Rob Portman

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask for additional time simply to yield to my colleague from California (Mr. Condit).

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

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want to start by thanking the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) for his unwavering support for the underlying legislation, H.R. 3534. I think what the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) has done is an improvement to the bill, and I hope that he will reconsider his opposition to the Dreier addition and then in the end support us on final passage once we are able to defeat the Moakley amendment. I think this really comes down to a philosophical debate in some regards as to tax versus spend. But let me just make one distinction that has not been made clearly on the debate that I think is a logical distinction and the reason I think it is important to accept the Dreier language and not knock it out with this Moakley amendment. Under the budget rules that we live under, we essentially discriminate against tax cuts. How do we do that? If we want to reduce taxes under our rules that we all live under, we have to mandate. In other words, we have to come up with tax increases somewhere else. The other choice is to increase entitlement spending, which I do not think anyone on the floor tonight particularly wants to do, or decrease entitlement spending to offset those tax cuts. So we are in a position now where if we want tax relief, let us say the capital gains differential that we put into place last year, we have got to go into the Tax Code and we have got to find loophole closures in that Tax Code that are essentially revenue raisers, which are, under the terms of this legislation, as was said earlier, new mandates. In other words, tax increases are new mandates. So it would be, it seems to me, illogical to say every time we want to give any kind of tax relief we have to mandate, as rule number one; and then on the other hand step in and say, and if we mandate, we are then subject to this mandate exercise. So I think this is important, and I think it makes sense. I would also say that we are hearing some scenarios, maybe on both sides but I want to focus on ones on the other side, that just are not true. The point has been made the other night and again today that this would somehow not enable us to move forward with the tobacco agreement. How does this change that? Under the legislation without the Dreier language, there would be to difference with regard to the tobacco legislation than there would be having accepted the Dreier language. So it is not going to have any effect on the tobacco legislation and the possibility of a cigarette tax.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, as we debate this bill today to tighten up the border and clamp down on drugs coming into this country, I think it is probably appropriate to pause and remember why we are here. We do have an increasing drug problem in this country. We have had a doubling of teenage drug use in the last 5 years in this country. Prices are down; volumes are up. We have a crisis. I have focused more on the demand side, on the prevention/education side, because I think that is ultimately how we are going to solve this problem. We also have to acknowledge that to the degree to which we have high volumes and low prices on the street, we are going to have an increasing problem on the demand side. So they are linked. That point has been made to me a lot by my colleagues, and I am a believer. Today, 70 percent of high school seniors tell us they can get drugs within 24 hours. Given where we are, given the situation, I think that this legislation is a good balance. I think it is a good way to be sure that we are doing a much better job on the border, which we have to do. There are a series of changes in here. It increases the number of inspectors and special agents. It increases resources at the border, something the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) said the President is in favor of. We are doing this on a bipartisan basis. It enhances the technology available to them. Others are going to talk more about this, but it is amazing the degree to which these Customs officers are now asked to work with poor technology, dealing with thousands and thousands of drugs coming across busy border crossings made busier by NAFTA, which I supported and many other Members on both sides did. We need to give them the technology to check these trucks. Finally, the flexibility to be able to deploy these resources where they are needed. If we are to have a real war on drugs, we have to fight it like a war. We have to give the Customs Service the flexibility to put personnel where they are needed, and that includes rotations, and that includes nighttime service, and that includes the ability to be flexible to respond to ever-changing border situations, because the smugglers will find a new way to come in every chance they get. So to me this is kind of a basic commonsense response. If we are serious about drugs, we have to do it. It is a reasonable response to a crisis situation.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Cincinnati Observatory in Cincinnati, Ohio, which recently received the National Park Service's designation as a National Historic Landmark. The Cincinnati Observatory is a nationally significant historical site for its association with individuals, institutions and events related to astronomy. Its two structures, now on 11 acres, were designed by nationally recognized master architect Samuel Hannaford and built in 1873 and 1904. The Cincinnati Observatory is the oldest functioning observatory in the United States. The original telescope was the largest in the U.S. and the second largest in the world at the time. The observatory was associated with the careers of such famous American astronomers as Ormsby MacKnight Mitchel (1809-1862), who published Sidereal Messenger, the first attempt to bring astronomy to the public and Cleveland Abbe (1838-1916), a meteorologist who instituted daily weather bulletins in 1869. Abbe's work became popular with the public and led directly to the creation of the federal agency National Weather Bureau in 1870. Paul Hergert (1908-1981) the world's foremost authority on the commodation of planetary orbits, served as director of the Observatory from 1946-1978. Under his leadership, the observatory became the original location of the Minor Planet Center, which was founded in 1947 by the International Astronomical Union. For the work he initiated at the Observatory, Herget was elected to the National Academy of Science in 1962. The Cincinnati Observatory embodies the rich history of American astronomy. It has gained international prominence for its landmark work in field of proper motions, gravitational studies and sidereal astronomy, including double stars, nebulae and clusters. Today, it serves as a vibrant public resource on the history and practice of astronomy. All of us in Greater Cincinnati congratulate the Cincinnati Observatory, the Cincinnati Planning Association and the Observatory Planning Committee for their hard work and dedication to preserve this window to the past and inspiration for the future.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, there are a number of things the gentleman said that seem inconsistent to me. The gentleman just said a moment ago that he was happy to support something that forces us to understand what the costs are to new legislation on the private sector, and then the gentleman said but he would not want a point of order. Let me be clear. This point of order is not the kind of point of order that we would normally have where we simply come to the floor, raise a point of order, and that stops the legislation if it is approved. This permits a debate precisely for the reason the gentleman stated earlier. We get 10 minutes on each side to be able to debate the question as to whether we should proceed on the legislation. The precise question the gentleman is raising. The argument that some Members will make, which might include the gentleman on environmental legislation, from the way I am hearing what he is saying, would be we need a full debate on this question.

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

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words just briefly again to commend sponsors of this amendment. We did work with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) last time around and were not able to do what really should have been done, it turned out. This is a needed technical correction really to the 1995 legislation, because it clarifies the intent of the original act to make it clear that State and local government could be given newer, expanded authority to meet their programmatic responsibilities if additional costs were imposed on them through entitlement reform. So I want to thank the authors of the amendment and also echo what the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) has said and issue my strong support.

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

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, when legislation is debated on the floor of the House, the legislation is debated because someone has a good idea. It is a great sounding idea. We talk a lot about the benefits, and we do it continually. What we do not talk about is the cost to the private sector and to the public sector. This simply permits the Congress to focus on that issue and then determine in its will by a simple majority vote whether to proceed with the legislation or not. So this is good government. It is accountability that will get at exactly what the gentleman earlier stated was his objective, which was to be fully informed about the cost of the legislation.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, let me just make the point that what we do here, I guess the gentleman and I have a different view of this place. The gentleman's sense, as I have tried to write down what he said, is there has never been legislation around here where the costs have not been fully debated. I do not know that there is any legislation, including the banking bill we just passed, where we ever understand what the full costs are, whether it is to the public sector or the private sector. Maybe the gentleman's staff reads all the legislation and gives him a cost breakdown, but mine certainly does not, and I do not know that that is true of any other Member. What we need is to have some debate on the cost, because the rest of the debate is always about the benefits.

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

Mr. PORTMAN. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, the single point of order which is able to be raised under this legislation, which is the consolidation of whatever private sector mandates are there, would not be able to be raised in a case where there was not a tax increase, because there is not a tax increase. So that is the one exception to this bill, where it would be raised. In the gentleman's case, I would say to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) that this will in every other case apply, this legislation. In the case that the gentleman has brought forward, which is the case where that tax increase would be used to fund government programs, there would be a point of order to be raised. But it would simply be a simple majority. If the Dreier legislation were not part of this legislation, the same thing would happen. In other words, all the Dreier amendment does is it takes the cases where there is no tax increase and says, we shall not apply this point of order which can be overridden by simple majority vote. I do not now how the Dreier amendment affects your example one way or the other. In any case, there would be a point of order on the scenario that you have laid out.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, maybe we should back up a second to explain what the amendment is. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) is here, who is going to explain it later, I am sure. But in this legislation there is one provision that came out of the Committee on Rules which says that in the case of tax legislation that is on the floor of the House, where there is a net tax decrease, in other words, where there is tax relief, that the point of order would not apply. Why? One, taxes are different than requirements.

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

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) for yielding time to me, and for all his help in getting us to this point. I also want to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary Condit), who has been my partner on this and also on the private sector mandates fight. Mr. Chairman, this is really legislation that builds on what we did 3 years ago, in 1995 in the public sector side. Let me try to put it in some context. The gentleman from New York (Chairman Solomon) has already mentioned this. Three years ago we said we were going to stop public sector mandates. We passed legislation which required that three things be done: number one, there be a cost analysis done of every new public sector mandate; number two, there be a debate on the floor that any Member of Congress could insist on by a process called a point of order; and number three, there would be a vote, an actual vote by a majority of this House. By a simple majority we could decide to go ahead with the legislation, notwithstanding the mandate. But at least we would then have a clear understanding of what the costs were, all the information that we did not have previously. In the end we would come up with better legislation. It has actually worked to curtail these public sector mandates. I think 394 Members of this Congress voted for that bill, after a lot of controversial amendments were offered. In the end I think we convinced most people, and they were right, it has worked. This simply builds on that. This says, now let us shift to the private sector. In the last legislation, again, the 1995 legislation, we were able to get into the legislation that the Congressional Budget Office, which does the analysis on the public sector side, would also analyze the private sector mandates, if they exceeded a threshold which was twice the public sector threshold, $100 million rather than $50 million. What we were not able to get in the last legislation 3 years ago was the ability to come to this floor and to raise that point of order, to actually put some teeth in that analysis, and to enable Members of Congress to take a careful look at those costs and then decide whether they wanted to move forward with the legislation, notwithstanding those costs. We are taking that next important step tonight. We did not do it last time, frankly, because this was a pretty controversial idea. It was precedent-setting. It turns out it worked, and now we are doing what I think is the next logical thing, which is to move to the private sector side. It is not going to stop all mandates, just as our public sector bill in 1995 did not stop all public sector mandates. It has curtailed them. Incidentally, it has not curtailed them just because we have had these debates on the floor. It has been done in a very responsible way, at the committee level, because the committees have been forced to work with State and local government to come up with new ways to get things through this Congress that in fact do represent the will of this Congress, but to not send an unfunded requirement down on our State and local governments. That is what this would do also, this legislation, if we can get it passed tonight and get it enacted into law. There are a lot of debates that are going to take place over the next couple of hours tonight and then tomorrow on various amendments and on various interpretations of the bill. My good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) a little while ago made the statement, and I tried to write it down as he said it, I may have gotten it wrong, correct me, he said that proceeds from the tobacco bill cannot be used to help children if this passes. Of course, that is not true. Proceeds from the tobacco bill, if we do a tobacco bill, if it has a tobacco tax in it, can certainly be used for whatever purpose this Congress thinks they should be used for. By a simple majority vote this Congress will decide whether in fact a new mandate, if it is a tobacco tax, it is a new mandate, whether that should indeed be something we want to do. What is wrong with that? What is wrong with a little openness and accountability around here? So I know we are going to have a lot of debates. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) is going to make some very legitimate points about the impact of this legislation on various areas of our government, particularly labor, environment, and so on. His particular concern, I think, is going to be on the so-called Dreier amendment, which was accepted in the Committee on Rules. I want to be very clear about this. All it says is that we have a debate on it. If in the end, because there is a tobacco tax that is not offset by tax cuts somewhere else or tax relief somewhere else, therefore, this legislation goes into effect, all we are saying is we are going to have a debate on the merits of this and then vote. The point is a very simple one. All we are saying is that we want the opportunity, just as we have in the public sector, to begin to legislate with better information, and therefore, to legislate more wisely in this place. With regard to the tobacco example, I will just say, if this Congress in fact looks at the tobacco bill that has a tax increase, it is considered a mandate, one Member of Congress can raise his or her hand, force a point of order on it, and then by a simple majority we can determine whether that is the appropriate thing to do. That does not stop it, that simply forces us to be more accountable. I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary Condit) again, I want to thank the Committee on Rules for working with us, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Chairman Solomon), the gentleman from California (Mr. David Dreier), to perfect this legislation over the last few months. It is very important legislation. That is why it is supported by so many groups around the country. It will help consumers, it will help particularly small businesses, and it will help to create more jobs in this country. I want to thank again the Committee on Rules for allowing us to get this to the floor, because they have a lot on their agenda.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me the time. Let me say, I appreciate the words from the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit), who is the lead sponsor; I am his cosponsor, on this. This thing is just common sense, good government. I applaud the Committee on Rules for two reasons, one, for coming up with an open rule. I think it is as fair a rule as we are going to get. I think we will have a lively debate on a number of amendments that will be offered on the floor. We may have some debate on the legislation itself, the basic bill, one aspect of it, and that is healthy and that is good. One of best things about this is it gives us an opportunity to talk about an important issue which is, how does this Congress go about determining whether to impose a mandate, in this case, on the private sector. We did this in the public sector 3 years ago; now it is time to talk about the private sector. My view is that we ought to do it in a much more informed way, knowing what the costs are, having an honest debate about that and then, in the end, determining by a majority vote whether in fact to proceed with legislation that imposes new burdens, particularly on smaller businesses. Where the burden is on the business, it is on the workers whose job opportunities are reduced; and it is on the consumer, all of us whose pocketbooks are affected. So I want to applaud the Committee on Rules for the open rule and the full and open debate I am sure we are going to have on this. Second, I want to commend them for working with us to perfect this legislation and, frankly, to move the legislation forward. There is a lot going on right now in this Congress despite what we might hear out there, and the agenda is busy. There are a lot of different items the Committee on Rules is taking up. This one is in their jurisdiction, and they were willing to put it, frankly, on the front burner and deal with it in an expeditious manner, I think again not only to move it forward, but to improve it. I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) for moving this process forward. I look forward to the debate.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise as the proud sponsor of legislation introduced with Representatives Goss, Skelton, Hamilton and others, that would designate the CIA compound in Langley, Virginia as ``The George H.W. Bush Center of Central Intelligence.'' As a former staff member in the Bush White House, I had the true honor of learning firsthand the values and principles of public service that President Bush exemplified. He stood for the proposition that honor, integrity and responsibility are the important ideals for public service. Now, through this legislation, Congress can memorialize these values which, I believe, his name has come to represent. As you know, George Bush had a remarkable and distinguished career in public service not only as President, but also Vice President, U.N. Ambassador, Chief of the U.S. Liaison Office to the People's Republic of China and Member of Congress. But he has always been particularly proud of his tenure as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. He guided the Agency through a difficult time and continues to be held in high regard by the CIA and its employees, past and present. He is also the only President to serve as CIA Director. By making the CIA compound the first public building in the Washington area to be named after President Bush, Congress can honor our 41st President with a lasting and appropriate tribute. Mr. Speaker, I want to especially thank Chairman of the Select Committee on Permanent Intelligence, Porter Goss, Ranking Democrat on the National Security Committee, Ike Skelton, the Ranking Democrat on International Relations Committee, Lee Hamilton, and all the others for their individual help in putting together this bipartisan effort to commemorate former President Bush in an appropriate manner. I also want to thank all of the other original cosponsor who have joined in this effort and urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass this legislation as a lasting tribute to George Bush's legacy of service to the CIA and to the nation.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, this resolution represents an important commitment by the House of Representatives. I am proud that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are willing to stand up and lead in the fight against drug use among our nation's youth. Building on this good effort, I will be introducing specific bills that bolster efforts to reduce drug use and I hope my colleagues will join me in those efforts. I have drafted a resolution to encourage every Member to establish or support an anti-drug coalition in their community. Last year when we passed the Drug-Free Communities Act to provide matching grants to such coalitions, I started an effort to get Members involved in such efforts. Both the Republican Conference and the Democratic Caucus endorsed the idea, and, to date, 76 Members have committed to getting involved. I would like to increase that number to 435. Later this week, I plan to introduce legislation to promote drug-free workplace programs among small businesses, including special programs for parents in the workplace to help them keep their kids drug-free. Later in the month, I will be introducing legislation to improve treatment in our prisons and jails so that inmates can return as drug- free members of society and, in many cases, set an example for their children. I look forward to working with other Members on their proposals to address this tremendous problem.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security, and I rise to strongly support his legislation and that endorsed by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer). I also want to say that I strongly agree with the comments of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), who preceded me, regarding the need to increase private savings of both the IRA-type savings, private savings of individuals, and savings through the employer, through pension plans, profit-sharing plans, 401(k)s and so on. Social Security is a little more controversial than the two legs, and that is why this commission is so important. But they all work together. Commissions are not always the best way to handle policy dilemmas, Mr. Speaker, and sometimes the Congress uses them too often. There are plenty of commission reports that are collecting dust somewhere in this Capitol. But I have to tell my colleagues, if the commission structure, goals and membership are clearly thought out, which is the case here, both with the national dialogue and the commission, then on very tough political issues, commissions can work and work well. I speak from personal experience. Until about a year ago, I was cochairman of the National Commission on Restructuring the IRS. We approached this on not just a bipartisan but a nonpartisan basis. We brought in outside expertise, which I think is key. The other cochairman was Senator Bob Kerrey, a Democrat from Nebraska. Charles Grassley, a Republican, and Bill Coyne, a Democrat, also served on the panel. Congress created the IRS commission basically to get at the vexing problems of the IRS and try to do it in a nonpolitical context. Another issue like Social Security, IRS can be quite political. We also wanted to bring in outside expertise, which I think is key, and we did so. In our case, commission members included information technology executives. It included small business advocates, taxpayer advocates, former commissioners, State tax administrators and so on. We rolled up our sleeves and we spent about 15 months really looking into the problems in a nonpartisan way. We finished on time, under budget and produced a solid report that then became legislation; and, within 4 months of our report, the legislation had passed the House on a strong, bipartisan basis. I think it is a pretty good model, and I see that same model being replicated here because of the way this commission and dialogue has been structured. The key is to rise above politics and solve a very tough problem. Again, commissions are not always the best solutions for every big issue that faces this Congress, but I think in this case this commission is properly structured to take a hard look at it with outside expertise in a balanced and bipartisan manner. And I think on this politically explosive issue, Social Security, it is not only the best way to go, I think, frankly, it is the only way to go. It is the only way we will solve the problem for future generations. I have my 6-year-old with me today. He asked what we were debating about a little while ago. I said, we are debating about your future and whether when you are retired you will have something there for you. And that is so important, that it is necessary for us to take this step in order to take it out of politics, in order to get with a time frame the kind of consensus we need to move forward on a bipartisan basis on this program. So I stand today to again urge support on both sides of the aisle on this process. The tough questions are still in front of us, but we need to get started on it, and this is the important big step.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me, and I was just down here actually on something else and started listening to this debate, and I want to make two quick statements. One is the science is not conclusive. Whether we listen to Dr. James Curtis of Columbia University and Harlem Hospital or whether we look at the Vancouver study or the Montreal study, one cannot say the science in this is conclusive. I will tell my colleagues one thing we know which is conclusive which is that the message counts. If we learned anything in the last 30 years in this country, it is that the message does matter. We reduced drug substance abuse in this country from 1979 to 1991 by over 70 percent by sending a clear and consistent message that drug use is wrong and that it is dangerous. This sends the wrong message. That is why this legislation is necessary. I think General McCaffrey got it right. I think if we are really serious about reducing drug abuse in this country, and remember teenage drug abuse has doubled in the last 5 years, it has doubled and continues to go up, it has got to be our top public health priority, it has got to be our top crime reduction priority, it has got to be our top education priority if we are going to turn the corner, if we are going to make a difference in this, and unfortunately needle exchange does not fit in that.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, today the House passed H.R. 2870, the Tropical Forest Conservation Act of 1998. Building on President Bush's Enterprise for the Americas Initiative, this legislation will help protect globally outstanding tropical forests around the world in a fiscally responsible manner. This legislation is the result of a lot of hard work by many organizations and people. I would like to take a minute to thank them. I have already talked about the committee leadership--in particular, Chairman Gilman, Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Bereuter. I would also like to thank committee staff, particularly Mark Kirk, Elana Broitman, Maria Pica and Dan Parks. The environmental community has spent many hours helping us to develop this legislation over the past two years and to generate bipartisan support for the bill. Special thanks goes to the leadership and staff of Conservation International, The Nature Conservancy and the World Wildlife Fund, particularly Peter Seligmann, Russ Mittermeier, Ian Bowles, Glenn Prickett and Will Singleton from CI; John Sawhill, Tia Nelson, Randall Curtis and Bill Millan from TNC; and Kathryn Fuller, Jamie Resor and Estrelitta Fitzhugh from the World Wildlife Fund. Special thanks goes to the Ohio Chapter of The Nature Conservancy, especially Bud Talbott, Denise King and Jan van der Vort Portman, for their consistent efforts to build support for the bill. I would also like to thank officials in the Treasury Department-- particularly the Office of International Development, Debt and Environmental Policy, including Bill Schuerch and Ken Luden, and the Office of International Debt Policy, including Mary Chaves and Max Hudgins--for the help they gave us in making sure the final product reflected the best practices. Their experience with the Enterprise for the Americas Initiative gave us a practical context within which to work. And finally, I would like to thank my Chief of Staff, John Bridgeland, who coordinated this entire effort, my legislative staff, Tim Miller and Seth Webb, Mr. Kasich's staff, Wayne Struble and Chris Kearney, Mark Synnes from the Legislative Counsel's office, and Susan Fletcher, Betsy Cody and Pat Wertman from the Congressional Research Service, for all of their hard work on this initiative. I look forward to working with Senators Lugar, Biden, Chaffee and Leahy as this legislation proceeds through the Senate.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, Georgetown, Ohio lost one of its finest last week: Dr. John Donohoo--known to his many friends, neighbors and patients simply as ``Dr. John.'' Dr. John was an old-fashioned family doctor in the finest American tradition. Throughout the 37 years he practiced medicine, if you happened to be sick, he came to your home. His fee was whatever the patient could afford; sometimes it was cash, other times it was a chicken or maybe some homegrown produce. There aren't many like him left. A Georgetown native, he served in World War II as a medical technician before receiving his undergraduate and medical degrees from the University of Cincinnati. Dr. John dedicated a great deal of his time and leadership to the Brown County community. He served as a board member for Brown County Hospital; President of the Georgetown Exempted Village School District for nine years; and President of the Brown County Board of Health. He was also a member of the Georgetown Village Council; Chairman of the Brown County Courthouse Reconstruction Association; and an elder and choir member of the Georgetown Presbyterian Church. He loved horses and helped to found the Brown County Charity Horse Show, as well as owning and operating Donohoo Stable for 28 years. Dr. John gave so much to so many throughout Brown County, but he will be missed the most by his family: his beloved wife of 55 years, Betty Donohoo; his children J. Michael Donohoo, Deborah Durbin and Dr. Jeffrey Donohoo; his mother Mary Donohoo; and his four grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, Dr. John Donohoo represented the highest ideals of the medical profession. Throughout his life, he worked to make his community a better place to live. I salute his many contributions and offer my deepest sympathy to his family and many friends.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Nebraska for yielding me this time and for all his work over the years on this legislation and this idea. I also want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman, for moving this bill so expeditiously through his committee, for improving the bill through the process, along with the ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Lee Hamilton), and for getting it to the floor today. I also have to commend my fellow sponsors, chairman of the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. John Kasich), and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Lee Hamilton), both of whom showed a lot of leadership in getting us to this point. As has been noted by the previous two speakers, this is really the outgrowth of years of work by a lot of people that links two important facts of life: One is that, very important, tropical forests are disappearing at an extremely rapid rate; and, second, they happen to be located in less developed countries that have a hard time repaying their debts to the United States. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman, and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton) will go further into the bill and what it does more precisely, but I want to take a minute to focus on why this bill makes so much sense to the American taxpayer. Tropical forests literally impact the air we breathe, the food we eat, and the medicines that cure disease. Acting as so-called carbon sinks, tropical forests absorb and store vast amounts of carbon dioxide and other emissions caused by the burning of fossil fuels. By encouraging both reforestation and by preventing deforestation, we can substantially offset carbon emissions right here in the United States. When we look at the alternatives and the cost of developing alternative technologies to reduce emissions, I think this is a relatively efficient way to absorb so-called greenhouse gases. It is hard to imagine that a rain forest in Brazil could help with air pollution in Ohio, but in fact that is what occurs. A major benefit all of us get from tropical forests also is the use of the vast number of species and plants found there for the development of drugs. For example, plants found in tropical forests help fight child leukemia and the Hodgkin's disease. And natural products found in rain forests were used to develop drugs like Taxol, that treats breast cancer; Calanolide, which is used to treat infectious diseases, and many others. In fact, half of the medicines used in the world today, every day, come from tropical forest plants, as do 25 percent of all prescription drugs. Agriculture also benefits from tropical forests. Genetic diversity, used in plant breeding, has been critical in producing grains for food and has accounted for about half of all the gains in agricultural yields in the United States between 1930 and 1980. Finally, of course, tropical forests help regulate rainfall, which has the effect of stabilizing weather patterns around the world. Unfortunately for all of us, we have already lost about half the world's tropical rain forests since 1950. And every year we are losing about 30 to 40 million acres of forests, an area equal to the size of New York or Iowa or Pennsylvania. And, of course, this destruction is fueled by poverty and economic pressures on developing countries where most of these tropical forests are located. As I mentioned at the outset, many of these countries have a hard time repaying their debt. In fact, a substantial majority of these eligible countries have sought so-called Paris Club or other debt relief arrangements. Instead of just having this debt outstanding that will never become repaid in full, or might be repaid not at all, the U.S. taxpayers should receive some benefit for the investment. By encouraging debt-for-nature swaps, the bill maximizes the chance of some benefit being received. The bill offers three different options: First, for the poorest countries, whose debt is unlikely to be paid in full, we build on the Enterprise for the Americas Initiative. The gentleman from New York talked about it a moment ago, but it was begun in the Bush administration. There, part of the principal is paid back to the United States, and interest payments on the new debt have to be put into protecting tropical forests. This is the one aspect of the bill that has some cost to it, because under the 1990 Federal Credit Reform Act, Congress has to appropriate funds equal to the so-called subsidy cost. That would be the difference between the net present value of the old loan arrangement and the new loan arrangement. Second, the bill permits no-cost debt buy-backs. This is at no cost to the U.S. taxpayer. It is a debt buy-back for countries that can afford it. The country purchases its debt at the full asset value of the loan and then contributes an additional amount equal to 40 percent of that loan into a local fund to protect tropical forests. Then, finally, the third option is the bill would permit interested parties and nongovernmental organizations, third parties, to purchase debt of eligible countries from the United States Government, at its full asset value, in exchange for the debtor country putting money aside well in excess of that purchase price in a fund for conservation. Again, this is at no cost to the taxpayer and provides substantial benefits to the United States. The bill also benefits the U.S. taxpayer because, through these transactions, U.S. dollars are leveraged for substantial amounts of conservation funding. This is because the cost of reducing debt, even as we have to score it here under the Credit Reform Act, is low compared to the amount of funding and local currency that will be set aside for conservation. In some cases, the ratio is as high as five to one or even ten to one. Because it is leverage that you can get, I think this is a much better way to protect these globally important resources than through any kind of direct aid. Debt restructuring also makes sense because, by clearing the debt off the books, it actually reduces the economic pressures that lead to a lot of the deforestation, so it actually gets at the underlying or root causes of much of the destruction of the rain forest. Finally, let me make it clear that this is an authorization, this is not an appropriation. The bill and the committee report both make clear that any appropriation will be fully offset during the appropriations process. Again, building on President Bush's Enterprise for the Americas Initiative, this bill moves beyond Latin America. It provides this benefit worldwide to any eligible country, and it more precisely targets less developed countries that have the kind of tropical forests that provide the most benefits. If enacted, its effects will be not only to encourage economic growth consistent with conservation but, as Chairman Gilman noted earlier, it will be to promote U.S. policy interests, foreign policy interests. Because, if they want to participate, countries are required to have a good human rights record, counternarcotics program, counterter- rorists policies, and democratic elections. As I conclude, I want to thank this committee again for expediting and improving this bill; and I want to acknowledge the good work of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton), the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and many others on this issue over the years. This bill simply builds on these efforts by providing new incentives to protect tropical forests worldwide in a targeted and fiscally responsible way. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it.

Mr. PORTMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just want to add to that that we think these are thoughtful amendments. One of the major underlying purposes of this legislation of course is to promote protection of plants that can cure diseases. I think his second amendment certainly does that. I think it clarifies the use of grants. It is helpful. I think the addition of the members to the EAI board is also helpful in that regard and also to be sure the indigenous people are represented. I think the amendments are helpful legislation. I join the chairman of the committee in supporting them.