Rob Portman

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Cincinnati Tennis Club, which is celebrating its 120th anniversary. The Club was founded in 1880, just 5 years after tennis was introduced in the United States. It has a rich history. The Cincinnati Tennis Club played a central role in making the sport of tennis a success in our Nation, and has operated from its East Walnut Hills location for over 100 years. It was one of our nation's first venues for tennis, and, because of its historic impact on the game, was listed in 1983 in the National Register of Historic Places by the U.S. Department of the Interior for its leadership in the development and advancement of the sport of tennis in Cincinnati and the Ohio Valley Area. Over the years, the Club has been the place where several nationally and internationally recognized tennis players, including legendary greats such as Tony Trabert and Bill Talbert, developed their games. The Club also has been the home club for numerous leaders of the sport and leaders of our country, including William Howard Taft, 27th President of the United States and later Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court; Potter Stewart, Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court; and Neil McElroy, Secretary of Defense in the Eisenhower administration. The Club has hosted a number of tournaments and events for the Cincinnati area. For 28 years, it has served as the venue for the National Father and Son Clay Court Championships and also served as the original home of what became the ATP Masters Tournament, one of the top professional men's tennis events in the world. Mr. Speaker, the Cincinnati Tennis Club has had a significant, positive impact on the sport of tennis and the Cincinnati area. We are proud to have had such a distinguished club in our area for the past 120 years and look forward to many more years. I hope my colleagues will join me in recognizing its unique and invaluable contributions to the game and Cincinnati community.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, the legislation before the Committee contains important improvements in taxpayer rights and IRS accountability. This bill is very similar to legislation approved by the House twice in 2002. Practically all the taxpayer provisions in the bill are based on recommendations by the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Treasury Department, the IRS, the National Taxpayer Advocate, and on hearings held by the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight during the past several years. The provisions also are consistent with, and in some cases are a refinement of, the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 that enacted important taxpayer protections and reforms of the IRS. Just to mention some of the provisions in the bill before us today: 1. It encourages greater use of the more efficient electronic filing by taxpayers. 2. It authorizes more support for Low Income Taxpayer Clinics to help provide legal assistance to more low-income citizens involved in disputes with the IRS. 3. It ensures that taxpayers receive the confidentiality they deserve, by reforming the punishment for code of conduct violations by IRS employees, and providing for dismissal of IRS staff who browse tax records without authorization. 4. It adjusts the so-called ``ten deadly sins'' in other ways to give the Commissioner more discretion. 5. It reforms penalty and interest provisions by raising the safe harbor for failure to pay estimated taxes and allowing taxpayers to enter into installment agreements for less than the full amount of their tax liability, and it includes many other pro-taxpayer provisions. The bill has a small revenue impact. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that it will raise $607 million over 5 years and lose $352 million over 10 years. Our colleagues, Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Amo Houghton and ranking member Earl Pomeroy played key roles in constructing this legislation and we appreciate their efforts. One new provision allows individuals greater access to the healthcare tax credit previously adopted as part of the Trade Act. Individuals would be permitted to waive certain requirements in TAA and thus receive coverage under state based healthcare plans. This is a short transition measure, effective for less than two years, and will increase the availability of qualified health insurance for individuals who would otherwise not have access to such coverage. Another new provision would extend the joint House-Senate review of the Internal Revenue Service. Let me provide some details on this provision, as it was not considered in the Ways and Means Committee. This legislation would reauthorization for 5 additional years, the annual joint review of the strategic plans and budget of the IRS. Unlike other federal agencies, the IRS is subject to oversight by six committees of Congress and the Joint Committee on Taxation. The National Commission on Restructuring the IRS, that I co-chaired, recognized that the IRS would be better managed if the committees that share primary jurisdiction over the IRS budget and IRS administration coordinated their efforts. The Joint Review grew out of a recommendation by the National Commission. While the Joint Review has met the objective of coordinating Congressional oversight of the IRS, the original legislation imposed a burden on the Joint Committee on Taxation to report on every aspect of the IRS's budget and strategic plans on an annual basis, even when the Joint Review hearing has focused on a more narrow set of issues. The reauthorizing language that is included in this legislation therefore allows the JCT to confine its annual report to the issues addressed at the annual Joint Review hearing. It is anticipated that the topics to be addressed at the Joint Review will be decided well in advance of the annual hearing by the JCT Chairman, in consultation with the staff of the JCT and the six participating committees. I believe it is important to continue the joint review, and this provision will increase the focus on key areas of the IRS that need attention by the relevant committees of Congress. In summary, Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation that promotes common sense solutions to some of the most frustrating and time-consuming aspects of our tax system.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the substitute.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I think we have seen why this effort today is more politics than it is practical. We are now talking about Iraq. We have loaded this bill up with Iraq, and somehow that is going to get through the Senate. The reality is we have about 160 pages of new provisions here that have not been through the Committee on Ways and Means process, have not been reported out of the Senate Finance Committee; and they are, therefore, going to drag down all of the other good legislation in the underlying bill. We are talking about the substitute for good legislation. The gentleman from Washington has talked about the child credit. Here is the reality. If we really want the child credit to get resolved, to be sure we were giving fair and balanced relief to families with kids, Members would not tack it onto this, raising every issue from inversions to Iraq. Members would instead want to make that a streamlined process, as we did here in the House recently where we said we ought to be able to provide people who do not have Federal income tax liability with a little help, more help than we are already giving them because all those families already get help, thanks to Republicans, because in 2001 we passed tax legislation that for the first time ever, unlike what the Democrats did for the previous 40-plus years when they controlled this place, we provided tax credits that were refundable to people who do not pay Federal income taxes. The Democrats are saying now we ought to increase that refundability, which is scheduled to happen anyway in 2005, and instead what we ought to do, we ought not provide relief to people who do pay income taxes. That is absurd. We ought to do both. We are willing to increase it to 15 percent, but for the Democrats to say but if you pay income taxes, you do not get the $1,000 credit, that makes no sense at all. That is what they want to do. Anyhow, that issue should not be on this bill because this bill has now become so complicated with this Democrat substitute that it would, if the Democrat substitute passed, not be able to make it through the Senate. The underlying legislation here is the result of years of work by people who are concerned about ordinary taxpayers and how to make our tax system work better. That is what it is. It is great legislation. The provision the gentleman criticized earlier is from the bipartisan, bicameral joint tax committee. There are anti-abuse provisions in it. He misreads the provision or he thinks it is not good law because he thinks taxpayers ought to be saddled with more liability than they should be. Let me talk about some of the great provisions that are in here that would not happen if this substitute goes through because we are not going to get this bill through if the substitute is part of it. We would not have an end to this first time penalty. Right now, even the most conscientious taxpayers who put a $1.40 stamp on their tax return envelope rather than $1.50, those people now end up having a penalty against them for minor errors, and we would not be able to fix that if the substitute goes through. Second, there would be no relief on the estimated tax penalty. We would still have people who are charged interest and have to pay tax, additional interest and penalties just for how they quarterly file their taxes. There would be no simplified filing for family businesses. There would be no prohibition and increased penalties for unauthorized browsing. How could Members be against that? Do Members think the IRS employees ought to be able to browse? And with regard to the so-called 10 deadly sins, we help the IRS and its employees to improve morale by reforming that and doing what the IRS commissioners strongly believe we ought to do, give them some flexibility. Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is we ought not to take these good provisions down because of a health care credit. All it does is provide 12,000 families with the ability to access health care, that and the good IRS provisions ought to go. The substitute ought to be voted down. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the substitute and yes on the underlying bill.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), my colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I find the gentlewoman's comments a little puzzling listening because on the one hand, my colleagues are arguing it was wrong to put the important health care credit into the IRS reforms which are so important and so widely viewed as popular and the appropriate thing to do, and then the gentlewoman is saying but let us add something else to this mix, another 160 pages of controversial, and for a large part of them, untested, proposals. None of these substitute proposals to my knowledge have been reported out of the Senate Finance Committee. They have not even dealt with inversions, for instance. We have legislation sitting over there in the energy bill for weeks and so the gentlewoman says, well, we need to add child credit to this to get it done. If you want the child credit issue to be resolved, and our side on the aisle, agree it ought to be resolved. In fact, we came up with a good balanced proposal to provide relief who do not have any income tax liability, have no federal income tax liability, to increase an existing 10 percent refundable credit for the child care that is going to the same families now. We said it ought to be taken to 15 percent immediately rather than waiting until 2005, when it is going to happen anyway. We said, if you are going to make that permanent, the 15 percent on the refundable side, again, for people who do not have Federal income tax liability, and many of whom do not have payroll tax liability, then at the least, we ought to be sure that those people who do have Federal income tax liability have their $1,000 credit which we have now provided them until 2005, to continue as well, at least until 2010. The President wanted to continue it until 2013. We said, as a balance, let us go ahead with the child credit for the refundable part and let us go ahead with making sure that those who do pay income taxes also get some benefit after 2005 as we would be doing for those who do not have income tax liabilities. We think that is a fair and balanced proposal. That has just been sent over to the Senate and it is being worked out between the House and the Senate. Conferees are being named. We are trying to work through this process to try to get to a solution to resolve the child credit issue. And yet the gentlewoman says, this will make more sense to get it resolved to add it to these extremely controversial, as we will talk about in a moment, and untested proposals that have not even been reported out of the Senate Finance Committee, much less subject to hearings, and none have been reported out of the Committee on Ways and Means. I do not know how that helps us get on to child credit. Let me talk about some of the other provisions the gentlewoman talked about. The next provision was the inversion provision. Well, as the gentleman from Massachusetts, who spoke about inversion knows, we also passed an inversion provision on this floor and we included it in legislation that is sitting in the Senate, which provides specifically for a 2-year moratorium on inversions. We think that is the right way to go. There is some bipartisan support for that. The gentleman, instead is saying, let us go ahead and load up this bill with something more controversial that provides for a retroactive provision under inversion. So it would actually undue transaction which were entered into lawfully 30 or 40 years ago and you are now going back and penalizing. We have dealt with the inversion issue. We have done it in a bipartisan way. It had some bipartisan support. And here we come up with this new idea again which would actually be retroactive on perfectly legal transactions. We do not think that is the right way to go. Instead, we think we ought to be having a moratorium in place and looking at the underlying causes as to why companies leave the United States. We are doing that very aggressively. Maybe too aggressively for some on both sides of the aisle. But in the fixed ETI bill, which deals with particularly the Europeans, but more generally our competitive position as Americans, it takes very aggressive action and it is going through the process of hearings now and will be before this Congress, I believe, in the next month, which says let us deal with the underlying causes. Why do companies leave? We do not want foreign corporations to come buy our companies. I personally believe that would be the result of the inversion provision that is in this substitute. Rather, let us deal with these underlying causes. Let us make it better for companies to stay here, employ American workers, stay headquartered in this country. Finally, there has been a lot of discussion about the refundable tax credit that is in the underlying bill and why that is not a good idea. Again, it deals with the very simple issue of 12,000 families cannot get health care unless we do this. We want to provide health care. Do a bridge program. We dealt with three concerns that were raised in the Committee on Ways and Means by the other side of the aisle. Those issues have been addressed. It is still not acceptable to some of my colleagues. I understand that. But in terms of the legislation, the gentleman from Michigan earlier said that it allows people to go to the individual market and that is wrong. It does not. That is the point. It continues to require they go to the State options. That is what the Democrats in the Senate insisted on back in 2002. That is what we are sticking to. If that were not the case, if we were allowing people to go to the individual market, we would not have a problem here, would we? The problem is that up to 21 States have not changed their State plans adequately to allow people who have been displaced because of trade to be able to access health care. So we are saying during a bridge while those State gets up to speed and make their programs compliant, we ought to allow them to have access to health care. The State options, again, was not something that we particularly felt was the best policy, but it was something that was insisted upon. Now let us make it work. That is all we are saying. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), the Chair of the Subcommittee on Health.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in part to remind us as to where we are in this process. Yesterday we talked about the underlying legislation, which is a very good combination of taxpayer protections and health care protections for workers. I think it would be helpful to start by reviewing that, only because I think by adding this substitute, we would jeopardize so many of those good provisions. Yesterday, we talked a little about the importance of moving quickly on those provisions. After all, these are the result of over 2 years of work by the Taxpayer Advocate, by the Internal Revenue Service, by the Treasury Department itself, and by the Committee on Ways and Means, based on oversight hearings, to basically strengthen and protect the rights of average, honest taxpayers. Let me give you an example of some the things in the underlying legislation. It prohibits IRS employees from unauthorized browsing of tax returns. We do have a series of prohibitions in the Code. This is not one of them. It would now make browsing of your tax return or mine part of those prohibitions. This is very important, and, again, it is based on good testimony we have had from the IRS and some obvious problems that have resulted from unauthorized browsing. It also simplifies tax filing in a number of ways. One I really like is it helps the mom-and-pop businesses of America. It says that now- married spouses would be allowed to file a sole proprietor return who are in business, which is a Schedule C, instead of a partnership return. This is far simpler. It allows for spouses to account separately for their respective self-employment income from the business. It allows family businesses to take full advantage, therefore, of Social Security and Medicare, and, at the same time, greatly simplify tax filing. Again, this comes out of hard work by people at the Joint Tax Committee, at the Treasury Department and elsewhere, to try to figure out ways to simplify our current system. It also, very importantly, extends the filing deadline for E-filers to April 30. This one is not only added to, therefore making it more difficult to enact, but it is actually substituted, it is replaced, it is eliminated in the substitute. Let me just talk about that for a second. It says if you are willing to be an E-filer, you have until April 30. Why is this so important? It is important because we need to add another incentive to encourage people to electronically file. Electronic filing is in the interests of taxpayers, and it is in the interests of the IRS. This is something over the last 6 years as we have reviewed the IRS through a commission, and then through the legislative process, we had a total consensus on, that it is absolutely critical that we encourage electronic filing. We have gone from 15 percent to about 41 percent, but the Congressionally set goal of 80 percent electronic filing is not going to make it unless we provide some new incentives. This is one well worth undertaking. Why? Right now there is about a 22 percent error rate, Mr. Speaker, if you can believe it, when you file your tax return by paper. Twenty- two percent of the time there is an error. That is unacceptable to any of us. Eleven percent of that error, half of it, is caused by the IRS, largely transposing numbers, where they take a paper return and transpose the numbers from paper on to a computer. That does not happen with electronic filing, obviously, because you are electronically filing straight into the computer. Second, the other 11 percent, about half, is caused by the taxpayer. Electronic filing, the error rate is far less than 1 percent. This obviously saves the IRS a lot of money and is very good for the tax system, because you are going to have fewer people who will be filing by paper and, therefore, fewer IRS employees are necessary and great efficiencies are put in place at less than half the cost to the IRS. But, more important to me, is it helps the taxpayers dramatically. Think of the downstream costs when there is a error, when you get that letter from the IRS saying we have got an error in your return. You think you did it right, it turns out you did it right, but because of the error, you then get into sometimes a long, protracted back and forth with the IRS. Sometimes it becomes quite controversial and adds up with interest and penalties and so on. So electronic filing has to be encouraged, and I am concerned that the substitute takes this out altogether. By the way, this program we just put in place for 3 years, so we try it as a pilot. Any other ideas we would welcome. At our bipartisan hearings, we had a lot of discussion about this, and we talked about a lot of ideas. This is one where we seemed to have reached a consensus. The underlying bill also allows taxpayers who otherwise pay nothing to be able to settle their debts with the IRS over a period of time without being forced to pay the entire amount. Again, this comes from a careful vetting with the Joint Tax Committee and the IRS. It is a partial pay installment plan which will help us get through a lot of the existing controversies out there with the IRS. It is a common sense solution to some big collection problems that the IRS is now facing, so they can devote more of their resources toward enforcement and toward collection, and not so much resources in trying to resolve some of these very tough accounts. It also allows the IRS to waive what are now unfair penalties for honest taxpayers who make innocent mistakes. For example, if a taxpayer mails his return in on April 15, as he or she should, with a check, and the check is for the right amount, the balance due, but he mistakenly puts on only $1.40 in postage rather than $1.50 in postage, instead of being assessed a failure to file penalty, which can add up to thousands of dollars, under this legislation the IRS could waive those penalties for taxpayers, those who have a good history of compliance. It is a common sense provision that will help taxpayers. Again, it is long overdue and is supported by the IRS. We also importantly increase the funding for low income taxpayer clinics. This is something we started back in the reforms of 1998. They have worked. These low income taxpayer clinics help with regard to individuals who have a controversy with the IRS. We increase the authorization in this legislation to $9 million for 2004, $12 million for 2005 and $15 million for 2006 and subsequent years. We also provide for additional help here to help individuals for whom English is a second language to be able to deal better with the IRS. I like these taxpayer clinics, they are working well, and again, this is something that would be jeopardized in the underlying legislation by loading it up with much more controversial items that have not been vetted. Finally, the gentleman from Washington mentioned the health care credit waiver. The problem with not having this in place is that 12,000 families are not going to be able to get health care, and that is based on the Joint Tax estimate. All we are saying is we had provisions in place in the Trade Act to allow these people to access health care with a 65 percent refundable credit, but, unfortunately, probably up to 21 States, maybe not that many, but some States, up to 21 States, are not going to have provisions in place to allow them to access that, because we require there be State plans, we require there be certain provisions in these plans, and not all of these States have gone to those provisions yet. We want simply an 18-month bridge to be sure these 12,000 families can get their health care. That seems to me to be a reasonable solution. In the Committee on Ways and Means, we had a lot of discussion about this. I think the Committee on Ways and Means majority and majority staff worked in a responsible way to try to address those concerns. We changed the legislation between the time it was reported out of committee and now in a few significant ways, including making it only 18 months, making it truly a bridge, including limiting the provisions to just two, guaranteed issue and preexisting conditions, and I think this is an improvement in the legislation. We also said it would not apply to those States where they did have a compliant plan. So it really narrowed it and limited it in response to specific concerns raised by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and I think that should be taken into account as we look at this legislation today, because we did go to the extra mile to try to meet those concerns. The bottom line for me, Mr. Speaker, is that this is great legislation, the underlying legislation. The substitute adds, as I count it, another 160 pages to this legislation, which is only 75 pages in the underlying bill, maybe more than that, because it cuts out some of the 75 pages. By adding all these new provisions, most of which have really not been vetted, we are really again jeopardizing the good legislation that is in here. I am going to later talk about some of the provisions that are in the substitute that actually trouble me. It is not just new provisions that have not been vetted, but some are bad policy, in my view, particularly with regard to the earned income tax the gentleman talked about. We now have a 30 percent error rate, we are told by GAO. It was 25 percent the last time I looked. Now they say it is 30 percent. Even 25 percent, that is wholly unacceptable. I think that is agreed to, I would hope, on both sides of the aisle. A 25, 30 percent error rate, we are talking about $10 billion a year is mispaid under the EITC. Now, if we had a 25 or 30 percent error rate, even a 10 percent error rate in a social welfare program, we would be up in arms, as would the States. It is outrageous. There is no program that has that kind of error rate. Yet we are putting up with a 25 percent or 30 percent, we are told 30 percent by GAO, error rate in the Earned Income Tax Credit, and at a minimum, I think the IRS should be given the flexibility to be able to work towards some kind of a system where you are certifying whether people actually qualify for the credit or not. I would love to hear the ideas from the other side of the aisle as to what they would do about this. I think this is one where if continue to ignore it, continue to say no, we are going to tie the IRS's hands, even when they show flexibility as to how they are going to deal with it, what is going to happen? You are going to lose tremendous support for the EITC. I can tell you my constituents back home, who are Federal income taxpayers who support the EITC through their Federal taxes they send to Washington, even if they think the EITC is generally a good idea, they are not going to think that if they believe that 30 percent of that money is being misspent. Some of it is fraud, some of it is because it is too complicated. But at a minimum, we should give the IRS the tools to be able to go and reduce that error rate. Otherwise we have to figure out another way to support people who are working who want to be able offset their payroll taxes and other taxes, because some people who get the EITC have their entire income tax offset, their entire payroll tax offset, and they are still collecting EITC. We need to be sure that program is working and working well if we are going to have it continue to be strongly supported by the folks who do pay income taxes, and others, who look at this and say this is unacceptable. So I would hope that that provision would not be included in a substitute. Mr. Speaker, I will talk about more of the other provisions as we proceed with the debate. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), my colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of H.R. 1528, the bill just passed.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the Village of Ripley, the Parker Society and author Ann Hagedorn, for working so tirelessly to commemorate the lives and stories of people who risked life and property for the cause of freedom: the conductors on the Underground Railroad. The Village of Ripley and Ann Hagedorn were honored during the Salute to Trailblazers Underground Railroad event on Capitol Hill in March. The Village of Ripley is in Brown County, Ohio, which I represent. It is home to two former conductors on the Underground Railroad, Presbyterian minister Reverend John Rankin, and freed slave, John Parker. Both the Rankin house and Parker house have been restored and help tell the story of how hundreds of slaves escaped via the Underground Railroad. Today in Ripley, the Parker Historical Society is comprised of many dedicated people, committed to preservation of the homes, artifacts, and stories of the brave people who believed so strongly in freedom for all. The mission of the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center, located in Cincinnati, Ohio, is to educate the public about the struggle to abolish slavery and secure freedom for all people. For many years, the Parker Society has worked tirelessly to restore the John Parker House, collecting artifacts, and recounting the life and history of John Rankin, John Parker, and the heroes of the Underground Railroad. Ann Hagedorn's recent book, Beyond The River, recounts in gripping detail the history of bravery and determined resolve of ordinary people who accomplished extraordinary deeds. The Brown County Commissioners had extraordinary vision and were particularly supportive of the Parker Society's restoration efforts. All of us in Southwest Ohio join in congratulating the Village of Ripley, the Parker Society, Ann Hagedorn, and the Brown County Commissioners for their vision in keeping the heroic stories of the Underground Railroad alive.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the All- American Tax Relief Act of 2003. This is a balanced approach to extending tax relief to America's families. This tax package not only gives relief to American families that need a helping hand, but it also provides fair tax relief to military families and young married couples. Tax relief to military families, Mr. Speaker, who sacrifice so much to protect and contribute to our American way of life. Tax relief to young married couples, Mr. Speaker, who are just starting out and building a family of their own. We have heard the Democrats all day say that Republicans are giving more tax breaks to the rich . . . Well I don't know about you, Mr. Speaker, but I don't know too many military families or young married couples that I would call rich. Two weeks ago, the Democrats said we were providing too much tax relief to American families, then last week the Democrats said we were not giving enough tax relief to American families, and, as we have heard here time and time again today, the Democrats now say we are once again giving too much tax relief to American families. I say to my friends across the aisle, which is it? I also say to my friends across the aisle, stop playing politics with the American people's money. The All-American Tax Relief Act of 2003 is a balanced approach to providing tax relief to families with children. Every parent knows there is always another pair of sneakers to buy, or another text book or calculator to buy and this bill gives parents more of the money they earn to spend it on the needs they have. This bill brings long overdue tax fairness to America's military families. No longer will the surviving family members of soldiers that lost their lives protecting this country have to be taxed for the money they receive for their loved ones' sacrifice. No longer will military families be taxed on assistance they receive when their home values drop because Congress closes bases. No longer, Mr. Speaker, will our military Reservists be prevented from deducting travel expenses incurred by serving this country. The All-American Tax Relief Act of 2003 does just what it says; it provides balanced tax relief to all of America's families. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and I urge the Democrats to stop listening to their pollsters and start listening to the many Americans that not only want, but need tax relief. This is not an issue to play politics with; this is an issue to provide leadership on.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding service of Susan Laffoon, a friend and distinguished constituent, who is stepping down from her duties as Vice President for Public Affairs at the Greater Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce on June 13, 2003. Susan is a Cincinnati native, graduated from the University of Cincinnati with a BA in History, and has served our community with distinction all her adult life. For over a quarter century, Susan has dedicated herself to the Greater Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce, where her accomplishments are impressive. She began at the Chamber in 1977 as a Specialist for Minority Business Development, took over as Program Director for Leadership Cincinnati in 1978, and became Group Executive for Administration in 1982. In 1984, she was promoted to Vice President of Government and Community Affairs. Her title changed in 2002 to Vice President, Public Affairs. In 1997, Susan was appointed Acting President of the Chamber for three months. Her commitment to the Chamber and our community is outstanding. Michael Fisher, the Chamber's President and CEO, says it best: ``Susan leads by example in her collaborative style, willingness to go the extra mile, and enthusiasm for her work. She has built strong relationships with key volunteers, government officials and her staff. Equally important, she has helped deliver impressive results for our region--from State Capital bill funding wins to revised environmental policies that better balance the needs of all stakeholders.'' In addition to her service at the Chamber, Susan has been active with a number of other important community organizations. Past and current leadership posts include: Trustee of the United Way and Community Chest of Greater Cincinnati; Trustee of WGUC-FM; founding Trustee and officer of the Cincinnati Horticultural Society; Trustee and alumna of the Seven Hills School; Trustee of the American Red Cross, Cincinnati Area Chapter; and Trustee of the Cincinnati Arts Festival, Inc. Susan also has been Trustee of the Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra for 20 years, and has given a great deal of time (over 15 years) to the Fine Arts Fund, where she was elected a Life Trustee last year. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in recognizing Susan's many accomplishments as she steps down as Vice President for Public Affairs at the Greater Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce on June 13, 2003. I know Susan will continue to make a difference in our community. All of us in the Cincinnati area thank her for her dedication to improving our community and wish her the very best in her future endeavors.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. I thank the Chair. As we know, several States and the District of Columbia have State lotteries that fund education and other State needs. In these States, the lotteries operate under a strict set of State rules. Is it the gentleman's understanding, again, that H.R. 2143 is not intended to prohibit the use of electronic fund transfers, ACH transactions, checks or other bank instruments to pay for lottery play within the boundaries of a State within which the lot is located?

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, first I would like to engage the chairman in a brief colloquy and say that I commend him for his very important work on this legislation, which I strongly support. As the chairman is aware, there are legitimate businesses Ohio and elsewhere that provide legal, skill-based Internet games, such as Monopoly and Boggle. Is it the gentleman's understanding that H.R. 2143 is not intended to apply to these games of skill that are played, created, or distributed over the Internet and which do not involve the risk of something of value?

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

Mr. PORTMAN. Again, I commend the chairman for his good work on this legislation. I hope he can beat back the amendments.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, as an original co-sponsor of the Partial- Birth Abortion Ban Act, I want to express my strong support for outlawing the troublesome practice of partial-birth abortions. Opponents of the ban suggest that partial-birth abortions are needed to protect mothers with pregnancy-related complications, but this argument simply does not hold up to the testimony of abortion providers and medical experts. Former Surgeon General of the United States C. Everett Koop has said that there is ``no way'' he can see a medical necessity for this barbaric procedure. The American Medical Association's legislative council has unanimously supported the partial-birth abortion ban. Mr. Speaker, I ask you: What will future generations think of a society that allows this practice? For the moral health of our country, and for future generations, we should take action today to ban partial- birth abortions. Congress has the opportunity today to do the right thing by banning partial-birth abortions. We have a duty to protect the unborn from this horrific procedure. I hope my colleagues will listen to their consciences and vote to make partial-birth abortions illegal once and for all.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am interested to know that Warren Buffett has become the icon of the Democrat Party. I hope he will use all that money that he is going to get from this tax bill to invest. I was just informed that he just started a new business in Texas, a retail store, where he is going to employ 100 people. That is what we want him to do with the money. That is the idea. This is all about jobs and savings and investment. We have heard a lot of conversation tonight about how it is going to grow the deficit. When I was first elected after 40 years of Democrat control, our deficit was about 4.7 percent of our budget. This year even if we take the figures of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), which I think are pessimistic because he does not see the growth that comes out of this bill, it will be about 3 percent of our budget. Every economist will tell you, right, left or center, what is important is what is it as a percentage of our economy, how much of our economy is represented by deficit. How do we get out of that? Let us go back to the gentleman from Maryland's history. I was not here when John Kennedy was elected. I did not know him. I was here in 1997 when this House courageously passed the balanced budget agreement. I did see John Kasich down there on the floor talking about the need to keep our spending under control. You know what he did? He said, we are going to try to get to a balanced budget, if we can, by the year 2002. We all applauded because we were spending too much money, and we needed to get our budget under control. Just restrain spending. What happened? Two years later, by 1999, we did not have a deficit. The next year we had a surplus. Why did it happen? It happened because the economy grew, because we had more savings and more investment, and that is what is lacking right now. If we ask the economists, Alan Greenspan, and say did the 2001 tax cuts help? It made us have the most shallow recession in history rather than a deep recession. If we ask people what is going to happen when we provide more capital to small business to expand plant and equipment and create more jobs, they are going to say it is not only going to create over 1.2 million jobs within the next year, it is going to create more revenue for the Federal Government. We are not cutting our budget, Mr. Speaker. Our budget is going to be about 4 percent. What we are doing is we are creating growth in this bill. What we are doing is in this bill we are creating jobs and growth and opportunity, increasing consumer demand, increasing business investment. We can differ on what this bill is going to create in terms of the numbers of jobs, but I have not heard one economist say it is not going to create jobs. And that is what we are going to do in this bill, 1.2 million jobs. It is all about jobs. It is all about growth. It is not about Warren Buffett. It is about the small business people out there who are going to creating those jobs that are going to make America a better country.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Johnson for yielding me this time, and I thank him for his work both on the Committee on Ways and Means and on the Committee on Education and the Workforce on this very important issue of helping people save more for their retirement. I have not been here to hear all the debate today, but I understand there has been a lot of discussion of investment advice; and I did hear someone say, gee, did we forget about WorldCom and Enron. No, we did not. The lesson of so much of what has happened in the last couple of years is the need for more investment advice and, in particular, more diversification. And I know on the other side of the aisle there are those who share that view strongly. We may disagree on how to do it, but to say this legislation is somehow to encourage people to get stuck in pension plans they do not want to be in with corporate stock they do not want is exactly the opposite. In fact, what this legislation says is that we are going to change the rules so that, number one, for people who end up with matching stock from a company because they are in a 401(k) plan or some other kind of defined contribution plan, those people can get out of that stock. They are not told they have to stay in it. In Enron, matching stock could not be sold until an employee was 50 years old and had 10 years of service. In other words, people got stuck with the stock. So when Enron's stock went down, that is all they had in their retirement plan. And it is horrible because they are left with nothing. We are saying, instead, after the vesting period, which is only 3 years, those people should be able to diversify out of that stock. That is a good idea, and it is a new idea this Congress has voted on last year; but it is a change in current law and a very important one. Secondly, we say people should have more information, so when you get into a plan, you have to have notice from the employer saying diversification is a good thing. You ought to diversify. And on a quarterly basis you are now going to be able to get information you cannot get now as a participant in the plan, as an employee. So these are all good things that are in this legislation. Again, it has passed the Congress before with very strong bipartisan support. This is something we should have done last year but could not get that part through the other body. Hopefully we will be able to do that this year because it all makes sense. And it does relate directly to the scandals of the last couple of years. The final piece of this is investment advice. This legislation picks up something that was in the Portman-Cardin legislation, which allows people to take pretax money and apply it toward retirement planning. What does that mean? Well, I think the next frontier in terms of helping people save more for retirement is in part better educating the consumer, educating people who are in these plans as to the need to diversify and to diversify wisely depending on their situation in life. Some people want to be in riskier investments because they are younger and want to build up that nest egg; others, closer to retirement, will want to be in something less risky. Folks need to be able to adjust. They need the information, the advice, the help. So this lets people take, on a pretax basis, purchase investment advice. It is like a cafeteria plan, or some other plan that people might want to take at their place of business. This is a good idea. Not everybody will take advantage of it. But investment advice is expensive. This lets people take that pretax dollar and apply it towards investment advice. I hope there is not disagreement on that on a bipartisan basis. I think it is a good use of our Tax Code. I think it is a good way to get over that hump and to get people better educated. The second piece in this advice legislation, which I think has had more discussion today, is the question of should companies be able to bring in advisers to advise their employees. Again, the situation is people are not getting the education information they need. How can they get that good advice? This says let us give those companies the ability to do that, but let us establish some rules. Number one, people have to be certified; they have to be qualified to do it. That is in the legislation. It is good that that is in the statute. Second, let us establish a fiduciary relationship that this adviser would have to the individual employees who would be advised and consulted with. That means the person giving advice would be personally liable if that person were to do something that would create a problem for that participant. Finally, it says that you have to disclose any potential conflict of interest. So if there is any potential conflict, in other words if you are giving advice, such as you should buy this particular kind of mutual fund or this one, and that person sells that mutual fund, you have to advise the person of any potential conflict of interest. Now, we may be able to work over time to make this a better approach in terms of that specific issue of bringing investment advisers in. We would love to work with the other body on this. We have not been able to do so successfully. But we should stop this notion of partisan rhetoric against the idea, because the education advice is absolutely needed. We should be able to do it and get it done for the participants in the plan.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to salute the Cincinnati Art Museum on the occasion of the opening of its new Cincinnati Wing. The Cincinnati Wing showcases 400 works of art with connections to Cincinnati, the Queen City, in 15 renovated galleries encompassing 18,000 square feet of space. The galleries are decorated with recreations of period wallpaper depicting the 200 year story of our great American city's history. This award-winning project also features panoramic views of beautiful Eden Park and downtown Cincinnati. The elegant new space will allow rarely viewed Cincinnati art to be displayed. The collection includes paintings, sculptures and decorative art from the late 19th century to the 1980s. From the great ceramics of Rookwood Pottery and the superb carved furniture of Aesthetic Movement craftsmen such as Benn Pitman, to the sculpture of Hiram Powers and the paintings of Frank Duveneck and John Twachtman, Cincinnati's artists produced works of international renown and made the Queen City a center for art. We congratulate Cincinnati Art Museum Director Timothy Rub, his very capable staff and the many supporters of the Art Museum in the Greater Cincinnati community for their vision and commitment. This new wing commemorates the rich tradition of the fine arts in Cincinnati and will be a magnificent to one of the great art museums in America.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time, and I thank my colleague from Ohio who just spoke. One thing that excites me about this bill is it will create 1.2 million new jobs by the end of next year, including over 34,000 new jobs in the State of Ohio. The folks from Cincinnati where I come from who are unemployed want a job, and that is what this bill is all about. I congratulate the chairman, I congratulate the President for taking us down this track. This bill addresses what ails us in our economy. First, consumer demand is down. We provide more money in people's pockets this year. Someone just said it is not this year. It is this year. Companies will withhold less this year. They will have more money to spend, increasing consumer demand. Second, it helps small business, very directly, and that is the engine of new economic growth and new jobs. Third, and most importantly I believe, it gets business investment back where it ought to be. In the last 3 years, every economist, right, left or center, will tell my colleagues the same thing, business investment is down. We have got to increase that. That is what the dividends tax piece is about. That is what the capital gains piece is about. It is to get businesses back in the business of expanding plant and equipment and creating new jobs. I would ask my colleagues on the other side, what it is their idea? I know some of my colleagues think by sending money from Washington back to the States it creates jobs, but that is government-to-government transfer. I do not see that as creating jobs to ensure that unemployment does go down. It is 6 percent now. It is too high. It is too high in Ohio, it is too high around the country. To ensure that the stock market goes up, which this bill will do, the economists, again, regardless of their affiliation with what organization, right, left or center, say it will help bring the stock market up. Finally, in order to get this economy on a growth path again, I strongly support this legislation. I hope my colleagues will do so on a bipartisan basis.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a dear friend and constituent, Thomas G. Cody, who will be honored for his extraordinary community service on May 22, 2003, by the Greater Cincinnati Chapter of the National Conference for Community and Justice (NCCJ) at NCCJ's 75th Anniversary Awards Dinner. NCCJ, founded in 1927 as the National Conference of Christians and Jews, is a human relations organization dedicated to fighting bias, bigotry, and racism through understanding and respect among all races, religions and cultures. Tom was selected to receive NCCJ's honor for his 20 years of community service in Cincinnati. He has been described as someone who is enormously dedicated to our community, and who exhibits that in his service. Currently, Tom is on the board of trustees for the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center and is co-chair of Cincinnati CAN (Community Action Now). He has also served on the boards of trustees for Children's Hospital Medical Center; the Children's Hospital; Xavier University; Life Center; and NCCJ and is a past chair of the Cincinnati United Way and Community Chest and Greater Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce Board of Trustees. Tom has also had a successful business career. He is currently vice chairman of Federated Department Stores, Inc. in Cincinnati. He joined Federated in 1982 from Pan American World Airways, Inc., where he was Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary. A native of New York, Tom received a B.A. degree from Maryknoll College and a J.D. from St. John's University School of Law. All of us in Greater Cincinnati are indeed fortunate that Tom Cody and his wife, Mary Ellen, settled in our region and chose to focus so much of their time and energy on making our community a better place. We congratulate him on receiving this prestigious honor from NCCJ.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a distinguished constituent, Robert Kanter, who will be honored by the Greater Cincinnati Chapter of the National Conference for Community and Justice (NCCJ), formerly the National Conference of Christians and Jews, at NCCJ's 75th Anniversary Awards Dinner on May 22, 2003. NCCJ, founded in 1927 as the National Conference of Christians and Jews, is a human relations organization dedicated to fighting bias, bigotry and racism through understanding and respect among all races, religions and cultures. Bob's motivation for getting involved is simple--he enjoys it. He once said, ``I found out you can get much personal satisfaction by giving your time and talent.'' Robert has given enormously to organizations in our area over the years. Currently, he is president of the Plum Street Temple Historic Preservation Foundation; chairman of the Jewish Foundation; chairman of Jewish Health Systems, Inc.; a trustee of the Health Alliance of Greater Cincinnati; a board member of the Lower Price Hill Community School; and founder of the Man to Man Prostate Cancer Support Group at Wellness Community. In the past, Bob served as chairman of the Health Alliance of Cincinnati; president of the Isaac M. Wise Foundation; chairman of the Jewish Hospital; co-chair of the Jewish Federation campaign; trustee of the Emery Center; board member at the Hebrew Union College Jewish Institute of Religion. Bob is a graduate of the University of Cincinnati and began his career with a public accounting firm. In 1966, Bob formed Rookwood Properties, a company that acquires and manages investment real estate. Bob and his wife, Lynne, have three sons and seven grandchildren, all in the Cincinnati area. A noted individual has said, ``Robert is the conscience of the Jewish community in Cincinnati.'' All of us in Cincinnati thank Robert for his service to our area, and we congratulate him for being honored by NCCJ.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Sheila J. Adams, a friend and constituent, who will be honored by the Greater Cincinnati Chapter of the National Conference for Community and Justice (NCCJ) at NCCJ's 75th Anniversary Dinner on May 22, 2003. NCCJ, founded in 1927 as the National Conference of Christians and Jews, is a human relations organization dedicated to fighting bias, bigotry and racism through understanding and respect among all races, religions and cultures. Sheila was selected to be honored by NCCJ because, as one person noted, ``She's been involved, she's been active, she's led. She's gone from success to significance. Success is about you, but significance is about what you've done for others.'' And Sheila has consistently done a lot for others. For over thirty years, Sheila has been a human relations professional. As president and chief executive officer of the Cincinnati Urban League since 1990, Sheila oversees programs and services that help African Americans and others to achieve social and economic parity. Because the Urban League's goal is to eliminate the barriers of racism and level the economic playing field, her work includes employment and training programs; after school programs; parent empowerment programs; and adult and youth leadership development. Sheila is also active with many other local organizations, serving on the Health Foundation; Cincinnati CAN (Community Action Now); Advocates for Youth Education; and the Cincinnati Chapter of Links, Inc. She has been honored as a Cincinnati Enquirer Woman of the Year; a Great Rivers Girl Scouts Woman of Distinction; and a University of Cincinnati Notable Black Alumni. All of us in Cincinnati have benefitted from Sheila Adams' service. We congratulate her on this well deserved and distinguished award from NCCJ.