Rob Portman

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation, the Department of the Treasury Inspector General Consolidation Act of 2003, which will promote efficiencies and improve oversight at the Department of the Treasury. The measure I am proposing will merge two existing Inspector General offices at the U.S. Treasury--the Office of Inspector General of the Treasury (OIG) and the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA)--into a new office called the Office of the Treasury Inspector General (TIG). The Department of the Treasury is the only agency with two Inspectors General. The benefit derived by consolidating OIG and TIGTA will be better oversight for all of Treasury, including the IRS, while ensuring that the new organization has all the same powers and authority as its predecessors have under current law. The legislation I am introducing is necessary because the creation of the Department of Homeland Security has resulted in significant reduction in agencies and personnel at Treasury. The U.S. Customs Service, U.S. Secret Service, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, and most of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms have been moved to the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice. The current TIGTA and OIG structure does not recognize the new organizations, where IRS has 87 percent and the rest of Treasury has 13 percent of the remaining personnel resources. A single, elevated IG will provide strong oversight to all of Treasury's current operations. The Department also will gain the efficiencies from the merger by eliminating duplication and creating a more effective and efficient operation to further the mission of both offices.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, on November 20, 2003, I was unavoidably detained and missed the vote on Roll Call Number 654 on H.R. 1828, the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Yes.''

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time, and I thank her for her leadership as chair of the Subcommittee on Health, as well as the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), in getting us to this point. This is not the first time we have had a Medicare prescription drug bill on the floor, but I think we have the best one. I think it is a great program that has been misdescribed tonight by a number of the speakers, and I just wanted to clarify a few things. First of all, it is voluntary. People have come to the floor and talked about this is a mandate and people will be forced to get off their existing plans and get on this plan and so on. It is voluntary. If seniors do not choose to take up the prescription drug plans, they do not have to. Those who have looked at it, the Department of Health and Human Services, Special Budget Office, nonpartisan analysts think most seniors will, 90-some percent. Second, I have heard people talk about the fact that, gee, some people have employer plans already. Let me give some statistics. In 1993, 40-some percent of employers provided coverage for their retirees. In 2002 it was 27 percent. It is happening. It is bleeding. People are not providing retiree benefits as they used to. What I love about this bill is it goes the other way. It puts $88 billion into helping people be able to stay with their employer plans. EBRI, which is a nonpartisan group that is called the Employee Benefit Research Institute, has studied this this week. Their analysis is that 2 percent, 2 percent of seniors will migrate from their existing retiree plans because their employers no longer offer it, into this. If this does not get passed, it will be greater than 2 percent. So those who have said this will result in a problem, I think it is just the opposite. We are beginning to stop what is happening anyway. I think that is a good part of the plan. People have talked about how puny the benefit is. Well, I have to tell you, over 35 percent of the American seniors, one figure says 38 percent, let us say over 35 percent of Americans who are seniors, who are low income, meaning they are less than 150 percent of poverty, their income, are going to be able to get prescription drug coverage with no premium, no deductible, no share. All they will do is pay a nominal co-pay, $5, $3. That is over 35 percent of our seniors, represented by all of us. Some of us in this House have districts where that number will be as high as 60 percent. So a puny benefit, I do not know where that comes from. For other seniors that additional, let us say, 65 percent of seniors more than half of their drug costs, some say as high as 70 percent, more than half of their drug costs for the average senior, that is no average senior, but average senior costs for drugs will be covered, more than half of the drug cost. This is why the AARP supports this. This is why the AARP is standing up for their seniors. Some people on my side of the aisle think it is too generous. People on the other side of the aisle ought to look at this plan, at what it is, not the politics, but the substance. It is a good plan, and I hope people on both sides of the aisle tonight will support it.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery) for giving me some time. I want to congratulate him for getting this extender bill to the floor. It is extremely important that we extend so many of these important tax provisions. I would like to think that over time we can make some of them permanent because they make so much sense, and after all, this is a 1-year extension. We are likely to extend them again and again. So I would hope that we could work toward that, but it is a very important bill; and it is extremely important we do it this year. If we do not, then we will have a situation where there will be a gap and companies and those individuals who want to take advantage of these good public policy tax provisions will not be able to plan. So not to have them be retroactive but do it at this point is extremely important, and I commend him and the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) for getting us to this point. I rise today also very strongly in support of a specific provision here that helps with regard to our defined pension plans. As all of us know, defined pension plans are in trouble. In the last few years, we have actually gone down in our pension coverage by about 19 percent. In fact, in the past 18 years we have gone from about 114,000 defined pension plans that are guaranteed by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation to about 32,000 plans, dramatic decreases. Many of the reasons that people are no longer offering plans and why this year we think that about 20 percent of plans are freezing their plans for participants is because we have a broken system with regard to what the interest rate is which is charged to these pension plans for their contributions. What we do in this legislation is we provide for a 2-year fix, a short-term replacement for the currently and defunct 30-year Treasury rate, and that is extremely important. It allows employers to calculate the amount of money to set aside for their employee benefit plans in a more reasonable way and a more accurate way. It strengthens, therefore, our defined benefit system dramatically in the short-term while we take a look at this whole system. I see the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, is here, and I look forward to working with him, as well as with the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), the chairman of the subcommittee, and others, including the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), who spoke earlier about this issue, to come up with longer-term solutions to our pension funding rules, pension accounting rules to be sure that we can indeed continue to have these important defined benefit plans. I think they are extremely important as a part of our overall security system, working with our Social Security System and our defined contribution system, such as the 401(k) plan. Without a permanent solution, these plans will be a thing of the past, and we will not have this guaranteed benefit for millions of Americans. I strongly support the legislation before us and urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the same.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2420, the Mutual Funds Integrity and Fee Transparency Act, and congratulate Chairman Oxley and Chairman Baker for bringing this needed legislation to the House Floor so expeditiously. These critical reforms will help to ensure that America's 95 million mutual fund investors, representing a combined $7 trillion in assets, are reassured and protected. I have a special interest in this issue because I have worked over the past eight years to strengthen 401(k) plans, many of which are significantly invested in mutual funds. I am deeply concerned about the allegations of illegal mutual fund trading practices, including improper market timing and late trading. There have also been reports that certain investors, including large institutional investors, have been given preferential treatment, to the detriment and disadvantage of individual investors. Each day has brought news of additional allegations, indicating that the abuse is widespread in the mutual fund industry. Every investor is entitled to fair treatment. Every investor should expect, and is indeed entitled, to expect that the mutual fund industry will place the interest of investors first. In fact, the Investment Company Act requires that mutual funds be organized, operated and managed in the interest of the funds' shareholders, not those of the fund directors, executives or certain investors. H.R. 2420 provides key reforms. The bill will strengthen funds' compliance with rules, by requiring each fund a code of ethics and a chief compliance officer; ban short-term trading by insiders; allow higher fees to discourage short-term trading; and eliminate conflicts of interest in portfolio management. Investors will be provided with more information about fees, with additional disclosure required about estimated fund operating expenses, portfolio turnover rates and whether brokers receive extra financial incentives to sell particular fund shares. And mutual fund corporate governance will be strengthened by requiring two thirds of all board directors be independent. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support these important reforms. I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation to help improve mutual fund disclosure; eliminate conflicts of interest, and strengthen corporate governance.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor William J. Mulvihill, a friend and constituent, who received the Arthritis Foundation's prestigious Charles B. Harding Award during the Foundation's national meeting on November 14, 2003. The Arthritis Foundation is the only nationwide nonprofit organization leading efforts to prevent, control and cure arthritis, which is our nation's number one cause of disability. The Charles B. Harding Award is the highest honor the Arthritis Foundation presents for service as a volunteer. The award was established in 1976 and is given annually to the individual who best exemplifies the highest standards of concern and commitment to the arthritis cause. Previous recipients of this high honor include former First Lady Betty Ford and actress Jane Wyman. Bill has spent more than 20 years raising awareness and advocating on behalf of the more than 43 million people affected by arthritis and its related diseases. Diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis at the age of 25, he became active locally in the Southwestern Ohio Chapter of the Arthritis Foundation, and went on to serve as Senior Chair, Chair and Vice President. In 1985, Bill became active with the Foundation on the national level, becoming a member of the House of Delegates and later National Vice Chair, Treasurer, a member of the Board of Trustees and National Chair. As National Chair, he was responsible for leading nearly 600,000 volunteers and staff nationwide. He is currently Trustee Emeritus, and is a member of the National Medical and Scientific Council. Bill also serves on the Board of Directors of the Alliance for Lupus Research, where he is a founding member. A native Cincinnatian, Bill is Senior Associate Athletic Director at the University of Cincinnati, and has been with U.C. for 30 years. He is in his 24th year as head of the athletic department's fundraising efforts, and previously held positions in Alumni Affairs and Public Affairs. He is a graduate of St. Xavier High School, and received his Bachelor's of Business Administration from the University of Cincinnati and his Master's of Education from Ohio University. Bill and his wife, Beth, live in Anderson Township. Their son, Billy, is a graduate of the University of Cincinnati and is a valued member of the staff of the U.S. House of Representatives' Committee on Ways and Means. All of us in Southern Ohio congratulate Bill on receiving this prestigious honor, and appreciate his dedicated service.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, on November 5, 2003, I was unavoidably detained and missed the vote on rollcall No. 609 on H.R. 3365, the Fallen Patriots Tax Relief Act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak briefly about a dear friend of mine who passed away earlier this morning. I rise to honor the memory of the Honorable Corwin Nixon, a dear friend, a distinguished constituent, and an accomplished public servant, who passed away this morning in his beloved Ohio at the age of 90. He was someone I knew all my life, and someone whose devotion to public service was an inspiration to me. He served with honor for 30 years in the Ohio General Assembly, including 14 years as minority leader. Before his election to the State legislature, he served 12 years as a Warren County commissioner. He was probably the most recognized man in Warren County, and evidence of the great affection for him can be seen throughout southern Ohio. His name is on a Waynesville covered bridge, a Dayton health center, and an aquatic center at Miami University. But most importantly, Mr. Speaker, thousands of people in Warren County remember him fondly and the help he gave them, a family member, a neighbor, or a friend. Corwin Nixon's life experiences and his extraordinary people skills made him an effective representative for all the people in Warren County. He grew up on a farm near Red Lion, Ohio, where he continued to live most of his life. He rose through the ranks to become manager at a Kroger grocery store in Lebanon, Ohio, and in the 1950s became the manager of the Lebanon Raceway, a job that became his passion as he built the raceway into a major regional attraction. Corwin Nixon was also an active volunteer, locally, Statewide, and nationally. Among his many activities he served on the boards of Bethesda Hospital in Cincinnati and Grandview Hospital in Dayton. He was President of both the U.S. Trotting Association and the International Trotting Association. He was an original member of the American Horse Council. He was inducted into the Ohio Harness Hall of Fame and received the Harness Horseman International Appreciation Award. He used to say his start in politics ``just happened,'' but it happened because of his remarkable work ethic, his genuine concern for people, and his ability to deliver for his constituents. His trademark in the State legislature was his ability to work effectively on both sides of the aisle to achieve results for all people. He was a true gentleman who respected everyone and treated them with respect. Despite all of his impressive accomplishments in government and business, Mr. Nixon's greatest legacy is his family. He and his wife Eleanor were married for 45 years before her death. Their two children, Keith and Karen, provided them with three grandchildren, Melissa, Tina, and Keith, Jr. and four great grandchildren, Corwin Nixon, III, Eleanor, Preston, and Austin. Mr. Speaker, Corwin Nixon was one of Ohio's great public servants, whose accomplishments touched many lives in our area and throughout the State of Ohio. He will be greatly missed.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize an exemplary public servant, Bob Wenzel. Bob recently concluded 40 years of government service, 38 of which were spent with the Internal Revenue Service. I am privileged to say that I know Bob, and I commend him for dedicating his professional career to the betterment of our country. A son of German immigrants, Bob's patriotism to our Nation began as a young child, when he would daily raise and lower the family's American flag. In his words, ``[w]hat it instilled in me was what this country represents.'' Bob's interest in taxes was initially developed through his responsibility for calculating the family's taxes. This chore, coupled with a desire to contribute to his country, led him to join the IRS in 1963, turning down significantly more lucrative private sector positions. Bob has made serving his country a guiding principle for his entire working life, and has made his life choices based on what he could contribute. He rose up through the ranks, from a revenue officer in Chicago, to director of the IRS Service Center in Ogden, Utah, eventually rising to Deputy Commissioner and even Acting Commissioner. Bob's commitment to customer service won a presidential award for his quality improvements in Utah. Bob's demonstrated leadership in customer service led former IRS Commissioner Charles Rossotti to name him as Deputy Commissioner during a time of great transition following passage of the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998. Upon confirmation of Mark Everson as Commissioner earlier this year, Bob was again named Deputy Commissioner, where his efforts continue to result in a more favorable public perception of the IRS. Bob leaves the IRS with the universal respect of his peers, including former Commissioners, front-line managers, and the union. His contributions will long be remembered at the IRS. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues, we pay tribute to Bob's service and wish him and his family good health and good fortune in his well-deserved retirement.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to welcome our guest pastor today, Pastor Ralph Clay. We are very thankful for his presence and for his humble ministry to God. Pastor Clay joins us today from Christ Community Church in Portsmouth, Ohio. Pastor Clay is a respected faith leader there and also a respected community leader who has made life better for those living in Portsmouth, Ohio, and the surrounding areas. In fact, I just learned this past weekend Pastor Clay and Christ Community Church made life a lot easier for single parents, regardless of whether they were members of his church or not. They offered a variety of free services from financial counseling and diabetes screening to oil changes for single parents, and they had a great response. As an ordained minister for 38 years and a gospel singer since age 6, and I have heard his voice and it is beautiful; he has been active in his community his entire life. He has been involved with the local housing authority, the public library, the inner-city development corporation, and is a member of the Pastoral Care at Southern Ohio Medical Center. Pastor Clay has been married to his wonderful wife, Marilyn, who is with us today, for 39 years. They have four children and two grandchildren. He is an outstanding family man, minister, and member of his community. It was humbling for all of us, I know, to hear his inspired message this afternoon in this historic Chamber. Thank you, Reverend Clay, for joining us.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. 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. PORTMAN

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

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

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. 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. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. 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. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. 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. PORTMAN. 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. PORTMAN. 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.