Rob Portman

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have? The Chairman pro tempore (Mr. Gibbons). The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) has approximately 30 seconds remaining.

Mr. PORTMAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman, will he continue to press for the amendment?

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, let me just try to further clarify. I think under the legislation it is fair to say that the Secretary had the discretion either to do it at the Federal level or the State level. This change would say that indeed, it should be done at the State level, which I think is consistent generally speaking with the legislation in the sense that we are trying to focus on State and local communities. It also happens to be something important to the chairman, and he gained a waiver. This is something that was raised with me. This is a good provision. The quality assurance is going to enable parents to know whether these schools are using drug-free school money appropriately and forces them to have a needs assessment and forces them to bring parents in and have research-based programming. The question is just whether that will be a requirement at the State level or something at the Federal level. Our legislation frankly left it open originally, and this would say it should be done at the State level.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, this amendment came as a surprise to us today. I just listened to the debate carefully and I have to say a couple of things. One is, I am very sympathetic in general to the idea that has been raised by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), which is to have drug testing at the Federal Government level. We already have drug testing, as I think my colleagues know, for safety-sensitive positions in the Federal Government. There are some concerns that have been raised today, including the fiscal impact. We would have not only a bureaucracy to administer this but we would have, I think necessarily, an employee assistance program. I certainly would think that that would be required. We would have to have some treatment options, which is in the legislation for the small business aspect of this. We would also have to have the costs of the test borne by the taxpayer. I know CBO has not yet done an estimate of this legislation, but I would like to see what those costs are. I think that would be appropriate for the Congress to review before we acted on it. The constitutional issues have been raised. I think there is some gray area here, but probably there would be a constitutional issue based on the case law that we have seen, looking at the issue of drug testing here in this Chamber. So I think that is a real issue, certainly. I am not saying that that is a reason not to do it. It would then become a test case, but it is certainly not clear at all. In the legislation, we have the ability for small businesses to get technical assistance to put in place drug testing, but the legislation only requires that it be some kind of testing, including pre-employment drug testing, including employment drug testing for cause; in other words, after there has been an accident where there is some suspicion of use that there be drug testing. It would not require the small companies that took advantage of the program have unannounced or random drug testing. So this does go further than the legislation before us in that respect. I guess what I would say to my friend, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), who I am sympathetic with on this issue, I would like to work with him on it. Maybe there is something we can put together through a more thoughtful process where we look at some of these issues, get the costs, figure out whether there is a way to narrow it so it is more targeted. Yet, I think to add it to this legislation at this time is not something that I personally would be able to support.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this amendment.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Briefly, I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) for what he has done, not just today but over the years, to focus on the alcoholism issue. He has been particularly involved in college campus alcoholism and he has taken this issue around the country and he is to be commended for that. Mr. Chairman, in this legislation we do address alcohol. I was looking through the various provisions. The Drug-Free Parent Empowerment Act would include alcohol in the sense that it is for illegal substances, which of course would include alcohol for minors. In the Drug-Free Communities Act this Congress passed last year it was not just illegal drugs, it was illegal substances which would include alcoholism. Many of the groups and organizations that will benefit from this legislation are involved also in teenage alcohol abuse. All of the various things we do here to try to make the Federal prevention effort work better, including a national clearinghouse, would be involved in alcoholism for our young people. So, it is very much addressed in this legislation. The question is whether under subtitle (a) the anti-drug media campaign should be broadened to include alcohol. The gentleman is right, there are a lot of forces at work. They are not the alcohol forces, pro or con. It is the people at the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the President's capable Drug Czar, Barry McCaffrey; it is the appropriators here in this Congress; it is those of us on the authorization side who are trying to make this anti-drug media campaign work. It is very simple. We want this to focus primarily on drugs so that it makes a difference. That is what the $195 million has been appropriated for and all we did in this bill was finally authorize that appropriation and make it last for 4 years. Earlier today there was some discussion about whether that was necessary. I think it is absolutely necessary for this Congress to go on record supporting the campaign and being sure that it is indeed sustained over time, because if it is not it will not make a difference. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman for what he is doing and I would tell him that alcoholism is addressed in various ways here, I think even indirectly in the media campaign that General McCaffrey is heading up, but because the language in this legislation has been carefully crafted with General McCaffrey, with the appropriators, we would not be able to accept an amendment to change it at this time.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Colorado for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I wish that our colleague, the gentleman from Michigan had stayed around to hear a response to his many concerns on the legislation. But since my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts is here, maybe he will pass along some specific answers to his questions. This may give him some comfort, or it may not, because the question is: Are we serious about this drug effort or not? If we are, I think we have got to try to be, not just bipartisan, but nonpartisan, and move forward and do the right thing. There are six committees of jurisdiction that we talk to on this issue. It would have been impossible, frankly, to go through those six committees and come up with this legislation in this legislative year. We thought it was an important issue, one that needed to come to the floor. We did consult with them extensively. In fact, the provisions in this bill which are cosponsored by my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett), Democrat, and myself are the result of a year-long consultation period, including with the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the drug czar's office. There are other Democrats who are original cosponsors of the legislation. Committees waived their jurisdiction because, frankly, we solved their problems. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) focused on the anti- addiction medication provision, which he found to be inappropriate. I will say two things about it. Number one, it is not in the legislation because his committee objected to it and instead there is a report, so we took the responsible course there along the lines that he would recommend. I will also say, though, that the National Academy of Sciences and the National Institute on Drug Abuse have both recommended the provision we had in the bill, and I hope that his committee will get busy on that kind of legislation because we do need to give companies more incentives to provide for anti-addiction medication. With regard to unfunded mandates, the point that he made, I will say that there are no unfunded mandates in this legislation and we have, indeed, checked with the Congressional Budget Office on that. Because the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) said that we had not, I thought it was important to set the record straight on that. I found it very curious that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) went on and on about how we need to stick to the Rules of the House and yet complained that in this legislation we are authorizing appropriations. That is what we are supposed to do, and that is why the drug-free media campaign, which is a $195 million expenditure, is being authorized for 4 years so that there is a sustained effort and a commitment by this House to move forward on that very important initiative. I think that is the right thing to do. It also happens to be within the Rules of the House, and I would think that instead of criticizing us for that and complaining that we are not following the rules, my friend, the gentleman from Michigan, and others on that side of the aisle would be pleased that we are indeed following the rules. The drug-free workplace language is one example that has gone through this House already. We put it in this legislation because, frankly, we want it to pass not just the House but also the Senate and be enacted into law by signature from the President. We think this is a better place for it. This is a vehicle that probably will go somewhere. So I think that is the responsible thing to do. I would just end by saying that we brought this legislation up under an open rule and I commend the Committee on Rules and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) for doing that so that Members would have an opportunity on the floor if they wanted to bring up any germane amendments to the legislation, and we will see some today, but I would also say that this issue must be addressed. I do think that this is going to be a nonpartisan exercise in the end, and I think that is the way, again, we must address this issue for the sake of our kids and future generations. Again, I want to commend the Committee on Rules for bringing this to the floor with an open rule to allow opportunity for amendment and comment.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) for allowing me, as his designee, to manage the legislation. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett), who is going to control the time on the other side, is my original cosponsor on this legislation, and I want to thank him, particularly after we just saw a little display of something less than nonpartisanship. I guess we would call it partisanship. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for being willing to step up to the plate to address the concerns that we have all heard expressed this afternoon and this evening on the rising problem of illegal drugs in this country and for his willingness, frankly, to show leadership on this issue over the years and to cosponsor this important legislation. Mr. Chairman, the rising tide of teenage drug use in this country is indeed a national tragedy, and I do not think there is anything this Congress could be doing this week that is more important. The facts speak for themselves, and we have heard a lot about them today. From the period of 1979 to 1991, we had a 72 percent reduction of teenage drug use in this country. Since that time, teenage drug use has more than doubled. Actually, it is worse than that in the sense that it is among younger and younger kids. We have a lot of data on that. The number of fourth through sixth graders, kids in elementary school, experimenting with marijuana has increased 71 percent just since 1993. Today, teenagers say they can obtain drugs within a day. LSD, marijuana, crack cocaine, methamphetamines and other drugs are more available now than ever. This translates into more addiction, more ruined lives, more lost dreams. And, of course it also leads to more violent crime, more school dropouts, more health problems, and many other quantifiable costs to our society. But this is not about statistics and numbers. It is about people. It is about people's lives. I am sure each Member in this Chamber knows constituents, maybe a friend, maybe a family member who has fallen into the trap of addiction and suffered the consequences. Mr. Chairman, shortly after I was elected 5 years ago, a 16-year-old in my district died of a combination of smoking marijuana and huffing gasoline. His name was Jeff Gardner. Jeff's mom came to see me in Washington and she had a very simple question for me: ``What are you going to do in my community to help me and other families so that they do not have to go through the pain that I am experiencing?'' I told her about the billions we were spending on criminal sanctions, on interdiction efforts that are so important to keep drugs out of the country. She asked me again, ``What are you doing in my school? In my neighborhood?'' Mr. Chairman, I have got to say, I was not satisfied with the answer that I could give her. I got involved in this issue both at home through community coalitions and here through legislation in large part because I could not give her the response she deserved. The real tragedy is that based on sound research, we know what drives increases in drug use. It is not only the availability, but it is the attitude kids have about the dangers of drug use and the extent to which they believe that society, that society has accepted drug use. Wherever our kids turn for entertainment, TV, movies, music, they find drug use glamorized. And whenever they seek role models, professional athletes, Hollywood stars, musicians, they all too come away with the perception, not accurate, but the perception that drug use is accepted and there is no real consequences. Even here in Washington, young people have not been hearing a clear, consistent moral message that drugs are dangerous and that they are wrong. I am not trying to suggest that the White House, this Congress, or any national figure can be held responsible for the drug habits of our children. But it is clear that we have not had the kind of sustained national moral leadership on this issue that was critical to the substantial reduction in teenage drug use back in the 1980s. We have also lost ground on the home front. Surveys show that many parents of the baby boom generation, my generation, approach this issue and approach their kids with great ambivalence. With all of these mixed messages, it should be no surprise to us that teenage drug use is on the rise. But there is a solution. In fact there are multiple solutions. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), who spoke just a moment ago, have done a great job today in articulating the need to do more with regard to what is referred to as the ``supply side,'' such as enhanced interdiction, tightening border patrols, and eradicating drugs in source countries. The bill that we are discussing now, the Drug Demand Reduction Act of 1998, recognizes that restricting supply is important, but it also recognizes that the supply efforts alone can never solve our problems here at home. Why? Well, first, of course, methamphetamines and other drugs can be produced in someone's basement. Marijuana can be grown in the backyard. But second and more importantly in my view is that as long as the demand is there, drugs, even those from outside our borders, will find their way onto our streets and into our neighborhoods. While the supply efforts are a very important part of the balanced approach, we as a Congress must do whatever we can to stop the growing demand for drugs. This bill does that. It takes steps toward that by expanding and increasing prevention, education, and treatment. Mr. Chairman, I believe this is an area where the United States Congress can and must help and play an important role. I think we have three important roles: First, as we did last year with the Drug-Free Communities Act that we are building on today, we can empower parents, teachers, local law enforcement, local communities, to address the drug problem and give them some of the tools that they need to do so at the grassroots. Second, Congress can ensure that the existing Federal anti-drug prevention and treatment programs work more effectively by reducing red tape and duplication, targeting funds to programs that really work, finding the best practices around the country and funding those practices. Finally, I think Congress has a very important role to play in sending that clear and consistent message that drug use is dangerous and wrong. Again, it has worked before. From 1979 to 1991, we saw a 72 percent reduction. We need to look back at that. Why did that happen? We had a clear and consistent national message at that time. The ``Just Say No'' campaign was not just a slogan; it was a national movement and it included at the grassroots engaging parents, engaging teachers, coaches, law enforcement. That resulted in a substantial reduction of drugs because we changed attitude. The act before us today is intended to reengage those parents, teenagers, teachers, and employers, law enforcement, health care professionals, and others to make existing Federal programs more effective and more accountable and to send that clear and unequivocal message again on the dangers of drug use. Among other features, the legislation will: Reinvigorate the parent movement that worked so well in the 1980s through targeted grants, training at work, and access to information that parents need. It will implement new initiatives to keep drugs out of schools and workplaces. It will give States incentives to require kids to be drug-free in order to get their driver's licenses. Nothing is more important to a 16-year-old. It will give parents and other role models one-stop shopping, one national clearinghouse where they can go to get information. One 1-800 number where any parent can call, any drug counselor can call, find out the answer to their question, and be connected with a local anti-drug organization or find substance abuse counselors in that person's area. As the next step, we require the President's drug czar, the Office of National Drug Control Policy, to recommend to Congress specific ways to eliminate duplication, to further streamline the Federal anti-drug bureaucracy which is currently spread, incidentally, over 54 different agencies and departments. Finally, at a time when 80 percent of the inmates in our jails and prisons are there because of substance abuse, and 50 percent of State parole and probation violators are under the influence of drugs, alcohol or both when they committed their new offense, this bill will put us on track toward eliminating the drug problem that festers in our jails and prisons. For the sake of our neighborhoods, and for the peace of mind of our constituents, we have to get at the revolving door of substance abuse in our criminal justice system. Mr. Chairman, the provisions of this bill, as I said earlier, were developed over the past year with the help of the President's drug czar, General Barry McCaffrey. They were also developed in conjunction with the Speaker's Task Force on a Drug-Free America, chaired by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert). Members on both sides of the aisle had input from the relevant committees, and some people had good ideas who were not on the committees. Very importantly, we got a lot of input from outside groups, those groups that work in the trenches day in and day out on this issue. That would include CADCA, the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America; PRIDE, the Parents's Resource Institute for Drug Education; the Institute for a Drug-Free Workplace; CASA, Joe Califano's Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse; the Drug-Free America Foundation; the Partnership for a Drug-Free America; the National Council on Crime Prevention. These and other groups gave critical input to the legislation and we all owe them a tremendous debt of gratitude. Mr. Chairman, the Drug Demand Reduction Act is not the end of the road in our effort to reduce the demand for drugs in this country. It is not a cure-all, but it is an important next step building on the Drug-Free Communities Act that this Congress passed, again on a nonpartisan basis last year, to ensure that our national drug control policy continues to focus on what we know works: Effective treatment, effective education, and effective prevention. Doing so at the local level, but doing so with a strong and unequivocal message from the national level. Mr. Chairman, if we keep the pressure on, if as a country we can maintain our vigilance, I am convinced that we can reverse the troubling trends of teenage drug abuse in this country. We can do so and in doing so we will save lives, we will restore dreams, and we will strengthen our communities for the next century. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the chairman of the Speaker's Task Force on a Drug-Free America, and a real leader on this issue both on the supply and the demand side.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations, a leader on this issue for many years. We heard from him earlier today on the supply side. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), a good friend and expert on this issue who handles the drug-free schools part of this for the Speaker's Task Force on a Drug-Free America so well.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), a good friend who has also been involved in the task force.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, first I would like to join my colleagues in expressing condolences to the families of those Americans and others who were killed in the recent car bombing in our embassies in eastern Africa. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to ask that a cosponsor be added to H.R. 4422, the Federalism Act of 1998. That cosponsor is the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh). He has taken the lead in this Congress on federalism issues. This legislation is to codify the preexisting federalism executive orders by President Reagan and President Clinton, and he was inadvertently left off as an original cosponsor yesterday when we introduced the legislation. The legislation was introduced by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran). I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman be added as a cosponsor. We are working with the Parliamentarian's office as to the specific addition into the Record. But, again, just to commend the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) for his work and his effort and ask that he be added as a cosponsor to this important legislation that our cities and States are so interested in, which would codify existing executive orders in area federalism.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, this is an interesting debate. I was over in my office listening to it and decided I should come over and just add my voice. I think it is probably a little confusing to people listening because we are talking about the Constitution and talking about all these trade agreements. Basically this is just a back-door attempt at protectionism. My good friend from Ohio, from Cleveland, has heavy machinery in his district he wants to export, he has high-tech goods, he has chemicals. My friend from Florida who just spoke has orange juice he wants to send over to the Europeans, the best orange juice in the world. We want those markets to be open. If we were to pass this amendment tonight, and if we were to take this road in trade which says basically, as my friend just said, that Berkeley, California, can decide whether oranges are going to go from Florida to the European countries, we will in fact have the kind of protectionism and break down the kind of standards that we have set up under the World Trade Organization and under the GATT. Why? Because what the Europeans will do who are being discriminated against by the policies of Berkeley California, or any other city, is they will retaliate against the United States, and they have every right to do it under these trade agreements. They would not have the right to do it so long as the U.S. follows the rules. But if we do not follow the rules and we allow our cities and States to discriminate against their products, then they can turn around and discriminate against our products, and that is the whole point of these agreements. If you do not like the NAFTA agreement, which was passed by this Congress when it was under Democratic control, when there was a Democrat in the White House, then let us talk about NAFTA. If you do not like the WTO, which was passed when President Clinton was in office and when the Democrats controlled this Chamber, then let us talk about WTO. But we have set these things in place so that there is in fact a trade regime, that if a European country discriminates against a product from Cleveland, Ohio, or Cincinnati, Ohio, or Florida, then yes, we as the United States Government can retaliate against that European county. That is what we are trying to do now with regard to beef hormones, with regard to bananas. We sat here on the floor yesterday and all of us voted for this great resolution to beat up on the Europeans because they have protectionist policies in place, and we insisted that USTR make the Europeans fully comply with the WTO decisions which helped the United States. Yet we stand here tonight and say that is not going to apply to us. We should let our cities and our States and our counties decide what our trade policy is, and then in turn we are going to allow the Europeans to cut off products that are coming from all over this country. Let me give you one example of what could happen if we allow this thing to go through. You could have one city, Cleveland, Ohio, my city of Cincinnati, or Berkeley, California, as I said earlier, put in a place a policy that provides discrimination against some product from some company that happens to be European based. The Europeans could then discriminate against a product that does not affect just Berkley, California, or Cleveland, Ohio, or Cincinnati, Ohio, but affects this entire country and affects jobs here in the United States. One-third of the growth of this wonderful economic situation we find ourselves in today is due to exports. If you want to pull up the ladder, fine, let us talk about that. But let us not go around this backdoor way and say we are not going to have a national trade policy, we are going to have a city trade policy or a county trade policy or a State trade policy, which in turn will allow our trading partners who have agreed to the WTO, who have agreed to NAFTA, to in turn discriminate against our products and hurt all Americans. So I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this. I think we should have more honest discussion about it.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing) for bringing this resolution to the floor today. It is very important that Congress go on record in the strongest possible terms that we have got to knock down agriculture barriers around the country, around the world. The United States is committed to free and fair trade. In fact, we have not only the largest market in the world but in many respects the most open market in the world. Yet we see around the world that there are many countries that do not offer the same kind of treatment to our products. We have got to insist that other countries around the world, particularly in the developed world and particularly the European Union, open up their markets and comply with basic international rules that are found in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, GATT, also the General Agreement on Trade and Services, and we must also insist that these other countries around the world fully comply with the decisions of the WTO. I am particularly pleased that the House will now be on record today specifically objecting to the EU noncompliance with the clear WTO rulings against the European Union's banana regime and against their beef hormone policy. We also are on record today urging that the President continue to steadfastly pursue full compliance with WTO dispute settlement decisions on these two matters. Again, I want to commend the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) and others for bringing this to the floor, for highlighting this issue, and for continuing to put pressure on the Europeans to do the right thing, to open their markets in a fair way to our products.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Judge Joseph Kinneary, a fellow native of Cincinnati who will be 93 in September. A respected jurist, Judge Kinneary has worked hard to serve justice in Cincinnati, in Ohio, and in America. Judge Kinneary attended Saint Xavier High School in Cincinnati, then went on to Notre Dame. He returned to Cincinnati to obtain his law degree from the College of Law at the University of Cincinnati. Judge Kinneary served our government with distinction. After becoming Assistant Attorney General of Ohio, President Kennedy appointed him to United States Attorney for Southern Ohio in 1961. He was reappointed by President Johnson. He later became United States District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, a position he held for thirty-two years, including three years as Chief Judge. Judge Kinneary also served his nation in the Army during the Second World War. He served for four years, achieved the rank of Captain, and won the Army Commendation Ribbon for his outstanding contributions. Legislation is before us today to designate the federal building and courthouse in Columbus the Joseph P. Kinneary United States Courthouse. I welcome this effort to recognize the commitment, dedication and years of service given by Judge Kinneary. He honorably served his country in time of war, and continued that devotion by working for justice though our legal system. Having distinguished himself since he received his law degree from the College of Law at the University of Cincinnati, he has returned to become a member on the Board of Visitors for the College of Law and one of the Law School's strongest supporters. Judge Kinneary holds the distinction of being the second longest serving federal judge in the nation. I applaud the initiative to recognize and reward the forty-seven years of public service put forth by Judge Kinneary, and want to commend Judge Kinneary's selfless devotion to his local community. I urge my colleagues in Congress to support this action which recognizes the achievements and commitment of so dedicated a citizen.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means, who actually took George Bush's seat in the United States Congress and has continued to be a strong supporter and friend of President Bush's over the years, and was one of the original cosponsors and supporters of this effort.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and thank my colleagues who have spoken about George Bush, the man, and about the appropriateness of this tribute. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and I both have other speakers but because our time was changed a little bit, we do not have all of them here right now. Others may arrive in a moment, but I might just take a moment to talk about this legislation and talk about the people who helped so much to get us here. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) has already spoken. He was very critical in his role as chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, of course, in getting us to this point, but also in his support from the outset. The gentleman from Missouri, who we just heard from, was the original cosponsor of this legislation, along with the gentleman from Florida and the gentleman from Indiana, (Mr. Lee Hamilton), and myself. I want to thank the gentleman from Missouri. He added a lot of credibility to this effort, frankly made it bipartisan from the start, and has a deep, as we just heard from the gentleman himself, personal relationship to Mr. Bush, which grows, among other things, out of his close working relationship with the President during the Persian Gulf conflict. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Lee Hamilton) is the other original cosponsor, as I said, the ranking member of the Committee on International Relations. I want to thank him again personally for his support of this effort from the start. There are many others on both sides of the aisle who have been critical in getting us here today. Many were original cosponsors; others have come on since then, and we have heard from some today and we may hear from others in a moment. The CIA complex at Langley, Virginia, as has been said today, is currently unnamed, and the effort we have before us here is to designate that center the George Bush Center. It is a particularly fitting tribute, I think, to the only President in our history who has served as Director, and his extraordinary leadership as Director, during a very difficult time for the agency, makes this a particularly appropriate way to remember President Bush. That extraordinary leadership is pretty well documented. What is not as well documented, perhaps, is the personal importance George Bush places on his service there. I think it is fair to say he remembers that service as fondly as any to his Nation, and the other thing that has come up today in various speeches that we have heard is the degree to which the CIA employees, the career employees there, hold George Bush in high regard. Again, all of these make this a perfect fit. He served his country for over 50 years. It was in 1942, on June 12th, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) said earlier, the day he turned 18 years old, that George Bush joined the United States Navy. He was the youngest pilot in the Navy, and he proved himself time and time again with his older peers in the Navy. He was the youngest pilot, but also was one who, in the face of combat, showed himself to be one of the most effective. He was shot down over the Pacific, as has been commented on earlier today. Of course, he completed his mission before he was shot down. He went on to win not only the distinguished Flying Cross but also three Air Medals for his courageous service to our country during World War II. After the war, he moved to Texas and he was gradually drawn into politics. In 1966, he was elected to this House, sat in this Chamber for two terms, distinguished terms, as a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, at that time the most junior member ever appointed to the House Committee on Ways and Means. He served the 7th District of Texas, which is the Houston area. In 1971, he was appointed U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, and it is interesting, then as now, tensions were very high in the Middle East. It was Ambassador Bush, using his strong friendships with leaders around the Middle East, who was able to diffuse those tensions between Israel and the Arab nations. In 1974, George Bush had his choice of any ambassadorship in the world, it is said. He took on the challenge of normalizing relations with the People's Republic of China and was appointed as the first U.S. liaison to China. He was widely regarded at the time as the right man for the job because of the contacts he had made at the United Nations, but folks did not know the degree to which his people skills would be put to use in opening up the relationship between the United States and the largest country in the world. For over a year he worked hard at that effort and was very successful in breaking through the wall, which was really centuries thick, between the People's Republic of China and the United States. When he returned from China, he became Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, again in a very tough time. This was in the aftermath of the Church hearings up here on Capitol Hill. I think it is fair to say that morale was quite low at the agency, maybe at an all time low. It was George Bush, who came into the CIA, who improved the morale, who improved the agency's standing not only here on Capitol Hill but among the American people. Again, he is remembered so fondly by the agency and its people for that effort and for his continuing support over the years after being Director of the CIA, in supporting the CIA's mission and in supporting the people at the Agency. In 1980 he reentered elective politics, this time as the vice presidential candidate with Ronald Reagan. As Vice President, he was as involved as any Vice President in history, with all the major issues that the White House faced. In particular, he focused on the administration's war against international terrorism and drugs. He also headed the task force on regulatory relief, which reduced the size of government and increased American industry's competitiveness around the world. In 1988, he became the first incumbent Vice President since Martin Van Buren to be elected President of the United States. While in office, he led this country through some very historic times. In 1989, for instance, he ushered in the end of the Cold War with the elimination of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of Germany.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Again, he led this country through change as President in 1989, the end of the Cold War, reunification of Germany, the elimination of the Berlin Wall, leading the effort to spread democracy around Eastern Europe. He signed the Start I and Start II treaties that established the game plan for the reduction of two-thirds of the existing nuclear warheads by 2003. Of all the major events in which President Bush played a key role as Commander in Chief, the one that perhaps best showcases his ability was the one that the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) talked about earlier, which is his abilities as leader during the Persian Gulf War. He put together an unprecedented coalition of 30 nations headed by the United States to stop the aggression of Saddam Hussein in the Middle East. I think it is particularly fitting that we consider this legislation, Mr. Speaker, honoring President Bush exactly 8 years and 1 day from the date that Kuwait was liberated. Mr. Speaker, to me President Bush exemplified the highest values and principles of public life. As a staff member in the Bush White House, I was privileged to learn firsthand from President Bush that honor, integrity, and responsibility are the most important code of conduct for a public official. I feel the Bush Center will not only provide the needed national recognition for as many years of distinguished service, but also on a personal note it is gratifying to me to see this legislation coming to the floor of the House today honoring someone who has given so much to his Nation. I urge all my colleagues to support this fitting tribute to our former President. I want to thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) again for yielding time and for the leadership of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) in this effort.

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

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Virginia for that great statement. The folks at the CIA near his district certainly have a lot of continuing respect and really warm feelings toward their former Director and former President, George Bush. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), one of the original cosponsors of this legislation. (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter). (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman for his wonderful comments and for his support of the legislation. I would like to make one point, to reiterate what the gentleman said, which is that all members of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Republican and Democrat, have now cosponsored this legislation, and that is the one committee of jurisdiction for the naming of the CIA center. So we are appreciative of the support of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and really the entire committee, Republican and Democrat. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf). (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. While he is here, let me thank him for the critical role he has played in this concept from the outset in his role as Chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, but also in his role as a friend and supporter of George Bush. He has been absolutely essential to getting this legislation to this point. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, while carrying out their duties, more than 150 police officers are killed every year--a rate of one death every 52 hours. And, every year, more than 65,000 police officers are assaulted and 23,000 injured. On Friday, those statistics were brought close to home when, tragically, Officers J.J. Chestnut and John Gibson were killed in the line of duty. These brave men died protecting the lives of the Members of Congress, staff and those who were visiting the Capitol. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families of both officers, and with their friends and colleagues in the U.S. Capitol Police. The Capitol is known around the world as the symbol of democracy. It has been called the ``People's House''--a place where citizens can freely come to meet with their elected officials and watch democracy at work. Officers Chestnut and Gibson died protecting our right to have a free and open democratic form of government. All Americans, not just those who work in the Capitol, have suffered a loss. In the area I represent, we are sadly familiar with the sacrifices that law enforcement officers make far too often. Last December, we lost two distinguished members of Cincinnati's police department-- Officer Daniel Pope and Specialist Ronald Jeter--in a senseless act of violence. Just a month later, Officer Mike Partin of the Covington (KY) police department was killed while pursuing a suspect who was attempting to escape into Cincinnati. Shortly after their deaths, I visited the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial here in Washington to lay a wreath in their memory. The Memorial, which was dedicated in 1991, contains the names of more than 14,000 American police officers who have died in the line of duty since the first recorded police death in 1794. There is a quote inscribed on the memorial that is a fitting tribute to Officers Gibson and Chestnut--and all law enforcement professionals who have given their lives in service to the public. It reads, ``It is not how these officers died that made them heroes, it is now they lived.'' These fallen U.S. Capitol Police officers--and their colleagues nationwide--deserve our respect and support for putting their lives on the line every day to protect the safety of all of us.