Rob Portman

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is a possibility. I respond to my friend from Georgia, we do not have a request yet from the Senate on that legislation for conference, but it is possible that we could move the Labor-HHS bill next week as well.

Mr. PORTMAN. Well, it really depends on what kind of progress we make earlier in the week I suppose. We are going to come in, as we said, Tuesday night and start with suspensions and then we start working on some of these other bills, but it looks as though the Charitable Choice Giving Act and the Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act will take quite a bit of time on Wednesday and Thursday. So, again, we are telling Members they should expect to be here on Thursday night probably to vote on the Federal Prison Industries Competition in Contracting Act.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for recognizing me. This is a very positive day on the floor of the House. I commend the chairman and his staff for getting us to this point, as well as colleagues on the other side of the aisle and the U.S. Trade Representative. These are the first two agreements we have been able to take up under so-called fast track authority, trade promotion authority, for the last decade, and particularly the U.S.-Singapore trade agreement has a number of aspects which are very positive for us. This, of course, is a milestone for us. It is the first agreement we have had with an Asian- Pacific nation. It is also an agreement that is in our interests. Two- way trade is now approaching $40 billion with Singapore and making them our 12th largest trading partner. This agreement will enhance that trade and strengthen it. Ninety-nine percent of the trade in goods with Singapore is already tariff free, so it really is not about goods; it is more about services. And that is great for us because we have a massive service economy in this country. In fact, I am told that our service sector now accounts for about 80 percent of our gross domestic product. So by opening up those markets to services, it helps the United States tremendously. U.S. direct investment in Singapore was $27 billion in 2001. This will also create a more predictable and secure legal framework for U.S. investors because they now will be treated as if they were local investors and have access to better dispute settlement mechanisms. We also live in an advanced technological age, Mr. Speaker, and to keep jobs in the United States, we must depend on that. We must have higher technology in order to increase productivity and efficiency and keep jobs here. This agreement is good in that regard, too, because it has state-of-the-art protection for U.S. intellectual property, which is increasingly important in a digital age. Finally, trade in agriculture is important to us. We have a net surplus, of course, in agriculture trade. In 2002, we exported around $259 million worth of food products to Singapore. By binding all of those tariffs at zero, it helps us, it helps our farmers, it helps open up those markets to our products and, therefore, creates jobs here in the United States. Overall, again I think this is a good day for us in that we are moving forward with positive agreements. In the Singapore case, I think there are lots of benefits to the United States. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this good, bipartisan trade agreement.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I just want to say that the silence may be deafening to the gentleman, so I will break it. There is no silence among those of us who support these trade agreements. These are good trade agreements because they will mean more U.S. jobs. That is the whole point. This is a very exciting day on the floor, Mr. Speaker, because for years this Congress has been paralyzed on trade. While other countries are gaining market share in countries like Chile and, as an obvious example, where for 10 years the United States has not been able to move forward on trade because this Congress, at least for the past 7 or 8 years, has not had the ability through a Trade Promotion Authority, Fast Track authority to do so, we have lost market share. We have lost jobs. We have lost jobs in my area of Ohio, which is a heavy export area; we have lost jobs all over the country, and I would daresay in the State of the gentleman from New Jersey as well. And that is what it is all about. Now there will be an allocation of jobs. There will be a differential, depending on what part of the country you are from. But to lose these jobs because other countries, including our friends in Europe, are getting this market share in countries like Chile is unacceptable. It is irresponsible. So I am delighted to be on the floor to talk about Singapore, to talk about Chile, to talk about two good trade agreements that come out of a process where we finally now have, through this Trade Promotion Authority law, the ability to open up these markets to U.S. goods. Our country is wide open. We protect a few products, but for the most part we are the most open country in the world. We let them sell stuff here. Talk about trade deficits. That is because we are open. They are not as open as we are. We want to open up their markets, including to products from my area. Earlier today there was discussion about, gee, there is not enough consultation in these agreements. I do not know where that comes from, because there is unprecedented consultation in these two agreements that come out of, again, this Trade Promotion Authority that we finally passed in Congress, which allows Congress to have a bigger role and the public to have a bigger role in saying how to come up with these agreements. Is it perfect? No. We would all like to have more of this, more of that, more information. But let me cite a few facts. There have been more than 250 meetings with Members and staff regarding Singapore and Chile. There has been a proposed draft provided to Congress prior to the negotiating sessions. That was never true previously. The final draft text was made available to Congress not yesterday but in January of 2003. We have also worked with more than 700 cleared advisors, including labor and environmental representatives. They are the ones that put together these advisory committees that work together with the trade folks at USTR, the U.S. Trade Representative and his negotiators. And, guess what, of those 31 advisory committees looking at everything, all the issues across the board, including environmental policy, of the 31, 30 have endorsed both of these free trade agreements. Thirty of the 31, including the environmental group. That is pretty good. Yes, we always want to know as Members of Congress how we can represent our constituents better, but we have seen a vast improvement in the consultation. Therefore, I think it is ironic that some would come to this floor and say this is somehow backtracking on the ability of Congress to know what is in these agreements. I strongly support the Chilean and Singapore Free Trade Agreements.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. (Mr. PORTMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to congratulate the chairman on the substance of H.R. 2800 but also on the way he has conducted the debate this evening. We have seen it in the latest example here with this amendment. We have also seen it in the example, I believe, Mr. Chairman, of his inclusion in the legislation of adequate funding for the Tropical Forest Conservation Act, a very important conservation bill which uses market forces. It is working. It has the strong support of the Bush administration and bipartisan support here in Congress. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the underlying bill, H.R. 2800. Again, the chairman has done a good job in putting together a balanced bill. He deserves our support. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my support for H.R. 2800, and I want to thank Chairman Kolbe and Ranking Member Lowey for including $20 million in the bill for the Tropical Forest Conservation Act. The United States has a significant national interest in protecting tropical forests in developing countries. Tropical forests provide a wide range of benefits. They harbor 50-90 percent of the Earth's terrestrial biodiversity. They act as ``carbon sinks,'' absorbing massive quantities of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, which help reduce greenhouse gases. They help regulate rainfall on which agriculture and coastal resources depend, and they are important to regional and global climate. Furthermore, tropical forests are breeding grounds for new medicines. Fully one quarter of prescription drugs come from tropical forests. Of the more than 3,000 plants the United States National Cancer Institute has identified, plants that are active against cancer, seventy percent of them can be found in tropical forests. Regrettably, these tropical forests are rapidly disappearing at an alarming rate of 38 million acres a year. The heavy debt burden of many countries with these forests is a contributing factor because often they must resort to exploitation of their natural resources (particularly the extraction of timber, oil, and precious metals) to generate revenue to service their external debt. At the same time, poor governments tend to have few resources available to set aside and protect tropical forests. In 1998, I introduced the Tropical Forest Conservation Act, TFCA, to address these economic pressures. This bipartisan legislation authorizes the President to allow eligible countries to engage in debt swaps, buybacks or restructuring in exchange for protecting threatened tropical forests on a sustained basis. Under this innovative debt treatment program, we have entered into agreements with Bangladesh, Belize, El Salvador, Panama, Peru, and the Philippines, which will generate over $60 million for tropical forest conservation in these countries. Three of the six agreements have included contributions from U.S. based non-government organizations, which augment debt reduction funds. The Nature Conservancy (TNC) contributed $1 million to the Belize agreement and, together with the World Wildlife Fund and Conservation International, $1.1 million to the Peru deal. TNC also contributed $1.2 million to the Panama agreement. Other agreements are in the pipeline with Colombia and Jamaica and negotiations will soon begin with Sri Lanka. And, I am delighted to report that many other countries, including Guatemala, Ecuador, Costa Rica and Paraguay have expressed interest in participating in the program. TFCA is a worthy program that is working well. The Bush Administration is a strong proponent of the Tropical Forest Conservation Act, and it has bipartisan support in the Congress. I again thank the leadership for providing the funding in this bill that will allow TFCA to continue to protect some of the world's most threatened natural resources. Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, it would appear because of the appropriations schedule we are going to have to play that by ear. We expect to bring the drug reimportation legislation to the floor next week, probably late next week, given the appropriations schedule. We are hoping to have as many as four appropriations bills on the floor next week, and so the timing of the drug reimportation bill will depend on the progress we make in the first few days in regard to the appropriations bills.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, it looks now as though it would be very difficult to avoid a Friday session. Looking at the legislation laid out, even if we are in late, it looks like Friday is more likely. It is likely that we will be here, and they should make travel plans accordingly.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, our intent was to a conference report before this House before the August recess. It is a very complicated bill, a very important issue, and perhaps the most important one that Congress will tackle this year. The conferees have met, and the staff is working. It looks as though it would be difficult to have legislation before us before the August recess. We do not want to rush this important bill or set arbitrary deadlines, but the conferees will continue to work and the staff will continue to work hard to reach agreement on as many issues as possible before the August recess.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, we did have a good debate on the floor the last night, the night before that, and I understand we may have another this afternoon. Some of the points made in those debates would reflect some of the difficulties of coming together with regard to this conference. The House bill, we believe, is more appropriate because it covers more families and more children, and we think it is fairer than the Senate bill. The Senate has a different point of view. We are still working out those difference. I cannot tell the gentleman when the conference will resolve those differences, but, as with Medicare, we are certainly hoping for a resolution as soon as possible, perhaps before the recess, but it is certainly not guaranteed.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. The House will convene on Monday at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour debates and 2 p.m. for legislative business, and will consider several measures under suspension of the rules. A final list of those measures will be sent to Members' offices by the end of the day. Any votes called on those measures will be rolled until 6:30 p.m. On Tuesday, we plan to consider the fiscal year 2004 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act. Next week we also expect to consider H.R. 2210, which is the School Readiness Act; H.R. 2738 and H.R. 2739, which is the U.S.-Chile and the U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement Implementation Acts; the fiscal year 2004 Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary and Related Agencies Appropriations Act; H.R. 2427, which is the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act; and H.R. 2765, the District of Columbia Appropriations Act. In addition to these bills, we also may consider the fiscal year 2004 VA-HUD Appropriations Act. Finally, I would like to note that we are expecting a busy week leading into this August recess. We are likely to work late some nights, including Friday evening, as we work to resolve these important pieces of legislation. I thank the gentleman for yielding and would be happy to answer any questions.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I do not know if a decision has been made on that yet. Apparently, there are over a dozen amendments, and the Committee on Rules has not made a decision yet with regard to the substitute or the rule.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 376 I inadvertently voted ``yes.'' I meant to vote ``no.'' Announcement By The Chairman

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1472.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would say that what the President would like to do is he would like to get this issue off the table and to provide this relief, both to working families who do pay income taxes, which is provided in our bill, but also to those folks who do not have income tax liability.

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

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague, and then I will yield back the time unless he says something so persuasive that I need to respond.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I will just make a couple of comments. To my colleague from Texas who said if we want to get this done and help these families, we need to follow these instructions, we do not. We need to go ahead and pass the legislation that came out of the House and the conference committee with the Senate and take it to the President and have the President sign the law. That would provide the relief not only to those people who have no income tax liability, but it would also provide relief to those who do have income tax liability. Does that not make sense? Under our legislation, yes, we raise the cap from $110,000 to $150,000; but anybody making over $150,000 as a family, a couple, gets no benefit from this, so this talk about tax cuts for the rich, I do not know where that comes from. It is for middle-income families, working families, all families who pay income taxes, plus for those families who do not have any income tax liability. If you follow the motion to instruct, if you follow the thinking of my friend from Texas, what you would do is make permanent out until 10 years, which is as permanent as we can make it, all of the income tax cuts for those who do not have any income tax liability, but you would not provide the same relief for people who have income tax liability, because guess what? That ends in 2005. So we would sunset in 2005 the tax cuts to people who have income tax liability, who are working every day, trying to make ends meet who, yes, make up to $150,000 and make $50,000, $60,000, $70,000 a year, two people working; we do not give them the 10-year relief, but we give it to folks who do not have income tax liability. Many people do not have payroll tax liability either. Now, we can argue about State taxes or property taxes, but I just think that is unfair, and that would be the result. You would be taking from people who do have income tax liability, and you would be giving it to people who do not. That is it. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) laughs, but it is true. Look at the language. Look at the legislation. That would be the result. Second, is this politics? Gee, I wonder. This went through the Committee on Ways and Means where I sit, it went through the House of Representatives where I vote, it went through the chairman's mark of the committee over in the Senate without a change in the refundability of the child credit. We kept current law, which is what? That people who make over $10,000 a year, instead of having 10 percent of that money be subject to a refundable child credit, it would go up to 15 percent. That is current law. It happens in 2005, it goes to 15 percent. That is all we are talking about here, remember. Under current law, those who do not have income tax liability get a refundable tax credit up to 10 percent now, and it goes up to 15 percent in 2005. The motion would say it should go to 15 percent now. Why was that not raised in the Committee on Ways and Means? Why was that not raised on the floor when we debated this issue? Why was it not in the chairman's mark in the Finance Committee in the Senate? It only came up in the Finance Committee deliberation when one Senator said, I am not going to vote for this bill unless you immediately increase it from 10 to 15 percent, even though, again, for those who do pay taxes and have income tax liability, it ends in 2005. So guess what? The Senate said, we have to have two votes. We will go ahead and add the 15 percent right now. Then what happened? That Senator did not vote for the bill. She decided for other reasons she was not going to vote for the bill anyway. Suddenly, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said, you have left people out, which is what they are saying tonight. We have somehow in the middle of the night as Republicans said we are going to hurt a certain group of people who do not have income tax liability. That is not how it happened, folks; and my colleagues know that is not how it happened. And for those colleagues on the other side who are on the Committee on Ways and Means, why was it not raised there? Why was it not raised on the floor? I think there is a little bit of politics here. I would just say two things: One, let us provide, as the House did, the immediate 15 percent; let us go ahead and do that and provide some stimulus. We said we were willing to do that. But let us not leave out the people who you are leaving out, and that is the people who work hard every day who do have income tax liability; folks in my district and yours who make $60,000 $70,000 a year, maybe a school teacher and a firefighter. We are saying to them, in 2005, yours will sunset; but for those folks who do not have income tax liability, we are going to go ahead and give them an additional amount of taxpayer money coming from those who do pay income taxes because, well, I guess it is the political season. The second point to be made is, is this politics? The way this thing happened, the way it has been described, I have to say I see a little bit of politics in it. My colleagues had the chance on the floor. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) did not raise it on the floor. We had the chance in committee. My colleagues did not raise it in committee. Suddenly, again, in the Senate, because it was added for someone who in the end did not vote for the bill, and therefore, it was removed because she was not voting for the bill, suddenly it is something that somehow nefariously it got left out. We did not leave anybody out. We left everybody in. Then the House came back and passed it and said, yes, let us help those in the military and those who make up to $150,000 a year. I think that is fair. I think the motion to instruct conferees is the wrong way to go. Let us go with regular order. Let us get the House-passed legislation to the President, he would sign it, it could become law, and all of these folks could benefit immediately from the tax relief.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, on July 14, 2003, I was unavoidably detained and missed the vote on rollcall No. 356 on H.R. 2673, the Fiscal Year 2004 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Carl G. Hartman who has served as Clermont County Engineer for the past 11 years and who retired on May 31, 2003. In his tenure, Carl has excelled as the Clermont County Engineer, accomplishing much for the county's roadways and infrastructure. When Carl was elected as the County Engineer in 1992, Clermont County was one of the fastest growing counties in Ohio presenting him with a variety of challenges. Carl faced those challenges and became the ``transportation engineer'' of Clermont County, expanding the role of county engineer beyond just the maintenance of the bridges and roadways. He had many accomplishments. He was able to secure funding and rebuild 75 bridges throughout the county. By working with local officials, he was able to pinpoint dangerous areas of the roadways and implement safety measures to secure the safety of travelers. In addition to his duties as county engineer, in 1996 Carl took on the role of Sanitary Engineer for the Clermont County Water and Sewer Department where he was responsible for handling over $5 million of capital improvement projects. His success is well known, and he has been honored by many of the industry's leaders for his outstanding work on the county's roadways and infrastructure. Carl grew up in Anderson Township and graduated from Anderson High School in 1956. He continued his education at the University of Cincinnati's College of Engineering. After receiving his degree, Carl worked for various engineering companies including Sun Oil Company, and in 1970 started his own engineering and surveying firm that served the Greater Cincinnati area. Starting with only two employees, Carl's successful business grew to 25 employees before he was elected the Clermont County Engineer. His service goes beyond his elected office. Carl is an active volunteer with the local 4-H Club, and helps the local Cub Scouts earn their Engineering Achievement Awards. He is devoted to his wife, Barbara, and they have three children and six grandchildren. All of us in the Greater Cincinnati area congratulate Carl on his service. We appreciate his outstanding leadership and dedication to the betterment of Clermont County, and we wish him well in his retirement.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to all of the employees, physicians, and volunteers of the Brown County General Hospital, which was recently recognized as one of the nation's top 100 hospitals according to a study conducted by a leading health care information organization. The study, 100 Top Hospitals: National Benchmarks for Success, utilized objective and quantitative data collected from over 5,600 hospitals nationwide in its analysis. Hospitals were evaluated in groups based on hospital size and teaching status. Brown County General Hospital, a medium sized hospital, has earned this designation because of its commitment to quality service and continual improvement. When the hospital was founded in 1952 it was a 50-bed facility providing emergency and maternity care. Since then, the hospital has expanded a great deal, providing the community with the most advanced medical technologies and one of the first home care units in Ohio. Today, the hospital is a 115-bed facility with two regional healthcare centers that offer a wide variety of services to Brown County and the surrounding area. After 50 years of operation, the hospital continues to be a community-owned not-for-profit facility. It is Brown County's largest employer with over 300 employees that are known for their high level of patient care, having been named one of the nation's top patient satisfaction providers. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in recognizing Brown County General Hospital for being named one of the nation's top 100 hospitals. All of us in southern Ohio are thankful for the outstanding service and dedication of its employees, volunteers, and community members.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in supper of provisions in H.R. 1, The Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act, that are designed to address the special pharmacy needs of beneficiaries residing in nursing homes. Nursing home residents are not in a position to fill prescriptions like everyone else. They cannot simply walk into a pharmacy and have their prescription filled. Many nursing home residents, because of their physical or mental condition, are not able to take their prescription drugs on their own, especially if they have to take multiple medications throughout the day. Their unique circumstances require specialized pharmacy care that retail and mail order pharmacies do not provide. Long-term care pharmacies meet these special needs. They contract with nursing homes to provide specialized packaging, 24- hour delivery, infusion therapy services, geriatric-specific formularies, clinical consultation and other services that are critical to a nursing home. Importantly, long-term pharmacies play a critical role in preventing medication errors that add to the cost of care and suffering of Medicare patients. In fact, one study estimates $3.6 billion in medication errors have been avoided as a result of long term pharmacy care. I believe it makes sense to preserve specialty pharmacies' ability to perform these vital services for nursing home residents, and I want to point out how H.R. 1 does this. First, the bill requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to review the current standards of practice for pharmacy services provide to patients in nursing facilities. Prior to implementation of the prescription drug benefit, the Secretary will submit its findings to Congress on how long-term pharmacy services will be available to nursing home residents, including appropriate reimbursement levels for the specialty pharmacies that currently serve these nursing home residents. The Secretary's report is to include a detailed description of its plans to implement the provisions of this legislation in a manner consistent with state and federal laws designed to protect the safety and quality of care of nursing facility patients. Second, H.R. 1 directs plan sponsors to implement medication therapy management programs as a tool to reduce medication errors and improve patient outcomes. Long-term care pharmacies currently employ such initiatives to meet the complex medication needs of nursing facility patients, and the bill appropriately allows plan sponsors' programs to distinguish between services provided in ambulatory and institutional settings. Finally, the bill includes provisions to ensure that beneficiaries are guaranteed access to pharmacy services, including emergency services. These provisions are vitally important to maintain the high standard of care for all beneficiaries, but particularly for patients in nursing facilities, who receive specialized pharmacy services 25 hours-a-day, seven days-a-week, through networks of long-term care pharmacies that contract with nursing facilities to meet their patients' needs. Mr. Speaker, I believe these long-term pharmacy provisions take a significant step toward ensuring that our nation's most frail and elderly citizens will have affordable, appropriate prescription drugs and delivery services.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, it has been a very interesting debate, too, as you listen to this debate tonight. We had 3 hours of good debate on the Republican legislation, the underlying bill which provides historic prescription drug coverage and does so within the budget. Now is the opportunity for the Democrats to talk about their substitute. So what is your idea? And you know what we are having? More discussion of the underlying legislation. Again, historic legislation to add prescription drug coverage that is within the budget. The Democrats are not talking about their bill. It adds $1 trillion to the deficit. That busts our budget. It busts their budget. In fact, it busts both budgets combined. The Democrat legislation does so by loading up the bill, not by helping those seniors who need it the most. The underlying legislation provides for about 30 percent of the seniors that need it most, those under 150 percent of poverty, no deduction, no deductible, no cost sharing, a simple copay when you go to the pharmacy, total subsidy for the prescription drug coverage. Instead, the Democrat plan by going to a trillion dollars would provide coverage for those who do not even need it. It sounds like what they accuse Republicans of. I was really interested to see, when you look at page 12 of the Democrat bill, there is also something else interesting. They say we do not provide guaranteed access. We do provide guaranteed access. The government actually steps in when there are not plans available, negotiates down the risk which assures coverage. If you look at page 12, what does the Democrat plan do? It says, ``The Secretary shall develop procedures to ensure coverage.'' That will give you some comfort. I can see why they are not talking about their legislation. I would not either. Vote for the underlying bill. Vote down this substitute that they will not talk about.