Rob Portman

Mr. PORTMAN

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

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, the whole purpose of this legislation is to try to expand for those 76 million Americans who have no retirement savings at all right now, including those who work in small businesses where fewer than 20 percent of businesses offer a plan, to get them to offer plans. How do we do it? Yes, by increasing limits; but, very importantly, by simplifying the plans, taking out some of the costs and taking out some of the burdens. That is what is going to expand coverage for low- and moderate-income Americans. That is the point of the bill. None of the income analysis of the gentleman is taking that into account.

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

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the distinguished majority leader and a long-time advocate of enhancing retirement savings for workers.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I should know what the point of the bill is since on a bipartisan basis we have spent 5 years putting it together, fully vetted by all committees of Congress, including the Committee on Ways and Means that had jurisdiction.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), my colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means and also chairman of the Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. (Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas 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 guess I rise primarily in opposition to it because it is not a substitute. The underlying bill has to do with extending these provisions of law that were passed by over 400 votes here in the U.S. Congress to allow people to save more for their retirement. The substitute strays far afield from pension policy. We just heard about it. It has to do with Bermuda, it has to do with executive compensation, it has to do with corporate governance. I would hope that we could stick to a debate over the pension issues, but I guess because that is not as partisan an issue as some of these other ones during an election year, we are going to get into this other stuff, and that is fine. But it is not a substitute to the underlying bill. Also it is important to note that the House has considered many of these issues already. I have heard three or four times now again that we have never considered this. We just passed a corporate governance bill on the floor of the House. Recently we passed a post-Enron pension bill, correcting many of the problems that were uncovered in the Enron situation and other situations, again on a bipartisan basis, in this House. Finally, these provisions that the gentleman just talked about are very far-reaching. Talk about complex, we spent 5 years, had a lot of hearings, a lot of vetting of the pension provisions that the gentleman and many Members are just now deciding they now understand and they are changing their minds on, but these have not been vetted. These have not been subject to hearings. These have not had the kind of time and effort into them that are very important to be sure we are not going to increase the number of companies that leave our shores, increase the number of companies that are leaving their workers behind, increase the number of companies removing good white collar jobs out of this country. That could happen with some of this if we are not careful about that, because under our international tax laws as they are currently constructed, there is a disadvantage to being a U.S. company. We need to change that to be sure these companies stay in the United States. We do not want to do something, although well intended and inadvertent, that could encourage more companies to go offshore, particularly to get bought out by foreign companies, as was the case with DaimlerChrysler. Now, there are a few provisions, three that I have been able to identify in looking at the substitute, that do relate to the underlying pension bill. I will tell you this afternoon I believe that these provisions that relate to the complexity and to the burdens which have been discussed earlier will harm the very workers you say you want to help. Why do I say that? Because what we do in a very rational way, a very moderate way, is go into these rules and complexities and try to deal with some of the incredible burdens that small companies face when they are trying to put together a pension policy. The top-heavy rules are in addition to the nondiscrimination testing rules. Again, President Clinton's advisory group said repeal them. The small business community said repeal them. We said, no, we want to make sure that this bill is fair. Fairness is about providing retirement security to low-income workers. That is what this bill is all about. You want to go in here and add those burdens and regulations back on. You want to discourage matching contributions, which I do not get. Why would you not want workers to be able to get matching contributions from their own employer rather than just putting their own money into 401(k)s? I do not understand why you would want to go back to the bad old days. We talked about it earlier. For 20 years this Congress did all it could to discourage pensions by increasing burdens, costs and liabilities, and decreasing the benefits and the contribution levels. All we do in our legislation is go back to where we were in the 1980s when the Democrats controlled this House, where we had higher contribution levels, and we begin to give people some relief because what has happened is pension coverage, particularly defined benefit coverage, has been reduced dramatically through this combination of adding more burdens and decreasing the benefits in pension plans. I thought last year with a vote of more than 400 from this House we had finally decided to reverse this trend. Now you want to go back to the bad old days. So I encourage strongly my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject this substitute not because it is not well-meaning, not because there are not very important issues being discussed here on corporate governance, on executive compensation, and so on, but because they are not related to this underlying bill, they have not been vetted as the underlying bill has been vetted. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), who is chairman of the Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), a Member of 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 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly), a real champion of IRA expansion. (Mr. GALLEGLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution before us today. I was delighted to hear the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) talk about some of the principles that the gentleman feels strongly about, that he identified as principles on his side of the aisle. They are principles that I think both sides of the aisle support: Focusing on first responders, focusing on the rights of American citizens, focusing on doing this in an expedited manner, and doing it right. For me, this reminds me a lot of where we were right after September 11 when there was a certain urgency, and in the House and Senate we came together across party lines and did the right thing for the American people. I see that again with regard to this proposal to create a new Department of Homeland Security, and I am very supportive of the Speaker's resolution today to create a select committee that helps us get to that process, chaired by the majority leader. I believe the need for this department is very clear. There are over 100 government agencies now responsible for homeland security. In a sense, everyone is in charge; so no one is in charge. One of our tasks is to align authority with responsibility. By doing that, we can ensure some accountability so that someone is in charge and someone is accountable to ensure that we are doing all we can to protect the homeland. It is a complicated and important task. I think again united in a bipartisan way, there is no reason we cannot get it done. As I see the reaction in the House and Senate, and yesterday when the President brought his proposal forward and Tom Ridge presented it, I see that kind of unified response that will help us get this done. I am pleased the Speaker has set up a process that will allow all the authorizing committees to have input into the process. After all, that is where the expertise resides, and it will be those committees that will provide that expertise and put together recommendations as to how to reorganize these departments and agencies. We need to be sure that the creation of the Department of Homeland Security is not oversold. This will not make us immune from terrorism. What it will do is it will maximize our ability to protect our citizens. After all, that is the fundamental responsibility of the Federal Government, to protect our country and citizens. Congress is not generally known for getting things done quickly. There is a joke that it takes us 30 days to make instant coffee around here. But as we have demonstrated after the tragic events of September 11, when we work in a bipartisan fashion to get things done, we can. We are called on today to do that again. This resolution will help us do it. Mr. Speaker, let us roll up our sleeves and get to work to reorganize the Federal Government to best protect our country and our citizens.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, because I attended the groundbreaking of the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center in my hometown of Cincinnati, I missed the following Roll Call Votes on June 17, 2002: Roll Call Vote Number 230, a vote on the Journal. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Yea.'' On Roll Call No. 231, passage of H. Con. Res. 415, recognizing National Homeownership Month, I would have voted ``Yea.'' On Roll Call No. 232, passage of H. Con. Res. 340, supporting the goals and ideals of Meningitis Awareness Month, I would have voted ``Yea.''

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct. What we are doing through these other two means, one, increasing what can be saved for retirement through a 401(k) or defined benefit plan; and, second, improving what you can save individually through your personal savings. We are helping everyone to have a more secure retirement. We are going to continue to work on that. With regard to the third leg, Social Security, we are suggesting that the program needs to be strengthened and improved. Here are the alternatives. We can raise payroll taxes dramatically, and already payroll taxes are the most regressive tax out there, already too high. Most people around America pay more in payroll taxes than they do in Federal income taxes. Or, we can reduce benefits. We do not think that benefits ought to be reduced or payroll taxes ought to be increased to the substantial level that they would have to be in order to sustain the program. Instead, we think we ought to look at more creative ways to be absolutely sure that every senior has retirement security. The President's principles that he has laid out are ones that most of us on the Republican side support, that any plan that changes Social Security be voluntary, that it not affect any senior who is retired or near retirement in any way at all. Any benefits they get now, they would get; but that we come up with creative ways to ensure that this program is there in the future. I just saw a couple of charts as I was walking up that make this point very, very clearly. First, what is the problem. The problem is the way Social Security was set up. It was a pay-as-you-go system. When FDR started this program in 1945, we had 42 working Americans paying for the benefits of every one retiree. Most people did not live until age 65. Now the good news is that people are living longer, more productive lives. Also, we have this baby boom generation that is beginning to retire. That means today there are only three workers for every retiree. By the year 2035, which is not too long from now, there will only be two people working. This is the demographic problem that Social Security faces. Again, the other two options that the other side of the aisle wants to rely on is to reduce benefits, which would be, for seniors in my district and around the country, would be a terrible result. We would have to reduce benefits by 27 percent by the year 2041, and this is based on data from the trustees of Social Security, a nonpartisan group. This is not somebody who has an ax to grind. These are the actuaries who do the analysis and look at it from an objective basis. By 2076, a 33 percent reduction in benefits. Is that a good result? No. You could increase payroll taxes. Again, payroll taxes are already too high. We would have to have a substantial increase in taxes. By the year 2041, 16.9 percent increase, a 37 percent increase over today. There would have to be a 16.9 percent payroll tax, which is a 37 percent increase in payroll taxes by the year 2041. By the year 2076, there would be a 52 percent increase in payroll taxes. Again, to me these are not solutions that we want to have to fall back on. Rather, we want to be proactive and address the program so we can be sure that our seniors have peace of mind in retirement that they so much deserve. Here is the big picture on this chart. Right now we are here, and we have a short-term surplus in Social Security, but soon the lines will cross. The benefits going out will be greater than the amount of taxes coming in. Why? Again, because Americans are living longer. It is a good problem, but a problem that we need to deal with; and second, we have this large baby boom generation, my generation. Baby boomers ought to know that we are beginning to retire, and we are creating a huge problem for future generations to be able to fund this problem. That is why there is a $25 trillion shortfall over time. This is what the President is talking about. It is the right thing to do to talk about this issue. It is the wrong thing to do to make this political and partisan, to scare seniors. Do not scare my grandmother. She is 97, and has worked hard during her life. She deserves to know that check is continuing to come. She is one of those people who is living longer, and deserves to know that she is going to have security in her retirement. The opportunity we have is to come together on a bipartisan basis and make a huge difference for the future of our country and our seniors. If we allow this to become a political football and just toss it back and forth across the aisle, or put our head in the sand and say there is no problem, we will be doing a great disservice to our future, to our seniors and to this great country. This is a challenge that this Congress must take on. It is one that I believe we can take on again. The leadership of President Bush is very important in this, and I commend him for making it one of the primary issues that he took up not only in the Presidential campaign, but since being elected has talked about increasingly. I hope that we can join hands and come together and create a better future for all Americans.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that introduction, and for having this Special Order tonight. Nothing is more important to the future of this country than addressing the retirement security needs of all Americans. We have spent a lot of time in this Congress over the past 2 or 3 years working on ways to increase two of the three legs of the retirement security stool. Those two legs are the employer-based system, which is expanding 401(k)s and expanding defined benefit plans; and we have done a lot in that regard. Next week on this floor we will be taking up legislation to ensure that those changes are permanent. We have also helped with regard to the second leg of that stool, which is private savings. We have expanded from $2,000 to $5,000 the amount that someone can put aside in an individual retirement account. We have been sure through this process to also focus on the third leg of the retirement security stool, and that is the public pension side or the Social Security side. There we have had less luck in passing legislation because, frankly, it has become, unfortunately, a very partisan issue. The reason I commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) tonight for having this Special Order, and commend the President of the United States, and my colleagues who spoke earlier, they are talking about this very critical third leg. People around this country depend on Social Security. Twenty percent of the seniors in my district depend exclusively on it, and that roughly $900 a month is critical to their being able to live their life with a little dignity after years and years of hard work.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time and I appreciate her leadership on this issue. We have had an interesting debate here on the floor this afternoon. It started out as a debate about whether there should be a gifted estate tax or not. And the other side of the aisle said it is important that we soak the rich and we do not want to let people get off. Our side was saying the estate tax does not make any sense, and now we are hearing from the other side of the aisle that actually we do believe that there ought to be less of an estate tax, actually, and, in fact, ours costs more over the next 5 years than yours does and that is somehow good. So we are hearing very different arguments coming from the other side of the aisle. I guess what I would say is we have a fundamental decision to make here. Is this death tax a good thing or not? And what we are saying is: No, it is not. And there are a lot of reasons for that. One is the fact that it does hurt the economy. It is not the rich person who ends up getting the benefit of the death tax. That person is gone. That person is dead. It is the people who are left behind. It is the heirs but, more importantly, it is the employees of these small businesses, these family farms, who then do not have a job because they no longer have a business. Now, let me tell you, if you look at some of the data on this, it is amazing. This is 1.4 percent of total revenues to the Federal Government, extremely complex. There are thousands of valuation cases at the Department of Justice today, so it is an extremely expensive system to administer, and it has this effect of allowing for so many businesses not to succeed. We know that over half of minority businesses today, based on a Kennesaw State College study, are unable to grow, or fail because of the legal and accounting costs of the death tax. Even those folks who end up not being hit by the death tax have to go through the legal and accounting and the costs associated with it. This chart shows that it harms women business owners particularly because many of them are small business owners. They spend an average of $1,000 a month just paying to plan for the death tax. Instead of that money going into planning, into lawyers and financial planners, it could be used to provide health benefits, to provide pensions for their employees. This is really a fundamental, philosophical divide we have. Should there be a death tax or not. We say the death tax is inefficient. It is a terrible way for the Federal Government to get revenue. It ought to be ended. It is also bad for the economy. You all want to continue it. I think that is the question we have before us today.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Miriam (Pat) Estelle Lapple, a dear friend, constituent, community leader and public servant who will be celebrating her 70th birthday on June 9. Pat was born in St. Bernard, Ohio on June 9, 1932. She grew up during the Great Depression in the town of Woodlawn, attended Woodlawn Elementary, and then went on to Reading High School. Without a doubt, Pat has lived an active and full life over the past 70 years. Following high school, Pat married and started a family. She stayed home with her children for 12 years before going back to work for the next 40 plus years. Pat has always been very dedicated to our community. Among her work and activities, Pat was a member of the Order of the Eastern Star for over 30 years, serving as Worthy Matron (President) in 1970 and again in 1972. Pat also wrote the Reading Social News, a column which appeared in the Valley Courier for 19 years. For the past 9 years, she has served as Clerk of Council for the Reading City Council. Pat also has been a member of the Reading Republican Club since 1989. She was President of the Club in 1992. In 1995, she was the Reading Republican of the Year. Other activities include her past volunteer work at Hilltop School, where she taught disadvantaged kindergarteners in the Early I.D. program, and her service as a liturgist at St. John United Church of Christ. Pat has a great sense of humor, and 5 children, 11 grandchildren, 2 great grandchildren and, in her words, ``two really spoiled dogs.'' She is a wonderful person, and her beloved Reading, Ohio is fortunate to have her. All of us in the Cincinnati area recognize Pat's outstanding service and contributions to our community.

Mr. PORTMAN

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

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this time. I was not planning to get into the issue of legal immigrants, but I would think that some people might take from the last comments that somehow the underlying legislation takes benefits away from legal immigrants. No es verdad. The truth is that there is no change with regard to illegal immigrants in this legislation. If anything, we have improved the benefits for legal immigrants because in the farm bill which was just passed we are now providing food stamps for legal immigrants. So I hope the gentleman is not trying to leave the wrong impression. Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill I think is a great improvement to a great law. Since 1996, there are nearly 3 million children who have been lifted out of poverty. This has been a huge success. What the legislation does before us today, the underlying bill, is it builds on what works. I had the opportunity last week to go visit one of our great organizations back in my hometown of Cincinnati that is taking the flexibility we gave them in 1996 and helping people move from welfare dependency to the kind of dignity and self-respect they get from work. They fix someone's car if it is broken, they help people with child care, they help people with medical bills. They provide that bridge, and they are flexible about it. They like this new flexibility built into the legislation. They are using this already, and they want more of it. What has worked is requiring work. What has worked is strengthening families, and the underlying bill does that better, I would say, than the Democrat substitute. What works is protecting children, improving child care, and there is more money in child care in the underlying bill. In the Democratic substitute, there is more money, but it is not paid for. Creating additional opportunities, yes, for education and training, that is important and that is in the underlying bill and, finally, giving the States the tools to encourage self-sufficiency, and that is the flexibility. I have heard some of my colleagues on this side say gee, to quote the gentleman from Maryland, not the gentleman from Maryland who is here, but the one who left, it fails to provide adequate funding, the underlying bill. Well, I do not know how they can say that. We have had a more than 50 percent reduction in the welfare rolls; and yet we are continuing the Federal commitment. So we are going to be providing over $16 billion a year. We are not cutting the TANF funding, plus we are adding another at least $2 billion on child care. In 1996 we were paying $7,000 per family on average. In the year 2003, we are going to be paying $16,000 per family on average. How is that a cut? How is that not adequate funding? Then I hear the debate over the unfunded mandate, and I was the author of the Unfunded Mandate Relief Act, and I have to tell my colleagues, I have the letter here from the Congressional Budget Office. This is not an unfunded mandate. The underlying bill is not an unfunded mandate. Why? Because as we all set out, and I know the gentleman from Maryland and my other colleagues voted for the unfunded mandate bill, we said that if you give States the flexibility to be able to move money, transferred monies from agency to agency and give adequate flexibility, then it is not an unfunded mandate, and that is what CBO says. So with regard to this unfunded mandate, let us just be clear. We have a process here in Congress where the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan part of our congressional organization here, decides whether something is an unfunded mandate or not, and they have told us there is adequate flexibility and adequate funding in here, and it is not an unfunded mandate. So with all due respect to my colleagues on this side who I know have the best intentions to try to pull more people out of poverty and into work, I think the underlying bill is a better approach to it. I hope that my colleagues today will reject the substitute and stick with what we know works, and that is encouraging work and encouraging sufficiency and doing so, yes, with a compassionate edge and providing more funding per family than has ever been provided by the Federal Government.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that is why there is more funding being provided for each welfare family, because as we provide those additional services, there is additional funding needed; and the underlying bill provides that. Yet it sticks to the basic formula that we know works, which is, again, helping people to help themselves and believing in people and trusting people, and understanding that every person has the ability to get on their own feet and to be able to provide for themselves and their families, and that is what they want to do.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor William J. Keating, a friend, valued constitute and distinguished former Member of this House, who will receive the Metropolitan Club's 2002 Metropolitan Award on May 21, 2002. Recipients of this prestigious honor are citizens of the Greater Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky area who have exhibited extraordinary effort toward improving the lives of our community's residents, and have significantly bridged the gap between Greater Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky. A native of Cincinnati, Bill Keating has a very long list of accomplishments. As former congressman, newspaper publisher, successful businessperson and judge, his influence can be seen in nearly every major civic project in this area in the past fifty years, including downtown development, arts, education and sports. After graduating from St. Xavier High School, where he was an All- American swimmer, Bill enlisted in the U.S. Navy and served during World War II. He returned home and earned two degrees (bachelor's and law) from the University of Cincinnati in just four years. He was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1950, began practicing law in Cincinnati and helped to found what has become a major Cincinnati law firm in 1954. Bill's name has been virtually synonymous with public service since 1957, when he became assistant attorney general for the state of Ohio. In 1958, he was appointed judge of the Hamilton County Municipal Court, was elected to that court in 1959 and was presiding judge from 1962 until 1963. In 1964, Bill was elected to the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, where he served until 1967. For two terms, Bill was member of Cincinnati City Council, from 1967 to 1970. First elected to the House of Representatives in 1970. Bill served with distinction in the Ninety-second and Ninety-third Congresses representing the First District of Ohio. Following his Congressional service, Bill moved into journalism and joined the Cincinnati Enquirer, where he was president and publisher. Later, he serves president of the Gannett Central Newspaper Group, chairman of the Cincinnati Inquirer, executive vice President and general counsel of Gannett Company, Inc. and chief executive officer of the Detroit Newspaper Agency in May, 1986. Bill is a proven leader. He has been active with numerous causes in our area, including the Cincinnati Business Committee, the Greater Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce, the Cincinnati Arts Association, and the Bid Development Committee for Olympics 2012. In 2001, he was awarded the covered title of Great Living Cincinnati by the Greater Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce. All of us in the Greater Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky area congratulate Bill Eating on receiving the 2002 Metropolitan Award, the latest acknowledgment of this remarkable device to our region.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. The Governor's veto of the Yucca Mountain legislation was taken up by the Committee on Energy and Commerce today and marked up. My understanding is that there need to be 5 legislative days prior to its consideration in the House, and therefore the vote would not take place next week, but likely the week after. I do not know that the decision has been made yet as to whether it will be under suspension or under regular order.

Mr. PORTMAN. Our understanding from the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) of the Committee on Appropriations is that it seems likely it will be marked up next week, or shortly. When it comes to the floor is still uncertain, but it would not be coming up next week.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 2 p.m. on Monday next.