Rob Portman

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my slow-talking, fast- thinking friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight, for yielding me the time; and I appreciate his words as to his commitment to doing a thorough investigation of the issue of disclosure, not just 527s but all of the tax-related committees, including the 501s. I do have a copy of the motion to recommit now. I appreciate, with all the talk about disclosure, that it was disclosed to us several minutes ago. I have looked at it. I would just make two very simple points. One is, it has nothing to do with the bill before us, which is repeal of a 102-year-old telephone excise tax. That is what is before this Congress. Again, I want to applaud my friends on the other side of the aisle for working with us together in a bipartisan fashion to finally put an end to this Spanish-American War tax as we go into the 21st century and which is a barrier to telecommunications and an unfair tax that should have been repealed a long time ago. It was put in as a temporary tax and a temporary luxury tax at that. Finally we are getting rid of it. Second, I will say, having looked at this, it is a very interesting motion to recommit. It, basically, says that 527 corporations could continue not to disclose anything so long as they agree to continue paying a 3 percent Federal excise tax. So it is a clever way to attach it to the legislation at hand in order to avoid, I suppose, the germaneness problems that the parliamentarian would otherwise raise or we would raise and he would confirm. But it is not a very strong enforcement mechanism. I would say, if the gentleman is serious about it, he ought to go back to the drawing board, work with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), work with others who want to put this together in a strong bipartisan way to come up with legislation that makes sense in a comprehensive way to deal with this real problem in a real comprehensive way. So I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, if they want to get something done for the American people, vote for the repeal of the telephone tax. If they want to do it in a clean way that sends a strong message that does not involve partisan political politics with what should be a very straight forward and a very important constructive step by this Congress, vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, we have the ability to close, so the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) may proceed, then I will close.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray). (Mr. BILBRAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, again I am happy to let the gentleman talk on his own time. He did not yield to our side, and there is plenty of time on the gentleman's side. I would just say that it would be nice if in one day in this Congress we could come together, join arms as Republicans and as Democrats, and do something that is good for all of our constituents, which we have done up to this point on this legislation, both in terms of the subcommittee hearings, in terms of the committee hearings, the committee markup, in terms of working with outside groups to come together and bring people together, rather than making it a partisan issue, rather than again raising issues that are going to confuse and muddy the waters as we try to send a strong bipartisan signal to the U.S. Senate and to the President that this phone tax is one we want to repeal and we want to get it done this year. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PORTMAN. Is a 527 different than a 501(c)(5)?

Mr. PORTMAN. They could give us some perspective on this. Is a 527 any different than a 501(c)(4) that is also doing advertising without any proper disclosure?

Mr. PORTMAN. Since no one yielded to me on the gentleman's side, I will let the gentleman take his own time. Second, I would make the point that if campaign finance reform is going to be connected to every issue that comes up on the floor that is bipartisan, that is constructive, that is something that is moving America forward, then I think it is very easy for people who are watching out there and other Members to think, gee, perhaps the folks on that side of the aisle are trying to obstruct what goes on in this Congress, are trying to make everything that is bipartisan into a partisan issue, are trying to keep this Congress from getting its work done and in fact helping the American people. That is what this is all about today. This is an effort again that the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) and I, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra) and I, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen) and I, and many other Members of this conference and the conference of the other side have worked on; and we are happy to proceed with a debate on the telephone tax because we think it is the right thing to do for the American people. We are also eager to see the motion to recommit since the gentleman is so concerned about disclosure, and it would be interesting to see how it is tied in. What I heard from the speaker earlier, although we do not have the motion to recommit so we cannot see it, is that the gentleman was interested in saying that he could tie this to, again, this constructive effort to repeal an outdated tax by saying that if folks do not disclose who are in certain kinds of organizations then they would have to continue to pay the 3 percent telephone tax, which is an interesting way to tie it in; and I must commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) for his creativity. But I will say that I do not think that does a whole lot; I do not think that is much of an enforcement mechanism. So if the gentleman is really trying to get something done, maybe he ought to back up and go to his own Treasury Department in the Clinton administration and say where is the report on political activities and the appropriate tax structure of political activity that was due under the 1998 IRS Restructuring Reform Act that we are still waiting for? Where is that report? Maybe the Treasury Department could help us because they are the experts in this.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just make the point again that this is a great example of bipartisan legislation that has been so from the start that has come to the floor after extensive discussion and hearings. We have a broad-based coalition that is involved in this effort. It includes the Hispanic business community. It includes the African American business community. It includes, of course, consumer groups. It includes telephone companies that now pay the administrative costs to impose this tax. It includes people who have been trying for years to get the Congress to focus on this outdated tax that is actually a barrier to Internet access and to the telecommunications revolution that this Congress is trying to encourage rather than discourage. I would just hope that maybe we could keep this discussion focused on that. There will be a motion to recommit. I understand it is going to try to connect some new issues to this that have to do with campaign finance reform. We have heard a lot of the speakers address that, and I appreciate the fact that they are supporting this repeal which is long overdue; but I would also hope that when we do bring a piece of bipartisan legislation to the floor, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) and I have today, that we might as a Congress respond to those very people on both sides of the aisle who say, gee, we are so partisan around here, we can never get anything done together, we can never move forward to do something for the American people that is in their interest, I would hope some of my friends on the other side of the aisle would listen to some of their own words and perhaps respond accordingly, and that we could move together without the kind of confusion and potentially partisan acrimony that seems to be building with regard to this motion to recommit and send something over to the Senate with a very strong bipartisan signal that we feel strongly about this issue; we want to get it done this year. We believe this is something we can do for all of our constituents. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the chairman of the Republican Policy Committee.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), a distinguished 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 myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that my friend from Wisconsin has pointed out some other potential targets. Unfortunately, the U.S. Congress will not be able to do much about it. Maybe some State legislators from Virginia were watching, maybe some of our regulators downtown were watching from the FCC, and maybe even some members of the Committee on Commerce are here. But I know that it is very important to most Members of this Chamber that we go ahead and reduce that 97 cents, which is $6 billion a year on the consumers of this country; and regardless of what States may do or what other regulations may require, I am delighted that this has been, from the start, an effort that has been supported broadly on a bipartisan basis. I want to point out the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) in particular. He is my partner on this legislation, has been from the start. He makes some very good points every time he speaks on this issue. He just made them previously about the difficulty we are having at the IRS right now even identifying what is a telephone tax and what is not, given the emerging technologies and given the very fast pace of change out there. The gentleman also has talked, I know, about the history of this legislation. I do not want to go over all of it, but I hope people understand that this was a temporary luxury tax put in place during the Spanish-American War to pay for that war at a time when very few Americans had telephones, only the wealthiest of Americans. This temporary luxury tax, which was put in place at a time when the country was just being introduced to the glamorous young war hero, Teddy Roosevelt, has lived on. It has gone up, it has gone down, it has gone all around. But it is a classic example of a tax in Washington that just will not die, and in this case a temporary tax on a luxury item that is no longer a luxury item, rather something all of us use every day in our lives and is clearly a catalyst to the economic growth we are all enjoying. So at a time of prosperity, at a time when we can look out to the future with budget surpluses projected, and have the luxury of looking at our Tax Code, what makes sense and what does not, this should be for this Congress a target for repeal. It is a 3 percent Federal excise tax; you will see it on your phone bill. Sometimes it is called FET. Look at the bottom of that bill, if you can look past all the other charges and so on that the gentleman from Wisconsin talked about. This is one this Congress can do something about and should do today. From a tax policy perspective, there are number of reasons why this does not make sense, in addition to the fact that it is no longer necessary, since the Spanish-American War is 102 years ago. One is it is regressive. Lower-income families, of course, pay a higher percentage of their family budget than most Americans do on the telephone use. Everybody has a phone. Ninety-four percent of American families have it. Seniors are particularly hard hit by this on fixed incomes who need the telephone as a lifeline to the outside world. Second, unlike other Federal excise taxes that go for some specific purpose, this simply goes into general revenues. The gas tax is a Federal excise tax, but it goes to fix our roads and our bridges. We also have Federal excise taxes on sin, being the sin taxes, so-called sin taxes, on alcohol and cigarettes. But this is something that we should not be discouraging, telephone use. In fact, just the opposite. We should be encouraging it, again, because it is such a fundamental driver in the economic prosperity we now enjoy. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, this is anti-Internet, having this tax in place, anti-telecommunications, at a time when that ought to be encouraged. Ninety-six percent of Internet goes over phone lines. So at the very end of the day, all I can say is this is a great example where the Congress gets together, reflects on our Tax Code, what makes sense, what does not, comes together on a bipartisan basis, making it bipartisan from the very start, then brings it to the floor in a bipartisan way, to send a strong message to the United States Senate, which sometimes needs a strong message, and to the President, because I hope it will end up on his desk, hope it will happen in the next month. I hope it will happen before we go out of session certainly this year, so we will be able to give our consumers a little break and help our economy and get rid of this, again, outdated part of our Tax Code. The Spanish-American War is long over, but in the 21st century, the telecommunications revolution is very much on. We need to assist that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), my colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by returning the compliment to the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui). It has been a pleasure to work with him. I also want to commend him for his efforts yesterday, not so much the victory of normalizing trade relations with China, the world's most populous country, but rather the way in which he went about it. It was a bipartisan vote. I think it was a good and informed debate, profound debate on the floor of this House yesterday. I have got to say today's debate has been disappointing, because it has not been about the topic at hand, which is tax policy, which is specifically this Congress finally, after 102 years, coming to grips with the telephone excise tax that was put in place as a temporary luxury tax to fund the Spanish American War that has continued to burden our consumers, and today is actually a burden and a barrier to telecommunications, which is the point of the debate today. I want to tell my colleague that I was informed by the staff some time ago during this debate that the parliamentarians had informed them that I could raise a point of order to say that the speakers on this debate would have to keep their comments within the subject matter, which is the telephone tax, and not campaign finance reform. I chose not to do that, because I did not want to close down debate unnecessarily. We did try on our side. We beseeched our colleagues on this side to try to keep it on the issue, because this is a great issue in the sense that Republicans and Democrats came together to try to solve a very real problem to move our country forward, in this case, to repeal an outdated telephone tax that is a burden on our economy and it particularly burdens low-income families. We hear a lot from the other side of the aisle about how various Republican tax proposals are not properly distributed across the economy so that they really impact the poorest among us. Ninety-four percent of America's families have telephones. So we are talking about getting rid of a tax every one of those families pay every month on their phone bill. It is a disproportionate burden on the budgets of the lowest-income families in our country. It is a disproportionate burden on our seniors in this country who rely on telephones. It really is a lifeline for their everyday communication with the outside world. As the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) has pointed out a number of times, this is also a tax that, frankly, is very difficult to impose now because of new technology, because of the difficulty of deciding what in fact is appropriate to have the telephone tax attached to in the new world of modern telecommunications. So I am sorry we did not have a better debate today on the issue before us. With regard to the comments of my colleague from Texas on the Committee on Ways and Means, I am sorry he had to put a partisan spin on the debate before us. I disagree with what he said. I do not think we can draw a line through this Chamber through the middle and say, gee, all Republicans are against this, all Democrats are for that. I do not think we can castigate Republicans for being against reform. We are for reform. I myself put in a campaign finance reform bill every session I have been here. I believe in disclosure, as do my colleagues. We also believe in doing it the right way, and not a telephone tax bill; not with regard to one narrow piece of legislation; not without the proper information, as I said earlier from the Treasury Department of the Clinton administration, which is way overdue on its report to us on this very topic. Let us do this in a smart way. Let us do it in a way that is comprehensive, so that whether we are called a 527 or a 501(c)4 or 5, or whatever number is attached to a candidate, they are treated the same way, with the same principle, which is that that candidate should have to disclose the sources of their donations. I applaud my colleague from Massachusetts because he has done that in a comprehensive way in his campaign reform proposal. But today is a cynical partisan attempt. Again, it is disappointing to me, because I thought in this case we had something we could come together with as Republicans and Democrats and do for our constituents in a positive way. At the end of the day, we will. We will. We will be able, I think today, by sending such a strong message from this House on a bipartisan basis to move forward a repeal of a tax that probably should have been repealed 101 years ago, a tax on everybody's telephone use. I would just make one final comment, and that is that when we talk about civility in this Chamber, when we talk about how to work in a bipartisan way, when we talk about how we can move legislation forward that all of our constituents care about, I think it is important we begin to cultivate certain kinds of approaches and certain kinds of Members and a certain approach to issues. And I would ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and on both sides of the aisle, to look into their hearts and say is this the way we want to proceed? Is this what is going to encourage civility and encourage moving us ahead as a country in this Congress? Even in an election year, colleagues, we should be able to get together and do the right thing for other constituents. I think we will do that today. I strongly encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join us in finally repealing this tax, joining the telecommunications revolution of this century and repealing a tax from the end of the 19th century.

Mr. PORTMAN. I have not seen it. No. Let me just make my own points, if I might.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, since the gentleman would not yield to me, I will just make a couple quick points. One is, if the gentleman is so interested in disclosure, it would be awfully nice if in the context of this telephone tax repeal, which is what we are talking about today, that many of us have worked for months on, that the motion to recommit would be disclosed to us.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia very much for his support of this legislation and for allowing me to speak today on the rule. We are talking about the telephone excise tax. I want to get back to that and then perhaps address a couple of the points that have been made by my friends on the other side. First of all, to take us back to where we are here, this is a bipartisan effort that the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) and I started some time ago; it has been bipartisan from the start. It is an attempt to look at our Tax Code in a time of prosperity and budget surpluses and see what makes sense and what does not. It is our sense that this is a perfect candidate for repeal. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) spoke earlier, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, and he has also been a leader on this and also on the general issue of bringing to the attention of this Congress that telecommunications is indeed, as he said, a foundation of our economic growth. This is one part of that. This particular tax started back in 1898 at a time when the U.S. was engaged in a war with the Spanish and we wanted to get a little revenue, so we went after a luxury item called a telephone that very few Americans had, only the wealthy; and we said, let us put a tax on this telephone, that very few people have, to help pay for this war. Teddy Roosevelt was just emerging as a national figure, as a war hero, and it was 102 years ago. It has gone up and down over the years. The history is actually very interesting, including the fact that during the Vietnam War, this tax was increased to 10 percent to help defray the costs of the Vietnam War. In fact, people were burning their phone bills on the street, as well as their draft cards, to try to protest the Vietnam War. But it is also a great example of what seems to me to be a truism, which is once you put a tax in place in this town, it is very difficult to get rid of it. In this case, it was a temporary luxury tax on an item that is no longer a luxury, a telephone. From a tax policy perspective, it is even worse. First, it is, of course, regressive. Families with lower incomes pay a disproportionate share of their family budget for the phone bill. Practically every family in America has a phone now. Ninety four percent of Americans have telephones. The seniors are particularly hard hit by this. They are on fixed incomes. They rely on the telephone as a lifeline, as a lifeline to the outside world, so their budget is particularly hard hit by this. So it is regressive. Second, it is not like other Federal excise taxes used for any purpose. It goes into general revenues. It is a revenue-grab, rather than, for example, the gas tax which goes to repair our roads and bridges. It is not even a sin tax, and there are some Federal excise taxes on alcohol and cigarettes. Again, this one goes to no particular purpose. So from a tax policy perspective, at a time when we have the luxury to sit back and look at our Tax Code, what makes sense and what does not, it makes all the sense in the world to repeal this one. Finally, and most importantly, I think, in addressing the questions that have been raised today, it is a tax on telecommunications. Mr. Speaker, 96 percent of the Internet goes over phone lines, as we heard earlier today. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) talked about it as the foundation of our economic growth. There is no more important catalyst to the economic growth. We are hearing today about our first quarter results, over 5 percent growth, this is because of technology; and telecommunications as a real driver in our economic growth. This is a tax on every single Internet user. It is a tax on every small company in America. The large companies often have private lines, they are not paying this tax, but the small companies get hid the hardest. So at a time when we are concerned about the digital divide and access to the Internet, I think this is a great product. Now, I understand there is another proposal coming from the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns); and he is a friend, a good friend. I have not talked to him about the proposal. It has not been through our committee, I do not think it has been through the Committee on Commerce yet either, nor have there been any hearings on it. So I, frankly, do not know much about it. Again, we have been at this for several months, and I have not heard of it yet. But I am perfectly willing to sit down with the gentleman and others and talk about this, because I agree that we need to address the digital divide. The gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra) and I, for instance, have a bill that we have been trying to get through that expands the ability to give a computer to a school. Right now it is a tax deduction, we think it ought to be a tax credit. We think other computers in the current status, which is computers only 2 years old, ought to be eligible. So I am very sympathetic to that general notion. But the thought of taking this phone tax and getting rid of it and giving those revenues back to those families, particularly those families again on the lower income scale that really pay a disproportionate share to me is what we ought to be doing here today, not taking that money and putting it into a trust fund that the government may use, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) said, I understand, for underserved areas, rural areas and so on. Let us look at that another day. Let us let this process proceed. Mr. Speaker, I hear a lot on this floor about how, gee, we are so partisan in the House of Representatives, and then when we bring a good bipartisan bill to the floor that has been bipartisan from the start, and I see my colleague from Texas who has been part of this from the start, and others, I think we ought to, as a group, come together and actually get something done for the American people and send it to the Senate with a strong bipartisan vote. Let us not slow this down or stop it or make it a confused product by adding new things at this point that are not items that have been vetted in the process or frankly that have been part of this process. Let us move this on to the Senate with a strong bipartisan vote so that we can actually get it to the President's desk and get it done for our constituents.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, May 18, our nation and our world lost a remarkable leader with the passing of John C. Sawhill, the president and chief executive officer of The Nature Conservancy. I had the good fortune to work with John and his staff over the last three years as we developed the Tropical Forest Conservation Act-- legislation designed to protect the world's most threatened tropical forests. Under John's leadership, the Conservancy provided us with the technical expertise, research and political savvy to help ensure that the TFCA was enacted into law. During John's long and distinguished career in public service, academia, and the private sector, he held senior positions in the Nixon, Ford, and Carter administration; served as president of New York University; and was a partner in the international consulting firm of McKinsey and Company. John joined The Nature Conservancy in January 1990. Under his leadership, the Conservancy grew into the world's largest private conservation group and the nation's 14th largest nonprofit institution, with annual revenues of $780 million, over one million members, and a network of 1300 private nature reserves. Its mission is to preserve biodiversity by protecting wildlife habitat. Samuel C. Johnson, the chairman of The Conservancy's National Board of Governors, noted that John's passing is sad news not only for the Nature Conservancy family, but also for the cause of conservation. I could not agree more. The Conservancy's remarkable record of achievement over the past decade is an eloquent testimony to John's energy, vision, intellect, and commitment to the mission of conservation. During John's tenure, The Conservancy protected more than 7 million acres of land in the United States alone, including such landmark purchases as the 502-square-mile Gray Ranch in New Mexico in 1990 and the $37 million acquisition of Palmyra Atoll in the Pacific, announced only two weeks ago. His stewardship of the organization also saw the number of staff triple to the current level of 3,000 employees; total assets triple to $2.3 billion; and membership more than double. Born in Cleveland, Ohio, on June 12, 1936, John was raised in Baltimore, Maryland. At the time of his death, he resided in Washington, D.C. and Washington, Virginia. He graduated cum laude from Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs in 1958 and received his Ph.D. in economics from New York University in 1963. From 1960 to 1963, he was assistant dean and assistant professor in the department of economics at NYU. John served as a director of a number of major American corporations, including Consolidated Edison, RCA, Philip Morris, Crane Corporation, General American Investors, American International Group, Automatic Data Processing, and North American Coal. At the time of his death, he was serving as a director of the Procter and Gamble Company, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and the Vanguard Group of Mutual Funds. He was involved with a number of nonprofit organizations. He was chairman of the board of the H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment. He served as a member of the President's Council on Sustainable Development and the Environment for the Americas Board, the group that oversees debt-for-nature swaps and the establishment of conservation trust funds in several Latin American countries. In addition, he served on the Commission on the Future of the Smithsonian and chaired the task force on governance, management and financial resources. He also served as a trustee of Princeton University and was chairman emeritus of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts. In September 1997, John became senior lecturer of business administration at the Harvard Business School where he taught and conducted research on not-for-profit institutions. John also published a number of books, articles, and reports about energy and energy- related subjects. John is survived by his wife, Isabel V. Sawhill, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and president of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy; his son, James W. Sawhill, a senior vice president at Wells Fargo Bank in San Francisco; a grandson, John C. Sawhill II; a brother, James M. Sawhill, of Newport News, Virginia, and two sisters, Sally Supplee of Palo Alto, California and Monroe Hodder of London, England. John was an inspiration to me personally. I considered him not only a colleague but a friend. He will be greatly missed.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of continued Normal Trade Relations between the United States and China. Trade with China has been a significant factor in the economic expansion we've been able to enjoy during the 1990s. In my own district, Greater Cincinnati companies exports to China have almost doubled in this decade alone. That means more jobs for my constituents, more prosperity for the families and businesses in Southwest Ohio, and a healthier economy for the area I represent, for the state of Ohio as a whole and, indeed, for the entire nation. For those of my colleagues who are undecided on this subject, I'd urge you to take a close look at this PNTR agreement, because it makes so much sense. This is a totally one-sided agreement. Because we already have an essentially open market, we've given away nothing to get this deal, but we've received unprecedented concessions from the Chinese. Mr. Speaker, China has a long way to go on improving labor standards, human rights and environmental protection. That's why I believe our most important export to China won't be our products and services. Our most important export is our ideas and our beliefs about freedom and democracy. As the United States and China develop closer ties--as individuals from both countries begin to interact more often with each other--it's going to be impossible for the Chinese government to prevent our values and ideas from spreading. You can already see it happening with the spread of the internet in China, despite the best efforts of their government to slow it down. Mr. Speaker, we can choose to get rid of normal trade relations with China, and stand on the sidelines when our European and Asian competitors take our place. Or we can build a strong bilateral relationship through engagement--opening their country to our products and ideas. I urge my colleagues to support the rational approach--and to support normal trade relations with China.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of PNTR. I have to say I have listened to a lot of the debate and many of the arguments that are made against PNTR I think simply are not focused on what we are voting on today. They are not relevant to the vote today. What we are voting on today is whether the United States is going to be able to take advantage of a one-sided trade agreement that only benefits us with the Chinese by normalizing trade relations with China. Yes, putting China in the same category as emerging countries in Eastern Europe like Romania, countries in Africa like Kenya or Egypt, rather than putting China in the category of enemy countries like Libya or Iraq or Cuba, that is all this is about. Why can we not take advantage of this one-sided trade agreement that only benefits us unless we do this today? Because then they will not have the ability in WTO to give us the benefits they have just negotiated with us. This is about jobs. It is about exports from my district and other districts. The most important export is going to be the export of U.S. ideas and U.S. values, to bring China into the mainstream. With all due respect, so many of the arguments being made about human rights, about the environments, about national security, they are not relevant to the vote we are making today. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of continued Normal Trade Relations between the United States and China. Trade with China has been a significant factor in the economic expansion we've been able to enjoy during the 1990s. In my own district, Greater Cincinnati companies exports to China have almost doubled in this decade alone. That means more jobs for my constituents, more prosperity for the families and businesses in Southwest Ohio, and a healthier economy for the area I represent, for the state of Ohio as a whole and, indeed, for the entire nation. For those of my colleagues who are undecided on this subject, I'd urge you to take a close look at this PNTR agreement, because it makes so much sense. This is a totally one-sided agreement. Because we already have an essentially open market, we've given away nothing to get this deal, but we've received unprecedented concessions from the Chinese. Mr. Speaker, China has a long way to go on improving labor standards, human rights and environmental protection. That's why I believe our most important export to China won't be out products and services. Our most important export is our ideas and our beliefs about freedom and democracy. As the United States and China develop closer ties--as individuals from both countries begin to interact more often with each other--it's going to be impossible for the Chinese government to prevent our values and ideas from spreading. You can already see it happening with the spread of the internet in China, despite the best efforts of their government to slow it down. Mr. Speaker, we can choose to get rid of normal trade relations with China, and stand on the sidelines when our European and Asian competitors take our place. Or we can build a strong bilateral relationship through engagement--opening their country to our products and ideas. I urge my colleagues to support the rational approach--and to support normal trade relations with China.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 293, which calls on nations that are signatories to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction to live up to their treaty obligations. I am an original cosponsor of this legislation, and I commend the gentlemen from Texas [Mr. Lampson] and Ohio [Mr. Chabot] for their work on this issue. This issue was brought home to me by one of my constituents, Tom Sylvester of Blue Ash, Ohio. Tom's daughter Carina was taken by his Austrian-born wife on October 30, 1995. Although both the Austrian Central Authority and the Austrian Supreme Court ruled that Carina should be returned to the United States and to Tom's custody, the ruling was never enforced. The only contacts Tom has had with his daughter are a few brief supervised meetings in Austria, and his phone calls to her are always placed on a speaker phone, undoubtedly being monitored. Although the Hague Convention has helped in getting a just decision rendered, the United States currently has no way to force another country to enforce its own laws and judicial decisions within its own borders. In fact, the United States has no recourse if another participating member country does not live up to its obligations under the Convention. I have been working with the State and Justice Departments on Mr. Sylvester's behalf since July of 1998, and I can tell you that it has been a difficult and discouraging process. What is most frustrating is that Mr. Sylvester has done everything correctly under the terms of the Hague Convention, and still, more than four years later, he has been able to spend only a few precious minutes with his young daughter. He cannot even get the Austrian authorities to grant him an agreed upon visitation schedule, and have instead subjected him to a number of indignities. We owe it to Tom Sylvester and thousands of other parents who have suffered the same difficulties as he has to pass this resolution today. And I urge my colleagues to let this be the first of many steps needed to return these American children to their rightful homes.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, today I honor Mariemont High School's Destination ImagiNation Team. The team has seven students: Carrie Badanes, Lizzy Anthony, Bobby Zepf, Juli Newton, Ben Cober, John Rutherford and Kate Young. They are coached by Anne Badanes and Sue Cober, and will compete in the 2000 Destination ImagiNation world championships. The competition will be held in Ames, Iowa on May 24-27. During the event, the Mariemont team will compete using its creativity, teamwork, and wits to solve difficult problems. The teams are judged by their ability to integrate a myriad of elements into a performance, which draws upon their knowledge of history, their acting skills, and their ability to improvise. Since last December, the Mariemont High School team has trained extensively. They have spent many hours working with their coaches, learning new skills, researching history, and attending live performances of a professional improvisation group at the Aronoff Center in Cincinnati. In addition, they continue to work with their teacher, Carrie Dattillo, honing their acting skills. In 1999, the Mariemont High School team placed first at the regional competition and second at the state competition in Columbus. In previous years, the team has always placed second or third in the region and has won an unprecedented three Renatra Fusca awards for outstanding creativity. This year, they took first place in the regional and state competitions. At the regional competition, in March, they were awarded the prestigious DaVinci Award for outstanding creativity and teamwork. They are the first team from the Mariemont School District to compete in the world championships, and they are the sole team representing the Greater Cincinnati area. We are very proud of the Mariemont team's accomplishments, and all of us in the Cincinnati area wish its members the very best in their upcoming competition.