Rob Portman

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my chairman for allowing me to speak this morning, and it is true, this is a non-binding exercise. On the other hand, it is a very important debate, and it is a philosophical difference. I appreciated the comments from my colleague from Wisconsin talking about the need to get the deficit down. I think what we have learned over the last couple of decades is the only way to get the deficit under control is to grow the economy and restrain spending. We learned it in the 1990s. We are relearning it now, and what is exciting to me is the fact that part of that, which is restraining spending, we are doing with regard to the budget and the budget that the House passed and based on the deeming resolution will keep our spending under control in the House this year. That is very important, keeping spending at about 4 percent, trying to keep it close to what the family budget is is extremely important. Second, we are growing the economy, and there is an incredible story out there. It is probably the most underreported story of the year. The only economic indicator that is not improving right now is what we are hearing from the other side of the aisle about the economy. Jobs are increasing, fastest growth in 20 years. The unemployment rate is now 5.6 percent in this country, down from 6.3 percent. That makes it lower than the average unemployment in the vaunted 1990s, in the 1980s or the 1970s. People are going back to work. Just last month, we created over 225,000 new jobs in this country. We have created over 1.4 million jobs in this country in the last 9 months. People are going to work, and not only are jobs increasing but they are good jobs. Wages are going up. Wages are going up faster than they did in the 1990s. We are seeing actual take- home pay going up. We are seeing productivity high, inflation low, interest rates are low. We are seeing the economy that is the envy of the rest of the industrialized world. Part of the reason for that, I believe a big part of it, is that this Congress has taken the right steps in terms of fiscal policy, keeping spending under control and growing the economy by smart tax relief that provides incentives for growth. That is what the Bush tax cuts were all about. That is what is under attack today. If my colleagues are to vote for the gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) amendment, my colleagues are showing that they have a philosophical difference with that. Instead, my colleagues believe that just as the economy has turned, just as jobs are coming back, just as we have seen real growth and real wages, that we ought to be repealing the very tax relief that has led to that. I do not get that. Here is a chart showing that today there are more Americans working than ever before. Employment is at a record high in May of 2004, 138.8 million people. Here is what unemployment would be without the tax relief that we passed in the last 3 years. Again, 5.6 percent unemployment today. Without the tax relief, we believe it would be over 7 percent. Now, what does that translate into? Over 2 million jobs. Over 2 million jobs. I just think it is crazy that at the point at which we are turning the corner, we are bringing back jobs, things are going so well, that again the rest of the world is looking up and saying now America is the engine of economic growth again, that the people back home who punch a time clock every day are seeing their wages going up, that we would want to jeopardize that. Increasing spending is, again, a philosophical divide. We can talk about whether we should be increasing spending within the allocation we have for homeland defense, intelligence and so on as we did yesterday on the floor of the House, but let me show my colleagues what would happen with the gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) amendment. He said it is an increase in spending of about $14.2 billion next year. Well, over a 10-year period, that is $150 billion. Here is the spending increase that is in the legislation that is before us today or in the resolution before us. Again, we are not going to get the deficit under control unless we restrain that spending. Adding another $150 billion over 10 years is not the solution, $194 billion over 10 years. It is more than 150. Now, let us talk about the tax increase. The tax increase, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said, is $18.9 billion in fiscal year 2005, and it is, but we have to take that over 10 years, too. Let us look at the 10-year number there. We are talking about individual income tax increases by $269 billion, over $250 billion over the next 10 years. I know, again, we have a philosophical difference on who should be paying. Let me just make the point that if those tax returns that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) talked about, that he wants to affect, over 75 percent of those tax returns have business income. Why is that? Because 90 percent of small businesses in this country are not C corporations. They are so-called pass-through entities. What does that mean? They pay taxes at the individual level. So part of what my colleagues are doing, there is no free lunch around here. When they are saying they are going to go after the rich, who are they going after? They are going after a lot of businesses. These are the entrepreneurial businesses, the small businesses that are pass-through entities, so-called subchapter S companies, sole proprietors, LLC companies, partnerships that are creating the jobs out there. Look, in our districts, it is not the large companies that are creating these net new jobs. It is these companies. It is the entrepreneurial companies that are taking a risk, that are pass-through entities. Ninety percent of small businesses pay taxes at the individual level. We are hitting them hard if we do this. Again, let us not take this risk. Let us go back to what we know works. Let us restrain our spending. Let us grow this economy. Let us not go back to taxing and spending. That does not work. It is going to hurt our economy. It is going to hurt the very workers the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said he would like to help.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am here also to talk about our economy. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) just talked about all the positive economic indicators. I guess one could say the only economic indicator that is not positive are the statements from the presumptive Democrat nominee for President. And I do not know why he is doing it because it hurts the economy to badmouth the economy, to talk it down. It reduces consumer confidence at a time when we need to be sure that consumers are confident about where we are. Before me, others talked about the fact that our unemployment numbers have gone from 6.3 percent down to 5.6 percent. That is lower than the average in the 1970s, 1980s, or 1990s. 1.4 million jobs have been created in the last 9 months. Let me talk about those jobs. These are good-paying jobs. After tax income increased at a strong 4.9 percent annual rate in the first quarter of this year. Think about that. Hourly compensation in the last year has gone up 2.7 percent. That is faster than the 1.5 percent in the 1990s and people talk about its great growth. Average weekly earnings increased 2.5 percent from the same period a year ago. So this notion that somehow we are creating jobs but they are not the right jobs or not increasing income are just wrong. Income is up. Productivity is up. Jobs are up. Mr. Speaker, some politicians who are serving their own special interests are bad-mouthing this economy, but it is strong and good. It can get stronger if we take the right steps here in Congress.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was absent attending meetings in my Congressional District in Ohio and missed the votes on rollcall No. 276, on H. Res. 591, designating Community Banking Month; rollcall No. 277, on H.R. 4363, the Helping Hands for Homeownership Act; and rollcall No. 278, on H. Res. 660, Congratulating Randy Johnson with the Arizona Diamondbacks on pitching a perfect game. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall No. 276, ``yes'' on rollcall No. 277, and ``yes'' on rollcall No. 278.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for putting together a good bill that actually does just the opposite of what my friend from California just talked about. It helps American businesses be able to compete in the global marketplace. That will create jobs in this country. And it enables our businesses to be able to compete in an increasingly competitive global marketplace. That is good for America. I want to commend Chairman Thomas for crafting a bill that will create jobs here in America. I am particularly pleased that the American Jobs Creation Act includes important and long-needed reforms to the rules under which U.S. businesses are taxed on their global operations. Those reforms are one of the key reasons I support this legislation. They are a long time in coming, and I want to particularly thank Mr. Houghton for his leadership and perseverance in this area. He has been a champion of tax simplification, and focused much of his attention on the complicated, archaic and outdated international tax rules. On a bipartisan basis, he initiated a comprehensive package of reforms that have been vetted and fine-tuned over a decade. I am pleased many of those provisions are in this bill. These are critical provisions that will determine whether or not our nation can compete in the global marketplace. Some have tried to characterize the international tax reforms as provisions that would reward U.S. companies that move jobs offshore. The exact opposite is true. These reforms are critical to U.S. manufacturers that make products in the United States and sell those products in the global marketplace. To access global markets, U.S. exporters must compete directly with non-U.S. companies. The international tax reforms in the American Jobs Creation Act begin to level the playing field between U.S. companies and their foreign competitors. They are necessary to protect and grow U.S. manufacturing jobs in export industries. Ninety-six percent of the world's consumers are outside the United States. Without markets in which to sell their goods, U.S. companies cannot provide U.S. jobs to manufacture those goods. Companies with global operations provide over half of all U.S. manufacturing jobs. Suppliers who depend on those multinational companies to buy their products provide many more U.S. manufacturing jobs. Mr. Speaker, I want to mention two specific reforms that are included in this bill. The first, dealing with interest allocation, would eliminate a fundamental distortion in the U.S. tax law that results in double taxation of U.S. taxpayers that have operations abroad. Currently, we tax corporations on their worldwide income, but allow a foreign tax credit against the U.S. tax on foreign-source income. The foreign tax credit limitation applies so that foreign tax credits may be used to offset only the U.S. tax on foreign-source income and not on U.S.-source income. In order to determine the foreign tax credit that can be claimed, expenses must be allocated between U.S.-source income and foreign- source income. These allocation rules cause a disproportionate amount of U.S. interest expense to be allocated to foreign-source income-- which in turns reduces the foreign tax credit. This double taxation makes it more difficult for U.S. companies to compete in the global marketplace. Perhaps the most outrageous aspect is the fact that this double taxation makes it more costly to build factories in the United States. Only our own U.S. companies are facing this distortion. Foreign corporations making an investment in the United States do not suffer double taxation. That is a perverse result. H.R. 4520 would correct this. Another key international reform is the reduction in the number of foreign tax credit limitation baskets. It is a matter of simplification, fairness and U.S. jobs. The current basket structure is a major source of complexity and inefficiency in the U.S. international tax rules. It requires a U.S. company to divide its business income earned outside the U.S. into at least two, and perhaps many more, baskets. Thus, every company with global operations must characterize and allocate each dollar of its business income--on an item-by-item basis--to one of the nine baskets. The company must then associate every item of expense incurred everywhere in the world to one of the nine baskets. The company must then go through the same exercise for every dollar of tax paid to any foreign government. That does not make sense. No other country in the world requires anything approaching this level of complexity. Reducing the number of foreign tax credit limitation baskets is also a matter of fairness. Some U.S. global companies do not face the complications caused by the separate baskets simply because they do not engage in any financial services businesses or because they engage in those businesses exclusively. U.S. companies that do both should not be disadvantaged. Finally, it's a matter of U.S. jobs. For many companies, creating one active business basket will rescue the U.S. tax on exports. The export of U.S. manufactured property typically gives rise to foreign-source income that is not highly taxed. If credits attributable to other types of business income can be used to reduce that tax burden further, those exports will be more competitive in the global marketplace. That means more jobs here. Mr. Speaker, our international tax system needs to be changed to reflect today's economy. It's time to simplify these taxes to make U.S. companies more competitive and to create more jobs here in America.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 653, a resolution honoring President George Herbert Walker Bush, a true statesman and American hero, who recently celebrated his 80th birthday. President Bush has devoted his life to the service of our nation. As a highly decorated Navy pilot in World War II; a distinguished Congressman and Ways and Means Committee Member from Texas's Seventh Congressional District; a successful Ambassador to the United Nations; Liaison to China; Director of the Central Intelligence Agency; Vice President; and President of the United States--George Bush has ably served our country for over 50 years. During that time, President Bush has exemplified the very highest values and principles of public service--honesty, integrity, responsibility, loyalty and patriotism. This is the Bush legacy and the example he set for all of us. As a staff member who served in the Bush White House, I was privileged to learn this firsthand. His leadership as President was critical to resolving the challenges of that time: the fall of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of Germany; the end of Communism and beginning of democracy in Eastern Europe; a free trade policy and the lowering of trade restrictions and tariffs during the GATT talks; and of course, the success of Desert Storm. At home, he supported and signed the historic Americans with Disabilities Act; and the important amendments to the Clean Air Act, arguably the most important environmental legislation ever passed. In his retirement, President Bush is still making history. I had the privilege of being present in College Station last weekend for his most recent birthday parachute jumps, for which he earned parachutist's wings from the Army's Golden Knights. The wings included a small bronze star, echoing his unplanned jump during World War II, when his torpedo bomber was hit by anti-aircraft fire south of Japan. Mr. Speaker, all of us congratulate President Bush on his birthday, and express our gratitude for his remarkable and unselfish public service.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Texas. I thank him for leading this Special Order tonight and for all the good information he has been providing. I also thank my colleague from West Virginia who just described very well what is going on not just with the national economy but also what is happening in her State of West Virginia. We are not getting the word out about the economy. Most Americans are concerned about where our economy is headed. In fact, we have made incredible strides. Is there more to do? Of course there is. The tax relief, though, helped tremendously. I want to talk a little bit about that and then talk about what we need to do in the future with regard to health care costs, litigation costs, international trade, energy costs to take this economy to even greater heights, but things are improving, and we need to acknowledge that because it is important to remember what we did that worked and what we have done that does not work. What we have done that works is, again, letting people keep more of their hard-earned money, increasing small business investment, helping people around this country to be able to find opportunity. This first chart shows the fact that over the last several months we have had incredible job growth. In fact, in the last 9 months alone we have created over 1.4 million jobs in this country. Government did not create those jobs, but government does play a role in creating the environment to create those jobs, and again, the tax relief was absolutely crucial to that. Job growth is key but job growth only comes with economic growth. This shows the GDP growth which is a measure of all the goods and services in the economy, and as we can see we are now at 4.4 percent in the first quarter of 2004. Projections are into 2005 we are going to see sustained growth and a kind of growth that will be able to not only keep this economy strong but even with high productivity be sure we have real job growth in this country. As this job creation is surging, it is helpful to look at the unemployment rate. Right now the unemployment rate is down well below the average in the 1990s, which is this dark line. Here we are today: 5.6 percent is well below not just where we were in the 1990s but also below where we were in the 1980s, below where we were in the 1970s. So, yes, we have challenges. We have a lot of international competition. We need to do more across the board in terms of making it more productive to create a job here in this country, but we are making good progress, and that unemployment number, coupled with this job growth, is incredibly important to the working people of America. Some people have said, well, okay, the economy is now growing, that is good, and now it is not a jobless recovery. We have got good job growth coming back, strong job growth, over 1 million new jobs created this year alone, but people's earnings are not as high as they should be. Well, I would just point them to this chart. Incomes and earnings are up. This is after-tax income, up 4.9 percent in the first quarter of this year, a substantial increase. This, again, in my view, is largely because of the policies we put in place here, and that is why it is important to talk about it. Average weekly earnings have increased by 2.5 percent from the same period a year ago. People say, well, Rob, that is not wage growth; that is just people with big incomes and that is averaged in. Actually, it is wage growth. Hourly wages are up. People who are punching a time clock, going to work every day, providing the impetus for this economic growth are seeing an increase in their take-home wages. That is what this is all about after all, making sure that families have more income to be able to spend on their needs and it is happening. Housing is strong. I think it has been talked about earlier tonight and others will talk about it, but housing is an incredibly important part of our economy, and it has kept strong actually even through the recession we had in 2002, but this housing growth is particularly interesting because it is at an all-time high in terms of homeownership, all-time high in terms of minority homeownership. This is important well beyond the economy. It gives people a stake in their communities. It allows people to build up an investment in their home. This is great news for the long-term economic ownership of our country, that people are able to take part in by owning a home. The last thing I want to spend just a second on is investment. Investment is strong here, and it shows that the President's tax cuts have been very effective. This chart shows that investment is up 12\1/ 2\ percent in the last 12 months. Over the last four quarters, investment is up 12\1/2\ percent. What does that mean? That means we are over this bubble. Before the recession, people were concerned about overcapacity and overinvestment. For the last few years, people have been very concerned that there is no new investment going on because we had overbuilding and overcapacity. Finally we are over that. Why? I think there are four reasons for it. One, we reduced the rate of taxation on dividends. Companies are now dividending. Record levels of dividends are being reported by companies. Seniors really benefit from this. A lot of them have investments in companies that issue dividends. That dividend tax cut has helped with regard to investors because more investors are getting into the market; and that investment is going to expanding plants, equipment and creating jobs. Second is the capital gains relief. By reducing the capital gains rate, as we did, we are encouraging investors to get back in the game, and that has happened. Third is depreciation. We put into place a bonus depreciation of 50 percent. We have put into place section 179 depreciation where people can write off more of their expenses immediately for small businesses. This is incredibly important to small businesses. Small businesses are taking advantage of these provisions we put in law. We have to extend some of these, and we are debating in the Committee on Ways and Means a provision to extend section 179 expensing for small businesses for this very reason. The final reason I will mention is reduction in the top rate. In fact, all of the tax rates that went down, and we were at 39.6 percent, then 38 percent, down to 35 percent. People say, gee, and John Kerry has said this, this is only to help wealthy individuals. That is not the point. Mr. Speaker, 83 percent of the people in those tax brackets are businesses. What does that mean? Most small businesses in America, about 90 percent of them, pay taxes through the individual tax return. They are what is called pass-through entities. They are partnerships, sole proprietors, LLC companies, subchapter S. The bottom line is those businesses pay taxes as an individual; and so when you reduce those individual rates, you are getting at the real engine of economic growth in this country, which is small businesses. That is exactly what has happened. I think for those four reasons, reducing the taxes on capital gains; reducing the taxes on dividends; reducing taxes across the board; and increasing depreciation, we have seen a nice increase in investment. That will continue based on all of the economic projections. This leads to opportunity because by investing in more equipment and expanding plants and jobs, we will have opportunity going forward. As I said at the outset, we still have more work to do, and we want to do it. Trade is one issue. We have to increase our exports. We are starting to see increasing exports as other economies around the world are picking up, even though our economy is doing better than any industrialized economy in the world. That is incredibly important also to our future. I come from Ohio. I heard earlier my colleague from West Virginia talking about the West Virginia economy and the struggles they have had over the last few years. We have had struggles, too, and we continue to. We are a heavy manufacturing State. We are the kind of State that has traditionally done very well in areas where the U.S. is not as competitive as we once were. We are beginning to make that transition. There is more high technology coming in, more financial services jobs, and we are doing better. But even in Ohio, where we have a struggle with manufacturing jobs, we have seen some great numbers over the last several months. We have added over 34,000 new jobs to Ohio's economy in the last 9 months alone. We have also created 4,300 new jobs in April alone. These are not regular jobs; these are good-paying jobs, the kind of jobs you want to have going forward with the economic recovery. Nearly three-quarters of Ohio's payroll job growth in April, for instance, was in industries that pay more than the national average. The professional and business services industry comprised the largest share of those jobs. Average hourly pay of a job in that industry that is nonsupervisory is $17.20 an hour. That is well above the national average for nonsupervisory jobs. So we are finally adding jobs in Ohio. We are getting these jobs back; and now would be exactly the wrong time to change direction and raise taxes on small businesses, as has been proposed by John Kerry and others. Second, unemployment is down in Ohio. We were at 6.2 percent a year ago. We are down to 5.8 percent now. Can we do more? Yes. And we must do more to be able to bring those jobs back to Ohio. But we have turned the corner. We are making progress. Personal incomes are now up in Ohio, housing values have increased dramatically in Ohio, and there are more exports. Last year, Ohio exports increased over $2 billion. That is incredibly important to my district in southwest Ohio and to the entire State of Ohio. That brings jobs and opportunity. As I said before, we are not done. We have plans to reduce health care costs. We plan to get litigation costs under control, which will help our entire economy. We have a specific proposal on energy that is currently in the United States Senate to reduce the cost of energy and make us less dependent on foreign oil. Finally, we need to do more in terms of knocking down barriers to our trade for exports. But the tax relief we put in place in 2001, 2002, and 2003 is working. The economy is back. We need to stay the course. We need to continue to be sure that tax relief stays in place so our economy stays strong so we have opportunities for America's workers so we can compete in this global environment. We are doing it. We can do it going forward. We just have to keep the faith. To the gentleman from Texas, I appreciate the gentleman allowing me to come down and talk about the economy a little bit tonight.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in expressing condolences to the family of President Ronald Reagan but also, of course, to celebrate the life of one of America's true heroes. President Reagan once announced America is too great for small dreams. It was this optimism about America and his confidence in the American people that I remember most vividly when I first met him in 1981. He had an infectious optimism that, like so many, I was infected with. It had a lasting impression on me. Shortly after taking office, President Reagan acted on his optimism and his certain beliefs launching the boldest economic plan since Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. His program for economic recovery called for the largest tax cuts in American history. Think about this. Over his tenure, our Federal tax system went from 14 income tax brackets with a top rate of 70 percent to a much simpler 2 brackets with a top rate of 28 percent. This unleashed growth and brought America's economy roaring back. He also acted on his strong beliefs in dramatically strengthening our Armed Forces. He chose to go toe to toe with the Soviet Union in the Cold War and confront the failure of communism, leading to the freedom of millions of citizens in Eastern Europe and what was to become the former Soviet Union. I see that legacy of Ronald Reagan today. I see it in our approach to the economy that this body has undertaken to try to strengthen the economy and grow jobs, and I see it in our effort to win another global war, this one against terrorism. For all of his accomplishments, one of Ronald Reagan's traits I most admired was his humility. He was a regular guy. His Midwestern modesty and intuitive understanding of the role of leadership in an America founded on equality and democracy made him a natural leader and a beloved figure. One also had to appreciate President Reagan's humor. He once said, ``Politics is a very rewarding profession. If you succeed, there are many rewards. If you disgrace yourself, you can always write a book.'' Well, fortunately for our country and the world, he was a very successful politician, and we all, all of us, continue to share in the rewards. In his 8 years as President, so much of his ambitious vision for American and the world was accomplished. And for his optimism, his ideas, his humility, his humor and public service, our Nation and the world are better off today. May God bless him and his family and continue to bless the country he so loved.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained during the recorded votes on Rollcall Vote No. 196, the Goode Amendment, and Rollcall Vote No. 197, the Davis (CA) Amendment. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on the Goode Amendment and ``no'' on the Davis Amendment.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I find it interesting to come to the floor tonight and hear from my friends on the other side of the aisle that we need to have less spending and more fiscal discipline. Having been on the Committee on the Budget and gone through the process of a markup where we heard again and again how we were not spending enough on education, we were not spending enough on the environment, we were not spending enough on health care, we were not spending enough on labor issues, we were not spending enough. And amendments were offered and amendments were voted down that would spend more and more and more. And, yes, the Democrats offered an alternative, and I applaud them for that, on the floor of the House, although we did not have one in committee. And it offered more spending, and that is fine, that is fine. But then to come to the floor and say somehow this budget has too much spending in it just does not make too much sense. The Democrat alternative also offered higher taxes and increasing taxes, and we disagree with that. We think this economy has finally turned. We now see not only the best growth we have had in 20 years, but jobs coming back. We think it is the wrong time to raise taxes. So I just hope for those listening, my colleagues and others out there, that they realize the budget that is before us, that the chairman of the Committee on the Budget has put together, is a fair budget that provides for spending restraint. It does provide for increases in spending on homeland security and on defense, which are necessary right now, but for the rest of the budget it is pretty much flat. And, unfortunately, given our budget deficit situation, we cannot make additional investments right now in some high-priority areas and other areas. We have to make, as someone said earlier, some tough choices, and we are making them in this budget. I want to be clear why we believe that it is important to continue to allow the tax relief to work and not to increase taxes. We believe that because we have seen the impact of tax relief. We did not do it because we just like tax relief for tax relief itself. We did it because we thought it would grow the economy. And it has worked. This chart shows that the growth of our economy is the greatest growth we have had in 20 years in this country. In the third quarter of last year, we actually had 8.2 percent growth. We had 4.2 percent growth in the last quarter. When you combine the last three quarters together, it is the best growth we have had since the 1980s, and we want to continue that. The forecast for the future, in fact, is for much higher growth than we even thought was possible only a year ago. Why? Because the economy is really turning. Along with that growing economy, we are seeing housing starts and permits at record highs. Home ownership in the country is at record highs right now. Minority home ownership is at record highs. This is what is happening out there in the real world, but it is good news about our economy that we want to continue. We are also seeing here again that it is not just a growing economy and the fastest growth in 20 years, but the jobs are coming back. Unemployment in this country right now is 5.6 percent. That is lower unemployment, my colleagues, than we had in the 1970s, in the 1980s, or in the 1990s. The average unemployment in those three decades was higher than 5.6 percent. We are seeing unemployment at low levels, and we are seeing jobs coming back. There were 1.1 million jobs created in this country in the last 8 months. That is a million, 1.1 million, jobs in the last 8 months. But let us talk about those jobs. Perhaps the gentleman would like to tell me what is wrong with 288,000 new jobs being added last month, 300,000 jobs in the month of March. We are seeing the jobs coming back big time, and this is not the time to change our direction and raise taxes on the American people and on small businesses and on our families. It is a time to continue to see this economy grow and prosper. That is what this budget provides. It is a fair budget. It makes tough choices, but it also ensures that we continue to have the kind of economic growth that all of us hope to see.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I would say to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), I appreciate the fact that over the years the gentleman has been willing to stand in this well and support fiscal discipline in the area of spending restraint; and you have done it frankly against your own party's wishes many times. The difference that I have with the presentation, at least of the Blue Dog budget this year and I think what you are saying ought to be our economic plan, is that we believe that tax cuts, the right tax cuts, lead to economic growth. The fiscal condition you talk about, either the short-term budget deficit or the long-term structural deficit, can be handled by only one thing, and that is restraining spending and growing the economy through smart policy. That is why we are for tax relief. Since the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), chairman of the Committee on the Budget, has put together some incredible charts that have not been used yet tonight, I would like to go through the charts and talk about how we differ on this. Again, to give you credit for being able in the past to stand up against your own party on spending, to be able to talk about fiscal discipline in those ways, but to focus on the fact that after September 11, and indeed as you say before September 11, we were focused not just on spending, but on growing the economy and being sure that we had the opportunity out there to increase revenues and give people that slice of the American dream which we are now seeing. The first slide has to do with how we got into the deficits in the first place. Tonight and through the process here, and I would say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), we have had this debate for the last 6 months. We have had it over the economic policy in the context of the budget. We had it in the committee, on the floor, but I have heard time and time again, and again tonight, if we did not have those tax cuts, we would not have these deficits. Here are the numbers. The reason we got into a deficit was twofold. One, as the chairman of the Committee on the Budget said, we had a poor economy. President Bush inherited that economy. The economy started to weaken back to 2000, and in March 2001, we went into a recession, technically into a recession. The shallowest recession we have had in our Nation's history, we believe, and I think that is because of the tax relief we put through in 2001, but the fact is that the economy was spiraling into a recession. The weak economy in 2002 and 2003 was 68 percent and 50 percent of our deficit. Right there is the single biggest reason. The second reason, the second biggest reason was spending. As the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) say earlier, we had some spending needs including, as he said, increases in our defense spending, which he supported; including being able to respond to the terrorist threat here at home, homeland security spending; and including just responding to September 11. Over $100 billion alone was in responding to September 11, although that pales in comparison to loss of capital gains revenue and income tax revenue because of the worsening economy. So what do we do in response to that? We put tax cuts in place in 2001 and 2002 and 2003. To say we did not change our economic game plan, my gosh, in 2002 we specifically put a stimulus package together because of the weakening economy that was further hit by September 11, and in 2003 did the same thing. Again, tax cuts did not cause the deficit, tax cuts grew the economy. This is another way to look at an earlier chart showing with a combination of the weaker economy and spending increases, we got ourselves into a deficit situation. On the spending side, we have to recognize again, as some of my Blue Dog friends have recognized through the years, that if we do not get control of spending, we are never going to get out of these deficits and into a strong financial situation because we will continue to spend and spend and spend. This chart shows between 1990 and 1996, we actually had some improvements in terms of the spending picture, but look at 2003, up and up and up. Noninterest outlays increased 3.6 percent faster than inflation each year since 1997. Again, some of spending was necessary and the roof did cave in and we had to fix the roof. Frankly, we had to pick up, as the chairman said, a defense deficit. In other words we had not invested in our defense as we should have over the previous 8 years, and we had to do that, as well as responding to the war on terrorism. Another part of spending in terms of the long-term structural deficit of course and the concerns that have been talked about tonight is on the mandatory side, the so-called entitlement spending, a bigger and bigger part of our budget. And the reason we put in our budget the PAYGO provision, yes, pay-as-you-go provision, on mandatory spending and entitlement spending is if we do not do that, we will never be able to get our spending under control. It has averaged 5.4 percent each year despite declines in net interest costs. So interest costs have gone down, and yet our entitlement spending has gone up and up. So back to the tax cuts and why we did them. Here is an analysis that I find really interesting. We had job loss over the last few years. If we had not put the tax cuts in place, this is what would have happened: two million additional jobs would have been lost over the last 3 years. Finally, what have the tax cuts resulted in? Only the best economy in 20 years. I mean, we are pulling ourselves out of the deficit because the economy is growing. This year, as a percentage of our economy, our deficit will be 4.2 percent. The year I ran for Congress, 1992, it was 4.7 percent; 4.2 percent is nothing to be proud of, but it has been worse. In fact, in 1983 it was 6 percent. And it is the percentage of our GDP, all the economists agree, which is the appropriate measurement of our deficit and its impact on our economy. But here is what is interesting. If the Members will look at our budget, because we restrain spending, because we put the tax cuts in place that are causing this growth, that will go down to 3.1 percent, 2.1 percent, 1.8 percent, 1.7 percent, and 1.6 percent over the next 5 and 6 years. That is the point. We are doing the right thing. The economic policy is working. Faster economic growth than we have had in 20 years, over 1 million new jobs added in the last 8 months. Last month alone 288,000 new jobs were added to our economy; the month previous, over 300,000 new jobs. We are not only turning the economy around in terms of higher productivity, keeping interest rates in check, low inflation, but we are actually adding jobs with higher productivity. We are the envy of every industrialized economy in the world. We have the best economy in the world of any of the industrialized countries. This notion that Japan or other countries will not believe in the U.S. economy, my gosh, we have turned the corner. And at this point, as we are getting jobs back, as we are getting the economy on track, as we have turned the corner, to increase taxes would be exactly the wrong thing to do. And, again, this is where we disagree. We do not disagree on the need to restrain spending, but we do disagree on the impact of tax relief and the need to grow the economy rather than put new taxes in place, which will hurt exactly what we are trying to do, which is to get the economy moving, get jobs back, and begin to increase those revenues. Those income tax revenues, capital gains revenues are going up. Guess what, the Congressional Budget Office has already told us they will be up, they think, 30 or $40 billion this year alone, and that is just after a month or two. I guess the final thing I will say is that I am glad we are having this debate tonight, and it is about economic policy, and it is in the context of whether we raise the debt limit or not. And as the gentleman said, we need to raise the debt limit. We do not want to have the credit of the United States be questioned. And we will. We will do the right thing. But in doing so, we also have to recognize that the economic picture is brighter. We have turned the corner. We are doing better. We have made strides in this budget in terms of keeping the spending under control. Basically flat spending in domestic discretionary spending except for homeland security and defense. Everything else is pretty much flat. The tax relief is working to grow the economy. That is the combination that we know works. That is time- honored. Historically that is how we have been able to get out of our deficits. That is how we deal with the long-term structural deficit the gentleman talked about earlier. And I applaud the chairman for being here tonight to talk about that economic policy, and I applaud the gentleman for raising his motion tonight.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Pastor Peterson Mingo, a friend and distinguished community leader, who celebrates his 13th Pastoral Anniversary this month with the Christ Temple Baptist Church located in the Evanston neighborhood of Cincinnati, Ohio. Pastor Mingo was honored on Friday, May 14th for his distinguished service to Christ Temple Baptist Church and for his tireless efforts to improve the lives of young people in the Evanston neighborhood and throughout the entire inner city. Pastor Mingo has dedicated his life to community service by fostering relationships and building partnerships throughout the city. Pastor Mingo founded the Evanston Youth Association, the Inner City Rites of Passage Program and the Evanston Bulldogs Youth Football team. He still manages to work with the Cincinnati Youth Street Worker Program during the day, and has a full time job at night. For the past several years, I have had the honor of serving with Pastor Mingo on the board for a Coalition for a Drug-Free Greater Cincinnati. I am continually inspired by his dedication and commitment to providing drug free environments and healthy alternatives for our young people. Pastor Mingo also serves on the recruitment committee for the Life Center, and serves on the board of the Cincinnati Cooperative Church League. Pastor Mingo is also dedicated to his family. He is the loving father to 11 children--eights sons and three daughters--and is a devoted husband to his wife, Regina. All of us in Cincinnati thank Pastor Mingo for all he has done to make our community a better, safer place for our children to live and play, and we congratulate him on his Pastoral Anniversary.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on the Budget for yielding me this time. I am delighted today to be able to talk about the motion to instruct. I am on that budget conference, and I would assure my friend from North Dakota, who spoke earlier, that we are very close to having a budget agreement. The pay-go point of order he is offering tonight, he is saying, is to enable us to move forward with the budget. I can just tell him I think there are other ways to move forward that are much more constructive. This motion to instruct, in my view, goes too far and does not go far enough. With regard to spending, which the gentleman from Virginia has just stated is the major problem, and I could not agree with him more, it does not go far enough. Why would we want a budget point of order? Why would we not want a law? By having a law, we have a discipline that will actually work to control spending. It would have the force of law. And I do not know why the gentleman would not prefer what was reported out of the Committee on the Budget and what this House will be taking up after the budget is passed, which is a budget process reform that actually has a law. So on the spending side, it should be stronger. On the tax side, we have a philosophical difference, and we have talked about some inconsistencies here. Yes, it is true that not only did a couple of gentlemen on the floor vote for tax relief as recently as this week, without paying for that tax relief, but the majority of Democrats voted for it, including some who are on the floor tonight who have not been part of the debate yet. Others did not vote for it, and those are the ones who are smiling. But it is a philosophical difference as to whether spending and tax relief should be both subject to the same pay-go standards. I think they should not be, and I say this for a very simple reason. Tax relief is put in place and has been put in place in 2001, 2002, and 2003 in order to stimulate the economy. Some tax relief is better than other tax relief. We can argue about which tax relief is better. But the proof is in the pudding, as they say, and the pudding is fresh. We know right now, based on what CBO told us on May 6, that is, earlier this month, and what they told us in March, that even though this tax relief was put in place, even though we reduced taxes on the American people, on small businesses, on investors, guess what is happening? Revenues are increasing, they are not decreasing. If they can point to some spending that has those same characteristics, or spending in general that does, I might feel differently about it. But I do not know how we can come to this floor time and time again and put up the charts and say tax relief is the reason we are in deficits. It is not. Even if we did all the tax relief in 2001, 2002, 2003, put it together, we still would be in deficit because of spending and because of the economy. The economy was the biggest problem, the economy going down and revenue going down because of it. And second was spending. Yes, we spent too much. On the other hand, we had some real needs, including increasing our military spending to respond to the war on terrorism, including spending, we were told, over $100 billion just to respond to 9/11. The tragic loss of life also required a tremendous amount of Federal revenue. Now today in Iraq, yes, we have increased spending for those purposes. But tax relief was not the reason we are in deficits. The irony is, it is the reason we are making progress against the deficit. CBO has just told us again within the last week, they believe the revenues this year will be $30 billion or $40 billion or so greater than projected. Revenues are going up, not down. Because of tax relief, revenues are going up, because the economy is growing in response to the tax relief. Economists right, left, and center will tell you this tax relief which was passed by this Congress had the effect of helping on consumer spending, more money in people's pockets; on helping on investment, corporate profits; therefore more revenue coming into this economy, more capital gains revenue. So it is a philosophical difference, and that philosophical difference will be played out again tonight on this motion, as it has been played out over the years in this House. The final point I would like to make with regard to whether we should put pay-go rules on taxes as we should on spending is to look back at recent history. My friend from Virginia talked about the 1993 agreement. Let us talk about the 1997 budget agreement that was called the balanced budget agreement that actually got us out of red ink. There was tax relief from that agreement, by the way. There was also a commitment by this House to restrain spending. The Republicans controlled the House and the Senate. Republicans decided, working with Democrats in a bipartisan way, we would control spending together, and we stood down here on the floor of this House and we pounded our chest and we said within 5 or 6 years we will have a balanced budget. I did the same. That would have been 2002, maybe 2003. Within a couple of years, we had a balanced budget, and within 3 years we had surpluses. Why? Because, by restraining spending, by growing the economy through smart tax relief, we grew, we grew out of the deficit. That is what we want to do again. We want to grow out of this deficit. We want to restrain spending, very important, and pay-go ought to apply to spending for that purpose, and we want to put smart tax relief on the floor of the House for an up-or-down vote. It is not like it is not subject to some procedure here or some discipline. It is subject to the discipline of the House and the Senate and getting through a conference and being signed into law by the President. But by restraining spending and by growing the economy, we believe we can make progress on the deficit. We believe we can reduce the deficit in half by 3 or 4 or 5 years, depending on how much spending we can reduce and how the economy grows. And we believe the pay-go rules ought to apply, and apply even more aggressively than is proposed tonight to spending, but not take away the opportunity for us to have meaningful tax relief, to be able to grow this economy, which after all was the solution to getting us into surpluses back in the 1990s and into 2000.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize James E. Rogers, a friend, distinguished constituent and dedicated volunteer who will be honored for his service to our community at the Greater Cincinnati Region of the National Conference for Community and Justice's 60th Anniversary Awards Dinner (NCCJ) on May 27, 2004. Jim has actively participated in many community organizations, and he has particular interest in education and the arts. He has been a member of the advisory board of the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center; the board of visitors of University of Kentucky College of Law; the Business Partnership Foundation of the University of Kentucky; the Corporate Council for the Hebrew Union College; Ohio State University's Ohio Business Advisory Council; and the Dan Beard Council of the Boy Scouts of America. He has also been a member of the board of the Cincinnati Children's Home. Jim has served the Cincinnati Art Museum; the Cincinnati Arts Association; the Cincinnati Human Relations Commission; the National Conference of Christians and Jews; and the Cincinnati Music Festival Association. In addition, Jim has chaired the Greater Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky United Way Campaign; the Cincinnati Zoo Capital Campaign; and the Cincinnati Juvenile Diabetes Walk-a-thon. Jim is Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Cinergy Corporation, a Midwest leader in energy generation. Jim has served more than 30 years on the boards of Fortune 500 companies, including Fifth Third Bancorp and Duke Realty Corporation. He received his B.B.A. and J.D. degrees from the University of Kentucky, and was awarded an honorary Doctor of Laws degree from Indiana State University. Jim also has a strong interest in public policy issues and served in government as Chief Trial Counsel at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). He is married to Mary Anne Rogers, has three children and four grandchildren. All of us in Greater Cincinnati thank Jim for his service to our area and congratulate him on receiving this special honor from NCCJ.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Charlotte R. Otto, a good friend, constituent and dedicated community volunteer, who will receive the American Jewish Committee Cincinnati Chapter's 2004 Human Relations Award on May 17, 2004. She will be honored for her exemplary professional accomplishments and her commitment to, and vision of, a better downtown Cincinnati. Charlotte is currently the global external relations officer for the Procter & Gamble Company, responsible for the company's worldwide media relations; consumer affairs; government and community relations; product publicity; shareholder communications; and corporate contributions. A leader in the economic development of downtown Cincinnati, Charlotte has held key positions with Downtown Cincinnati, Inc.; the Greater Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce; the Greater Cincinnati Convention and Visitor's Bureau; and the Port of Cincinnati Development Authority. She has also championed Cincinnati's arts, chairing the board of Cincinnati Playhouse in the Park, and served on the boards of the Arts & Cultural Council of Greater Loveland and the Cincinnati Fire Museum. During her tenure at Procter & Gamble, Charlotte has compiled an impressive record. She joined the company in 1976 in brand management, and then spent thirteen years in the advertising division managing such leading brands as Bounty, Pert and Sure. She moved to Public Affairs in 1989 and was named a Vice President in 1991 and Senior Vice President in 1996. Throughout her career, Charlotte established many impressive ``firsts.'' She is Procter & Gamble's first female corporate officer, the first woman elected to a business group, the Commonwealth Club, and one of the first women board members of the Queen City Club. She is also a member of the YWCA Academy of Career Women of Achievement, and is a director of the Royal Bank Financial Group of Canada. Charlotte received a B.A. in Consumer Affairs and an M.S. in Management from Purdue University. All of us in Greater Cincinnati congratulate Charlotte on receiving this prestigious honor.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a friend and effective community leader, William T. Robinson III, who will be honored for his distinguished service to our community by the Greater Cincinnati Region of the National Conference for Community and Justice (NCCJ) at its 60th Anniversary Awards Dinner on May 27, 2004. Bill has been a dedicated community volunteer for more than thirty years. He has served NCCJ as Board Member, Treasurer, Co-Chair and is currently Board Member Emeritus. He has also taken a leadership role in his profession as President of the Kentucky Bar Association; founding Chair of the Kentucky IOLTA Fund; President of the Kentucky Bar Foundation; and Co-Founder and President of the Salmon P. Chase College of Law American Inn of Court. At the national level, Bill's service is exceptional. He is currently Treasurer-Elect of the American Bar Association (ABA). Previously, Bill has been Chair of the ABA's Finance Committee, and a Member of the Executive Committee of the Board of Governors. He has also served as State Delegate to the ABA Nominating Committee; President of the National Caucus of State Bar Associations; Member of the Executive Committee of the National Conference of Bar Presidents; and Chairman of the ABA's Standing Committee on Bar Activities and Services and the ABA's Standing Committee on Substance Abuse. He is an invited Fellow of the International Society of Barristers; a Fellow of the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers; and a Sustaining Member of the American Bar Foundation. Bill has been critically involved in our region's growth and economic development. Currently, he serves as Vice Chair of the Board of Directors of the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport and Chair of its Finance Committee. He co-founded the Metropolitan Growth Alliance of Greater Cincinnati, and serves as Vice Chair for Economic Development for the Greater Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce, Chair of the Partnership for Greater Cincinnati, and a Founding Board Member and Secretary/Treasurer of the Tri-County Economic Development Commission. Bill's community involvement also includes service as Advisory Trustee of the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center; and a board member of the Cincinnati Institute of Fine Arts; the Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra; the Dan Beard Council of the Boy Scouts; and Mount St. Joseph College. His previous awards are impressive: the Cincinnati Jewish Committee's Judge Learned Hand Human Relations Award; the Greater Cincinnati Foundation's Jacob E. Davis Volunteer Leadership Award; the Cincinnati Bar Association's Themis Award; and the Governor's Economic Development Award for Kentucky. Bill is Member-In-Charge of the Greater Cincinnati offices of Greenebaum Doll & McDonald PLLC. He and his wife, Joan, have two sons and one granddaughter. All of us in Greater Cincinnati thank Bill for his untiring dedication to our area, and congratulate him on receiving this honor from an organization where he has played an important leadership role.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dianne Dunkelman, an accomplished and dedicated community volunteer, who will be honored for her distinguished service to our community at the Greater Cincinnati Region of the National Conference for Community and Justice's (NCCJ) 60th Anniversary Awards Dinner on May 27, 2004. Dianne's extraordinary volunteer service for women's health, the arts, and social services has been recognized throughout the nation. She founded Speaking of Women's Health in 1995 as a way to raise funds for public television. Through her leadership as CEO, she inspired the expansion of Speaking of Women's Health to a national foundation with more than 40 events nationwide, two national minority health initiatives: Universal Sisters for African American women and Hablando de la salud de la mujer for Latino women, a national in-store health initiative at Wal-Mart stores, and a weekly television program on the Lifetime network, Lifetime's Speaking of Women's Health. Dianne is a leading advocate of helping women understand and recognize their health care options, and she recruited celebrities such as Florence Henderson, Mary Wilson and Valerie Simpson to help spread the message to other women. She has already received numerous awards, including the Athena Award from the Columbia University Partnership for Women's Health; 2003 Distinguished Women's Award from Northwood University; Cincinnati Enquirer's Woman of the Year Award; YWCA's Career Women of Achievement Award; and the Charles Vaughan Award for her work with Cincinnati's PBS affiliate WCET Channel 48. All of us in Greater Cincinnati thank Dianne for her service to our community and congratulate her on receiving this prestigious honor.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Yvonne Robertson, a friend, constituent and outstanding community volunteer, who will be honored for her distinguished service to our community at the Greater Cincinnati Region of the National Conference for Community and Justice's (NCCJ) 60th Anniversary Awards Dinner on May 27, 2004. Yvonne has dedicated over 30 years of community service as an active volunteer. As a former educator, she has focused much of her community service on youth. Yvonne has served on the boards of Cincinnati's School for Creative and Performing Arts; the Adolescent Clinic; the Greater Cincinnati Scholarship Foundation; and the Greater Cincinnati Youth Collaborative. In addition, she is the Immediate Past President of Advocates for Youth Education, which grants need-based college scholarships to area students. Yvonne has a special interest in social service organizations. She was the first chair of The Gathering, a day long conference for African American women centered on personal, spiritual, social, health and work related issues. She chaired the Negro Spiritual Festival, and has been a trustee of the Cincinnati chapter of the Red Cross; the Cerebral Palsy Center; and Family Services of Cincinnati. Active locally and nationally in arts organizations, Yvonne was appointed national director of the arts for The Links, an international women's service organization, and during her tenure established a collaboration with the Smithsonian Institution. She has also served as trustee for the Cincinnati Ballet; the Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra; and the Cincinnati Playhouse in the Park. All of us in Greater Cincinnati thank Yvonne for all she has done to make our community a better place, and we congratulate her on receiving this prestigious award.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was absent attending meetings in my Congressional District in Ohio and missed the votes on rollcall No. 139, on H. Res. 600, Congratulating charter schools; Roll Call Number 140, on H. Con. Res. 380, Recognizing school-based music education; and Roll Call Number 141, on H. Res. 599, Congratulating the University of Connecticut men's and women's basketball teams. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall No. 139, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 140, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 141.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of a friend, respected elected official and distinguished constituent, Louis J. Eves, who passed away on Friday, April 16, 2004. Known as the father of Mason, Ohio, Lou will be remembered for his dedication to Mason and was the longest serving mayor in the city's history--sixteen years. Appointed to the Mason City Council in 1973, Lou was reelected five times. His vision for the city could be summed up as growth with control, and he helped Mason become the growing and prosperous city it is today. He also paved the way for toll free calling from Mason to Cincinnati; urged additional park funding; and pushed for construction of a municipal swimming pool, which was eventually named for him. A Mason resident for more than thirty years, Lou was the owner of Mason's Houston Inn Restaurant, a Warren County landmark for many years. Lou bought the restaurant in 1959, expanded it three times, and it is still run by his family. Lou was also an Army Master Sergeant who served his country honorably. He served in Korea and completed multiple tours of duty in World War II. The first life member of the Landen Kings Chamber of Commerce, Lou was one of only four lifetime Mason Kiwanians. Lou is survived by his devoted wife, Frances; his children, David, Michael, Lou and Kathy; eleven grandchildren and four great- grandchildren. I am grateful to have had his friendship and counsel, and all of us in Southwest Ohio have benefited from Lou's leadership and his strong example in our lives.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Rev. Dr. L.H. Mayfield, a friend, fellow member, and retired pastor of Hyde Park Community United Methodist Church in Cincinnati, who will receive the Wesley Foundation United Methodist Campus Ministry in Cincinnati's 2004 Spirit Award on May 4, 2004. Although he will be recognized by the Wesley Foundation for his work with young people, some say that Dr. Mayfield is best known for his attention to the needs of the poor, disadvantaged, and elderly. We can all agree that he celebrates life and has made a difference in all that he does. The Wesley Foundation United Methodist Campus Ministry in Cincinnati has been serving Cincinnati's young adults in higher education since 1925. The Wesley Foundation's ministry is a welcoming, affirming community that nurtures spiritual growth and empowers students to explore, enrich, and practice their faith. Dr. Mayfield was a member of the Wesley Foundation Board of Directors for 10 years. He was chairperson of the board while pastoring the Mt. Auburn United Methodist Church and serving as chaplain at Christ Hospital. Dr. Mayfield was instrumental in expanding Wesley Foundation to a full-time campus ministry with a building close to the university. Dr. Mayfield has committed his time and energy to the Wesley Services Organization (WSO), a ministry that provides services to the elderly. WSO ministers to the elderly through Wesley Hall and Lincoln Crawford, both skilled nursing and rehabilitation facilities, and Wesley Community Services, which serves seniors in their homes. Dr. Mayfield has been a member of the WSO Board of Directors since 1965; and in 1980, he helped to raise the funds to build a new nursing facility for Wesley Hall. He also led the effort to regain Lincoln Crawford's financial stability. Dedicated to many organizations in our area, Dr. Mayfield has volunteered with Hospice of Cincinnati, the Elizabeth Gamble Deaconess Home Association, the American Cancer Society, Cancer Family Care, and prison ministries. Dr. Mayfield has received numerous awards for his community service. In 1999, he was the recipient of the Greater Cincinnati Foundation's prestigious Jacob E. Davis Volunteer Leadership Award, which is presented annually to an outstanding volunteer in the community, who then awards the money to a nonprofit organization. Dr. Mayfield designated WSO. All of us in the Greater Cincinnati area thank Dr. Mayfield for his service and congratulate him on receiving this well-deserved honor.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote Nos. 118 and 119, I was unavoidably detained at the White House. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' for each bill.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all, I want to thank my colleague from Maryland for all of his hard work and his support today and make that commitment with him and the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner), the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas), and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and others. We will work together on this issue for the next couple of years. We do need to reform our entire defined benefit pension system. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), my distinguished colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, because of a previous commitment I missed the recorded vote today on rollcall No. 117, final passage of the conference report on H.R. 3108, the Pension Funding Equity Act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just wanted to say again that I have enjoyed working with the gentleman from New Jersey. I look forward to working with him on multi- employer relief over the next 2 years. This is a short-term bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) for his comments. I have enjoyed working with him over the years. He works closely with the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) who we will hear from in a moment on pension issues. I would say I cannot agree exactly with his analysis of this bill. This is a very strong bill that I strongly support. I commend those who played a role in putting it together, and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) was there in the conference helping put it together. The bill that came through the House, as my colleagues will recall, had no help from multi-employers because it was a 30-year bill. That was the issue that we started with, and that is the source of the legislation, also the reason for the legislation, and that legislation then got added to. But it is interesting that all but I think two Members of this House voted for the bill last go-around without any multi-employer relief and now somehow the bill is not good enough because it does not have enough multi-employer relief. It does solve the 30-year problem, and that is extremely important to 34 million American workers. It is only a 2-year short term bill, as the gentleman knows; and in those 2 years the idea is that we will reform all of the pension rules and regulations, including the funding rules, the accounting rules, the disclosure rules, something that is long overdue, and including within that, of course, the multi-employer rules, which I believe do need to be altered. But this was never meant to be the bill to do that. My colleague talked about problems that might come up in the next 5 or 10 years for these plans. We will have time to deal with that in the next 2 years. That is the whole idea. The critical thing here is, before April 15 when these quarterly payments are going to be made or not made, that we make a decision to save millions of employees from having their benefits frozen, from perhaps losing their benefits altogether, new entrants into the workforce. We know we had 300,000 new jobs last month. Let us be sure those people have an opportunity to get into a pension. What is happening out there, as we know, is we not only have seen a precipitous drop in the number of plans that are insured by PBGC, meaning these traditional guaranteed, defined benefit plans, we have gone from roughly 114,000 plans to 32,000 plans just in the last 18 years. More disturbing to me is that recently we have seen a lot of these plans freeze benefits for existing participants and not allow new participants in. The best study we have got shows that we have about 27 percent of plans that are not offering benefits to new hires as they do to existing hires. We have about 21 percent of plans, that is more than one in five, who are scaling back benefits through a freeze or other similar mechanisms. We have got a crisis, and we need to deal with it. We have spent 2 years talking about it. I am delighted this bill is before us to finally correct the major reason that plans are freezing and cutting benefits and that is the fact that the interest rate they have to use, called the 30-year rate, is not accurate. My colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), who I see is on the floor, and I introduced legislation to correct this problem. It is bipartisan legislation, strongly supported in this House. It provides for a long-term, conservative corporate bond rate to be used instead of this 30-year Treasury, as the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) said earlier, which is now defunct and no longer a good interest rate. It provides a slightly higher interest rate, which allows companies to make the adequate and accurate contribution but not overcontribute. And this will help, again, 34 million American workers. I am pleased to see the conference report we have before us incorporates that model. It only does it for 2 years. I wish we could have gotten 3 or 4. I would have loved it to be permanent. It would give the plans the predictability they need. We were not able to do that. But to have the 2-year change in the 30-year is extremely important to those 34 million workers, including, by the way, 12 million union workers. To my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), he talked earlier about the fact that this somehow does not take care of union workers but it takes care of non-union workers. I would just remind him there are 9 million union workers in multi-employer plans, but there are 12 million union workers who get a very direct benefit from the 30- year Treasury fix in this bill. I would also say that, for those folks who are concerned about who this covers and does not cover in terms of the multi-employer plans, we really do not know. It may be three 3 or 4 percent. It may be more than that. That is not what we intended to do, was to choose a percentage. We tried to put in place some screens to be sure that the benefits that were added to, again, the 30-year Treasury bill that went through this House with all but two votes, to be sure that those plans that were added to that were those plans most in need. That was the only criteria. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), my colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means.