means for paying for Republican-sponsored tax cuts. This misses the point. The tax relief has already been paid for with spending cuts and has nothing to do with Medicare reform. Republicans, in turn, are too defensive about the politically sensitive task of curbing entitlement spending. Both sides need to be honest about the facts, get down to work on the serious challenge before them, and stop the political gamesmanship. Here's what the proposal just introduced does and doesn't do. It does allow beneficiaries to keep their current coverage. If someone is currently enrolled in the traditional fee-for-service plan-- which over 90 percent of beneficiaries are--by doing nothing that plan is continued. But many will want to change. The innovative aspect of the proposal is that it offers seniors choices until now only available in the private sector--coordinated care, Medical Savings Accounts and provider-sponsored networks, to name a few--and sufficient information to make good choices. Some may opt for coordinated care to reduce out-of-pocket costs or obtain prescription drugs, eyeglasses or other coverage currently excluded under Medicare. Others may want to take advantage of a Medicare Savings Account where beneficiaries can purchase a high deductible, low-cost insurance policy and the government deposits money that would have gone toward more traditional Medicare benefits into an interest bearing account that can be withdrawn tax-free to cover medical expenses. Contrary to the heated rhetoric, Medicare is not being ``cut''; spending per beneficiary will actually increase under the proposal from about $4,800 in 1996 to $6,700 in 2002. Granted, that is not as steep an increase as currently projected, but it remains a generous program. Moreover, despite claims from the plan's critics, the House proposal does not increase copayments or deductibles. Premiums will increase in absolute numbers under the House GOP plan, a bit more than they would under current law. This is because the proposal locks in today's premium of 31.5 percent of the cost of Part B services (doctors visits, lab work, etc. . . .), rather than having the percentage paid by beneficiaries decrease (and the percentage of the public subsidy increase) as it would under current law. As a result, instead of paying $61 a month seven years from now as would be the case under current law, the amount would be approximately $87 a month. This reflects the fact that health care costs will go up in that time period. Most seniors I talk to are willing to see this kind of increase if it is part of getting the system on its feet. Only those better off (individuals with incomes over $75,000 and couples with incomes over $125,000) will pay a higher percentage of Part B premium costs. Again and again in my town meetings and discussions with seniors, I've been impressed with the willingness of people to pay a little more if it helps put Medicare back on its feet. The proposal also tackles fraud and abuse. Seniors in my District and around the country have offered innovative ideas to curb the fraud and abuse that adds billions of dollars in health care costs each year. The proposal rewards seniors who report fraud to the government and the government, in turn, increases penalties for those who defraud the system. Those who have taken a hard look at the benefits of increased choice and competition believe that health care delivery can be improved and costs reduced. In conjunction with affluence testing and reduced fraud and abuse, many believe that savings will be generated adequate to keep the program solvent at least until the baby boom generation begins to retire. But they may be wrong. That's why the current plan also builds in a ``failsafe'' mechanism, under which government payments to providers will be reduced if targets are not met. Is this plan perfect? No. It surely can be improved and there ought to be a bipartisan effort to do so. But it's the only plan out there that seriously addresses Medicare's financial troubles. For the 37 million Americans in the system and those millions more in years to come, let's hope Congress and the White House can get beyond the rhetoric and work together to produce a responsible plan that saves this vital system. And, in the process, let's hope both sides can be more honest with the American public about how that's achieved. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation as a responsible approach to a very real problem.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Procter & Gamble, based in Cincinnati, OH, which was recently named as a recipient of the U.S. Government's 1995 National Medal of Technology. Procter & Gamble will be recognized at a White House ceremony on October 18, 1995, for creating, developing, and applying advanced technologies to consumer products that have strengthened the economy while helping to improve the quality of life for consumers worldwide. Procter & Gamble has a 160-year history of introducing cutting-edge products on which Americans have come to depend--products such as Ivory soap, Crest toothpaste, and Tide detergent. Because these products are so familiar, we often overlook the advanced research and technology behind their development. The National Medal of Technology is awarded to innovators and forward-thinking technology companies that have built new industries and fostered U.S. competitiveness. Established in 1980, the medal program is administered by the U.S. Department of Commerce's Technology Administration and the President provides final approval. Since the program's inception, 5 companies, 13 teams, and 57 individuals have been honored. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to commend Procter & Gamble for this recognition of their excellence and congratulate them for making a difference in the lives of Americans.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House passed H.R. 743, the Teamwork for Employees and Managers Act of 1995. This legislation represents a symbolic end to the era of confrontation between worker and employer and the dawning of a new era of mutual participation that will help secure our status as a world leader for decades to come. Gone are the days when management's greatest adversary was located on the floor of its own company. Today, corporations, such as IBM, Texas Instruments, and Eastman Kodak, indicate that they could not compete internationally if it were not for tapping the creativity and knowledge of their own labor forces. Unfortunately, rulings issued by National Labor Relations Board prohibited labor-management cooperation committees under the National Labor Relations Act. In essence, the NLRB barred employees from participating in the decisionmaking process for issues that affect them directly. This, Mr. Speaker, is a throwback to the 1930's where union busting was common place and employees were merely cogs in the machine. It is inconsistent with the 1990 workplace where the benefit of employee management cooperation is widely recognized by both sides. The TEAM Act was created in an attempt to clarify to the NLRB and other Federal agencies the legality of these employee involvement structures. It permits an employer to interact with employees on matters of mutual interest. This legislation does not impede the right of employees to select their own representatives or their own bargaining agent. In fact, provisions were included in the act that specifically state no labor-management cooperation committee can engage in collective bargaining nor act as exclusive representatives of the employees. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of legislation that will increase communication between management and employees. This can only enhance the working conditions and productivity of companies and their employees. I believe the TEAM Act is a well-crafted vehicle to usher in a new era in employee management relations and congratulate my colleagues for writing and passing this legislation.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a prominent Cincinnatian and a good friend, Arthur C. Avril, who will be inducted into the Greater Cincinnati Business Hall of Fame on September 20, 1995. We thank him for the vision and service that he has so generously given to the business community and the entire Greater Cincinnati area. Mr. Avril graduated from the Ohio State University in 1925 where he studied mining engineering. Within 3 years of graduating, he had formed one of the first ready-mix concrete plants in the United States, Avril True Batch Concrete Co. Mr. Avril designed one of the first ready-mix trucks to use a rotary drum, which prevents concrete from settling. His company supplied concrete for many projects, including 500,000 tons used to build Cincinnati's Union Terminal in the early 1930's. This project was the first in the United States to specify concrete on the basis of its strength, rather than the proportion of its materials. In 1936, Mr. Avril formed a new company, Sakrete, to meet the growing need for smaller quantities of concrete. The secret to Sakrete's success was Mr. Avril's ability to recognize the needs of the do-it- yourself trade for small quantities of concrete. Today, Sakrete has 80 licensed operations around the world, and is a household name recognized for quality. Mr. Avril is also an internationally known inventor. He is the holder of 18 patents, including two new patents approved this year. Still working at 94 years old, Mr. Avril personifies the American dream. All of us in Cincinnati congratulate Mr. Avril upon his induction into the Greater Cincinnati Business Hall of Fame. It is a deserved recognition of his many accomplishments.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a friend and prominent Cincinnatian, Clement L. Buenger, who will be inducted into the Greater Cincinnati Business Hall of Fame on September 20, 1995. We thank him for the vision and service that he has so generously given to the business community and the entire Greater Cincinnati area. Mr. Buenger began his career in 1944 with the U.S. Navy stationed in Manila on a Navy destroyer. He served honorably in our Nation's Armed Forces for 2 years. He then attended Xavier University and graduated in 1950 with a bachelor of science in business administration. Mr. Buenger started his financial career with Kroger in the late fifties before moving to Fifth Third Bank. Mr. Buenger then worked for about 20 years in different positions before becoming chairman of the board and chief executive officer of Fifth Third in 1989. Under his leadership, Fifth Third became a national banking force by offering innovative banking products and services. During his tenure at Fifth Third, the bank's assets grew from $569 million in 1969 to $8.8 billion when he retired in 1993. Mr. Buenger blended the unique combination of financial, technological, and people skills that were needed to move Fifth Third ahead of other banks in the latest technology. Mr. Buenger has also brought his high caliber of leadership to many areas outside of Fifth Third. He headed the Cincinnati Business Committee's [CBC] study of the Cincinnati Public School System known as the Buenger Commission, which provided a long-term plan for revitalizing Cincinnati's public schools. He has given his time and talent to the Cincinnati community by serving on the advisory council of the Boys and Girls Clubs of Greater Cincinnati, the advisory board of the Johnny Bench Scholarship Fund, as well as other civic groups too numerous to mention here. All of us in Cincinnati congratulate Mr. Buenger for this well- deserved recognition of his many accomplishments. We are grateful for all he has given to Greater Cincinnati.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I wish to express my support for the Kasich-Dellums amendment to remove $493 million for advanced procurement for additional B-2 bombers from the national security appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996. I feel this amendment represents a sound policy, in terms of both national security and fiscal responsibility. I recognize that real threats to the national security of the United States exist in the post-cold-war world, and I believe we must provide the armed services with the resources they need to protect American citizens and the U.S. role in world affairs. Today, however, military challenges are very different than they were just a few years ago. We must tailor our military force to meet those challenges, and we must do so within very strict budget constraints. An independent study recently determined, and the Air Force confirmed, that additional B-2 bombers are not wanted or needed in order to develop a force necessary to meet the challenges of today's world. The Air Force has higher priority programs that may be crowded out by the purchase of additional B-2's--programs such as improving the B-1 and purchasing more smart weapons that can perform many of the functions of the B-2 in a more cost-effective manner. And for instances where the B-2 is clearly the only suitable aircraft, we can rely on the 20 B-2's already purchased by the Air Force and currently under production. It seems clear to me that the purchase of additional B-2's at this time is unwise policy. As we in Congress strive to change the face of Government spending practices and reduce the deficit, actual costs of this program must be scrutinized. It is true that the bill before us today includes just under $500 million for additional B-2's. The total cost of these planes, however, could exceed $20 billion. The defense authorization bill that this body passed earlier this year removed the spending cap for additional B-2's--as well as for the 20 already purchased--leaving the final purchase price dangling high above us, at a level no one yet knows. In light of the budget crisis facing this Nation, and in light of projected defense funding shortfalls in the tens of billions of dollars over the next several years, I urge my colleagues to prove to the American people that this Congress is serious about bringing Federal spending under control by supporting the Kasich-Dellums amendment.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I recently introduced a bill, H.R. 2037, which will make it easier for small businesses to offer pensions to their employees. This may not sound terribly exciting to most people, but it has the potential to enhance the retirement savings of millions of Americans. Currently, pension plans are so heavily regulated and so expensive to administer that only 19 percent of small employers--those with less than 25 employees--sponsored a pension plan at all. My bill will restore flexibility to our outmoded and bureaucratic pension laws and thus encourage employers, including both large and small businesses, to offer and maintain retirement plans that are vital to the retirement security of our Nation's workforce. My bill removes many of the burdens that small businesses face when trying to provide retirement programs for their employees. It will also made it easier for small businesses to provide retirement security for millions of Americans by providing a tax credit for starting a new pension plan. In addition, it removes the complex discrimination rules for small employers and exempts small businesses from the minimum participation rules. The response from small businesses in my district to this proposal has been overwhelmingly positive. For instance, one employer said ``the present law is far too complex, and is a serious deterrent to creating an employer sponsored benefit plan.'' Another explained that ``As small business owners, we whole-heartedly support--the Portman--effort to simplify the employee pension plans, thereby, giving the necessary relief to the many small businesses that are presently not able to participate in these plans.'' A local realtor explained that: I concur that the current complexities, administrative burdens, contributions and distribution rules and regulations tend to discourage rather than encourage retirement savings. . . . When I was in the banking business, we found it a difficult process to properly and accurately establish and serve as an administrator on various KEOGH and self employed pension plans. Small business owners were either intimidated or frustrated with all the complicated rules, regulations, definitions and administrative ``hassles'' on the establishment, funding and distribution in these retirement plans. And a retailer in Batavia, OH said, ``These are overdue changes * * * we have had a married couple who work for us get snagged for 2 years in a row by the unfair family aggregation rules. Repeal of these rules * * * makes a great deal of sense.'' Pension laws are complex and confusing. Since 1980, Congress has passed an average of one law per year affecting private sector pensions. As the rules and regulations governing pension plans have multiplied, defined benefit pension plans have become less and less attractive to employers. As a result, pension plan termination have consistently outpaced the growth of new plans. At a time when our national savings rate is so low, we should be encouraging private sector retirement savings, not crippling pension plans with more and more regulation. That is why we must simplify the process to increase retirement security and the ability to save for working Americans. And that is exactly what this bill does.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this carefully crafted legislation because I think it will be good for the consumer. However, I do have some concerns about the impact of this bill on my constituents, who for more than a century have been provided with excellent telecommunications service by Cincinnati Bell. Notwithstanding its name, Cincinnati Bell is an independent--not a regional Bell--company. It has installed in our area one of the most modern and technologically sophisticated local networks. This benefits consumers in our area. In fact, because of Cincinnati Bell's strong commitment to serving the Greater Cincinnati area, we also have among the highest rate of universal service in the country. Mr. Chairman, I support the pending legislation. But, the Senate bill in some ways better recognizes the circumstances of a company like Cincinnati Bell, and the consumers they serve, than the legislation before us. That is why I rise today to encourage my colleagues to join me in urging our conferees to pay particular attention to the needs of the people served by independent companies like Cincinnati Bell when this legislation is considered in conference.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, Mr. Kingston, and I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Sea Island Co., which recently won the honor of being named as the 1995 Georgia Family Business of the Year. Once a deserted waterfront, Sea Island was discovered by Howard Coffin and his cousin Alfred W. Jones, Sr. in 1923. Since then, three generations of Joneses have developed the island into a resort of lush gardens and cottages surrounding the impressive Cloister Hotel. The grandson of Alfred, Alfred W. Jones III, is currently president of the company and responsible for the company's continuing involvement in community development. As one of the area's major landowners, he has continued his family's tradition of donating company land for churches, schools, parks, and roads, and he himself has been involved in a leadership role with organizations ranging from the Brunswick College Foundation to the Georgia Chamber of Commerce to the Epworth-by-the-Sea Methodist Conference Center. Since the 1920's, the company has contributed to the community by taking action to ensure that the island's natural habitat be preserved as much as possible. Due to the influence of Sea Island Co., the marshes between Brunswick and the islands were declared historic sites and have been protected from development for several decades. In addition, the building heights on Sea Island and St. Simons were limited to three stories in order to ensure all buildings stand below the tree line. Other key additions to the community include aid in constructing the first bus service between Brunswick and Jacksonville, creating a telephone exchange, and Alfred Jones' active involvement in the development of the Brunswick Pulp and Paper Co., now owned by Georgia- Pacific and employing over 850 people. This fall, Sea Island Co. plans to open the Ocean Forest Golf Club, which will be one of the premier courses and will create more employment opportunity on the island. In fact, despite the recent troubled economy, the company has continued to grow and thrive. Sea Island Co. has been recognized numerous times throughout the years for its accomplishments. Alfred Jones received the Distinguished Georgian Award, and the Society of American Travel Writers' Connie Award honoring his achievement in creating a balance between the use and preservation of Georgia coast. The tradition of the Jones family is also evident today; Alfred W. Jones, Sr.'s four children are the principal owners of Sea Island Co. Alfred W. Jones, Jr. is the chairman, while siblings Howard Coffin Jones, Katharine Jones O'Connor, and Marianna Jones Kuntz all serve as directors. However, Mr. Speaker, the emphasis on family does not stop here, even the employees, guests, and residents of the islands are also considered family. In fact, the staff includes many third-generation employees. Sea Island Co. encourages hiring many members of the same family. Recently, 17 relatives were employed there simultaneously. With emphasis on family values, and achieving that critical balance between development and conservation, Mr. Kingston and I ask that you, Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues join me in commending the Sea Island Co., which serves as an example for other businesses across the nation.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I offer today is modest in amount, but it is significant in message. It cuts $2 million for space alteration expenses and related furnishing expenses for the U.S. Court of Appeals, district courts, and the bankruptcy courts. The purpose of this amendment is to send a strong signal to the judiciary that it must revise its court design guide. That design guide contains specifications for courthouses and office space that drives up the costs of relocation and furnishings at taxpayer expense. It just does not make sense, for example, to require courts to make whatever structural changes have to be made to attain a mandated ceiling height of 16 feet, to use premium grade hardwood veneer paneling, premium grade hardwood veneer door solid core doors, hardwood door jambs, and the highest quality paint, at a time when the legislative branch, the executive branch, and folks back home are reducing spending in their operations in an effort to set an example and to help balance the budget. The judiciary must be subject to the same scrutiny. The need for this amendment is particularly acute because in this bill before us there is actually an increase in these items over the appropriated amount for fiscal 1995. Clearly we are moving in the wrong direction here. This just does not make sense in light of our fiscal crisis. I understand the need for the courts to appear judicial, but these one-size-fits-all standards from this guide add huge costs to the alteration of courts and office space, huge costs we simply cannot afford. More specifically, the amendment before us would simply reduce the funding that remains available for space alteration projects from about $14 million to about $13 million, and for furnishings from $11 million to $10 million. The court design guide, prepared under the direction of the Judicial Conference of the United States, is used by architects, engineers, contractors, and court administrators when renovating existing courthouses and office space. The guide was developed over a 3-year period and instituted in 1991. Again, I understand the need for courtrooms to meet some standards, but I do not believe it is necessary for them to follow these kinds of strict specifications at taxpayer expense. I can tell the Members from firsthand experience that the design guide does increase costs. In my district, the U.S. bankruptcy court recently moved from the Federal courthouse into private office space at a significant cost to the taxpayer. I have been told that there is Federal office space available, but because it did not meet the specs in the design guide it could not be used. The private office lease that the court did sign required significant renovation and complete furnishing of this space as dictated by the design guide. I had hoped this was an isolated incident, but having looked into it, I found it not only occurred in other places in our State of Ohio, but also other parts of the country. In fairness, let me make it clear that the judiciary has made some progress recently in revising the design guide. Over the past few years a conscious effort has been made to try to keep costs in mind and make these guidelines more flexible. I applaud that effort, but it has not gone far enough. The current court design guide continues to require all those things that I mentioned, in addition to premium grade hardwood decorative moldings, and so on. These result in unnecessary and wasteful Federal expenditures. It is time for us in Congress to call for real reform. That is what this amendment does. In light of our debt, the judiciary must be as cost conscious as everyone else. My amendment is a small but responsible cut. It is a warning to the judiciary they must review the guidelines which are set forth by the design guide and make sensible changes. Many of our constituents who are tightening the belt back home are demanding it. They are incensed, and they should be. I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky, and the committee for working with us, and I want to ask my colleagues to join the National Taxpayers Union and Citizens Against Government Waste in supporting this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot].

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.