Rob Portman

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Just briefly, I say to my colleague who just spoke, I appreciate his support. Last time through he said he did support the legislation without any multi-employer provisions. He should know that no one who has spoken on the floor today mentioned the multi-employer issue when it came to the floor last time. In fact, when we look through the debate, not one Member of Congress on either side of the aisle mentioned the multi-employer issue or suggested that it be added. I would also say with regard to all these small businesses, 23 million small businesses in America, let us assume all the multi- employer employers are small businesses which, of course, they are not. Let us assume they were, that would be .2 percent of our small businesses in America. So let us be careful about saying we are talking about 20 percent of the small businesses here. We are talking about at the most .2 percent and of course, not all multi-employer employers are defined as small businesses. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my support for my Drug Impaired Driving legislation, which is included in the H.R. 3550, the Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users. I know it would probably surprise most of my colleagues to learn that up to 20 percent of drivers involved in motor vehicle accidents were under the influence of illegal drugs, or that in 2002 almost 11 million people drove a car or truck while under the influence of drugs. Over the past decade, our Nation's aggressive response to the problem of drunk driving has greatly reduced the number of drunk drivers on the road. But the Nation's 16 million current users of illegal drugs have faced no similar effort as they continue to drive under the influence of drugs such as marijuana, cocaine and heroin. I believe a more effective public policy for detection and prosecution will not only improve traffic safety and create a deterrent, but would get those drivers who violate the law into treatment. The Drug Impaired Driving Research and Prevention Act, which I introduced with my colleagues Sander Levin, Jon Porter, Mark Souder, Jerry Costello, Steven LaTourette, Jim Ramstad and David Hobson, will provide assistance and guidance to States as they begin to address drug impaired driving. The language calls on the U.S. Secretary of Transportation to craft a model State drug impaired driving law and helps ensure that drivers in need of drug treatment are identified and provided with the appropriate assistance. The legislation enhances the training of police officers and prosecutors to detect, enforce, and prosecute drug impaired driving laws and also funds research to develop field tests to be able to identify drug impaired drivers. This legislation will greatly improve traffic safety and reduce traffic fatalities as has been the case with drunk driving laws. It is time to deal with these undetected dangers on our roads and highways before more damage occurs and more lives are lost. I thank Chairman Young for including this important legislation in the Highway bill.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Madam Speaker, being a member of the Committee on the Budget, I have to say that the budget that we passed in the House I do not believe is a fraud at all. It does two things that are very important. One, it restrains spending, which we need to do in order to get the deficit under control; and it also helps the economy to keep the government's spending down. For the first time really since 1995, when Republicans took control of the House, we are actually going to be freezing spending in many accounts. In fact, other than the security accounts and domestic discretionary spending, we will be getting spending under control and restraining spending, which I think is exactly what we should be doing. Second is that it puts in place measures to ensure that the economic growth that has begun continues. The gentleman may not have seen that in his district in Washington State, but we have certainly seen it around the country. In fact, during the last 6 months, our economy grew faster than it has grown in the last 20 years, and jobs are coming back. Every month, over the last 6 months, we have seen job increases. Not as much as we would like to see, and all of us would like to see more, but the way to do that, obviously, is not to raise taxes on the American people, particularly some of those people the gentleman talked about, who he described as the wealthy. These are people who are businesses. Because a lot of small businesses in this country, in fact most small businesses are not incorporated, they are subchapter S, or partnerships, or sole proprietors; and they pay taxes at the individual level. Those are the people who are creating most of the jobs, our small businesses; and so we do not want to tax them at this point just as the economy is getting back on its feet. So I think it is a good budget. I wish we could reduce the deficit even more, but it reduces the deficit in half by 4 years; the Senate version reduces it in half by 3 years. Madam Speaker, I am actually here tonight to talk about another part of the budget, and that is the part that leaves room to provide for a new benefit under the Medicare program for prescription drug coverage. After years and years of talking about this in this House, over in the other House, around the country, politicians have had a good time telling seniors we are going to give you prescription drug coverage, it is going to be great; but we have not delivered. Finally, late last year, this House voted on a bipartisan basis to provide prescription drug coverage, and I am very proud of that. Is it perfect? No, it is not what anybody would think would be the perfect bill based on their situation. Is it a good benefit? Absolutely, yes. And it is a substantial commitment by this Congress to be sure we modernize Medicare. As the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) said earlier, we need to modernize the program. She talked about in addition to prescription drug coverage all the wonderful new preventive benefits, all the new help for people with chronic disease. It was time to take a 1960s program and be sure it added this important element of prescription drug coverage, which was not a big part of anybody's care back in the 1960s. Now it is a huge part of seniors' care. And seniors back home in Ohio, where I am from, are delighted they are going to get some help with their prescription drug coverage, because they rely more and more on prescription drugs, and people rely on prescription drugs to stay out of hospitals and not to have to have procedures. Instead of having a very expensive heart operation, now you can take Lipitor and keep your cholesterol down, and that should be covered by Medicare. And it will be now. The Medicare bill does involve some trade-offs. We had limited resources. We spent $400 billion over a 10-year period, which is a lot of money, given the deficit that we have. But we thought it was so important to do it. But it does not provide 100 percent coverage. What it does provide is a real benefit, though; and let me talk about what it does and does not do. A lot of what I have seen in the national media and what opponents of the law have said just is not accurate. Some have said that seniors will be forced into this new prescription drug plan and forced to pay premiums they may not want to pay. That is not true. It is entirely voluntary. If seniors do not want to sign up for it, they do not have to. It will be roughly $35 a month for most Americans. But for about 35 percent of Americans, those who are under 150 percent or 135 percent of poverty, there will be no premium at all. But for those Americans who will pay a premium, it is about $35 a month. The Department of Health and Human Services, the nonpartisan experts there, the Congressional Budget Office, again nonpartisan group, think the vast majority of Americans will sign up. But they do not have to. It is a voluntary program. Opponents are also saying that this new voluntary benefit will cause employers to drop retiree coverage for those fortunate enough to have it. Well, there are seniors, maybe a third of seniors, who have coverage from their spouse or from themselves working for an employer. We want to be sure those people continue to get coverage, and this legislation absolute has just the opposite effect. It will not drive people away from it. In fact, it will give people the ability to keep that coverage because it provides an incentive for employers to keep people covered. We have never done that before, including the other Medicare bills that just about everybody in this Chamber has voted for in one way or another. That is extremely important, because we want to encourage people to continue to have coverage. Over 20 percent of the cost of the bill, $85 billion, is set aside just for that purpose. AARP supports this bill. And one reason they support it is this provision was important to them, and it is in the bill. Some opponents are also saying that the legislation would have been less costly if it had focused on those who really need it. That is exactly what it does. Most of the benefit goes to low-income seniors and those who have high drug costs. As I said earlier, those who are low-income seniors, under 135 percent of poverty, do not pay a premium, do not pay any copays, and are able to get prescription drugs with only $1 or $5 at the prescription drug counter. This is a good bill focusing on those who need the coverage the most.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, on March 29, 2004, I was in my congressional district due to a death in my family. I missed the recorded votes on rollcall No. 94, to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 2584, the Utrok Atoll Conveyance; rollcall No. 95, to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 3723, the Vaughn Gross Post Office Building. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 94 and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 95.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the Committee on the Budget chairman, for bringing forward a budget that this House could support which does, in fact, get spending under control and does grow the economy. And let me respond briefly to my friend from Texas who just spoke and my friend from Tennessee who spoke before that about spending. Because they seem to be saying that somehow the Republicans do not care about deficits, do not care about spending. Nothing could be further from the truth. Let us talk about the truth. The Democratic substitute, which my friends on the other side of the aisle voted for, has not less spending, it has more spending. In fact, in 2005 alone it has $21.6 billion more spending. Over 5 years, it has $135 billion more spending. And that is more spending on education, they want more spending on the environment, they want more spending on health care, they want more spending on science, they want more spending on homeland security, they want more spending on international commitments. More spending, not less spending. Now, they will say in response, well, we pay for our spending. How do they pay for it? By raising taxes. And who do they raise taxes on? They raise taxes on what they say are the wealthy. Turns out a lot of the wealthy are small businesses. Because most small businesses in this country pay their taxes through the individual tax system. Therefore, you are not an entrepreneur. You are an innovator. You are the person out there creating jobs. Because most jobs are created by small businesses, you are going to get taxed for more spending. Now, I know people do not like to hear the tax and spend characterization, but that is what it is. It is more spending, and it is more taxes. And all the budget enforcement in the world is not going to help if you take this approach of more taxes and more spending. That is what they have chosen to take. That is the honest truth. That is the difference that we are talking about here. Now the question is, how should we enforce whatever budget we think is right? We think there ought to be less spending, and we think there ought to be a continuation of the tax relief. And, incidentally, we think that for a very simple reason, because we know when we look back at history the only way to get the deficit under control is by growing the economy and restraining spending. That is exactly what the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) has rolled out in his budget that this House has supported. It is the only way it works. In 1997 we learned that. On a bipartisan basis we stood together and said we are going to get this budget under control. We said we will get it under control within 5 or 6 years, by 2001 or 2002. It happened in 2 years. Why? Because the economy grew. Getting the economy to grow is absolutely the reason we put the tax relief in place in the first place and it is working. We had the fastest economic growth in the last 6 months in the most recent data we have than we had in 20 years. Jobs are coming back, not as fast as we would like; but jobs are coming back as we see the economy is growing. It is working Why would we want to at this point go back to raising taxes just as things are beginning to turn around, as we are getting the economy back on its feet? As the economy grows and as you keep spending under control, you get the deficit down. It is a very simple calculation. It happens to be one that works, and we know it works. I would just like to say, with regard to the concerns about then how do we enforce the budget, and I have explained why I think our budget is better than the approach that my friends on the other side of the aisle have proposed, how do you enforce it, absolutely we should enforce it. I am all for PAYGO, as are the Members of my side of the aisle; and we have a commitment, as my colleagues know, from our leadership to bring a PAYGO bill, meaning you pay for spending as you go, before Memorial Day. We will do that, and that is very important. If you do not have a budget, though, you have nothing to enforce. What we are saying is we ought to have a budget that allows the economic growth to continue, that restrains spending and then put in place the PAYGO rules. They would like to have PAYGO rules include taxes. I would ask my colleagues, let us say a few years from now we go into another economic slump, as this President inherited from his predecessor. Would we not want to be able to put in place pro-growth tax relief as we have done three times in the last 3 years? I think we should be able to do that. I think we should be able to do that in a way that indicates that tax relief, appropriate tax relief is the way we grow the economy. So we need to be very careful not to equate spending and taxes. I commend, again, my friend, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), for a great budget; and I commend him for encouraging our leadership to bring a PAYGO provision to the floor which will happen before Memorial Day.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say I am looking forward to voting on the budget later today. This budget is a good document because it does what we know works to get the deficit under control. First, it restrains spending, extremely important. Second, it allows the economy to continue to grow, as my friend from Montana just talked about, by not raising taxes on the American people. Significantly, the budget also provides for the prescription drug benefit this Congress passed late last year. After spending 5 years talking about it, a lot of rhetoric, a real political football, we finally on a bipartisan basis provided prescription drug benefits in a meaningful way. What numbers will we be relying on in the budget? We will rely on the Congressional Budget Office, as under the rules of the House we are required to do. There has been a lot of discussion about what numbers we should use. Of course we are going to use the Congressional Budget Office as we must. There are other estimates out there. Some may be right, some may be wrong; but this Congress is doing the right thing by providing a prescription drug benefit and providing under the rules of the House for the right estimate of those costs.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, following on the comments of my colleague from Florida, I will say that this Medicare bill that the House passed last year, which adds a prescription drug benefit, is good medicine. It comes after years and years of this Congress talking about adding a prescription drug benefit for our seniors. Lots of rhetoric, no action. Finally, late last year, this House got together on a bipartisan basis and passed a benefit that truly helps seniors. It is a good bill because it adds prescription drugs, but it is even better than that because it adds another great, exciting new tool for our seniors, but also for all Americans, to be able to save tax free for their health care: health savings accounts. You make a contribution tax free, it builds up tax free, and when you pay for your health care needs, it is tax free. This will help in a few different ways. One, it will encourage preventive health care, people taking care of themselves, reducing costs in Medicare as a result. Second, it will add more competition to the health care system. It is your own dollar now that you are spending. That also will reduce costs in Medicare. Finally, it will help with the uninsured. Many small businesses who do not now provide coverage for the uninsured will now be able to provide that coverage and individuals will be able to make contributions to an account like this to be able to cover their own health care needs. Mr. Speaker, it is a good part of a good bill.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague yielding me time. I would like to talk about that second pillar of our budget which is growth of the economy. Let me briefly address the comments from my friend from Wisconsin who just spoke in terms of the spending. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has told us, as the ranking member of the Committee on Budget, there is more spending in their budget. So if anybody is out of control on spending, the gentleman just outlined he has more spending for education, more spending for the environment, more spending for defense, more spending for veterans, more spending for science, more spending for health care, more spending, more spending, more spending. How is it paid for? Tax increases. We have got a deficit problem, but we will not get our hands around it unless we get spending under control as well as grow the economy. That is what I wanted to talk about today. Back in 1997, I stood down here on this floor, as did many of my colleagues, and talked about our great balanced budget agreement of 1997, which was a wonderful, bipartisan exercise in trying to get some spending discipline. We said we would balance the budget in 5 or 6 years. We were very proud of that. Within 2 years, the budget was balanced. Within 3, we were in surplus. Why? Yes, because we restrained spending, which was very important; but much more importantly, the economy grew and the economy grew rapidly because we had pro-growth policies in place including tax relief, which some people forget about at that time. And we learned as a Congress, I hope, a very important lesson which is, the way to get back to balance is to grow the economy and restrain spending. It is really pretty simple. Now, the next couple of years forward when we got into a deficit, how did we get into a deficit? Well, same thing. We did not restrain spending. We allowed spending to grow too fast and the economy took a nose dive. George Bush, when he was sworn in as President of the United States, inherited a failing economy. Within 60 days after he was sworn in, something like that, the economy actually went into a recession, negative economic growth. That is one of the main reasons we are here. Then we were hit with 9/11, costing the Federal Government billions and billions of dollars and, of course, a bigger hit on our economy. The corporate scandals then hit us, the biggest we have had in our Nation's history. All of this hurts our economy which decreased the revenues to the Federal Government and we are trying to get back on our feet. And what I love about this budget, and I commend the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) for it, is it does those two very simple things. It restrains spending and it grows the economy. The remarkable changes we have seen in the last year we need to continue. Since last March, a year ago from this time, when we were in the early stages recovering from that 2001 recession, the terrorist attacks and their aftermath, we have had incredible growth in this economy. In fact, the past two quarters, which is the last two quarters of 2003, we had the fastest growth in our economy in 20 years. We had 8.2 percent growth in the third quarter, and in the fourth quarter, 4.1 percent. Chart 8 shows the GDP growth we have had. This is over the last couple of quarters. That big line there is the third quarter; 4.1 percent, the fourth quarter. The blue chip forecasts are for continued growth. In fact, the new forecasts are even more optimistic than that. They show a 4.7 percent growth last year; if we continue these policies that are in place, including the tax relief we just passed in 2001, 2002, 2003. The Democrat budget again increases spending. It also increases taxes, throws balance off, but the fact is, they are going to hurt the economic growth and that is the key, growing the economy, restraining spending. We have got some more good news. Over the past year, housing starts are running at their highest levels in 20 years. Mortgage interest rates continue to run at their lowest levels in over 3 decades. The prime rate is at its lowest level in 45 years. Inflation is at its lowest rate in four decades. Exports of goods and services rose in the fourth quarter rose at 20 percent, the fastest pace they have been at in 7 years. And we have seen significant increases in the stock market since a year ago as well. Chart 10: Very importantly, labor markets are beginning to improve. For the past 20 straight weeks unemployment insurance claims have remained below the benchmark that is established by economists as a sign of an improving labor market. Jobs are beginning to come back. This is key. We do not want to change course now that we are finally making progress. As chart 11 shows, the unemployment rate is now down to 5.6 percent from 6.3 percent last June. That is lower unemployment than the average in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s. Maybe not the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s; it is lower than the average unemployment in those decades. We are making progress. We are going in the right direction. We are getting this under control both on the economy side and with regard to jobs. And jobs are incredibly important. This budget will help us to be sure that every person that wants a job can get a job by continuing to grow that economy. Over 300,000 new jobs in the past 6 months, we are on the right track. We have a clearly improved economic picture. There is more to do, of course, there is. But the absolute wrong thing to do is to get off that track and to get back on the track where the economy is going down, where we are losing jobs. The speed and strength of the economic recovery has been, in large measure, due to the tax relief we put in place in 2001, 2002 and 2003. What this budget does is, it continues that tax relief. Again, my friends on the other side of the aisle choose to increase the taxes, $146 billion over the next 5 years. That is what is in the budget. That is what the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) talked about, more spending, more taxes. So one of the guiding principles of this budget is that the economy must grow and we must continue to create jobs if we are to remain the world's strongest economy and get the budget under control. The second way we do it is, we make sure that we keep spending under control. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that in order to get this economy to continue to grow as it has, we need to continue the policies that are in place. We do not want to snap back. We do not want to have taxes increase that we have just decreased, which is what would happen under the Democratic alternative. Second, we need to control spending. Let me list a couple of things we do on the spending side. We hold the line on our own spending, no increase in the legislative branch at all; no new appropriation earmarks without justification; no new mandatory or entitlement programs without new discipline on them; no nonwar emergency supplementals without spending offsets on those supplementals; no budget waivers, and freezing funding for unauthorized programs. That is in this budget; it is extremely important. The directives are in addition, of course, to holding the line on spending. All the nonsecurity spending is held at a freeze. And, yes, we provide for priorities, but at the same time we recognize we have got to get this spending under control. None of this is going to be easy. A lot of us here, certainly many in the Senate, have gotten pretty comfortable signing off on spending increases, on free-flowing spending. We cannot keep that up. We need to get this economy to continue to grow. That is what this budget does and we need to keep spending under control. Success at keeping taxes and spending down will mean a stronger economy, will mean more hope and more opportunity for all the people we represent.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, there are still some asking why Congress added a prescription drug benefit for seniors under Medicare. The reason is simple. Before we passed this law, the Medicare program operated like it was still back in 1965, when surgeries and hospital stays, rather than prescription drugs, were the primary means of treating and managing disease. Today, prescription medications not only treat illness, they can prevent them. Prior to the changes in law, Medicare would pay an average of $5,000 for a person's hospitalization for heart failure, for instance, but not pay the $67 per month for Lipitor which is a cholesterol-lowering drug which can prevent heart failure. This is bad medicine and that is why we needed to add a prescription drug benefit. Mr. Speaker, adding a benefit to Medicare was an important first step for providing seniors with quality and affordable health care. The benefit is entirely voluntary. The senior who does not want to take the benefit, they do not have to. The prescription drug benefit is simple. It provides seniors relief from the high cost of prescription drugs, and it focuses that relief on those who need it most. Those who have low income, 12 million seniors get the benefit for the low-income seniors and those with high drug costs who can benefit from the new catastrophic insurance benefit. Mr. Speaker, the new Medicare law provides seniors a choice and control with their drug plans, and it is good for our seniors.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a friend and distinguished constituent, John E. Pepper, retired Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Procter & Gamble Company, who will have the honor of being inducted into the American Advertising Federation's Advertising Hall of Fame in New York City today. The Advertising Hall of Fame is the most prestigious honor bestowed in the advertising industry. It is awarded to individuals who have set the standard for lifetime advertising excellence, and who have made volunteer efforts outside the workplace. With this honor, John joins a notable group of industry luminaries, including William S. Paley, David Ogilvy, Leo Burnett, Ray Kroc, William Bernbach, and David Sarnoff. An influential leader throughout his career with Procter & Gamble, one of the world's leading advertisers, John was selected for the honor because he led some of the company's most powerful advertising initiatives. His expertise led to revolutionary advertising campaigns for Dash detergent and a groundbreaking new advertising agency compensation system. John had a profound effect on Procter & Gamble and on advertising. John served as the ninth chairman of the board and chief executive officer at Procter & Gamble, retiring in 2002 after 38 years of service. After joining Procter & Gamble in 1963, he served as a brand manager for Cascade detergent, where his leadership built an entire category. He developed landmark advertising that contributed to Procter & Gamble's dominance. In 1974, John became general manager of Procter & Gamble Italia, returned in 1978, and was elected a group vice president in 1980. In 1984, he was elected to the board of directors and was named president in 1986. That year, he implemented P&G's Advertising Awards (now called Global Brand Building Awards), to showcase brands that grew primarily due to advertising. John was also an early advocate of Procter & Gambles's global expansion, and led the company's entry into Central and Eastern Europe, especially Russia and China. He serves on many company boards, including Xerox Corporation, Motorola Inc., and the Boston Scientific Corporation. John is deeply committed to his community. In 1978, in response to an escalating public high school dropout rate, he founded the Cincinnati Youth Collaborative, a non-profit organization that assists graduating high school students with mentoring and tutoring and employment. John is a member of the boards of the Partnership for a Drug Free America and the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy. I have been privileged to work with John on the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center, where he serves as co-chairman of the development campaign and a member of its executive committee. I also served with him as a fellow founding board member of the Coalition for a Drug Free Greater Cincinnati. In this capacity, his expertise was helpful in launching what is now a successful local organization committed to reducing substance abuse among our young people through prevention and education. John is a graduate of Yale University. He has recently taken on a new challenge as Yale's vice president of finance and administration. His wife, Francie, is also a dedicated and effective community volunteer. They have four children. All of us in the Cincinnati area congratulate John on this prestigious honor.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding, and I have not seen the resolution either. It has not been introduced yet. My understanding is that the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) has taken the lead on that and the Committee on International Relations, and he will be consulting with the gentleman from California (Ranking Member Lantos), and I am sure he would appreciate any input that Members have on both sides. It would be good if we could as a House support this resolution on a bipartisan basis because it will be, as my colleague said, important to be able to show that support for our troops who are currently in Iraq performing for us and for the American people.

Mr. PORTMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding further. It is my understanding that, as in prior years, the Committee on Rules will give preference to complete substitutes rather than amendments to the budget document. It is my understanding further that we will provide adequate time, as we have in the past, for both general debate and for these substitutes. Historically, this debate has varied between 3 to 5 hours for general debate and 40 minutes to 1 hour for amendments or substitutes. It is my understanding that it is the intention once again for the Committee on Rules to provide those kinds of rules. Of course, they have not seen the various resolutions yet, including the one that comes out of the Committee on the Budget. But that is certainly the intent of the Committee on Rules at this point.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Maryland for yielding to me, and I would be happy to talk about the schedule for next week. Mr. Speaker, the House will convene on Tuesday at 12:30 p.m. for morning business, 2 p.m. for legislative business. We will consider several measures under suspension of the rules. A final list of those will also be sent to Members' offices by the end of this week. Any votes called on those suspensions will be rolled until 6:30 p.m., as has been our custom. On Wednesday and Thursday, Mr. Speaker, the House will convene at 10 a.m. We still hope to consider the budget resolution for fiscal year 2005, although that is being worked out. In addition, as we all know, next week is the anniversary of the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom, as well as the anniversary of Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons attacks against the Kurds. So on Wednesday, the House will consider a resolution remembering these historical events and commemorating the allied forces, including our troops, for the liberation of Iraq. Finally, I would like to remind all Members that we do not plan to have votes next Friday, March 19. I thank my friend from Maryland very much for yielding to me, and I would be happy to answer any questions, or try to answer any questions, he might have.

Mr. PORTMAN. I respect the gentleman's vote-counting ability, as he knows, but being on the committee, I can say that I am not certain such a bill could have even been reported out the committee because there are many complexities with responding to this tough issue.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield a moment.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I do not know what form it will take. If it is part of the budget resolution, I suppose then other budget resolution substitutes, as we talked about earlier, might include enforcement mechanisms as well. The gentleman mentioned the ranking member may indeed offer one of his own. If it is separate legislation, the Committee on Rules would take that up. I do not know, I would say to my friend from Maryland, I do not know when that would be. I do not know if it will be the same time as the budget. There are other committees, particularly the Committee on Rules, that will have jurisdiction of any enforcement mechanism. Ultimately, it is up to the will of the Congress, is it not, as to how we enforce our budgets? I just do not know what the likely form will take. Again, I think our goal would be to have a healthy debate over the enforcement mechanisms. We feel strongly that spending ought to be subject to the pay-go rules. We feel strongly that the tax relief that was enacted over the last 3 years has now turned this economy around and we are beginning to see growth. So we would hate to subject those to the kinds of pay-go rules that would not have permitted, during the time when the economy was in bad shape, for us to begin to get some economic stimulus and growth. So this may be some of the debates we will have on the floor, and I would think we would encourage that.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Maryland for yielding to me again. The legislation is very much on our minds. As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means has worked hard on this legislation already. The gentleman mentioned the substitute which the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) may want to offer in committee. The tariff increases are beginning to take effect, increasing by 1 percent every month, so it is something we are working hard on. We do want to work closely with the other body on this to be sure that we can actually enact legislation, as well as with the President and with his team, the U.S. Trade Representative's Office and the Treasury Department in particular. So we are working closely with them. I do not know when legislation may come to the floor, but I understand that the Committee on Ways and Means is planning another meeting next week to discuss certain aspects of this, to be sure that as we repeal the FSC/ETI provisions, we are also providing adequate benefits for U.S. companies who are involved in global competition. So this is a very high priority on our side of the aisle and we continue to work toward that goal.

Mr. PORTMAN. Let me say at the outset that we welcome a substitute from the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), better yet that he supports the substitute the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) will offer in committee. But certainly having an alternative is welcome and the debate will be a healthy one. With regard to any budget enforcement mechanisms, there has not been a decision whether that will be part of the budget resolution. I think that is part of the discussion now whether there will be separate legislation. There are advantages and disadvantage to both, I suppose, but that decision has not been made yet.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, if my colleague will yield further, it is still up in the air. As the gentleman knows, we had planned to have the budget marked up in committee today and then brought to the floor next week. It is important that we keep our time frame because it is important that we have our appropriations bills done in a timely manner. So we are still hopeful that can happen, but we have had some delays in the markup today. We did get started on the markup. We had some good opening statements, and we are going back into committee later today, but there are currently negotiations over whether we can finish that today or not. I will say that we are excited about the budget document. It does restrain spending, which we believe is the right thing to do. There have been some disagreements between the bodies, even between Members, on both sides of the aisle, over some of the budget enforcement mechanisms. Those are more the issues here that have to do with caps and PAYGOs and those sorts of issues; but the budget itself, this resolution, we hope to be able to mark up today. If not, we will certainly mark it up next week.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize my friend Helen Hiestand for her years of able and dedicated public service to the people of Ohio's Second and Sixth Congressiona1 Districts. Helen served as my District Field Representative for over 6 years. In this role, she served as Service Academy Director; Caseworker; and my representative in the local communities. Helen's hallmark is professionalism. Throughout her service, Helen not only became a vital member of our office team, she was known for her dedication and commitment to solving problems for people. Helen earned a reputation for keeping in close touch with our local communities and building bridges between people and the Federal Government. She met the highest standards for efficiency and responsiveness in completing casework; served as liaison with local, State and Federal agencies and liaison with local elected officials; and represented me at local events when Congressional business prevented me from attending. Prior to her service to the Second District, she served former Congressman Bob McEwen as District Office Manager and former Congressman Frank Cremeans as District Representative and Office Manager in Ohio's Sixth Congressional District. We were fortunate to have her join my office in 1997 as District Field Representative. Helen is also devoted to her family. Her husband, Ed; daughter, Janis; and son, Joe, are pleased that she now has more time to spend with them. Also very active in her church, Helen has served in the United Methodist Women organization; as a Circle Leader; with the Chancel Choir and as a soloist. She has also been active in Emmaus Community, an ecumenical organization. Helen attended Riverside City College in Riverside, CA, and the University of Texas at Austin. Although we miss her greatly, we are privileged to have worked with Helen. Her ethical and professional standards, commitment, and dedication have served the Second and Sixth Districts well. We wish her good health and much success in her retirement and whatever she chooses to do next.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the people who work at the GE Aircraft Engines plant in Evendale, Ohio. This facility was recently recognized and awarded Voluntary Protection Program Star status by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for its outstanding achievements in workplace safety. Headquartered in Evendale, Ohio, GE Aircraft Engines is the world's leading producer of large and small jet engines for commercial and military aircraft. Additional work and services at the plant include aircraft-derived engines for marine applications and aviation services. The OHSA Voluntary Protection Program (VPP) promotes effective worksite-based safety and health. In the VPP, management, labor, and OSHA establish cooperative relationships at workplaces to implement a comprehensive safety and health management system. Approval into the VPP is OSHA's official recognition for the outstanding efforts of employers and employees who have implemented exemplary safety and health management systems. In short, it represents a commitment to go beyond compliance to achieve workplace safety. Less than 0.1 percent of companies are VPP certified. GE has 82 OSHA VPP sites--more than any other company in the nation. As a result of these efforts, 56,000 GE employees, including those in Evendale, enjoy exceptional workplace safety standards. The GE Aircraft Engines plant in Evendale is the largest VPP site in Ohio, the largest GE site to achieve VPP Star status and the largest federal VPP Star manufacturing facility in the nation. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in recognizing the GE Aircraft Engines plant in Evendale for being awarded the prestigious VPP Star status. All of us in Greater Cincinnati congratulate the plant's management and employees on their dedication to outstanding workplace safety standards.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Oliver Birckhead, a dear friend and constituent, who will be formally honored on February 26, 2003 by the Greater Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce as a Great Living Cincinnatian, one of our region's highest honors. The recipients of this prestigious award are selected on the basis of special professional achievement; an awareness of the needs of others; civic service; leadership; and distinctive accomplishments. A native of Brooklyn, New York, Mr. Birckhead graduated from Trinity- Pawling School in Pawling, New York; Nichols College in Dudley, Massachusetts; and the Stonier Graduate School of Banking at Rutgers University. Mr. Birckhead says the banking business was really in his blood: his father was the first Supervisor of National Banks in President Taft's administration. In 1937, Mr. Birckhead began his career in the banking business with the Peoples National Bank and Trust Company in White Plains, New York. After a stint in the U.S. Air Corps, Mr. Birckhead was appointed assistant national bank examiner in the Second District of New York. From 1948 to 1951, he worked for Chemical Bank, then joined Central Trust Company (now PNC Bank) in Cincinnati. At Central Trust, he was elected an officer in 1951 and became executive vice president and director in 1967. In 1968, Mr. Birckhead was involved in the founding of Central Bancorporation and became CEO of its lead bank, The Central Trust Company, a position he held for 17 years. When he became president and later CEO of Central Bancorporation, the company's assets were approximately $500 million; when he retired in 1988, the company's assets were $5.2 billion. When Central Bancorporation merged into PNC the result was a $43 billion regional banking company, and Mr. Birckhead served as vice chairman and director of PNC Bank until he retired in 1989. Mr. Birckhead's civic accomplishments have touched nearly every facet of Greater Cincinnati. He was a trustee, vice president and executive committee member of the Cincinnati Art Museum, and advisory board member and vice chairman of the Salvation Army. He also served on the boards of the Boy's Club of Cincinnati; the Cincinnati Association for the Blind; and the Cincinnati Council on World Affairs. He has been a leader for Xavier University's Capital Fund Drive; the University of Cincinnati's Annual Business Campaign; the National Conference of Christians and Jews (now the National Conference for Community Justice); the Greater Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce; the Cincinnati Business Committee; and the Statue of Liberty Centennial Commission. With several others, he led the original financing that formed the Cincinnati Bengals. The recipient of many awards for his community service, Mr. Birckhead was honored by Ohio Governor John Gilligan with the Governor's Award for Community Action and by the Urban League. In 1986, he was presented with the Israel Peace Award by the State of Israel. He is also devoted to his family, and his wife, Jane, is an active and effective volunteer in Greater Cincinnati. All of us in Greater Cincinnati thank Mr. Birckhead for his service to our community and congratulate him on being named a Great Living Cincinnatian.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize William K. Schubert, M.D., a distinguished leader, who will be honored on February 26, 2004 by the Greater Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce as a Great Living Cincinnatian, one of our region's highest honors. The recipients of this prestigious honor are selected on the basis of special professional achievement; an awareness of the needs of others; civic service; leadership; and distinctive accomplishments. As president and CEO of Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Dr. Schubert steered it from a small facility with four operating rooms to one of the top five pediatric medical centers in the Nation and designation by the American College of Surgeons as a Level 1 pediatric trauma center. During the 1970s, Dr. Schubert led a centralization of the region's pediatric care into a single medical center at Children's Hospital. A Cincinnati native, Dr. Schubert graduated from Walnut Hills High School, the University of Cincinnati and the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine. Interested in science and influenced in childhood by the family's doctor, he made the decision in high school to later attend medical school. After completing an internship at Indiana University Medical Center, he returned to Cincinnati and served a residency in pediatrics and a fellowship in hematology at Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center. In 1996, Dr. Schubert retired after 33 years of service to Children's Hospital, including 13 years as head of the medical center. Dr. Schubert has held many key leadership positions, such as founder and director of the Division of Pediatric Gastroenterology; chief of staff, director of the pediatric residency training program; director of Children's Hospital Research Foundation; physician executive director; and chairman of the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine. He is a diplomat in the American Board of Pediatrics. Today, Dr. Schubert is professor emeritus of pediatrics at the University of Cincinnati and serves Children's Hospital Medical Center as a consultant. In our community, Dr. Schubert was instrumental in the successful effort to expand Cincinnati's property tax levy for indigent care to include children. He has been involved in the Rotary Club of Cincinnati; the Babies' Milk Fund; the Center for Quality Leadership; and the Ohio Association of Children's Hospitals. I had the privilege of serving with Dr. Schubert on the board of the Springer School in Cincinnati. Dr. Schubert is the recipient of Children's Hospital Medical Center Board of Trustees' William Cooper Procter Medallion; the Cincinnati Pediatrics Society Founder's Award; and the University of Cincinnati's Daniel Drake and Distinguished Alumni Awards. All of us in the Greater Cincinnati area are grateful to Dr. Schubert for his service to our community, and congratulate him on being named a Great Living Cincinnatian.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize George S. Hale, Sr., M.D., a distinguished constituent, who will be formally honored on February 26, 2004 by the Greater Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce as a Great Living Cincinnatian, one of our region's highest honors. The recipients of this prestigious award are selected on the basis of special professional achievement; an awareness of the needs of others; civic service; leadership; and distinctive accomplishments. Born on June 3, 1929 in Detroit, Dr. Hale moved to his mother's hometown of Macon, Georgia when he was four. Growing up in Macon, Dr. Hale cites the benevolence of his mother, an aunt and their family's physician as his significant early influences. His mother, Carlena Jordan Hale, was a social worker during the Depression who took Dr. Hale along as she delivered food and clothing to poor families. His aunt, Junia Jordan Fambro, was a dietitian at Fort Valley State College for 44 years. She helped students with food and financial assistance, and was a loving and supportive example to Dr. Hale. The family's physician, Dr. C.W. Dwyer, was also a role model to him. After attending Bibb County, Georgia public schools and Macon's Ballard High School, Dr. Hale graduated from Talladega College in Alabama. He returned to Macon and taught math and science for two years at Ballard High School. Although he encountered prejudice and the competition to attend medical school was keen, he was accepted into McHenry Medical College in 1952 and became an extern at Cincinnati's Jewish Hospital in 1955. He graduated in 1956, and returned to Jewish Hospital as an intern at a time when, Dr. Hale says, African American physicians had difficulty finding internships. He became a fellow with the University of Cincinnati Department of Metabolism and Endocrinology, then served at the Dover Air Force Base Hospital in Dover, Delaware. After leaving the Air Force, Dr. Hale opened a private practice in internal medicine that he maintains today. In 1982, Dr. Hale became only the second African American physician to be elected president of Cincinnati's Academy of Medicine. He is also past president of the Cincinnati Chapter of the National Medical Association. Devoted to encouraging and mentoring African American medical students and physicians, Dr. Hale has contributed immeasurably to the quality of life in Cincinnati. A founding member of Health Careers and Cancer Family Care, Dr. Hale has also been active with the American Red Cross; the Child Guidance Home; the Health Foundation of the Greater Cincinnati Academy of Medicine; the Cincinnati Art Museum and the Allen Temple A.M.E. Church. He and his wife, Sarah Hale, received Lighthouse Youth Services' Beacon of Light Humanitarian Award; Urban League's Glorifying the Lions Award; and the National Philanthropy Day Award. All of us in Greater Cincinnati thank Dr. Hale for his service to our community, and congratulate him on being named a Great Living Cincinnatian.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, on December 8, 2003, I was unavoidably detained at a meeting and missed the vote on rollcall No. 674, Ordering Previous Question on H. Res. 473, the Rule to accompany H.R. 2673, the Fiscal Year 2004 Agriculture Appropriations Act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' Stated against: