Rob Portman

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and support September 20-26 as National Pollution Prevention Week, which will be observed in the Second District of Ohio and throughout the Nation. One of the most cost-effective ways to have clean streets, drinkable water, and breathable air is to focus on preventing pollution before it is created. Often, this is best achieved locally. The Greater Cincinnati Earth Coalition has done just that by forming a Regional Waste Reduction Group to focus on such things as energy conservation, plastics recycling, and generally reducing waste at the local level. The coalition is also actively involved in the implementation of a regional environmental education and information resource center. Mr. Speaker, the objective to Pollution Prevention Week is to prevent pollution through education, cooperation, and voluntary recycling rather than through restrictive government regulations. It can encourage us to work for a cleaner environment while maintaining a competitive, prosperous business climate. These are goals we can all rally around, and I hope my colleagues will join me in recognizing Pollution Prevention Week.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report on the Treasury-Postal Appropriations bill. I do so particularly because of two areas of funding in the bill--the first being the important anti-drug efforts of the National Youth Anti- drug Media Campaign and the Drug Free Communities Act. These are both measures that I strongly believe will make a difference in our fight against substance abuse by reducing demand for illegal drugs. These measures are the key to winning the so-called war on drugs. I am also pleased that this conference report restores funding to reform the IRS. Last year, we passed this historic IRS Restructuring and Reform Act, the most dramatic reform in over 45 years. The Clinton Administration initially opposed the effort but ultimately agreed with a strong, bipartisan majority in this House that reform was needed. Mr. Speaker, this appropriations bill honors the commitment to reforming the IRS that we made last year. It funds the very important customer service improvements that were mandated by the legislation we passed last year, including a dramatic taxpayer-friendly reorganization of the whole IRS that will improve customer service for every taxpayer--and including the very popular Tele-File program that lets taxpayers file their tax returns much more easily through the telephone. Second, it funds the desperately needed computer modernization effort. Every Member of this House has heard horror stories, I know I have, from our constituents who have received erroneous computer notices where the left hand of the IRS does not know what the right hand is doing. I have been very critical of the IRS as have other Members. By investing in improved IRS technology, we will be protecting our constituents from the kind of computer problems we have all seen. We also need to expand access to taxpayer-friendly electronic filing--and this funding will enable us to move forward on that front. Right now there is a 22 percent error rate on paper filing, compared to less than a 1 percent error rate on electronic filing. That is why we mandated that the IRS work hard on electronic filing and in fact we set a goal of 80 percent electronic filing for the IRS by 2007. Finally, this funding will enable the IRS to complete its Y2K preparations during this calendar year. While the thought of IRS computers crashing may bring glee to the hearts of many, think about the consequences. Think about no refund checks. Think about erroneous IRS notices sent to innocent taxpayers who think they have paid their taxes in a timely way and in an appropriate way. Think about the unnecessary audits that might result. This appropriations bill gives the IRS the tools it needs to complete its Y2K preparations. I believe we are making progress in reforming the IRS, and this appropriations bill gives Commissioner Rossotti the resources to continue these efforts. But make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker. The Clinton Administration's continued failure to send a full slate of nominees for the new IRS Oversight Board to the Senate is a cause for very deep concern. I am deeply troubled by this continued failure--now eight months past the statutory deadline--and I believe it raises serious questions about this Administration's commitment to reforming this troubled agency. I strongly urge the Administration to stop delaying and send the IRS Oversight Board nominations to the Senate.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Stanley M. Chesley, a distinguished constituent, who will receive the prestigious Shalom Peace Award from the Jewish National Fund on November 6, 1999. The Shalom Peace Award is given to those who have made outstanding contributions to Israel and peace. It has been presented to an individual only eight times in the 99 year history of the Jewish National Fund. In receiving the award, Mr. Chesley joins other esteemed recipients, including Elie Weisel, Lady Margaret Thatcher, General Colin Powell, and Jihan Sadat. Stan Chesley was born on March 26, 1936 in Cincinnati. He received his B.A. from the University of Cincinnati in 1958 and his LL.B. in 1960. He was admitted to the bar in 1960, and joined the law firm that is now known as Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley, L.P.A. Mr. Chesley currently serves as President of the firm. He is a member of the bars of the Supreme Court of the United States, the Supreme Court of Ohio, and the United States District Court of Appeals for the Second, Fourth and Sixth Circuits. For eight years, he served on the Supreme Court of Ohio's Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, and was Vice Chair for two years. He has been a lecturer and author for the American Bar Association and many other legal organizations. While Stan Chesley is an accomplished and successful attorney, he also is well known for his dedicated public service. In 1995, he was appointed to the United States Holocaust Museum Council by President Clinton. He also serves on the National Board of Governors of Hebrew Union College, the National Executive Committee of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the National Board of Directors of the American Committee for the Weizmann Institute of Science, the Board of Trustees of the University of Cincinnati and Board of Directors of the University of Cincinnati Foundation. He generously gives of his time to these and many other worthwhile organizations and causes in Greater Cincinnati. Cincinnati salutes Stan Chesley as he receives this well deserved recognition.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Shays-Meehan legislation. I commend the sponsors for their efforts to clean up our broken campaign finance system, and I believe they are sincere in their efforts. However, while the Shays-Meehan bill makes some needed changes, it fails to go far enough in addressing what I believe are real problems with our current campaign finance system. Shays-Meehan fails to address the underlying problems of special interest influence, foreign influence and built-in incumbent advantages that plague our current system. Moreover, soft money provision, while well-intentioned, raise serious Constitutional concerns. Most seriously, the bill does nothing to address the problem posed by special interest PACs, which contribute overwhelmingly to incumbents and discourage individuals from getting involved in the political process. During the last Congress, I introduced campaign finance legislation containing limitations and increased disclosure for soft money, and other key provisions that go further than the Shays-Meehan bill. Among other features, the Restoring Trust in Government Act would have: banned the activities of special interest Political Action Committees (PACs); required 60% of campaign funds to be raided within a House candidate's district or a Senate candidate's state; clearly prohibited contributions by non-citizens; limited the ``bundling'' of campaign contributions; and completely banned taxpayer-financed unsolicited mass mailings by Members of Congress. I believe these are all common sense changes that deserve consideration in the context of campaign finance reform. Mr. Chairman, ultimately, I believe is virtually impossible for even the best intentioned incumbent Members of Congress to make truly sensible changes to the campaign finance system that helped them to get elected. That's why I would support the establishment of an independent commission--with a majority of members coming from outside of government--to study the problems of our current campaign financing system and make recommendations for reform within a very specific timeline. These recommendations would then be submitted to Congress for a simple yes or no vote, similar to the way we handled the difficult issue of base closures. I know commissions have a checkered history in Washington, but they can work if they are given the opportunity. I know from my own experience as co-chairman of the National Commission on Restructuring the IRS, which recommended a successful package of IRS reforms that ultimately passed Congress and were signed into law. I would also add that, if we had taken the step of establishing a nonpartisan campaign finance commission when we had the chance last year, we would be considering a nonpartisan commission's report today, instead of essentially the same Shays-Meehan legislation that failed to pass the Senate last year. If we're really serious about campaign finance reform, I believe we have no choice but to take it out of the political process entirely. I hope, when we next consider campaign finance reform, we will have the courage to support real campaign finance reform that can be enacted into law.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding and for all the effort he has put into this and for coming to the floor today to support it. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the Committee on Commerce staff for allowing us to have this resolution come to the floor today in an expedited manner. Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to join with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) to introduce House Concurrent Resolution 184. The resolution is pretty straightforward. It recognizes the importance, as the gentleman from Michigan has said, of family-friendly television programming and the specific contributions of a new group called the Family Friendly Programming Forum and the efforts they are undertaking to make this goal a reality. Recent events have intensified a national debate on child development and particularly the influence of popular culture on our children. We cannot overlook the important role that television plays in shaping the attitudes and the outlook of our Nation's young people. Studies show that on average children will watch between 22 and 28 hours of television every week which in many cases, Mr. Speaker, is about the same amount of time they spend in school. And television is not only a powerful influence, unfortunately it is too often a negative one. Let us be clear. Parents should always have the final responsibility for regulating their children's viewing habits. But the simple fact remains that the number of family-friendly programs available, particularly during prime time, has been declining. Parents are looking for more programs that are appropriate for them to watch together with their children. This resolution specifically supports the work of the Forum, an organization of 33 of the Nation's very largest advertisers who have recognized this unmet need in the marketplace. The argument is sometimes made that family-friendly programs do not draw big ratings, that advertisers will not support them and that, therefore, networks cannot afford to carry them. The work of the Family Friendly Programming Forum is changing this perception. The major advertisers who are members of the Forum are taking specific steps, including a new annual awards program that recognizes excellence in family-friendly programming, the first of which took place in Beverly Hills, California just last week. The Forum is also making a financial commitment. It has established a development fund to finance family- friendly scripts. It is underwriting university scholarships to encourage students' interest in writing family-friendly programming. The Forum is also conducting a series of public awareness events, campaigns around the country, to encourage families to seek out new options during prime time. Mr. Speaker, family-friendly does not mean dull. Good programming over the years, such as the 1999 Family Friendly Programming Forum Lifetime Achievement award winner ``The Cosby Show'' and the long- running ``Home Improvement'' demonstrates that television programming can be both appropriate and enjoyable for the entire family and very successful. There is a market for good programming of this type. Frankly, the statement made by the advertising community through this forum about their interest in this kind of programming is to me very significant. Mr. Speaker, as a father of three, I am all too well aware of the powerful influence that television programming can have on our kids and the need for more programming we can enjoy as a family. While Congress cannot and should not tell the television networks what programming to air, we can and should support efforts like the Forum's constructive, free market approach to promoting family-friendly television. That is what this resolution is all about. By passing it at the beginning of the school year as we are doing, we as a Congress are making an important statement about the need for more suitable programming on our Nation's airwaves for all Americans. I commend the Family Friendly Programming Forum and the goals they are advancing. I urge adoption of House Concurrent Resolution 184.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today along with my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts, Representative Markey to introduce a concurrent resolution which recognizes the importance of family friendly television programming, and the contributions that the Family Friendly Programming Forum is undertaking to make this goal a reality. Recent events have caused a national debate on child development and the influences of our popular culture on our children. In particular, we cannot overlook the role that television plays in shaping the attitudes and outlook of our nation's young people. Studies show that, each week, the average child will watch 22-28 hours of television, which is more time he or she will spend on any activity other than sleeping. Television is not only a powerful influence, it is too often a negative one. While parents have the final responsibility for regulating their children's viewing habits, the simple fact remains that the number of family-friendly programs available--particularly during prime time--has been steadily decreasing. Thirty-three of our country's largest companies have recognized this unmet need in the marketplace. And they have joined together to establish the Family Friendly Programming Forum. The argument is often made that family-friendly programs don't draw big ratings, advertisers won't support them and, therefore, networks cannot afford to carry them. One of the goals of the Forum is to change this perception. The major advertisers who are members of the Forum are taking a number of specific steps to encourage more family-friendly programs, including a new annual awards program the first of which is being held in California today. The Forum is also establishing a development fund for family-friendly scripts, a television scholarship program and a public awareness campaign to promote viewing options for families. Mr. Speaker, family-friendly programming does not mean dull shows. Successful programming over the years, including such television classics as ``The Cosby Show'' and ``Home Improvement,'' demonstrate that entertaining programming can be produced that is appropriate for the entire family. There is a market for good family-friendly programming. The advertising community represented on the Forum should be commended for working proactively to improve the content and quality of programming for America's families. Our families deserve more viewing choices and options. As a Member of Congress and as a parent, I commend the Family Friendly Programming Forum for working to provide more suitable programming for all Americans.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the Kucinich amendment. Make no mistake about it, Mr. Chairman, this is nothing but a back- door attempt at protectionism. Think about what would happen if we pass this amendment. We would let our cities and states and counties decide what our trade policy is. We would be setting up the same kind of protectionism and breaking down the kind of standards that we have fought so hard to protect under the World Trade Organization and under the GATT. We're having enough trouble getting other countries to keep their markets open. Think about their response if we were to enact this amendment. Those other countries whose products are being discriminated against will retaliate against the United States, and they would have every right to do it under the trade agreements we have signed. They would not have the right to do it so long as the U.S. follows the rules. But if we allow our cities and states and counties to break the trade rules we've agreed to, then we give them free license to discriminate against American products and hurt American workers. I realize there are many in this body who do not like the NAFTA agreement who would like to take some feel-good unilateral actions without suffering any consequences. I would say to those people--if you don't like NAFTA, let's talk about NAFTA. If you don't like WTO, which was also passed by a Democrat Congress and signed by a Democrat President, then let's talk about it. One-third of the growth of this wonderful economic situation we find ourselves in today is due to exports. If you want to pretend that American workers don't benefit from trade, we can (and will) debate that. But it's wrong to go around and suggest that--instead of having a national trade policy--we are going to let Cleveland or Cincinnati or San Francisco or Des Moines or any other city determine our nation's trade policy. I'm as pro-federalism as any Member of this body, but I don't believe that city councils, county commissions and state legislatures should dictate our trade policy with other countries. And make no mistake about it, that's what this bill would do. Let's fight for a fair and free trading system. Let's protect and improve the trading system we have. Reject this senseless amendment.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I want to start by commending him for his determination and vision in moving this tax relief proposal to this point. There are a lot of great provisions in the bill before us today. They have been focused on by others, eliminating the marriage penalty, expanding everybody's opportunities to achieve a good education for themselves and their children, helping Americans afford health care for themselves and for their elderly family members. I want to focus for a moment on the retirement security provisions. The Financial Freedom Act before us today contains the most comprehensive reforms of our pension laws since ERISA was passed 25 years ago. By strengthening 401(k)s for all Americans, by strengthening defined benefit plans, the traditional plans and other plans, by allowing workers to save more in their pensions, save more in their IRAs, by making pensions portable so workers can take them from job to job, by providing a catchup for workers over 50 years old, by modifying section 415 to help union workers to be able to have a better multi-employer plan, by doing all these things, we allow all Americans to save more for their own retirement, to have more peace of mind in their own retirement, and we are going to allow millions of American workers who do not currently have any kind of a pension at all, that is half of our workforce, to be able to come into a system where they have a pension, to be able to provide in their retirement years for their own retirement security. This, Mr. Speaker, is why this bill makes sense for the American people, why this bill is going to be supported today. I urge the President to sign it.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 364, I was detained in a conference committee meeting and did not hear the bells. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I would like to say that he deserves a lot of credit for getting this bill through the House and for having spent this weekend working with the Senate to come up with a compromise package that will, in the end, be able to give taxpayers the relief that they so well deserve. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the motion to instruct. I was watching it over in my office and thought I should come over and talk about the fact that the Financial Freedom Act that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and others have put together, so many of us have had a part in this, is, in fact, not fiscally irresponsible but it is simply taking what is $3 trillion in projected surpluses over the next 10 years and allowing the taxpayers to keep a little more of their hard-earned money, roughly one-third of that amount, rather than spending it here in Washington on new programs. It comes down to a philosophical difference, really. The philosophical difference is that Republicans believe people should be able to keep more of their hard-earned money, and the other side believes that it ought to be spent. Now, we have talked about Alan Greenspan here a lot today. I heard Alan Greenspan testify before the Committee on Ways and Means, and I questioned him. He was very straightforward. He said if it is going to be spent or it is going to be sent back in terms of tax relief, he would far prefer tax relief. In fact, he said it is not even a close call. Now, Alan Greenspan may believe if it were to stay here in Washington that it would be used to reduce the surplus. I find that hard to believe when I look at the President's own budget proposal, which in fact spends the money. In fact, in this tax bill there is more debt relief than there is in the President's proposal, based on what the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, just told us last week. Second, I believe that if we look simply at the record of the last 40 years, we will see that every time there is indeed a surplus in this town, Congress turns around and spends it, expanding Federal programs already in place and creating new programs. So what we are saying is very simple, which is one dollar out of the three ought to go back. Second, I want to make the point that this tax bill contains a number of wonderful provisions for the taxpayer in terms of relief from excessive complication of the Tax Code and also in various areas like the marriage penalty, and one I really want to focus on is retirement security. In this bill our provisions are the most fundamental changes in retirement security in well over a generation that allow every American to have the ability to save more money for themselves for their own retirement. It lets everybody save more on their 401(k) account. It allows everybody coming back into the workforce at age 50 or above, particularly helpful to women who have stayed at home to raise kids, to put more into their defined contribution plans, 401(k)s, 457s, 403(b)s, and so on. It expands all the defined benefit plans. These are plans that are, unfortunately, dying on the vine out there. There are fewer and fewer of them being offered. We go into these plans. We enable people to save more. We enable people to get more in terms of a benefit. We enable people who are in multi-employer plans, section 415, to be able to get more into their own retirement, taking away some limits that do not make any sense. It will help in the end every single American. What I love about this is that 77 percent of pension participants are precisely the people we are trying to help the most who make under $55,000 a year. It is in this bill, and it is precisely what this Congress ought to be doing, in the context of tax relief, simplifying the Tax Code, increasing the savings rate in this country, and finally providing retirement security for millions of Americans. Sixty to 70 million Americans do not have any kind of pension at all now. Millions of those Americans will be able to get immediate retirement security from the legislation that is contained within this tax bill. Again, I commend the chairman. I hope we can move on from this motion to instruct, get this legislation together between the House and the Senate, and get it to the President where, hopefully, he will change his mind and sign it for the American taxpayer.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2606, the Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Appropriations Act for FY 2000. I'd like to thank Chairman Callahan and Ranking Member Pelosi of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Appropriations Subcommittee for including $13 million in funding for the Tropical Forest Conservation Act of 1998. The Tropical Forest Conservation Act expands President Bush's Enterprise for the Americas Initiative--EAI--and provides a creative market-oriented approach to protect the world's most threatened tropical forests on a sustained basis. The bill was overwhelmingly approved by the House last March by a vote of 356 to 61, passed the Senate under unanimous consent and was signed into law on July 29, 1998 as P.L. 105-214. The Tropical Forest Conservation Act is a cost-effective way to respond to the global crisis in tropical forests, and the groups that have the most experience preserving tropical forests--including the Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, Conservation International and others--agree. The Administration is strongly in support of this effort as well. It is an excellent example of the kind of bipartisan approach we should have on environmental issues. I commend Chairman Callahan, Ranking Member Pelosi, and the members of the Subcommittee for providing the necessary funds to begin to implement this legislation that preserves and protects important tropical forests worldwide in a fiscally responsible fashion.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the continuation of normal trade relations between the United States and China. There is no doubt that China has, in fact, been a significant factor in the economic expansion we have all enjoyed in this country during the 1990s. In my own district, in Cincinnati, Ohio, we have almost doubled our exports to China during that time period. That means more jobs for my constituents, more prosperity for the families and businesses that I represent in southwest Ohio, and a healthy economy for my area, for the State of Ohio, and indeed for the entire country. China is far from perfect. The lack of respect for human rights, the findings of the Cox report, the situation in Taiwan and other issues are serious problems. But none of these problems can be solved by disengagement. In fact, our involvement with China, our engagement with China is one of the major reasons that the Chinese Government is continuing to stumble and lurch in the right direction with regard to liberalizing their economy in particular, but also relaxing restrictions on human rights, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) pointed out a moment ago based on the testimony of missionaries who are in China. Mr. Speaker, today this Congress is presented with a very clear and stark choice. We can choose to be constructive agents for positive change in China by continuing normal trade relations, or we can choose to be virtual enemies, returning to an antagonistic Cold War style relationship. I would just ask my colleagues a few questions. Will our Nation's best interests be served by putting the world's most populous country into the rare category of only six countries who do not have normal trading relations, countries like Cuba, Laos, North Korea? Will our Nation benefit by denying NTR status to China when not one of our competitors in Europe or Asia are not likely to follow suit? Finally, will our children live in a safer and more secure world if we spend the next 50 years in a costly and distracting Cold War in China? Mr. Speaker, I support continued engagement.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of the Energy and Water Appropriations legislation. I am particularly pleased to support two provisions of this legislation that will directly benefit many of the people I represent in Southwest Ohio. The former Fernald Feed Materials Production Center, now known as the Fernald Environmental Management Project, was a Department of Energy facility that was part of the United States' nuclear weapons production complex from 1951 to 1988. The Fernald site became heavily contaminated and has been the focus of extensive nuclear and hazardous waste cleanup efforts. The Energy and Water Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2000 contains $280,589,000 for the Fernald cleanup. The FY 2000 funding level represents an increase of more than $6 million from the FY 1999 appropriation. The funding is intended to keep the Fernald's accelerated cleanup project on track for completion in 2006, rather than the originally planned 2020. This appropriation is directly in the public interest. Keeping the accelerated cleanup program at Fernald on track will lower health risks for residents of the surrounding area and lower the overall project costs for the taxpayers. This legislation also contains $915,000 for the Army Corps of Engineers to study ways to improve flood control in the Mill Creek valley while restoring the waterway's ecosystem. This funding will help with our ongoing effort to revitalize and restore the Mill Creek watershed. I commend the members of the subcomittee--specially Chairman Packard and Ranking Member Visclosky--for their good work on the bill and for including this essential funding.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to comment on the District of Columbia Appropriations legislation. I commend the subcommittee, its Chairman [Mr. Istook] and the full committee for their work on this important legislation. As someone with a strong interest in reducing substance abuse through demand reduction--and as co-chairman of the Speaker's Working Group for a Drug-Free America--I'd like to comment on a provision of this legislation that is of particular interest to the drug prevention and education community. drug testing for prisoners and parolees I commend the gentleman from Oklahoma for including funding in this program for universal drug testing and screening of incarcerated prisoners and parolees. Today, 80% of incarcerated prisoners in this nation were either under the influence or drugs or alcohol, were regular drug users or violated drug and alcohol laws at the time they committed their crimes. Remarkably, in 1996, more than 1.5 million were arrested for substance abuse-related offenses. Worse yet, those who go to prison without effective treatment for their addiction tend to wind up back in the criminal justice system in the future. Substance abuse contributes to many of our worst social ills-- violence, child and spousal abuse, robbery, theft and vandalism. As a result, our judicial system is overwhelmed with substance abusers. You would think, when a criminal is locked up for a drug-related offense, the prison itself would be a drug-free environment and the prisoner would be forced to get drug treatment. But our prisons are often bastions of drug abuse. Only 13% of prisoners receive any sort of treatment for their drug problem at all and many of those treatment programs are considered inadequate. Unfortunately, the drug habits of thousands of these individuals continue and sometimes worsen in prison. So it's no surprise that, according to statistics from the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, 50% of state parole and probation violators were under the influence of drugs, alcohol or both when they committed their new offense. In other words, these individuals continue to be a menace to society because their drug problems are not addressed behind bars. There are a number of steps we can take to stop the revolving door of incarceration, parole and re-arrest--including the successful drug courts at the local level that use the threat of prison to get people to address their drug habits through treatment. At the national level, a recent Federal Bureau of Prisons study showed that inmates who receive treatment are 73% less likely to be re-arrested than untreated inmates. That's why I introduced the Drug-Free Prisons and Jails Act last year, which established a model program for comprehensive substance abuse treatment in the criminal justice system to reduce drug abuse, drug-related crime and the costs associated with incarceration. And that's why I'm pleased to support the drug testing program in this legislation before us today. By identifying criminals and parolees in the District of Columbia with drug addiction problems, we will help to reduce crime in our nation's capital--and we will stop the costly revolving door of drug addiction and incarceration in the DC prison system.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, because I was in my District, I was absent for Rollcall vote 334. Had I been in attendance, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 334. Stated against:

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, since the previous speaker brought up Alan Greenspan, let me just say what Alan Greenspan said before our committee in testimony in January of this year. He said, and I quote, ``If we have to get rid of the surpluses, I would far prefer reducing taxes than increasing spending, and indeed, I do not think it is a close call,'' end quote. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer) for putting together what I think is a balanced, thoughtful approach to give at least some of the money back to the hard-working taxpayers that created the $3 trillion surplus in the Federal Government's treasuries that is projected to happen over the next 10 years. We have heard a lot today about across-the-board tax relief that is going to help every single family in America. We have heard about eliminating the marriage penalty; but let me mention a couple of other great provisions in the Archer bill, such as reforming unfair tax rules like the interest allocation rules that are driving U.S. companies and jobs out of this country. Let me mention something else that is very important, which is the most comprehensive pension reforms in over a generation. That is in the Archer bill. It is going to give millions of Americans the ability to prepare for their own retirement, save more for their own retirement. At a time when 60 million Americans, Mr. Speaker, do not have a pension in this country, we expand 401(k) opportunities; we expand the traditional defined benefit plans; we make pensions more portable so workers can take their pensions from job to job. We allow a catch-up provision to let people save even more, people who are over 50, primarily focused on working moms so they can save more again for their own retirement. We have heard a lot today from the other side. It is getting kind of tiresome, about tax cuts for the rich. Seventy-seven percent of pension participants make less than 50,000 bucks a year. When we strengthen our pension system, we are helping the Americans who need it the most. Though it has been a bipartisan effort from day one, unbelievably these pension reform provisions are not in the Democrat substitute that we are talking about right now. I do not know what to say about that, except I can say that Republicans are committed to strengthening pensions, and I hope we can pass this legislation to do it. It is just another example of why the Archer bill is not an irresponsible but it is a responsible, balanced approach to tax relief.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to rise in tribute to Bob Tobias, who is retiring after 31 years with the National Treasury Employees Union--including sixteen years as its president. He has been a tireless and effective advocate for the workers he represents, and he is a well-regarded spokesperson for the interests of all federal employees. I got to know Bob in 1996 when we were both appointed to the National Commission on Restructuring the IRS, which I co-chaired with Senator Bob Kerrey. He was an active and productive member of the Restructuring Commission, and helped to develop a number of the Commission's recommendations that were later signed into law as part of the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act. I admire Bob for speaking up on IRS reform at a time when I suspect many of his members were uneasy about the long-term ramifications of the restructuring effort. He deserves a great deal of credit for helping to shape a bill that will not only benefit American taxpayers, but will also create a greatly improved work environment for IRS employees. I understand that Bob plans to teach and write on public policy issues after leaving the NTEU. But he will also be continuing to work on IRS reform--I understand that he will be nominated by the President to serve on the IRS Oversight Board. Bob played an important role in creating the framework for a new IRS for the 21st Century. I look forward to continuing to work with him in his role on the IRS Oversight Board, and I wish him the best of luck in all his future endeavors.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to rise in tribute to my good friend, neighbor and constituent--Neil Armstrong. Thirty years ago today, our nation, and the entire world, watched in awe as Neil Armstrong--a thirty-eight year-old Ohionan--became the first person to set foot on the moon. He forever etched the words, ``That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind,'' into our national consciousness. And, as so many authors, journalists and historians have noted, he put his name alongside Charles Lindbergh and the Wright Brothers as the great explorers of the 20th Century. Neil Armstrong's many accomplishments are too lengthy to adequately list here. He flew 78 combat missions as a fighter pilot in Korea, and later went on to become a highly respected test pilot. In addition to his historic role as commander of Apollo 11 in 1969, he also commanded Gemini 8 in 1966--and later served as NASA's deputy associate administrator for aeronautics from 1970-71. Over the years, Neil Armstrong has chosen to look beyond the temptation to exploit his accomplishments for personal gain. His disinterest in the limelight and in self-promotion hides a remarkable level of civic involvement. From 1971 to 1979, he served as a professor of aeronautical engineering at the University of Cincinnati--where he not only conducted research projects, but also got into the classroom and inspired hundreds of students during this tenure. He also worked with another famous Cincinnatian--Dr. Henry Heimlich-- to develop a miniature ``heart-lung'' machine--a forerunner of a modern ``Micro Trach'' machine that is used to deliver oxygen to patients. Neil is a strong believer in giving back to the community. Among the many group with which he has been involved, he served as a member of the board of the Cincinnati Museum of Natural History. He wasn't just an ordinary member--he served as board chairman--rolling up his sleeves and making many of the important decisions that have allowed that institution to experience a renaissance in its new home at Union Terminal. He has also served as a director of the Cinergy Corporation and Cincinnati Milacron, Inc. Neil also owns a small farm in Warren County and has been an active and involved citizen of that area. From the time he first moved to the area, he took on the life of an unassuming local farmer and proud father--getting involved in auctions at the annual Warren County fair to support local 4-H programs; participating in the local Boy Scout troops; and helping to coach the high school football team. And he has continued to give back to the Warren County community as well--for example, by working with other community leaders to build the countryside YMCA in Lebanon. Neil Armstrong continues to handle his celebrity with his quiet, unassuming manner. Today, on the thirtieth anniversary of his historic accomplishment, he not only provides our nation with a hero for the ages, but a powerful model of humility and dignity.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind my colleagues again that tonight we are only dealing with a procedural issue, and it is one that is very important because it is necessary to protect the prerogatives of the House, something I know the gentleman, the courteous gentleman from New York, and many other Members of this House feel very strongly about. This is not about the substantive policy issue of the legislation. In fact, the action tonight will allow the juvenile justice legislation to move toward conference in a more expeditious and orderly manner. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is necessary to return to the Senate the bill S. 254 of the Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Accountability and Rehabilitation Act of 1999. S. 254 contains an import ban and thus contravenes the constitutional requirement that revenue measures shall originate in the House of Representatives. Section 702 of S. 254 would impose the ban by amending section 922(w) of Title 18, U.S. Code, to make it unlawful to import large capacity ammunition feeding devices. While violators would be subject to criminal penalties, existing tariff laws also generally provide that merchandise introduced into the United States contrary to law is subject to seizure and forfeiture. Therefore, by criminalizing the importation of these items, the amendment would cause the merchandise to be denied entry into the United States by these Customs officers at the border. This proposed change in law would be identical in law in operation, Mr. Speaker, to a direct import ban. Further, the items covered by the amendment includes items that are subject to duty and Customs in fact collects measurable amounts of duty on them. Accordingly, the change in law would have a direct impact on Customs revenues. The provision, therefore, is revenue affecting and constitutes a revenue measure in the constitutional sense. On that basis, I am asking that the House insist on its constitutional prerogatives. Mr. Speaker, there are numerous precedents for the action I am requesting. For example, on October 22, 1991, the House returned to the Senate S. 1241, the Violent Crime Act of 1991, containing, among other things, a provision amending Section 922 of Title 18 U.S.C. making it illegal to transport or possess assault weapons. I want to emphasize that this action speaks solely to the constitutional prerogative of the House and not to the merits of the Senate bill. In fact, the House spoke on this issue when it recently approved an identical proposal made by our colleague and chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). This proposed action, thus, is strictly procedural in nature and is necessary to preserve the prerogatives of the House to originate revenue measures, a point on which there has been long-standing and bipartisan agreement. It makes clear to the Senate that the appropriate procedure for dealing with revenue measures is for the House to act first on a revenue bill and for the Senate to accept it or amend it as it sees fit. This will allow this legislation to proceed forward to conference in an orderly and expeditious manner. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. PORTMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House, and I offer a resolution (H. Res. 249) returning to the Senate the bill S. 254.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding me this time. I want to start by commending the gentleman from Maryland and the gentleman from Arizona for putting together a very good bill. Overall, this is legislation that will help move our country forward in a number of ways. I want to mention particularly the antidrug efforts. The funding of the Antidrug Media Campaign and the Drug Free Communities Act are both measures that I think will make a tremendous difference in terms of our fight against substance abuse by reducing demand in our communities. I do, though, need to speak briefly about the IRS provisions in the legislation. It was just about a year ago when we passed what was historic IRS restructuring and reform legislation, the most dramatic reform in fact of the IRS in over 45 years. The Clinton administration initially opposed the effort but ultimately they, too, agreed that IRS reform was overdue and ultimately the legislation passed with overwhelming support in both the House and the Senate. Now with this 1- year anniversary coming up just a week from today, it is time for us as a Congress to put our money where our mouth is. The measure before us today, as Members probably know, cuts about $135 million of funding for the IRS. The funding level proposed in the bill, I think, will jeopardize the implementation of the very law we passed with so much bipartisan support and fanfare just last year. It sounds good on the surface to cut the IRS but it actually hurts taxpayer service. Let us take a look at how it would affect taxpayers. First, it jeopardizes the implementation of the very important customer service improvements which are mandated by the legislation we passed last year, including a dramatic taxpayer-friendly reorganization of the whole IRS that will improve customer service for every taxpayer, including the very popular telefile program that lets taxpayers file their tax returns much more easily through the telephone. Second, it will endanger the needed computer modernization effort. Every Member of this House has heard horror stories, I know I have, from our constituents who have received erroneous computer notices where the left hand of the IRS does not know what the right hand is doing. I have been very critical of the IRS as have other Members. The effort here was to come up with computer modernization efforts and resources that would help us to deal with these problems. We need to invest in improved IRS technology if we are serious about protecting our constituents from the kind of computer problems we have all seen. We also need to expand access to taxpayer-friendly electronic filing. Right now there is a 22 percent error rate on paper filing, compared to less than a 1 percent error rate on electronic filing. That is why in the legislation we passed, again just last year, we mandated that the IRS work hard on electronic filing and in fact we set a goal of 80 percent electronic filing for the IRS by 2007. That is going to be difficult to meet unless they have the resources to do it. Again, it is taxpayer-friendly. On a similar note, finally, the funding cut will jeopardize, I think, the IRS's abilities to complete its Y2K preparations for this year. While the thought of IRS computers crashing may bring glee to the hearts of many, think about the consequences. Think about no refund checks. Think about erroneous IRS notices sent to innocent taxpayers who think they have paid their taxes in a timely way and in an appropriate way. Think about the unnecessary audits that might result. This is no way to bring our tax system, Mr. Chairman, into the 21st century. I am a strong believer in fiscal discipline. I am proud to cast my vote for fiscal responsibility even when it is not popular because I think holding the line on Federal spending for the sake of our children and grandchildren is the right thing to do. But here, with regard to the IRS, I think we need to follow up with our efforts from last year. We are making good progress in reforming the IRS. Commissioner Rossotti, I believe, is doing a superb job, but we need to give him the tools to get that job done. Mr. Chairman, I would conclude by again congratulating the gentleman from Arizona on the overall legislation. This bill is a very strong bill and I would hope with the IRS that in conference we can restore some of these reductions.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to talk about retirement security. This Congress and the administration have I think appropriately made preserving Social Security a top priority for this year. But as this chart demonstrates, it is not enough to simply preserve Social Security. Our public Social Security system is only one part of our overall retirement security programs in this country. Specifically, I believe strongly that we need to take steps this year to significantly increase the availability of secure retirement savings by strengthening the private side, particularly the employer-provided pension side of our retirement system. This is a crucial issue for all Americans but particularly for baby boomers who are nearing retirement. The problem we face is significant. Only about half of American workers have any kind of pension at all. This would include a 401(k), a traditional defined benefit plan, a profit-sharing plan and so on. About 80 percent of workers who are employed in smaller businesses that cannot afford because of the complexities of the current rules to offer plans do not have a plan, so about 20 percent have a pension plan. Studies show us that baby boomers right now are only saving about 40 percent of what they will need for their retirement needs. Finally, the personal savings rate in our country is at historic lows. In fact, the Commerce Department tells us that last month, the savings rate in the United States was minus 1.2 percent. Historically low. This is all the funds that are being saved in this country for retirement and other needs. So how can people help themselves? How can people save more for their retirement? We have got a plan to do that. I have introduced a piece of legislation with the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) which increases that third leg of retirement security, which is again the private employer-based pension system, 401(k)s, 457s, 403(b) plans, defined benefit plans, profit-sharing plans and so on. The legislation is comprehensive and it is designed to correct all the deficiencies we see in our current system but, simply put, it lets workers save more for their own retirement. It makes it less costly and burdensome for employers, particularly small employers, to establish new pension plans or to improve their own plans they have already got. Finally, we modernize the pension laws to make them more in tune with the current mobile workforce of the 21st century. How do we do this? We increase contribution limits. For instance, 401(k) contribution limits are increased from $10,000 per year to $15,000 per year, allowing workers to save more for their own retirement. We have catch-up contributions, allowing any worker age 50 or over to put an additional $5,000 aside for retirement. This will be particularly good for women who have been out of the workforce raising kids and then come back into the workforce and want to build up a nest egg for their retirement. We drastically increase portability, allowing people to roll over their pension savings from job to job, whether they are in the private sector, the government sector or the nonprofit sector. These are long overdue changes that are absolutely necessary again to respond to the much more mobile workforce of the next century. We also lower the vesting requirement for matching employer contributions from 5 years where it is now to 3 years to give more Americans the ability to get involved in pension plans. Finally, we cut red tape. The increasing complexities of the laws governing pensions, both in the private sector and the nonprofit and public sector have discouraged the growth of pension plans. For small businesses in particular, the costs, the burdens and the liabilities associated with pensions are the main reason that companies are not offering these plans. This legislation takes steps to cut the unnecessary red tape that I think has put a real stranglehold on our pension system. Who are these changes going to benefit the most? They benefit everybody. That is what is great about them. If we look at this chart, it will show us that at least 70 percent of current pension recipients, those who are retired and receiving pensions, make incomes of $50,000 or less. So this is something that is really going to help the people who need the help the most. The next chart will show us that among those people who are involved in pensions who are getting pension benefits right now, 77 percent are middle and lower income workers. Again, by taking actions today to expand our pension savings, we are going to help the people who need the most help in saving for their retirement. This is a chance for this Congress to help all Americans do what people want to do, which is to provide for a retirement that is secure, to have increasing independence in retirement, to have more dignity in retirement. Imagine the impact we could have in this country if the 60 million Americans who currently do not have retirement savings through a pension of their own would be able to get that kind of retirement security. Again, Social Security reform is very important. I support preserving the Social Security system. But this is an opportunity this Congress ought to take today and ought to pass this year to enable all Americans to have dignity and independence and security in retirement.