Rob Portman

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that the House has completed its legislative business for the week. The House will next meet for legislative business next Tuesday, October 16, at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour, and at 2 p.m. for legislative business. The House will consider a number of measures under suspension of the rules, a list of which will be distributed to Members' offices later today. Of special importance to Members, on Tuesday, no recorded votes are expected until 6 p.m. On Wednesday and the balance of the week, the House will consider the following measures, subject to rules: First, on Wednesday, the conference report to accompany H.R. 2217, the Interior appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002. Also on Wednesday, H.R. 3004, the Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001, which is money laundering legislation reported out of committee yesterday. Finally, on Thursday the House is expected to take up H.R. 3090, the Economic Security and Recovery Act of 2001, which is expected to be reported out of the Committee on Ways and Means yet this afternoon or this evening. Mr. Speaker, appropriators are also working hard on additional bills now in conference. It is our hope that additional appropriations conference reports will be available for consideration in the House at some point next week.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution (H. Res. 249) and I ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the memory of Stan Matlock, a friend and Cincinnati broadcasting legend, who passed away on September 16, 2001. Stan's WKRC-AM morning radio program, ``Magazine of the Air,'' was a Cincinnati area institution for 27 years. It was a simple concept--he would tell human interest stories, then play a record, then tell another vignette--but he did it better than anyone. The popularity of his program was extraordinary; at times fully 50 percent of radio listeners in the Cincinnati area tuned in to Stan Matlock's Magazine of the Air. And he was more than a great storyteller. He loved research and writing and always considered himself first a writer. It's not surprising that his poignant stories were commentaries on our times. Impeccably organized, it was said that he had his vignettes cross-filed by subject and appropriateness for a particular time of day or national holiday or event. He was said to have over 30,000 ``Magazine of the Air'' scripts on file. Thankfully, some of his stories can still be heard on Saturday mornings in Cincinnati on WVXU-FM. Stan grew up in Pleasant Ridge in Cincinnati, was a graduate of Withrow High School, and began his career as a newswriter in 1945 at WKRC-FM while a student at the University of Cincinnati. He switched to WKRC-AM in 1946. He retired from WKRC-AM 29 years later in 1975, but returned to broadcasting with stints at WLQA-AM (now WRRM-AM) in 1976, and again with WKRC-AM in 1993. Stan's influence on broadcasting in Cincinnati was summed up by John Soller Sr., former general manager of WKRC-AM, who said, ``He set the standard for excellence in radio here.'' Stan was devoted to his family, and is survived by his wife, Louise, and daughter, Anna. All of us in Cincinnati have suffered a great loss with Stan's passing, just as we so benefitted from his full life.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, due to the severe weather conditions in the Washington D.C. area, my airplane was not able to land before the votes occurred on H.R. 717, the Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy Childhood Assistance, Research and Education Amendments of 2001, and H.J. Res. 65, the FY 2002 Continuing Resolution. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on each of these bills.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support for this legislation to preserve the viability of our nation's airlines needed as a direct result of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States. The U.S. commercial airline transportation system is vital to our economy and our national security. The industry is an essential component of tourism, business transportation, and freight and mail delivery that contributes either directly or indirectly to more than 1 percent of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product. Furthermore, the primary aircraft and engine manufacturers for U.S. air carriers are also major U.S. defense contractors. Many of these suppliers would probably become insolvent if the airline industry goes bankrupt. Delta Airlines operates its second largest hub in the Greater Cincinnati area and Continental Airlines has a hub in Cleveland, so the people of Ohio have a major stake in seeing that these airlines continue to survive. Loss of these hubs would be financially devastating to the state of Ohio and our entire region. Without the assistance provided in this legislation, many airlines are in danger of bankruptcy in the very near future. Nobody wins in this situation. Not the airlines, not their employees, and certainly not the American public. I urge passage of this important legislation. Thank you.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in strong support of this resolution. What we are doing tonight is authorizing the use of our Armed Forces for war. It is a war we did not want, and it is a war we did not start. But the primary responsibility of any government must be the protection of its citizens, and so Tuesday's attacks on the citizens of the United States have left us with no choice. The perpetrators of these heinous crimes must be found, and then they must suffer the consequences of their deeds. I take this vote tonight knowing there will be challenges ahead. There will be danger. And there will be sacrifice. But this is a war we must win. For us as Americans, and for the free world. Terrorists use fear as a weapon. But we will not surrender to fear. Because they are not just facing the best-trained and best-equipped military the world has ever known; they are facing the fierce determination and the quiet anger of the American people. The attacks on Tuesday were designed to bring chaos to the United States, but it has done just the opposite. We stand together as one nation. We understand there will be challenges ahead. And we know what must be done. And that is why we are here tonight and authorizing the President to use all necessary force to destroy these terrorist organizations. September 11th is a day we will always remember, and I believe it is a day the enemies of freedom will live to regret.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, in times of such a tragedy, it is very difficult to put our thoughts into words. While our minds are busy trying to comprehend just what happened in the tragic events of yesterday, our hearts are burdened with grief. We have seen the pictures of what happened, and we are beginning to hear the heart-wrenching stories of innocent lives cut short. As President Bush said so well last night, ``Our Nation saw evil.'' But in the wake of this tragedy, we have also seen something else: the goodness of the American people and the strength of the American spirit. I think of the elderly man my wife saw yesterday afternoon placing small American flags carefully along the highway in front of the gas station where he worked. I think of a story I heard last night from a friend who said that she waited 4\1/2\ hours in line at a blood bank to be able to give blood. I think of the office worker I saw on television sometime yesterday on some TV show, one of the World Trade Center office workers, who got out of the building just before it collapsed. She said, as she was coming down the stairs, there were firefighters going up, firefighters who lost their lives, even as they fought to save the lives of others. Yes, Mr. Speaker, our Nation did see evil yesterday; but we also saw something else. In the proud display of our flag throughout this land, we saw patriotism. In the outpouring of support we saw at local blood banks, we saw compassion; and in the heroic actions of those very firefighters and rescue workers, we saw courage and sacrifice. In these noble actions around this country, some big and some small, we saw our Nation's character. Now we call on this character, both to help continue finding our fellow Americans and to track down the perpetrators of these unspeakable crimes. We must find those responsible; and when we do, they must suffer the consequences of their actions. We must always remember that though America may be attacked by terrorists, America will not be defeated. This attack may shock us, but it also unites and strengthens us. Today, our Nation stands tall, as it will continue to stand in the days and years to come, graced by God and as a beacon for freedom and justice for the entire world.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding Sister City relationship between the City of Blue Ash, Ohio and Ilmenau, Germany. The first Sister Cities began in 1956 at the behest of former President Eisenhower as a way to strengthen our nation's relations with the international community. The Sister Cities initiative proved to be a great success, and, to this day, it continues to be a success. Presently, more than 2,500 U.S. cities have forged Sister City relationships in over 130 foreign countries. Blue Ash's relationship with Ilmenau, Germany began last year under Mayor Jim Sumner's direction. Mayor Sumner began this exchange with three primary goals in mind: fostering economic development; nurturing exchange programs between the University of Cincinnati's Raymond Walters College and the Technical University of Ilmenau, and between Sycamore Community Schools and their counterparts in Ilmenau; and to forge other significant social and cultural exchanges that will come from the emerging relationship. A delegation from Blue Ash first visited Ilmenau in February 2000. In February 2001, at the request of Ilmenau officials, a small delegation of Blue Ash's public safety officials traveled there to share ideas and methods related to police and fire department issues and training. Another delegation of Sycamore High School students also enjoyed their first visit to Ilmenau this year. Recently, in August, a delegation of police and fire officials from Ilmenau visited Blue Ash. And, next month, from October 1 to October 7, Mayor Sumner will lead another delegation to Ilmenau to participate in the Oktoberfest celebration, among other activities. Mr. Speaker, the Blue Ash-Ilmenau Sister City project has been a great economic, cultural and educational success. All of us in the Cincinnati area wish Mayor Sumner and his delegation the very best on their upcoming visit, and we hope that the relationship between Blue Ash and Ilmenau will continue to prosper.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time and for his strong support of this program. I rise in strong support of H.R. 2291, legislation introduced with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) to reauthorize the Drug-free Communities Act. This legislation is both bipartisan and bicameral. We have worked very closely with Senator Grassley and Senator Biden to draft this reauthorization. I would like to thank and credit all of them for their efforts in bringing this consensus bill to the floor today. Madam Speaker, I would like to commend the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources for their strong personal commitment to reducing substance abuse in their communities and around this country. They bring a lot of knowledge and passion to this issue, also for their good work to improve this legislation as it worked through the process. I would like to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) to not just improve the legislation, but to move it expeditiously through the subcommittee and through the committee and also to achieve a waiver from another important committee of this Congress to get this to the floor today. Madam Speaker, almost every American family has felt the pain of substance abuse. We are here to talk about a very positive, proactive approach to lessening that pain. The Drug-free Communities Act is an innovative program first established in 1997. It establishes a matching grant program to support and encourage local communities that have shown that they have a comprehensive, long-term commitment to reducing substance abuse among young people. The grants which have to be matched dollar for dollar with non-Federal resources, have now been awarded directly to 307 of these community coalitions in 49 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. The drug-fee communities act takes a very different approach than this Congress has taken in the past on the so-called war on drugs. Instead of trading new Federal bureaucracies, instead of looking for solutions outside of our borders, this legislation and program deals directly with local coalitions working to reduce the demand for drugs in communities through effective education and prevention. And it is working. Coalitions are successful because they devise prevention strategies and methods specific to the communities and because they are inclusive, involving all of those who influence a young person's decisions. In his Rose Garden speech announcing the new nominee for ONDCP director, the President made the point well that the most effective way to reduce the supply of drugs to America is to dry up the demand. He specifically mentioned the Drug-free Communities Act as an effective tool to achieve demand reduction. I am pleased to say that these community-based coalitions around the country are making real progress. In my own community in Cincinnati, the coalition for drug-free Greater Cincinnati has now trained over 6,000 parents in how to talk to their children about drugs and have launched a new program to reach even more parents. We have partnered with local TV, radio and print media to implement one of the most aggressive anti-drug media campaigns in the country. Last year alone, over $1 million of free public-service time was donated to our effort. We also fielded the most comprehensive drug use survey ever done in our area to make sure our efforts are truly targeted. Our own survey shows there is a very strong correlation between the number of ads our teens see, these public-service ads, and their choice to remain substance free. We have also spearheaded the faith community initiative which has trained over 100 local congregations to implement substance abuse prevention programs in their churches, mosques and synagogues. Our student Congress now involves young people from over 25 junior and senior high schools. They are ambassadors who go back to their schools and promote Teen Institute and other good programs in the schools at the peer level. Our drug-free work-place task force has led to over 100 new certified drug-free work places in our area alone. These are the types of efforts, Madam Speaker, this legislation can help spread throughout our Nation. H.R. 2291 continues funding for the Drug-Free Communities Act through fiscal year 2007. It also authorizes a new national anti-drug coalition institute which provides needed education, training and technical assistance to coalitions. The institute will be vital, I believe, in developing and disseminating evaluation and testing mechanisms to assist coalitions in the very important and sometimes overlooked area of measuring and assessing our performance in the area of prevention. The ultimate goal of the Drug-free Communities Act is to get as much bang for the buck as possible and to send dollars and assistance directly into community efforts with a minimal amount being spent on administrative expenses. I am thus pleased that the bill continues to cap administrative costs at a modest level, although some adjustments were made that I think were probably necessary. It is important to keep in mind that the Drug-free Communities Act was intended to be a catalyst for communities and not a steady stream of funding to cover coalition operating expenses. Therefore, coalitions must start over and reapply for drug-free community grants after an initial 5-year period and must match 125 percent of any new grants, not just 100 percent. Thereafter, it goes up to a 150 percent march. This in effect will encourage coalitions to grow their programs and become less reliant on Federal dollars. Madam Speaker, some of our larger, more successful coalitions spend a lot of time sharing information and practices with smaller, sometimes- struggling coalitions. That, and trying to get off the ground by these smaller coalitions, is a real struggle. I am pleased this bill acknowledges this and builds on it. H.R. 2291 includes an optional $75,000 supplemental to the drug-free communities grant application that would foster mentoring among these coalitions. These grants are meant to supercede the basic drug-free communities grant program, and only those meeting very strict criteria will be eligible to be mentors. By the way, this is capped at 5 percent of the total funding. The bill also includes language suggested by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) that will ensure that economically depressed areas will continue to be served by the drug-free communities program. We talked about that a moment ago. Specifically, that will be helpful when it comes to mentoring. I applaud the gentleman for his efforts in this area. In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I want to thank once again the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), Senator Grassley and Senator Biden, and of course my partner in this, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), for crafting a bill that will continue to redo the demand for drugs in America through what we know works. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting the continuation of this effective approach to substance abuse.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and affording me this opportunity to talk a little about patient rights, and I rise today in very strong support of giving patients more protection and in support of patients' rights. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), and particularly the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher), and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) for all the good work they have done on this issue, good people coming together in a common cause to reach a result that will help all Americans. Under the Norwood-Fletcher amendment that we are going to vote on a little later today, this legislation that we are talking about now will be improved, in my view. But this underlying legislation will continue to provide a number of very important patient care improvements. Patients will have better access to specialists. Patients will get guaranteed coverage for appropriate medical care in emergency room settings. Patients will be able to designate a pediatrician as their child's primary care provider. Patients with serious illnesses will be assured of continuous care from their existing physicians. All these patients' rights and many more are going to be included in the legislation, and again I commend the Members of this House who have worked so hard to get to this point. Perhaps most importantly though, Mr. Chairman, this legislation provides these protections without risking the most important single protection of all, and that is guaranteed health care coverage. I have heard on the floor this afternoon a lot of concerns raised by opponents to the Norwood-Fletcher amendment about what is not going to be included in that amendment. I want to talk about that for a second. I, too, want to talk about what the Norwood-Fletcher amendment will not do. It will not allow unnecessary and frivolous lawsuits. It will not risk dramatically increasing the cost of health care insurance and thereby risking the number of people who can be insured and have insured access to health care. And it will not take valuable dollars out of the health care system and put them in the legal system. Yet it provides all the protections we talked about and, most important, there is no question that when HMOs and insurance companies wrongfully deny care, they will be held accountable under this approach. I urge all my colleagues to support it.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia. I just want to make the point that we just heard from the other side that somehow cases that are in State court would be removed to Federal district court. That would not happen under the Norwood amendment. It would be in State court with a Federal cause of action. So I do not know what the point of that last statement was, but we are in State court, and that is a change. That is a change that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) brought to this debate. I am a strong supporter of the Norwood amendment and I am also a strong supporter of the underlying bill. I want to back up for a second and talk about why we are here. Eight years ago when I got elected to Congress, we were talking about the Patients' Bill of Rights, and it was about access to emergency room care, it was about access to OB-GYNs, it was about access to specialists, it was about access to clinical trials. All of this is in this underlying legislation. This is the Patients' Bill of Rights we have been talking about for all of the 8 years I have been here. But while this bill provides all of these patient rights, it also provides the single most important protection of all, and that is health care insurance coverage. It provides the right balance, yes, making HMOs and other insurance companies accountable; yes, providing access to the courts when one is aggrieved; but not raising the cost of health care insurance to the point that we is risking health care coverage for literally millions of Americans. That is the most fundamental protection of all. It is the right balance. It is easy around this place to criticize. It is easy to be partisan, and we have heard some of that today on the floor. We have even heard some allegations of bad motives. We have even heard some allegations of corruption earlier on the floor. That is easy. What is harder is to get something done for the American people. The American patient has waited too long. I commend the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) for working hard on this issue not only for all of the time he has been in Congress, but over the last month, for working hard to find a bill that this President can sign and that provides the fundamental patients' rights that we have talked about and that provides the fundamental accountability for HMOs, and that delivers for the American people. That is what this place is all about. That is the heavy lifting. I commend the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), has done a lot to help with IRS reform. I walked over a moment ago and told him I did want to compliment him as well as oppose his amendment. I was not talking about complimenting the amendment, however. I want to compliment him because in 1998 this Congress spoke almost with one voice at the end of the day for restructuring the IRS entirely, for putting in place dozens of new taxpayer rights. The IRS, while it still has lots of problems, including phone calls that are not getting answered, including information that is not being accurately conveyed, is doing a little better. And even the gentleman said that in his statement. But in 1998 the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) pushed this House to put something in place that shifted the burden of proof from the taxpayers to the IRS in tax court. That was an important reform. It was not in the original reform and restructuring act. It was added, in part, again because the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) helped do that. That is what I was going to talk about in terms of complimenting the gentleman in terms of helping us to get to a better system. Because what happens now all through the system is that the IRS has to really look at these cases to be sure they really have merit, rather than taking them all the way to court and having the burden, which is appropriately now on them as it is in every criminal court in America, rather than the burden being on the taxpayers, as it was before. But this amendment, to my way of thinking, is counterproductive. Let me give a couple of examples. When we restructured the IRS, we provided for more incentive pay, which is part of the amendment; not just bonuses, but incentive pay. We actually provided they could pay these top people more than they were paying them at that time. Why? Because they could not attract good people, particularly in the information services area. Management and information services is one of the great problems at the IRS. The left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. But it is partly because the left hand is using 1970s software and 1980s computers, and the right hand is using another stovepipe system that does not communicate with the first one. We have had to totally revamp that system, and they are doing it. They finally now have a general contractor and have put out a modernization effort that we are supporting in our committees and subcommittees in Congress, appropriations and authorization. They are finally getting their act together. But to do that they needed better people and good people. And they are competing with the private sector. And I have to tell my colleague, the salaries they are paying these people is still significantly less than people doing comparable work in the private sector. It is very tough to get people. Second, I would just like to make the point that some of these people who would not get an incentive payment or a bonus do not exist any more because we restructured the IRS and got rid of some of these positions. For example, there is no chief inspector. There is no chief of management administration. There is no chief of operations. There is a chief information officer but he is brand new, and I do not think we should penalize him yet until we see what kind of work he does. There is no chief of communications. Some of these lists of titles no longer exist because of the restructuring. So in a sense we have turned the IRS upside down. They have restructured the entire operation. We have forced them to do new performance measurements. We have forced them to live under some great new taxpayer rights. They are struggling with that a little bit. They still are not living up to what we hoped they would be by this point, but they are making improvements. This is not the time for us, in my view, to send the wrong signal to the people who I hope are the good guys, the people who have come in, new people at the top who are from the private sector who we have attracted to the IRS by saying, we are not going to pay you as much as the private sector, but we will give you a decent salary so we can be somewhat competitive, and we will give you a chance. Again, some of these people are brand new. Others have been there a year or two. We have to give them that chance. They are the ones that ought to be straightening out this bureaucracy and all of its problems. I would hope that while we send a strong message that Congress is watching, that the oversight board and the subcommittees and committees of this Congress ought to do their work. That we not accept this amendment. I will mention one other thing, Mr. Chairman, if I might. The new oversight board which is a public/private board which is unique in government which was very controversial in this body, but we got it through, is supposed to be there to provide accountability to the IRS. One of their jobs specifically established by this Congress is to review the commissioner's selection, evaluation, and compensation of IRS senior executives. Let them do their job. Let the oversight board work. Let the IRS continue to reform itself. Let us not penalize the very people we are relying on to try to straighten things out at the IRS.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. I thank my colleague and rise in strong support of this bill because it will help Americans who are most in need. Over the past decade, Mr. Speaker, our Nation has enjoyed great prosperity, but it has not reached everybody. And the idea of this legislation is to try to reach people who have been left behind and to try to get at our very toughest social problems. Some, including some I have heard earlier today, think the Government is the answer; that the Government is going to solve these problems. The Government can solve some of these problems; but we know from experience that when it comes to helping those most in need, there is no questioning the great success of community groups, of faith-based groups, of our churches, our synagogues, our temples reaching out to people. And not just helping them in their immediate need, but helping people help themselves by transforming lives. That is what this is all about. Currently, government regulations often prohibit Federal assistance to support these institutions. That is a fact. That is what we are trying to break down. We have heard a lot of discussion today about how this raises concerns. Opponents today have said it violates the separation of church and State. Not true. This bill strictly follows the boundaries that have been established over time by the Constitution and by numerous court decisions. These funds will not be used for religious purposes. These funds will be used to fund the good work that these groups are doing in our communities. We have heard opponents say this bill threatens the independence of religious organizations. That is not true. First of all, it is entirely voluntary. No religious organization must partner with government to get these funds. Second, the legislation contains specific protections to prohibit the Federal government from interfering with the internal governance of the religious organizations. We have heard opponents say this bill discriminates in employment. Not true. This legislation strictly protects the exception for religious organizations that were first established in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This exemption allows religious organizations to maintain their character and mission by hiring staff that share their beliefs. That is all. That exemption continues. Organizations still must comply with all Federal laws regarding discrimination. I would say Congress has passed four bills during my tenure here that President Clinton signed that have similar charitable choice provisions.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) for yielding me this time, and I thank the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for his statement and for his strong support of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this legislation. It is bipartisan, it is bicameral, and it is reauthorizing a program which can work well to address serious problems. Mr. Speaker, we introduced this bill with 33 other colleagues in order to continue what is a very innovative conservation program which helps protect the world's most valuable tropical forests through these debt-for-nature mechanisms. Mr. Speaker, I also thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the ranking member (Mr. Lantos) gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and other members of the Committee on International Relations, including the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), for their expedited consideration of the legislation and unanimous approval of it on June 20. I also want to thank them for the improvements they made to the legislation. The three amendments that were accepted in committee, I think, perfect the legislation and make it work better, given the evolving nature of some of the debt-for-nature relationships we might have. Four years ago I introduced this original bill with our former colleagues Lee Hamilton and John Kasich. It was approved by the House and passed by the Senate under unanimous consent, and was signed into law by President Clinton. The legislation was developed with the support and input of a lot of people, including some of the major respected international environmental organizations such as the Nature Conservancy, the World Wildlife Fund and Conservation International. Their support and ongoing commitment to this program and their involvement in this program as a potential third party has been and will continue to be very valuable to its success. Mr. Speaker, I also note that our freshman colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), was instrumental in developing the original Tropical Forest Conservation Act when he was a senior member of the Committee on International Relations staff. I am delighted that he is an original cosponsor of this legislation before us today. The United States has a significant national interest in protecting these forests around the world. As has been said by the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), these forests provide a wide range of benefits. We know they harbor between 50 and 90 percent of the terrestrial biodiversity on Earth. We know that they act as carbon sinks, absorbing massive quantities of carbon dioxide from the environment, and we know that carbon dioxide taken out of the atmosphere helps reduce the effect of greenhouse gases. They also help regulate rainfall on which agriculture and coastal resources depend, and they are important to regional and global climate. Furthermore, these tropical forests are the breeding ground for new medicines. We are told that fully a quarter of the prescription drugs currently used in the United States come from tropical forests. We are also told that of the more than 3,000 plants the National Cancer Institute has identified as being active against cancer, 70 percent are found in these tropical forests. Regrettably, these forests are rapidly disappearing. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) talked about that, and stated an area the size of Pennsylvania is being destroyed every year. We believe that half the tropical forests are already gone. The heavy debt burden of these countries that have these forests is a contributing factor to the disappearance of these forests. Why? Because these countries must resort to exploitation of their natural resources, timber, minerals, and precious metals, to generate revenue to service burdensome external debt. At the same time, poor governments tend to have very few resources to set aside and protect their tropical forests. This act addresses these economic pressures by authorizing 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 over time. The legislation is based on the previous Bush administration's Enterprise for the Americas Initiative that allowed the President to structure certain debt in exchange for conservation efforts, but only in Latin America. This legislation and its predecessor expands on the countries eligible, the requirements, and the legislation expands it beyond Latin America to protect tropical forests that are threatened worldwide. The bill provides for very innovative ways to leverage scarce resources available for international conservation. Under two of the three options made available under this bill, third- party debt swaps where third parties can come in, such as the Nature Conservancy or Conservation International, and also debt buybacks, in those two cases, there is no cost at all to the United States Government. Under the third option provided for under this legislation, the United States and an eligible country can agree to restructure the debt. Our Government in this case does provide a subsidy to cover the difference between the so-called net present value of the debt and the net present value of whatever the new debt is. Now, net present value is a fancy term, but it refers to what an investment bank, say, on Wall Street might use as they look at the debt to determine what it is really worth, what its actual value is. Our Government provides this subsidy because we get something in return for it. We get something in return in the sense that the amount of debt forgiven is often lower than the amount that is placed in these tropical forest funds. Therefore, we get leverage. In fact, taxpayers will usually get at least $2 in conservation funds back into the fund in local currency for every $1 of Federal funds that would be spent. Part of this leverage comes from the fact that the host country is required to use local currency in a tropical forest fund. Second, these tropical forest funds have integrity, are broadly supported within the host country; and, therefore, conservation organizations are interested in placing their own private money in these funds. We believe this is producing additional private sector leverage of government conservation dollars, and we believe the potential for that is great. The final point I would just like to make about the restructuring option is that I believe if we are going to reduce or eliminate debts that are owed by poorer countries to the United States, it only makes sense that we get something in return for it. In this case we do, in fact, get something in return through this initiative. It is a win-win- win, for us, for the poorer country, and for the environment. Last year, as mentioned earlier, the United States did conclude a tropical forest debt reduction agreement with Bangladesh, which is a less developed country that is heavily burdened by foreign debt. The gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), who is with us this afternoon, has been quite focused on Bangladesh. In fact, I can remember at the first hearing we had on this subject 3 or 4 years ago, he raised the fact that Bangladesh was a country that ought to be included within the requirements because they could use this initiative in order to reduce some of their debt and save some of their endangered tropical forests. In fact, that has happened. It allows in Bangladesh the protection of over 4 million acres of endangered mangrove forests, and it protects the world's only genetically secure population of Bengal tigers. At present, we believe there are at least 11 nations on three continents interested in negotiating these kinds of Tropical Forest Act debt reduction agreements. In fact, we have reason to believe that Belize, El Salvador, and Thailand are ready to move on such agreements this year. Furthermore, as many Members know, President Bush has expressed his strong support for this program. I would also like to briefly address the authorization for funds included in this legislation. First, I want to make the point this authorization is actually less than the authorization over the last 3 years. In fact, looking out over the 3-year period, it is roughly $100 million less than was provided in the previous and original authorization. Second, I would say this authorization is consistent with what the Bush administration has said is their commitment to providing adequate funding for this initiative. In other words, it fits within the budget so long as we are making progress toward restructuring agreements around the world, and, again, I think there is adequate evidence that we have lots of countries lined up and interested, and we will be able to move forward aggressively from this point on. Before I close, Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer my thanks and appreciation, also, to some key staff members who got us here today: Adolfo Franco, Frank Record, Peter Yeo, David Abramowitz, Keith O'Neil, and Carol Doherty of the Committee on International Relations majority and minority staffs for their expertise and all their diligent work on this legislation. I would also like to thank Tim Miller and Maile Gradison of my office for their dedication to this initiative, and Jeff Burnam with Senator Lugar and Jim Green with Senator Biden for helping to develop the companion bill on the Senate side, which is identical to the legislation introduced in the House and almost identical to the legislation that we have on the floor this afternoon. Again, this is a good program, worthy of reauthorization. It holds great promise. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to enthusiastically support the passage today of H.R. 2131.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in tribute to Robert L. Wehling, a good friend and community leader, who will retire on August 10, 2001 from the Procter & Gamble Company in Cincinnati. Bob started with P & G on June 27, 1960 exactly 41 years ago today. Bob Wehling currently serves as Procter & Gamble's global marketing and government relations officer. He joined the company as a brand assistant, and during his long and distinguished career, held various positions including brand manager, advertising manager, and vice president of public affairs. Bob has been a true leader and innovator, developing new approaches to marketing and responsible advertising. A long-time advocate for quality family entertainent, he co-founded the Family Friendly Programming Forum in 1999, a consortium of major advertisers dedicated to increasing family oriented shows on network television. Bob believed it was possible to have positive programming choices for multigenerations to watch together--and for all to be entertained. In 2000, he was named the most powerful person in marketing by the trade journal Advertising Age. He was recognized for his work in making advertising more efficient as audiences become more fragmented. His volunteer involvement in the Cincinnati community is legendary. He is particularly well known for his advocacy on behalf of children and his passion for education. His public service has taken him from president of the Wyoming, Ohio School Board in 1986 to more recent positions as Co-Chair of the Ohio Education Improvement Council and membership on the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. Bob has capably led numerous local organizations, including the Greater Cincinnati March of Dimes, the Greater Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce, the National Advertising Council Board, and Beech Acres For the Love of Kids Parenting Conference. All of us in Cincinnati congratulate Bob on his outstanding career with Procter & Gamble, thank him for his many years of dedicated community service, and wish him well in the new challenges to come.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Jerry Sasson, a friend and constituent, who is retiring after 11 years as principal of Terrace Park Elementary School (TPES) in the Second District of Ohio. Jerry is a special kind of principal because he is a special kind of person. He has been called a one-of-a-kind educator, who spends time in the classroom every day, knows the name and face of every one of his 300 students, writes a personal, handwritten birthday card to each student every year, and sends students notes at home to recognize personal accomplishments. He encourages kindness and respect among students, teachers and parents, and is aware of each student's specific challenges and talents. An Ohio native, Jerry received his Doctor of Education in Educational Leadership from the University of Cincinnati in 1992. He graduated with a Master of Education in Guidance and Counseling and a Bachelor of Science in Education from the University of Dayton. Jerry received his school psychology certificate from Xavier University in 1972. Jerry began his career as a high school English teacher at Fenwick High School in Middletown, Ohio, and went on to become Fenwick's Director of Guidance and Counseling. From 1972 through 1979, he served the Hamilton County Office of Educational Services as a school psychologist and, in 1979, he joined the Mariemont, Ohio City School District as Director of Special Services, a position he retained while serving as principal. In 1990, he became the principal of TPES, a school within the Mariemont School District. Jerry is well known for his regular column on parenting, Parent Pride, which appears in the publication of the Mariemont City School District. He tackles tough subjects such as tolerance, assertiveness, morals and responsibility. He's not afraid to tell us as parents that the best way to raise happy, productive children is to create and maintain home, school and community environments that focus on nurturing and support for all. Jerry believes that most difficult school-related issues--such as bullying, behavior problems, or violence--are not just school issues, but family and community issues, too. And he's right: schools can create zero tolerance policies, but it all comes back to the attitudes and relationships at home. All of us in the Greater Cincinnati area are grateful for Jerry's many years of dedicated and caring service. We appreciate his outstanding leadership and friendship, and wish him well in many new challenges and opportunities to come.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce that I am joined by Tom Lantos and 27 of our colleagues in introducing a bill to reauthorize the Tropical Forest Conservation Act (TFCA). This bipartisan, conservation incentive program helps to protect the world's most valuable tropical forests through ``debt for nature'' mechanisms. In the 105th Congress I introduced the TFCA with our former colleagues Lee Hamilton and John Kasich. It was overwhelmingly approved by the House by a vote of 356-61, passed the Senate under unanimous consent and became Public Law 105-214. The TFCA was developed with the support and input of respected environmental organizations such as The Nature Conservancy, the World Wildlife Fund and Conservation International. Their support and ongoing commitment to this program are appreciated and commendable. 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% of the Earth's terrestrial biodiversity. They act as ``carbon sinks,'' absorbing massive quantities of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, thereby reducing greenhouse gases. They regulate rainfall on which agriculture and coastal resources depend, and they are of great importance to regional and global climate. Furthermore, tropical forests are breeding grounds for new medicines. Twenty five percent of prescription drugs come from tropical forests. The United States National Cancer Institute has identified over 3000 plants that are active against cancer. Seventy percent of them can be found in rain forests. Regrettably, tropical forests are rapidly disappearing. The latest figures indicate that 30 million acres (an area larger than the State of Pennsylvania) were lost each year. The heavy debt burden of many countries 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. The TFCA addresses these economic pressures by authorizing the President to allow eligible countries to engage in debt swaps, buybacks or reduction/restructuring in exchange for protecting threatened tropical forests on a sustained basis. The TFCA is based on the previous Bush Administration's Enterprise for the America's Initiative (EAI) that allows the President to restructure debt in exchange for conservation efforts in Latin America. TFCA expands on the EAI and allows protection of threatened tropical forests worldwide. The debt for nature mechanisms in the TFCA is an effective means to leverage scarce funds available for international conservation. The host country places an amount in its tropical forest fund that typically exceeds the cost to the Treasury of the debt reduction agreement. Furthermore, because these tropical forest funds have integrity and are broadly supported within the host country, conservation organizations are interested in placing their own money in these tropical forest funds producing additional leverage of federal conservation dollars. Last year, the United States concluded the first TFCA debt reduction agreement with Bangladesh. This outstanding agreement will help protect four million acres of mangrove forests in that country and the world's only genetically secure population of Bengal Tigers. At present, there are eleven nations on three continents interested in negotiating TFCA debt reduction agreements. Furthermore, President Bush has expressed his commitment to the program. The International Relations Committee plans to take up the bill very soon, so I would like to invite all of our colleagues to cosponsor this important conservation measure.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a dedicated journalist and a true friend to the people of Cincinnati, Ohio--Paul Knue. After 18 years, Paul recently stepped down as Editor from both the Cincinnati and Kentucky Post. Paul has had a long and distinguished career in journalism. In 1970, he started at the copy desk of the Cincinnati Post, the paper he had read growing up. He was named managing editor of the Evansville Press in 1975, then returned to the tri-state area in 1979 to become editor of the Kentucky Post. Four years later, Paul became editor of The Cincinnati Post, and in 1995, assumed leadership of both papers. Those of us who work in politics are often affectionately called public servants. But the title of public servant seems more appropriate for an individual like Paul Knue. As Editor of the Post, Paul did not sit back and passively assess the goings-on in his community. Rather, Paul used his leadership of the editorial page to help shine a light on important issues, particularly urban development. He helped found both Downtown Cincinnati Inc., a downtown advocacy group, and SouthBank Partners, a Northern Kentucky development organization As a native of Cincinnati, Paul brought an extraordinary amount of knowledge and experience to the operations of the Post. During his tenure, the Post broke many important stories--including uncovering a tax break scandal in the County Auditor's office, and spotlighting the deterioration of city playgrounds, which eventually led to increased funding for park facilities. Over the years, I have had the pleasure of working with Paul on the Coalition for a Drug-Free Greater Cincinnati. His efforts and commitments to the Cincinnati community have helped make the Coalition a big success. Paul is also an accomplished long-distance bicycle rider. It is not uncommon to see him training on the Little Miami bike trial, leaving others way behind. The people of Cincinnati know Paul Knue as a leader, but more importantly, they know him as a friend. His contributions at the Cincinnati Post and Kentucky Post will be sorely missed, but I have every confidence that he will continue to make numerous contributions to our community in the years to come.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Michigan for yielding. I would announce, Mr. Speaker, that the House has completed its legislative business for the week. The House will next meet for legislative business on Tuesday, June 12, at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour and then at 2 o'clock for legislation business. We will be considering a number of measures under suspension of the rules, a list of which will be distributed to Members' offices tomorrow. On Tuesday, no recorded votes are expected until 6 o'clock. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House plans to consider the following measures, subject to rules. First, H.R. 931, the Sudan Peace Act; and, second, H.R. 1088, which is the Investor and Capital Markets Fee Relief Act. That would be Wednesday and Thursday. On Friday, no votes are expected in the House.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, I think our leadership is relatively optimistic that this time we can work out whatever differences there might be between the two committees of jurisdiction and take it to the floor next week. As the gentleman knows, the gentleman from Indiana (Chairman Burton) was out unavoidably this week due to personal health issues in his family, and the Committee on Government Reform does have jurisdiction over this issue, as does the Committee on Financial Services. But it is my understanding that we now have the ability to move it to the floor and differences are being worked out.

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

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I appreciate the gentleman's candor, as usual. I will say that there was frustration, of course, on both sides of the aisle with that process; and many Members who waited for those votes and spent the night in their offices probably felt that same frustration. It was the most comprehensive tax legislation in a couple of decades and there were a lot of complications working with the other body, including members of the gentleman's party. But the point is well taken with regard to the frustration. We, of course, had hoped that we could have kept to a more tight time schedule. It ended up not being possible, given all the complexities of moving the most comprehensive legislation in this area in a generation. But I appreciate the gentleman's comments and, again, his candor, as usual; and I look forward to trying to better work together in the future on these legislative projects.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on Friday, June 8, 2001, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 12, for morning hour debates.

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.