Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Cleveland for managing this legislation and for his support. I also want to congratulate the gentleman from Cincinnati, Ohio (Mr. Chabot), my colleague and neighbor, for his work on this project.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today very proudly in strong support of the resolution recognizing and honoring the Jewish community on the occasion of its 350th anniversary, supporting the designation of an American Jewish History Month and recognizing and honoring the many contributions of America's Jewish community.

The year 2004 will mark the 350th anniversary of Jewish refugees landing on North American shores and establishing North America's first Jewish community in New Amsterdam, now called New York City. Today, America's Jewish population stands at about 7 million people.

During 2004 and 2005, these 350 years of Jewish life in America will be commemorated, honored, and celebrated, and so will Jewish immigration. After all, Jewish immigration to America throughout the last 350 years has brought with it legions of notable scientists, lawyers, statesmen, inventors, artists, authors, musicians, doctors, ethicists, entrepreneurs, and spiritual leaders, men and women who substantially transformed our great Nation and so many of our communities.

I, of course, have seen firsthand in my hometown of Cincinnati the strong and powerful positive influence of the Jewish community and Cincinnati also happens to be home to a number of our country's most important Jewish institutions. These include the American Jewish Archives, which has dedicated itself to assembling an extensive collection of documents to chronicle American Jewish history, and the Hebrew Union College, Jewish Institute of Religion, established in 1875, a pillar to the American Reform Jewish movement.

Mr. Speaker, I am strongly in support of this resolution because I believe passage of it will foster awareness and will help facilitate understanding. I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3108, the Pension Funding Equity Act before us. And I do so because of the very concerns that were just raised by my colleague from California (Mr. George Miller) and that is this will strengthen and define benefit plans in this country.

I will remind the gentleman that this Congress did pass, the House passed legislation after the Enron scandal to be sure that workers indeed had more options for diversification and to further protect those who are in 401(k)s and in plans like the Enron plan. That legislation is currently in the other body, but we do hope we can act on that yet this year.

I also would agree with the gentleman that we need to go even further with regard to looking at the defined benefit area. That includes looking at the funding rules. It obviously includes looking at the issue of what the discount rate ought to be. Today, we have before us a short-term fix for that problem, but it is only for 2 years. It also means we need to look, I believe, at other issues connected with pension accounting and with PBGC, the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation.

But having said all that, the bill before us today is necessary, and it is very important. We need to put this in a little perspective, I think. First, there is no mandate for American businesses to offer pension plans, whether it is a 401(k) or other defined contribution plan or whether it is a defined benefit plan, such as those we are talking about today. Those guaranteed defined benefit plans, of course, are traditionally viewed as the most secure pension plans, and there are millions of Americans who depend on them, not as many as they used to be.

Mr. Speaker, in fact, over the past 18 years, we have gone from 114,000 plans insured by the PBGC, the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, ultimately by the taxpayer, to today where we have roughly 32,000 plans.

In the last four years alone, we have lost over 20 percent of the contribution plans in this country that are defined benefit plans insured by PBGC. So there are not as many Americans today as there used to be depending on these plans, but I believe they are still an incredibly important part of our overall retirement security system, and we ought to do all we can here in Congress to stop the erosion of these plans.

What does that mean? Without a system that is mandated, it means we need to offer better legislative incentives and encouragements for those plan sponsors and for those employees to be in these kinds of plans.

I will also say, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation addresses one of the reasons that we have seen a reduction in plans. It also addresses one of the reasons that we are seeing, even this year, not termination of plans but freezing of plans, where there are no new participants admitted or where existing participants are not able to accrue additional benefits. There is a group out there, one of the consulting firms that does work in this area that has told me they believe up to 20 percent of the plans are currently freezing or looking to freeze or scale back benefits in the near-term; 27 percent of the plans that they work with intend to offer less generous benefits for new hires. So we have got a serious situation here, and we do need to deal with it.

Again, one of the reasons we have seen this deterioration of the defined benefit plan is because of the discount rate. I believe this was talked about earlier, but right now by using this now defunct 30- year rate, we are telling corporations they have to overfund their plans. The 30-year Treasury measurement has been discontinued, therefore, the rate is too low; and, therefore, it is not an accurate measure of what the return will be on these plans over time; therefore, companies are being asked to come up with millions of dollars, in some cases over time billions of dollars, in funds that they do not believe are necessary in order to provide adequate benefits for workers. And at a time when the economy is not doing as well as it should be, particularly in the manufacturing sector, this is a real problem.

It is very important to come up with what we view as an accurate measure for this discount rate. In other words, what rate companies have to use with regard to their contributions to their plans and with regard to the premiums they pay to PBGC. That is what this debate is about today.

I am delighted by the fact that it is a bipartisan discussion. I am delighted by the fact that we have bipartisan cosponsorship of this short-term fix for this problem. What we are saying is that instead of using this defunct 30-year Treasury measurement, which again is outdated, that instead we ought to use a more accurate measure which would be a long-term, conservatively invested corporate bond rate to be chosen by the Department of Treasury. They would choose which corporate bond conservative indexes to use. The corporate bond indices which would be chosen would not be up to us, but we would be establishing here, legislatively, that that ought to be the rate going forward.

This is a huge victory because at least now we are telling those plan sponsors out there, gee, if you want to stay in this defined benefit area or for somebody maybe who is looking to get into the defined benefit area, there will be a more accurate measure, rather than, again, forcing companies and plan sponsors to overinflate their contributions and their premium payments. Rather, it will be an accurate measure, based on something you can predict which is what is the long-term corporate bond rate, again, determined by the Treasury Department based on indices.

That is where we are today. It is extremely important that we move forward with this legislation to give companies a little bit of predictability and certainty, at least over the next two year, as to what will be their liability.

Personally, I would have strongly preferred that we would go beyond 2 years. I think 3 years was a minimum that we should have gone. But this is something we worked at, again, on a bipartisan basis, given the balancing of interests here between the PBGC, the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, their liabilities and concerns, which is ultimately the taxpayer, given the concerns of the employees and having job security and having pension security because this relates to jobs, as well as pensions, given that these contributions affect the bottom line of these companies, and given the need for us to be sure that you have enough incentive to keep plan sponsors in these plans. So this is a two-year period within which we go to a better discount rate.

During that time period, it is explicit in what we are doing here today, that this Congress will be getting busy in looking at these bigger issues. And they have to do, again, with the pension funding rules, with accounting rules, working with the PBGC, working with Treasury and working with outside groups. After all, those who are making decisions as to whether to offer pensions day to day, whether to freeze or not, whether to go to some sort of a convention, perhaps to a cash balance plan, those are people we need to hear from.

Congress can come up with what we think are great ideas, but if they do not work in the real world, who gets hurt in the end? It is the employees who do not have that guaranteed benefit that is so important, such an important part of our overall retirement security plan in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means, also chair of the subcommittee of the Committee on Education and the Workforce on Employee-Employer Relations.

(Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good colleague from Maryland for yielding.

I want to echo the concerns he raised about this not being the more comprehensive approach that is needed. I also want to thank him for working with me and other Members on both sides of the aisle over the last 3 years in putting together more comprehensive legislation from which this corporate bond rate is taken, and that is the Portman-Cardin legislation my colleague talked about. It did go to the Committee on Ways and Means; it has not come to the floor yet. I do think we will have the opportunity to take up that legislation in the future because it does address not only some of the other issues connected with the defined benefit plans but also defined contribution plans.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) for purposes of a colloquy, a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I would say first it is an excellent question, and he raises a concern that I also have with this legislation.

As my colleague indicated, section 415 of the Tax Code limits the maximum pension benefit that can be paid from a defined benefit plan. For 2003, that dollar limit is $160,000 annually paid in the form of a lifetime annuity. If that worker decides to take a lump sum benefit instead, this annuity, the 415 limit, would also be converted into the lump sum.

Under current law, pension plans must use the 30-year Treasury rate to convert the 415 limit into a lump sum; and of course, because the 30-year Treasury is not a good rate, as we have talked about today, and because it fluctuates a great deal, it is very difficult for businesses to determine with any amount of certainty how much money it has to set aside to pay lump sum benefits. Although volatility is never good, it is particularly problematic for small plans; and it is these 415 plans that are typically in smaller businesses.

The legislation before us, H.R. 3108, would have allowed businesses to use a flat rate of 5.5 percent to convert the 415 limit. We think that was good policy. This provision would allow businesses, particularly small ones that I know the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) is concerned about, to fund their pension plans with more certainty.

That provision was dropped in this amendment being considered today because it would have had an effect on lump sum distributions, and we did make an agreement with all parties that lump sums would not be affected one way or another by this short-term 2-year change in the discount rate. So that provision would have increased the 415 limit in some circumstances and reduced it in others. So it would have affected lump sums.

Nonetheless, the provision is extremely important to small business. I appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) raising it and appreciate his support. I hope we can get it back in the bill, and I believe that we can as this bill moves forward when more permanent legislation is considered.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), my colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means, a distinguished Member.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I want to thank my colleague. He ended up by saying that he appreciates the responsible bipartisan work that has been done in this area. I want to thank him and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), who spoke earlier, and I also want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), who we heard from a moment ago, and I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), who we will hear from in just a minute.

This has been a bipartisan effort from the start, and it is something we need to continue to focus on. We need to do two things: One, today we need to do this short-term fix. Second, we need to look more comprehensively at these issues. First, at all the funding issues

and other PBGC issues, some of which were raised by the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the lump-sum issues, and that will be done in the next 2 years if we are to meet our commitment under the legislation we are passing today.

The second thing we need to do, though, is we need to look more comprehensively at retirement security generally, and that is what the Portman-Cardin legislation builds on, and, hopefully, we can continue to do that.

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

Mr. Speaker, on September 30, 2003, I was absent attending a meeting in my Congressional District in Ohio and missed the votes on Roll Call Number 524, the Motion to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 1, the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act; Roll Call Number 525, the Motion to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 1308, the Tax Relief, Simplification and Equity Act; and Roll Call Number 526, on H. Res. 357, Honoring the Life and Legacy of Bob Hope.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``Nay'' on Roll Call Number 524, ``Nay'' on Roll Call Number 525, and ``Yea'' on Roll Call Number 526.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2086, the Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2003. This legislation also reauthorizes the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign--a critical component of our Nation's drug control strategy.

We know that one important way to get the drug prevention message across is through the media: television, radio and newspapers. I am a firm believer that an effective media campaign can help prevent and delay the onset of substance abuse among youth. The Partnership for a Drug-Free America operated a successful media campaign long before the Federal Government became involved. Congress understood the importance of the anti-drug media message and wanted to ensure that it would continue as public service campaigns have the proven ability to change attitudes and behavior.

Since 1998, the Office of National Drug Control Policy has run a National Youth Anti-Drug Campaign. With the help of the Partnership for a Drug-Free America, the Campaign has created more than 200 commercials.

We know that the Media Campaign is working. The Media Campaign helps parents realize that they play a vital role in preventing their kids from using drugs. Results clearly show that the Campaign helps initiate conversations about substance abuse between parents and their children. We also know that the ads have helped parents set rules and clear standards about drug use.

Survey results released this month confirm that youth are getting the right messages about drug use. The ads have contributed to a climate of disapproval of drug use that is imperative to reducing the human, social, and financial costs of this deadly disease. The Campaign reaches 90 percent of the youth audience 4 times a week; and 74 percent of the parent audience 3.5 times a week.

Drug use behaviors are beginning to show positive effects from youth exposure to the Media Campaign. For example, almost half (49 percent of youth with high exposure to the marijuana ads said the ads made them less likely to try or use drugs versus 38 percent of the youth who had little or no exposure to the ads. A strong correlation was found between high exposure to the ads and increased perceptions of risk associated with marijuana use that have been specifically highlighted by the Campaign. Recent data also indicates that kids who see or hear anti-drugs ads at least once a day are less likely to do drugs than other adolescents who don't see or hear ads frequently.

I have seen first-hand in my own community the positive results that can be gained through an effective media campaign.

The Coalition for a Drug-Free Greater Cincinnati, which I founded, recently conducted a survey that showed a decline in teen drug use in our region for the first time in 12 years. Marijuana use by teens is down 13 percent, alcohol use is down 24 percent, and cigarette use is down 28 percent.

The media component of the community coalition in Cincinnati plays a critical role in the coalition's overall success. The Coalition helps run an extensive local media campaign through television, radio and print. In fact, the local media in southwest Ohio have generously donated over $1 million in anti-drug ads on an annual basis for the last three years. The survey data tells us that the media campaign is helping bring these numbers down.

Based on our survey, kids who have seen anti-drug ads on a regular basis are 20 percent less likely to use drugs. These results indicate that prevention and education tools like the media campaign work.

The key is that we work together--on a bipartisan basis--to keep these ads on the air as part of a comprehensive drug prevention effort. Passage of this bill, the Reauthorization of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, will help to improve the effectiveness of the media campaign and the reduction of drug abuse among our Nation's adolescents. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I would be happy to talk about the schedule to the extent we know it.

Mr. Speaker, according to the calendar we announced at the beginning of the year, next week was scheduled to be the last week of the first session of the 108th Congress; and while the House by and large has completed its work for this session, the Senate is a little behind us, maybe several weeks behind us, and we still have some more work to do. So we will be here beyond October 3, certainly. We will be completing appropriations bills, as well as other important priorities.

In addition, the President's recent request for additional resources for the war on terrorism through the supplemental is something this Congress will be considering. Of course, that means we will need additional time in session.

While I understand that Members are anxious to know about votes for October, especially for the week of October 6, we have not yet finalized a number of key decisions that need to be made before we know exactly what that schedule will be. Hopefully by the close of business tomorrow, Friday, we will be able to distribute a ``Dear Colleague'' letter to each office which will indicate the days when we expect to have votes for the entire month of October. This information will also be on the majority leader's Web site hopefully by the close of business tomorrow.

For next week, in addition to a lengthy list of bills that we will consider under suspension of the rules

starting on Tuesday, we do have a long list of conference reports that could become available.

These include, but are not limited to, the FAA authorization, which has to get done, as we all know, the DOD authorization bill, military construction appropriations bill, energy and water appropriations bill, and, of course, the Energy Policy Act of 2003.

No one can say at this time which days any of these bills will be considered by the House. It is difficult to know, but I would stress that we will expect to be voting on one or more of these conference reports, and we should expect to be here next Friday.

Members should know we may well be working late into the evening next Friday, October 3, 2003, to consider some of these conference reports. I would try to answer any further questions the gentleman from Texas has.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I think we will have a better answer to that as of tomorrow close of business. But my expectation would be we would have business here on the floor even though the Senate will be out, the other body, in part because of the work we need to do on the supplemental, and in part because of possibility of other important work in the appropriations conference reports.

Mr. Speaker, that is certainly a fair question. And I honestly do not think we will have the answer to that until some time midweek next week, depending on how the conference reports are going. My point earlier was that Members should be prepared to be here on Friday, if necessary. We do not know if that will be necessary, but if there are conference reports that are ready to go, I think it is important that we are here to get our work done.

So it seems like it would make sense for Members not to make plans for Friday that they are unable to get out of. We will see what happens as of next week.

Mr. Speaker, I am advised by the majority leader's office that it will be available as soon as possible tomorrow, which, in House terminology, probably means tomorrow afternoon or evening. It is going to take a while to make some decisions on some matters that are not entirely in our control, including working with the Senate on how we work through the supplemental. So I would think tomorrow afternoon sometime.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will further yield, I appreciate the question. And my own sense is that it is very unlikely we would see the supplemental appropriations bill on the floor next week simply because the committee has not yet gone through the hearing process to the extent they would like to. My understanding is they would like to hold additional hearings next week.

In fact, the members of the subcommittee have indicated that they will be going on a trip this weekend, I think, to Iraq to gather further information. So it seems very unlikely it would be before us next week.

In terms of the rule, we have not worked that out yet with the Committee on Rules. I certainly have not talked to the chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), but that is a decision that would be made as we get closer to that vote.

Mr. Speaker, another fair question from the gentleman. I wish we could provide a definitive answer. That is certainly our hope, that by the end of the month of October that we would be completing our legislative business for this session of this Congress. But it would depend on our progress with the Senate on a number of these conference reports that we talked about earlier.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would further yield, I would say absolutely. It is our hope that we would have both of those conference reports coming back to the House floor. Certainly they were not excluded from the list because we do not hope to do them, but they were not in the list because it is unlikely we will do them next week. So it will not be something imminent. On both of those conferences, we would hope to come to a resolution.

As the gentleman knows, being on the Committee on Ways and Means, the members of the Committee on Ways and Means on the conference and the members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce are working diligently with regard to the Medicare conference and their staff, even as we talk this afternoon. So we are very hopeful we can resolve both of those and bring them to the floor before completing our work for this session.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Texas knows some of the complexities of some of these issues and knows the progress we have made, but also the ground we have yet to cover. So I think it is unlikely, from my point of view, it is unlikely we will see it next week. But I think it is very likely that we will make significant progress in the next two weeks, particularly if we are here for a considerable amount of time the week of October 6, 2003, to be able to make progress on these conference reports. Even in the absence of the Senate being in session, we can still work on conference reports.

So our hope is to continue to push with regard to all of the conferences. We named a number of them earlier. We hope to have them come to the floor over the next several weeks as we complete our work.

It certainly would be a priority. It is my understanding that the Senate formally requested a conference just last night on what is the second largest now of our 13 appropriations bills. It is certainly a very important bill for us to be able to complete on an independent basis and that is our goal. We cannot commit to a day next week when we would consider a motion to go to conference, but I think it is very likely it could happen next week.

It is our understanding that Members of that conference from both sides of the aisle and both sides of the Capitol have indicated that a couple of relatively small changes are necessary to get that bill into position where both the House and the Senate can pass the conference report. That is what we are working toward. Those grant programs administered by FAA expire, as the gentleman knows, at the end of the month. I know that the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and so many other Members in this Chamber would like to get this bill to the President for signature as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at noon on Monday next; and further, that when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, September 30, for morning hour debates.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the valuable work of the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) as it celebrates its 25th anniversary. Established in 1978, EBRI is a nonprofit nonpartisan organization committed exclusively to data dissemination, policy research and education on economic security and employee benefits.

Few issues are as complex and important as those involving retirement security policy. For the past quarter century, EBRI has provided Members of Congress and other policymakers with objective, unbiased information on this critical issue. EBRI helps provide a context for our debates, and because it makes no policy recommendations, EBRI's facts can be comfortably used by all participants in debates.

The information provided by EBRI has served Congress well for the past 25 years. During this time, we have seen some significant changes and improvements to our nation's retirement system. EBRI consistently illuminates the real issues and clarifies the key questions about retirement, which helps us to provide a better future for America's workers and retirees. I am certain that EBRI will continue to be an invaluable resource to policymakers as we continue to strengthen our nation's retirement security laws.

Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in recognizing the contributions of EBRI. As it celebrates its 25th anniversary, all of us congratulate EBRI for its commitment to advancing policymakers' knowledge and understanding of retirement security issues and their importance to our country.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time and want to congratulate him and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) for their good bipartisan work on this legislation.

The legislation does have a cost, as it is analyzed by the Joint Tax Committee, and I believe that is $12.6 billion. Guess what? Over that same period of time, the estimates are there will be about $50 billion more in contributions to our charities. These are faith-based charities, community organizations, those who are out there doing the good work to help those most in need.

I love the provision on the nonitemizers, because it helps people who are nonitemizers now not only give more money to charity and gives them a break for it, but gets them more engaged as volunteers in their communities in helping out, having an investment in these charities.

I like the provision on the IRA rollover. We ought to do the same with some other retirement accounts. With the IRAs, we are able to say if you are 70\1/2\, you can then roll over into a charity without having the tax consequences. That will help not only this year, but going forward, as baby boomers begin to get these big lump sums in their IRAs, to be able to give those to charities. There are a lot of assets there, and it is a great policy.

The gentleman from Texas raises a substitute; and I just have to say, codifying this very complicated issue of economic substance doctrine is a very difficult thing to do. The Treasury Department is dead set against it. They instead believe what we ought to be doing is providing more disclosure and tightening the rules. That is going to be in a bill coming to the floor, we hope soon, out of the FSC-ETI bill. That is a better way to approach it.

Finally, the codification of economic substance, to my understanding, is retroactive, so you are actually changing the rules of the game after the fact. So those who have entered into transactions and arrangements are now being told after the fact, guess what, the rules all change; now we have this new rule to be applied.

I am afraid what will happen is you will see tax shelters going underground. You will not see what we ought to be seeing, which is more disclosure and tightening of the rules.

So I think this is a great bill. I would urge my colleagues to support it, because it does the right thing on policy grounds; and I would be very skeptical about this substitute. I think it is bad tax policy; and it will result, perhaps inadvertently, in more problems in our Tax Code.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Joseph A. Pichler, a constituent and friend, who will be honored by Hebrew Union College- Jewish Institute of Religion at its 21st Annual Cincinnati Associates Tribute Dinner on November 2, 2003. Joe will be honored for his exemplary civic and philanthropic leadership.

Joe is a member of the Corporate Council of Hebrew Union College- Jewish Institute of Religion. Founded in Cincinnati in 1875, the College-Institute is the oldest institution of higher Jewish education in the western hemisphere. The College-Institute prepares rabbis, cantors, religious school educators and Jewish communal workers at its four campuses in Cincinnati, New York, Los Angeles and Jerusalem. The College-Institute also awards Masters and Doctoral degrees to men and women of all faiths.

Joe brings leadership, hard work and energy to every assignment. Currently Chairman of the Board of the Kroger Company, he also served Kroger as Chief Executive Officer; President and Chief Operating Officer; and Executive Vice President. Joe joined Dillon Companies in 1980 as Executive Vice President and was elected to Kroger's Board of Directors when Dillon merged with Kroger in 1983. For fifteen years, he taught at the University of Kansas School of Business, and served as Dean from 1974 to 1980. From 1968 to 1970, he was Special Assistant to the U.S. Department of Labor's Assistant Secretary for Manpower. Joe is a member of the Board of Directors of Federated Department Stores, Inc., and Milacron, Inc.

In a career consistently marked by high points and achievements, Joe has pursued service to our community with equal enthusiasm. He is a member of the Board of Directors of the Cincinnati City Development Corporation; Member of the Board of Trustees of Xavier University; Member of the Advisory Board of the Cincinnati Chapter of the Salvation Army; CoChairman of the Greater Cincinnati Scholarship Association; and a Member of the Catholic Commission of Intellectual and Cultural Affairs. In 2000, he was presented with the Distinguished Service Citation by the National Conference for Community and Justice.

A magna cum laude graduate of Notre Dame University, Joe received an M.B.A. and Ph.D. from the University of Chicago. He and his wife, Susan--who is also a dedicated community volunteer--have four children.

All of us in Cincinnati congratulate Joe on receiving this prestigious award.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Alex Machaskee, President, Publisher and Chief Executive Officer of The Plain Dealer in Cleveland, Ohio. Alex will be honored as the International Business Executive of the Year by the World Trade Center Cleveland on September 18, 2003. This award recognizes leading Northeast Ohio business executives for achievements in international business.

Alex was born in Warren, Ohio. He is a graduate of Cleveland State University with a bachelor's degree in marketing. He joined The Plain Dealer in 1960. Before being named Publisher in 1990, he served five years as Vice President and General Manger. He also served as Director of Labor Relations and Personnel, Assistant to the Publisher and Promotion Director.

In addition to his service at The Plain Dealer, Alex has been active with a number of local and national organizations. He is Chairman of the Board of United Way Services, and served as Chairman of the United Way Campaign from 2000 to 2001. He is past Chairman and a member of the Greater Cleveland Roundtable, an organization of community leaders that works to promote racial amity and diversity. Alex also is Vice President of the Musical Arts Association (the Cleveland Orchestra), serves on the Board Governance and the Finance and Administration Committees of the Cleveland Foundation and is a member of the Museum Council of the Cleveland Museum of Art. Nationally, he is a member of the Labor Relations Subcommittee of the Newspaper Association of America and a member of the American Society of Newspaper Editors.

Alex's success has not gone unnoticed. He was awarded the honorary degree of Doctor of Humane Letters from Cleveland State University in 1995 and from the University of Akron in 1998. He also was inducted into the Northeast Ohio Business Hall of Fame in 2001.

Mr. Speaker, Alex's leadership has been integral to promoting the economy of Northeast Ohio, and I hope my colleagues will join me in recognizing his accomplishments as he is honored as the International Business Executive of the Year. All of us in Southwest Ohio, the area I represent, congratulate him for his outstanding service, including his commitment to our friends in Northeast Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Dan and Minor LeBlond, friends and distinguished constituents, who will receive the Jacob E. Davis Volunteer Leadership Award from the Greater Cincinnati Foundation (GCF) on September 15, 2003. To commemorate the joint 40th anniversaries of GCF and Stepping Stones Center for the Handicapped, four awards will be presented this year honoring volunteers who have played vital roles in the overlapping histories of these outstanding organizations.

Dan is a native Cincinnatian, and is being recognized for his 15 years of service to GCF. He joined GCF as an Associate Director in 1988, serving in that role until GCF's volunteer and staffing structure changed in 1994, when he became a member of the new Grants Review Committee and served until 2003.

Among his many community leadership roles, Dan has been a board member of American Red Cross; Boys & Girls Clubs of Greater Cincinnati, Inc.; Cincinnati Country Day School; Cincinnati Institute for Fine Arts;

Good Samaritan Hospital and TriHealth, Inc; United Way of Greater Cincinnati; and a number of corporate boards.

Minor was born in Memphis, Tennessee. She is being recognized for her role as a founder, past trustee, and president of Stepping Stones Center for the Handicapped.

In addition to Stepping Stones, Minor has been active with a number of other important organizations. She was a founder, past trustee, and president of Living Arrangements for the Developmentally Disabled, Incorporated. She also served as a past board member of United Cerebral Palsy of Cincinnati, Inc.; Friends of the School for Creative and Performing Arts; Glad House; and Playhouse in the Park. She is active in fund drives for United Way, Fine Arts Fund, and other organizations.

Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in recognizing the many accomplishments of Daniel and Minor LeBlond. All of us in the Greater Cincinnati area thank them for their dedication to improving the lives of others. They have made a significant difference in our community, and I know they will continue to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Dr. Jean Rothenberg, a distinguished constituent, who will receive the Jacob E. Davis Volunteer Leadership Award from the Greater Cincinnati Foundation (GCF) on September 15, 2003. To commemorate the joint 40th anniversaries of GCF and Stepping Stones Center for the Handicapped, four awards will be presented this year honoring volunteers who have played vital roles in the overlapping histories of these outstanding organizations.

Jean was instrumental in helping to get GCF on its feet. Jean was the last president of the Fresh Air & Convalescent Aid Society, which ran the Fresh Air Farm on what is now the Stepping Stones Center property. When the group decided its mission had become outdated, a committee was formed to study what to do with its $600,000 endowment and property. In 1963 and because of Jean's leadership, the committee collaborated with a group of civic leaders and bank presidents, who were forming GCF, to provide the $600,000 as seed money for the new foundation. The Fresh Air Farm property became Camp Stepping Stones.

Jean has also been integral to other local organizations that are important to our community. One example is the Hearing, Speech & Deaf Center of Greater Cincinnati, which she founded in 1950. She has supported the Center and the cause of helping the hearing impaired with her leadership and financial resources, and is currently an emeritus member of the board.

Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in recognizing Jean's accomplishments as she receives the Jacob E. Davis Volunteer Leadership Award. All of us in the Greater Cincinnati area thank her for her outstanding service to our community and for her efforts to help those who need it most.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Ruth Upson, a distinguished leader, who will receive the Jacob E. Davis Volunteer Leadership Award from the Greater Cincinnati Foundation (GCF) on September 15, 2003. To commemorate the joint 40th anniversaries of GCF and Stepping Stones Center for the Handicapped, four awards will be presented this year honoring volunteers who have played vital roles in the overlapping histories of these outstanding organizations.

Ruth's father-in-law, Mark Upson, was GCF's first Director and, through Mark, she became very familiar with the good work GCF does. Ruth is a GCF donor and member of the Foundation Society for legacy givers. Ruth also has been active with Stepping Stones since the early 1960s.

In addition to Ruth's good work at GCF and Stepping Stones is her dedicated service at a number of hospitals in the Cincinnati area. Ruth has given a great deal of her time (over 3,500 volunteer hours) at General Hospital in the 1930s, Columbia Presbyterian Hospital in the 1940s, Christ Hospital, and most recently at the Women's Imaging Center.

Other volunteer work includes the Junior League of Cincinnati, which she joined in 1940; the Deupree Community, where she has served with the Auxiliary and on the Executive Board; and the Church of the Redeemer, volunteering ``wherever needed.''

Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in recognizing Jean's accomplishments as she receives the Jacob E. Davis Volunteer Leadership Award. All of us in the Greater Cincinnati community thank her for her outstanding service and efforts to help those in need.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Kay Pettengill, a dear friend and distinguished constituent, who will receive the Jacob E. Davis Volunteer Leadership Award from the Greater Cincinnati Foundation (GCF) on September 15, 2003. To commemorate the joint 40th anniversaries of GCF and Stepping Stones Center for the Handicapped, four awards will be presented this year honoring

volunteers who have played vital roles in the overlapping histories of these outstanding organizations.

Kay is being honored for her service to both GCF and Stepping Stones Center. She served as a member of the GCF Distribution Committee and later the Governing Board from 1984 to 1993 and as Governing Board chair from 1990 to 1991. Kay began volunteering with Stepping Stones in 1971. She is a past president and board chair and, due to her outstanding dedication and accomplishments, became the first Honorary Trustee of Stepping Stones in 1993. Between 1981 and 1984, she was instrumental in raising $1.2 million for Stepping Stones. Kay also was key in helping to raise $1.5 million for Camp Allyn, owned by Rotary Club and where Stepping Stones operated a resident camping program.

Kay also has been a member of the Junior League since 1948 and has helped to raise vital funds for United Way of Greater Cincinnati, Hamilton County Special Olympics, Easter Seals Southwest Ohio, American Red Cross, Children's Theater, and Cincinnati Restoration, Incorporated.

Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in recognizing Kay's many accomplishments as she receives the Jacob E. Davis Volunteer Leadership Award. All of us in the Greater Cincinnati area thank her for her tireless work to help those who are less fortunate.