Rob Portman

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am opposed to the substitute and would claim the time in opposition. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn).

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means who has been a leader on retirement security.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), who put together his own legislation, which was very popular here in the House. He had a number of cosponsors for the Blunt-Bentsen legislation on expanding small business retirement plans. I thank the gentleman for his contributions to this effort.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond briefly to my friend from California. The intent of this legislation is, of course, just the opposite. It is to expand pension coverage to small businesses. It is an interesting theory that he plays out; but if we are to take the facts, it would be that that small business owner could put $20,000 aside now, $15,000 plus $5,000 catch-up for himself and if his spouse or her spouse is working, another $20,000. So it does not seem to make much sense to shift over to the IRA. If we were just increasing IRAs, the gentleman might have a good point. Finally, of course, this goes to middle-income workers. We have already talked about that, both on the IRA side and the 401(k) side. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chair of the Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations, who has been a leader in expanding pension coverage and reforming ERISA.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. I would like to say I agree with the minority leader, we need to work on a bipartisan basis to come together. That is what we have done here over the last 3 years. We have over 200 cosponsors, almost equally divided. Second, I want to assure him that we have indeed not lost sight of the need to help middle- and lower-income categories. That is precisely where we target this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade and an active member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), another distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means, chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, who has been very active on the IRA front for many years. (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), a colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means who has been actively involved and a leader on this issue of expanding retirement savings.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on each side.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella). (Mr. FOSSELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I would like to start by thanking the gentleman from Massachusetts for a good debate today and thank him for his support of the process and saying a moment ago that he thinks the underlying legislation is a good start and that he does not necessarily oppose it. He would like to add to it. I want to tell him that I share his concern about those lower- and middle-income workers who are not saving enough for their retirement. We think we address that here. The previous speaker from Connecticut talked about how we are trying to help Bill Gates. Let me tell my colleagues who we are trying to help. Seventy-seven percent of pension plan participants make less than $50,000 a year. Seventy-seven percent of them. The average salary of someone who contributes to an IRA is less than $30,000 a year. Those are precisely the people who are going to be helped most by this legislation; workers making between $15,000 and $50,000 a year benefit most from pension plans. They get two-thirds of pension accruals, even though they pay only about one-third of Federal taxes. These are the folks we are going to help with this underlying legislation. Now, the substitute is before us. And again I share the concern that the gentleman has addressed. We think we address the problem that he states. But let us look at the substitute, because we do not know much about it yet. It came at the committee markup level, it has been changed a little, and now it is on the floor. We know it doubles the cost of this legislation. It is interesting, as a Republican, for me to be talking about the cost of tax provisions, because the Democrats have been saying all year, these tax relief proposals are too costly. We cannot afford to do it because we have to save Medicare, Social Security, and so on. But here they are doubling the cost of a tax bill. But my more fundamental concern with it is we just do not know how it would work. Let me give an example, and it has been talked about a little today. If an individual was to take advantage of this new government program and have the government contribute a 100 percent match into that plan, then that individual could take that money out the next year. And we do not know that there is a mechanism to keep that person from doing that; or, if there is, how it could be administered by the Internal Revenue Service. We talked about the fraud in existing refundable tax credit programs. We have a concern about that. Is it administrable? It is something I would love to sit down with the gentleman and work out with him. I would love to sit with the Treasury Department and work on it. This has not been vetted. In contrast, the underlying bill before us has gone through a 3-year bipartisan process, reaching out across the spectrum from labor unions to small businesses to put together something that is really going to work in the real world to expand pension coverage and IRA coverage for those middle-income and lower-income workers we talked about a moment ago. Those are precisely the people who will benefit from this. Yes, it is important to backstop Social Security. Yes, it is important to increase the savings rate in this country that is at an all-time low. But it is most important of all to give American workers, particularly those baby boomers who have not saved enough, more security in their retirement. This underlying legislation does it. It provides for that comfort level in retirement; that peace of mind in retirement. I ask my colleagues to oppose the Democrat substitute; to stick to the real thing, and vote for H.R. 1102.

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

Mr. PORTMAN. I am, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This has been a refreshing debate on the House floor today, because it has been an honest discussion of some differences and how we would approach IRAs and pension expansion, but in the end, as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) said, Democrat opposition to the underlying legislation has really not surfaced, in the sense that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) has said this is a good start. I applaud the gentleman for this motion to recommit, because it essentially says that the Portman-Cardin legislation, H.R. 1102, that over 200 Members of this House have cosponsored, about half Democrats, about half Republicans, ought to become law. It is just that the motion says there ought to be a couple of things that happen in between; one, we have to be sure we have a surplus; the second is we offer prescription drug coverage. Unfortunately, the prescription drug coverage that is being suggested here that would have to be enacted into law is not precisely what this House just voted on in terms of prescription drug coverage. It is much different. I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) for implicitly supporting Portman-Cardin. I want to thank all of the Members of this House who have played such an important role in getting us to this point. This has been a 3-year bipartisan process where we have done precisely what so many of us talk about around here, which is engage in a bipartisan consultative process with the people who are most affected, that is, small businesses, labor unions, individuals who are trying to save more in their IRAs, workers who are trying to save more in their 401(k) plans and other pension plans. This legislation is going to help precisely those lower income and middle income workers out there who we talked about earlier today as needing to save more for retirement. We would not be here today but for the help of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), who has been my partner in this for the last 3 years, also but for the help of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), who has spent a career coming up with ways to expand savings options for Americans and got this through the committee and to the floor today. Ladies and gentleman, I urge a no on this motion to recommit. Again, I thank the authors of it for the implicit support of the underlying legislation, and I strongly urge Members on both sides of the aisle to vote yes on final passage, to send a strong message to the United States Senate, a strong message to the President of the United States that we, on a bipartisan basis, want to provide for retirement security for all Americans, and we want to do it this year. Mr. Speaker, many have dubbed this as a partisan, political year, we want to show the American people we can get something done together. Let us continue this 3-year bipartisan process. Let us vote yes on final passage and let us help all of our constituents have more financial security in their retirement. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1102, the bill just passed.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4611, the Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Appropriations Act for FY 2001. I'd like to thank Chairman Callahan and Ranking Member Pelosi for once again including $13 million in funding for the Tropical Forest Conservation Act of 1998. The Tropical Forest Conservation Act expands President Bush's Enterprise for the Americas Initiative--EAI--and provides a creative market-oriented approach to protect the world's most threatened tropical forests on a sustained basis. It is a cost-effective way to respond to the global crisis in tropical forests, and the groups that have the most experience preserving tropical forests--including the Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, Conservation International and others--agree. The Administration is strongly in support of this effort as well. It is an excellent example of the kind of bipartisan approach we should have on environmental issues. Tropical forests harbor up to 90% of the Earth's terrestrial biodiversity. They act as ``carbon sinks,'' absorbing massive quantities of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, thereby reducing greenhouse gases. They regulate rainfall on which agriculture and coastal resources depend, which is of great importance to regional and global climates. And they are the breeding grounds for new drugs that can cure diseases. Sadly, since 1950, half of the world's tropical forests have been lost. Between 1980 and 1990, 30 million acres of tropical forests--an area larger than the State of Pennsylvania--were lost every year. The Tropical Forest Conservation Act gives the President authority to reduce or cancel U.S. A.I.D. and/or P.L. 480 debt owed by an eligible country to the United States in exchange for the creation of a fund in the local currency that preserves, maintains, and restores tropical forests. Currently, three countries--Bangladesh, Belize and Peru--have been declared eligible by our government to participate in the Tropical Forest Conservation Act. In March, the President announced that the U.S. and Bangladesh are discussing a Tropical Forest Conservation Act agreement to reduce up to $6 million of that country's outstanding debt in exchange for its commitment to invest funds in tropical forest conservation programs. This would make Bangladesh the first country to benefit from funding under the Act, and we are hopeful that a final agreement will be reached in the very near future. Bangladesh's tropical forests cover more than three million acres, including an area that is home to 400 endangered Bengal tigers, the world's largest single population. The area also contains one of the largest mangrove forests in the world, and it has wetlands of internationally-recognized importance. Bangladesh is home to more than 5,000 species of plants, compared to 18,000 in the United States, which is 67 times its size. Clearly, a debt-for-forests arrangement with Bangladesh could play an important role in preserving endangered species and protecting biodiversity, as well as helping that struggling nation's economy. Seven other nations also have expressed interest in participating in the program. These countries are Ecuador, El Salvador, Thailand, Indonesia, Paraguay, Costa Rica and the Philippines. I commend Chairman Callahan, Ranking Member Pelosi and the members of the Subcommittee for providing the necessary funds to begin to implement this legislation that preserves and protects important tropical forests worldwide in a fiscally responsible fashion.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Anderson High School's NEED (National Energy Education Development) Project Team. Anderson High School is in Ohio's Second Congressional District, and its team was recognized as the Senior Level School of the Year by the NEED Project at the 2000 Youth Awards Program for Energy Achievement. The NEED Project is a nonprofit education association dedicated to developing and distributing comprehensive, hands-on energy education programs to schools nationwide. NEED encourages and rewards student leadership by sponsoring a Youth Awards Program for Energy Achievement. Anderson High School's NEED Project Team was chosen as the Senior Level School of the Year for its outstanding work to promote energy awareness through the design and delivery of objective, multi-sided energy education programs. The team participants are Jayne Everson, Steve Grindle, Matt Radcliffe, David Drabousky, Mike Jurek, and David Zitt. Also fundamental to the team's success are student webmasters William Hawkins III and Martine Lamy and student game designer Brian Huneke. The team, led by its dedicated faculty advisor, Jeff Rodriguez, traveled to Washington, D.C. to receive its award on June 26, 2000. The work of Anderson High School's NEED Project Team includes: evaluation of energy conservation improvements at its school; research of scientific applications for solar energy; and the presentation of energy education workshops and carnivals at local elementary schools, middle schools, high schools, and colleges and universities. The team also developed and implemented an outstanding website (www.LeamAboutEnergy.org) to raise energy awareness to thousands of students, educators, and others around the world in classrooms ranging from Australia to Switzerland. The material on its website focuses on objective energy related education for students in middle school. It features games that teach the fundamentals of energy, including ``Energy Jeopardy'' and ``What's My Name?''; an energy fact of the day; energy discussion boards; greeting cards about energy; and Internet broadcasts. The website also provides valuable tools for teachers. It offers links to online energy facts and information on how to conserve energy at home; an online textbook; energy lesson plans; quizzes to test students' knowledge of different types of energy; PowerPoint presentations about energy; and contact information for additional teaching resources. We are very proud of the accomplishments of Anderson High School's NEED Project Team. All of us in the Cincinnati area congratulate these students and their advisor on receiving the Senior Level School of the Year award.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, when Medicare was created in 1965, prescription drugs were not used as they are today to treat health problems. That's all changed. Advances in pharmaceutical research and development have made it possible to address many complex health problems with a simple trip to the pharmacist. Unfortunately, as more and more Americans have come to rely on prescription drugs, their costs have escalated, making it difficult for many seniors to make ends meet. Clearly, it is time to offer a prescription drug benefit to all seniors. Today, about two-thirds of seniors have some kind of prescription drug coverage--either through a private plan they purchased or through a company retirement plan--that helps them to offset the cost of prescription drugs. But the remaining one-third of seniors have no coverage, and everyone feels the pinch of rising drug costs. Under the plan before us today, Medicare would offer a voluntary prescription drug benefit that would be similar to private drug insurance that many seniors carry today. If you're eligible for Medicare, you'd be given a choice between at least two plans that offer prescription drug coverage. All you would have to do is to go to a local pharmacy to get your prescription filled, show them your Medicare prescription drug card, and pay a pre-determined co-payment. There would be no claims to file or forms to fill out. To ensure that prescription drugs remain affordable, seniors who choose to enroll in such a Medicare prescription drug program would also be covered for so-called ``catastrophic'' prescription drug expenses. In other words, seniors would have the peace-of-mind to know that they will not be responsible for paying additional costs that might accrue if drug prices rise unexpectedly. Because of the unprecedented purchasing power that a Medicare-wide prescription drug program will have, it will also help to lower drug prices for all Americans. A recent study concluded that, on average, there would be a 25% discount on the prescription drugs people need so badly. This will really help protect seniors from higher drug prices and rising out-of-pocket expenses. And, because this will be a voluntary program, it will help seniors who need it most while allowing seniors who currently have prescription drug coverage they like to continue to enjoy their existing plan. Mr. Speaker, despite the heated rhetoric we're hearing on the floor today, Members on both sides of the aisle are very interested in adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. Yes, there are legitimate differences of opinion and approach. But we have a real opportunity to pass this bipartisan bill today--and to enact a Medicare prescription drug benefit this year. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--let's do the right thing for America's seniors. Let's set aside the attack ads and the ``MediScare'' tactics--and provide Medicare prescription drug coverage for our constituents.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Cincinnati for yielding time to me. I also want to commend my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) for bringing this resolution to the floor. As some have probably already heard in this debate, our State motto, ``With God all things are possible,'' was actually adopted in 1959 at the suggestion of a 10-year-old. This 10-year-old was from my hometown, Steve's hometown, of Cincinnati, Ohio. Jim Mastronardo found out that the State did not have a motto. There was no motto at all for Ohio. So this enterprising young man, and I have a 10-year-old son and I think that is interesting that a 10-year- old was that enterprising, came up with this motto. Eventually the State adopted it. Then recently, during renovations to our historic State House in Columbus, our then Governor, now Senator, George Voinovich had this motto engraved in the granite plaza outside the building. I think that is probably what resulted in the controversy, and certainly what resulted in the specific complaint being filed. I want to commend little Jimmy Mastronardo at 10 years old and Governor Voinovich for coming up with the idea, in one case, and then allowing more Ohioans to understand that this was our motto, and its significance. I find the Sixth Circuit ruling to be headed in the wrong direction. I think it establishes a precedent that is troubling. In essence, I think what they are saying is that because ``With God all things are possible'' is attributed to the Gospel of Matthew, that therefore it is inappropriate. As I look at it, and I know many other constitutional scholars other than those on the court share this view, it is on its face a generic, nondenominational, and definitely a ceremonial reference to God. I think it is exactly an example of the kind of ceremonial deism that the courts have accepted over the years. Beyond that, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) and others have pointed out, it is something that is positive for our State and our country. I find the court ruling troubling, and I think it is appropriate that Congress establish today, I hope through a strong bipartisan majority of the House, that we also believe that this is a troubling precedent. It does not advocate a particular religious stance. It does not promote the establishment of a particular religion. I think it is very similar to our national motto, In God we trust, which adorns this Chamber, which adorns our currency, which is an example of the faith with which our Founding Fathers created this great Nation over 200 years ago. Instead of following the years of court precedent that upheld, again, the ceremonial use of the references, this court of the Sixth Circuit chose, I think, a very narrow First Amendment interpretation. As a result, not only is this motto in danger, but of course the mottos of other States. There are five other States and territories that have ``God'' in their motto. They are also endangered. In the end, the national motto ``In God we trust'' is endangered. This was, incidentally, added to our Nation's paper currency in 1954 at the urging of a fellow named Matthew Rothert, another Ohio connection, because he was the father of our First Lady of Ohio, Hope Taft, and Hope has spoken out on this issue, as well. I think she has made a lot of sense in terms of her comments. Recently she summed it up with a statement, ``You knock one down, and you are on to the next one.'' I think both mottos, the national motto and the State motto, should stay just as they are. I agree with Hope Taft. Our Founding Fathers did envision a nation, Mr. Speaker, where there could be freedom of religion, not the absence of any form of religious expression. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle today to show their support for the State of Ohio's motto, and I think also in doing so show their support for our national motto, by voting in support of the measure today offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley).

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the chairman, for yielding me the time. I want to also congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan), my friend, for moving forward with this important legislation to finally present our Apollo 11 astronauts Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins with a much deserved Congressional Gold Medal. I am particularly interested in this legislation because it involves a constituent of mine, a friend of mine and a neighbor of mine, Neil Armstrong, who inspired all of us by becoming the first person to set foot on the Moon. Facing tremendous personal risks and very difficult technological challenges, Neil Armstrong and his fellow astronauts left an indelible impression on those of us on Earth. And the Apollo mission will certainly go down as one of the most memorable achievements of the 20th century. I certainly remember it. I was a 13-year-old exchange student living with a family outside of Malmo, Sweden. We all crowded around a TV set in an apartment complex outside of Malmo that night. I was the only American in the apartment complex. But we all watched it, as citizens of the world, to watch that memorable mission. And the success of it when we heard ``the Eagle has landed'' was the cause for celebration and applause. I remember it well. Neil Armstrong has certainly compiled a remarkable record of legacy of service to our Nation as a fighter pilot, as an astronaut, a test pilot, a NASA official, a scientist, a teacher, and now a successful businessman. And although his name has been forever linked with that historic Apollo 11 mission and his famous words announcing ``a giant leap for mankind,'' Neil Armstrong has never sought the limelight and he has never exploited his fame for personal gain. Instead, he has quietly and effectively found ways to give back to others. He has helped NASA in their space program. He has worked with another famous Cincinnatian, Dr. Henry Heimlich, to develop a miniature heart-lung machine, the forerunner of the modern Micro Trach machine that is used to deliver oxygen to patients. He has become a civic leader in greater Cincinnati, including enriching our community as chairman of the board of the Cincinnati Museum of Natural History, where he led the successful effort to give the museum a rebirth in its new home at our Union Terminal. Neil also owns a small farm in Warren County, Ohio, outside of Cincinnati; and there he has been an active participant in civic activities. He has assisted with the annual Warren County Fair livestock auctions to support local 4-H programs. He has participated in local Boy Scouts troops. He has worked with other community leaders to establish an impressive YMCA, called the Countryside YMCA, outside of Lebanon, Ohio. And, yes, he has even helped coach the high school football team. This is the Neil Armstrong I know. Neil Armstrong and the brave men of Apollo 11 deserve this special congressional recognition for the remarkable accomplishments over 30 years ago and their amazing legacy that inspires future generations. My constituent, Neil Armstrong, also deserves recognition for his continued efforts to make our world a better place. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for H.R. 8, the Death Tax Elimination Act. I commend the sponsor of the bill, my Ways and Means Committee colleague, Ms. Dunn, for her work on this issue. And I commend the Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Archer, for his long commitment to eliminating this unfair and unreasonable tax. The death tax is bad tax policy. It is double taxation, because individuals who pay taxes on income throughout their lives are taxed again on the same income at their time of death on the value of their property. The rates--up to 60 percent--are the highest in the tax code. The death tax is bad policy not only because of the costs it imposes after death--but also because of the costs it imposes during life. The additional costs of life insurance, attorneys fees and estate planning services cost hundreds of thousands of dollars every year. The death tax is also an inefficient drag on our economy. The Joint Economic Committee of Congress has reported that, while the death tax generates about $23 billion annually in revenue for the federal government, it also costs businesses, farmers and individuals another $23 billion just in compliance costs. Unfortunately, in the area I represent in Southwest Ohio, many family farmers and family business owners just aren't prepared to deal with the consequences of the death tax. According to a recent study by Arthur Andersen's Center for Family Business, 28 percent of senior generation shareholders of family businesses surveyed in Greater Cincinnati had not completed any estate planning other than a will. And, although 71 percent of these individuals wanted the family business to stay in the family after their death, the study found that less than 30 percent would be able to do so unless they better examined the issues of estate taxes and planning. Small businesses and family farms have made the American dream possible for generations. At a time when 70 percent of family-owned businesses do not survive to the second generaton, and only about 13 percent survive to the third generation, our tax laws should be encouraging--rather than preventing--people to pass these assets to their families. We're losing too many family-owned businesses and family-farms as it is. I urge my colleague to support the Death Tax Elimination Act--to put an end to this unfair, inefficient and confiscatory tax.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to William G. Moll, a good friend, who will receive the 2000 Silver Medal Award from the American Advertising Federation on June 13, 2000. Bill has been selected for this prestigious award for his outstanding contributions to the advertising industry. Bill's accomplishments have advanced the standards for creative excellence and social concern. Bill graduated from Southeast Missouri State University, where he received a Bachelor of Science in Education. He went on to earn his Master of Arts from the University of Texas at Austin, where he studied Communications and Education. Since 1992, Bill has been President and General Manager of W-KRC-TV, Cincinnati. I've had the opportunity to work with him through the Coalition for a Drug-Free Greater Cincinnati, where he has been a leader in developing one of the most aggressive anti-drug local media campaigns in the country. From 1989-1992, Bill was the President and General Manager at WINBC-TV, New York. From 1987-1989, he was President and Chief Executive Officer at the Television Bureau of Advertising, the television industry's marketing trade association. Bill also served at Harte-Hanks Communication, Inc. as President and CEO; State Mutual Broadcasting Co., Inc. as Vice President and General Manager; and as Station Manager at Southwest Texas Educational Television Corporation. He began his broadcast work as a radio announcer in 1954. From 1958- 1961, he worked as a television news anchor and morning show host. Bill is very active in the community. In addition to his work with the Coalition for a Drug-Free Greater Cincinnati, he continues to dedicate time as Chairman of the Board of the Dan Beard Council of the Boy Scouts of America; as a Member of the Board of Directors for the National Conference for Community and Justice; as Chair of the Advisory Panel for the University of Cincinnati College-Conservatory of Music, Electronic Media Division; as President of the Board for the Neediest Kids of All; and as a Member of the Board for the Cincinnati Arts Association. Bill has also helped to support Big Brothers and Big Sisters; Scouting for Food and Clothing; Family Cancer Care; and the United Negro College Fund, among others. Bill and his wife, Marilyn Lewis Moll, have two sons and two grandchildren. All of us in the Cincinnati area appreciate Bill's contributions to our community, and we congratulate him on receiving the 2000 Silver Medal Award.