Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference report. In the 1986 tax reform, President Reagan with the Congress flattened rates, simplified rules, and cut out loopholes. In the last 4 years, you have had 326 changes and added 10,000 more pages. It is a very funny way to pay tribute to Ronald Reagan.

Two weeks ago, we passed a $13 billion corporate giveaway on the very day that the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal reported that 82 of the most profitable companies paid no Federal income taxes in at least one of the last 3 years. Today we are passing an additional $42 billion in giveaways on the heels of Saturday's New York Times which reported a rise of 45 percent of those who earn more than $200,000 but paid no income taxes.

But I think this is a fitting way to end this Congress, because as I remember when the Speaker's gavel goes down, it is supposed to open the people's House, not close the auction house. That is what has happened on a Congress that has had, in fact, a prescription drug bill that has been a giveaway to the special interests, an energy bill that has been a giveaway to the special interests, and now a tax bill that has been given away to the special interests.

They had a $5 billion problem that they have resolved with $150 billion. No wonder the American people are cynical about what goes on here.

Mr. Speaker, here are a few headlines from the last 24 hours: ``Iraqi Arms Threat Was Waning,'' the definitive government report saying there was a diminishing threat from Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction; ``France Was Ready To Send Troops to Iraq,'' 15,000, but did not because of the relationship with President Bush; ``Bremmer Criticizes Troop Levels,'' Paul Bremmer now says we never had enough troops on the ground; ``White House Embraced Disputed Arms Intelligence,'' the White House claimed Iraq was buying aluminum tubes to facilitate uranium enrichment even though their own experts told them otherwise; ``Funds To Build Iraq Are Drifting Away From Target,'' only 27 cents on the dollar are going to rebuild Iraq.

This does not even include what Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld acknowledged yesterday, that there was no relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Mr. Speaker, their house of cards that was the case for going to war and how to prosecute this war have collapsed. In going to war, this administration allowed ideology to trump reality. Iraq was not an imminent threat, there was no impending mushroom cloud. With the costs and casualties, candor would be a welcome addition to this White House.

You cannot fix a problem if you do not acknowledge that you have one.

Mr. Speaker, it may surprise many of my colleagues to hear

this, but I am now convinced George Bush should remain in Washington. Now that D.C. has a baseball team, there is finally a job in this town which George Bush is qualified for and the work is not that hard or tough.

He may not know how many troops we need in Iraq, but even he knows that you need nine baseball players on the field; and in baseball, you do not declare mission accomplished until the game's last out.

I am surprised the White House has not boasted about the Expos' move from Montreal. After all, they are finally creating some jobs here in America.

Of course, the President would have some explaining to do to his new team. He will have to break it to them that they have just moved from a nation with universal health care to a Nation where 45 million people lack coverage. Welcome to the ownership society.

He will also need to warn them that it is not just chin-high fast balls that they need to watch out for in Washington, since the Republican Congress and the NRA just erased the city's gun laws.

When head of the Texas Rangers, George Bush traded Sammy Sosa. In November Americans have a chance to trade George Bush.

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

(Mr. EMANUEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation.

I would like to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Baker) and the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Ranking Member Frank) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Ranking Member Kanjorski) for helping give our enlistees one more line of defense against unfair financial practices and also their families.

I requested this hearing on July 20. We held a subcommittee hearing quickly thereafter in early September, September 9, after a series of articles in the New York Times on the sales practices of certain financial services and industries and companies on our military bases throughout the country. The New York Times had cited numerous cases of abusive practices, including one instance in which a Coast Guard officer went $16,000 into debt after he invested $600 of his $3,600 salary in a contractual mutual fund.

Many young recruits and enlistees are of modest financial means. In fact, they are forced to draw on other government programs such as food stamps to make ends meet and to feed their families, and the last thing they need

are unnecessary types of financial products with high fees and little financial benefit for them. There is simply no reason for some of these investment vehicles or life insurance vehicles to be sold to them.

Take the contractual mutual fund which was in the 1960s discouraged in the civilian market to the point that it is almost nonexistent. The SEC had recommended to Congress then to ban it, but it basically ran out of its purpose in the early 1980s. Today, I think in our hearing we found out that, in fact, contractual mutual funds up to north of 95 percent of them exist only among the military and enlistees. They do not exist today, for practical purposes, inside the civilian population.

The question we have to ask ourselves, if contractual mutual funds are not good for the civilian market, in fact, the SEC discourages them, why would we allow them to be sold and marketed to our troops? If we want to allow access to the military bases, fine, for other types of financial needs for the financial security of our enlistees, but our young men and women are not to be seen as ATM fee-generating machines for the financial services industry.

This legislation requires new disclosure for life insurance products so it is crystal clear to our men and women what is being sold, instead of the information being buried in the fine print. Now companies will have to give plain English documents telling them of subsidized life insurance that is readily available through the Armed Forces and that the government does not recommend this product.

In fact, the Armed Forces sells a product for $16.25 a month, $250,000 in coverage, one of the things we had recommended; and I am hoping later on maybe we can deal with it. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) and I recommended raising the cap in the military or on the government program from $250,000 to 500,000. We should deal with that need, and if enlistees want more life insurance they should be able to get it; but in this case some of the companies were selling life insurance products for about $1,500 for about $15,000 worth of value, where the government offers and 96 percent of the enlistees are enrolled, a product for $16.25 a month.

Also, during the hearing, we learned one other issue which I promised to take up next year and I said it in the full committee, that, in fact, in 2000 Congress permitted members of the Armed Forces to enroll in the government Thrift Savings Program. Yet Members of Congress get a match, but members of the armed services do not get a match for their investment in their savings program. Although this was not the right vehicle to deal with it, and we have a sense of the Congress that we should in this legislation, I intend next year to introduce a piece of legislation to authorize and then appropriate the dollars so enlistees get what Members of Congress get or Members of Congress get what enlistees get, but we are not going to have the disparity between the two.

Finally, this legislation includes important provisions encouraging State and Federal authorities to implement financial literacy programs for enlisted personnel. Our troops need the basic financial knowledge necessary to make good decisions, and they deserve these commonsense measures to protect them from financial distress.

We in this Chamber can make a choice today. We can restore the values that have kept our military strong and that we hold for the future of our troops and their families. This bill could be another small measure to help make the lives of our troops a little easier, and it sends a message reminding them that we are deeply grateful for their service and commitment to defending our Nation.

I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the ranking member, who helped us on this legislation in passing it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel), a distinguished member of both the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Financial Services, who introduced earlier in the year, life insurance for American troops after an unfortunate death of a constituent in the Iraqi theater.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), who represents Fort Hood, home to 40,000 soldiers, most of whom have served in Iraq, including the First Cavalry Division and the Fourth Infantry Division, which captured Saddam Hussein.

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

I want to also thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), our chairman, for the hearing and the way he conducted the hearing on September 9, for the leadership of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) showed when we did finally pass the legislation, which passed unanimously in our committee.

This was a quick response to what is clearly needed by everybody's standard. We should not allow our enlistees to be targeted for the type of financial services and products that are merely for the gain of the industry representatives and not for the protection of our enlistees. This was the right thing to do.

Hopefully, the Senate can move quickly, although there are other things we would like to move, as noted by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), such as our legislation raising the cap on the life insurance from $250,000 to $500,000. And there are things not in this bill that we still need to do. But this is the right step; it is the right action.

Mr. Speaker, the bipartisanship that was shown here I would hope would extend to other areas. And again I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee for the hearing and also seeing through this legislation to today's conclusion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the passing of one of Chicago's greatest philanthropists and most successful businessmen, Irving B. Harris. Since the creation of his first nonprofit foundation, Irving Harris' generosity touched the lives of the people, and particularly the children, of Chicago for nearly 60 years.

As co-owners of Toni Home Permanent Company, Irving Harris and his brother Neison were pioneers in the at-home hair wave craze of the mid- 20th century. By 1948, the Harris' company had become so successful as to sell it to Gillette for $20 million. Irving went on to become the chairman of Pittway Corporation, a multi-billion dollar corporation his family ran until 2000.

But as Irving's wife Joan said ``He liked business, and he was good at it. But I think in the end, what really yanked his chain was his work with the not-for-profits.'' Chicago's cultural and education scene was forever changed by this love.

During Irving Harris' lifetime, his foundations and generosity led to the creation and development of several noteworthy Chicago institutions charged with early childhood development. These include the Erikson Institute for Advanced Study in Child Development, the Ounce of Prevention Fund, Illinois' first public-private partnership to develop and monitor programs aimed at preventing family dysfunction, and the Beethoven project, which provides assistance and help to at-risk families in Chicago's most disadvantaged neighborhoods.

Irving Harris was also very committed during his lifetime to higher education. The University of Chicago opened the doors on the Irving B. Harris School of Public Policy in 1988, committed to shaping and understanding public life by conducting policy relevant research and preparing talented individuals to become leaders and agents of social change.

Right until the end of his life, Irving Harris left his mark on the city he loved. A Centerpiece of Chicago's grand new Millennium Park is the Joan W. and Irving B. Harris Music and Dance Theater, which was made possible by Irving's tremendous donation of $39 million toward the $52 million cost.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of Chicago, I am privileged to honor the memory of Irving B. Harris, one of Chicago's greatest humanitarians. My family and I would like to express our deepest condolences to Irving's wife Joan, his sister, June Barrows, his 6 children, 10 grandchildren, and 26 great grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge the tremendous work being done at one of Chicago's greatest institutions, the Peggy Notebaert Nature Museum, on the occasion of the opening of several exciting new exhibits.

Since its beautiful building opened in Lincoln Park in 1999, the Notebaert Museum has served as a cornerstone for innovative scientific learning and environmental programs, and allowed thousands of visitors to come and see exhibits on the wonders of nature and our environment. And with the opening of ``Mysteries of the Marsh,'' ``Istock Family Look-in Animal Lab,'' ``RiverWorks,'' and ``Rooftop Stop and the Nature Museum Greening Project,'' the numerous educational opportunities the museum provides will be greatly enhanced.

The Peggy Notebaert Nature Museum grew out of the Chicago Academy of Sciences, founded by Robert Kennicott in 1857 as Chicago's first museum. The Great Chicago Fire destroyed many of the original collections, but by 1893 the Matthew Laflin building was constructed which housed the museum's collections for over 100 years. The museum's new building located along the northern Chicago lakefront is an architectural masterpiece worthy of the treasures located within.

Today the Notebaert Museum continues the same tradition of education and enjoyment of the environment that was its original mission. The opening of these new exhibits will, no doubt, be a tremendous success.

Mr. Speaker, I join with the people of the 5th district, indeed all of Chicago, in congratulating the Peggy Notebaert Nature Museum on its continued importance to Chicago and the environmental community. I thank the staff and trustees of the museum for their diligent work and dedication toward making the museum one of the elite learning institutions in the country.

Mr. Speaker, a former CIA official recently said ``The best we can hope for in Iraq is a failed state hobbling along.'' The State Department's official travel warnings says, ``Iraq remains very dangerous.'' The national intelligence estimate from July said the best case scenario for Iraq was merely ``tenuous stability.''

A Kroll Security International study shows the number of attacks has increased from 40 per day to around 70 per day. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel said, ``I do not think we are winning. We are in deep trouble in Iraq.'' Secretary of State Colin Powell said, ``It is getting worse.''

I know that the President is proud of the fact that he does not read newspapers, but can somebody please brief the President of the United States?

Today in the Washington Post, with all of the horrific news, there is a report that the administration is embarking on a new propaganda campaign ``designed to be uplifting, with good news messages about Iraq.''

Mr. Speaker, the American people need the truth about Iraq. The American people can handle the truth; the question is, can the President?

Mr. Speaker, today the Washington Post quotes a former CIA official who said, ``People at the CIA are mad at the policy in Iraq because it's a disaster . . . The best we can hope for is a failed state hobbling along.'' But this view is widely shared in every branch of government. The State Department official warning to travelers from September 17, ``Iraq . . . remains very dangerous.''

An army officer recently back from Iraq said, ``It is getting worse . . . They have infiltrators conducting attacks in the Green Zone. That was not the case a year ago.'' A National Intelligence Estimate from July said that among the three possible scenarios for Iraq, the best case was merely ``tenuous stability.'' A study by Kroll Security International shows that the number of daily attacks has increased from 40 per day to around 70 each day. On Meet the Press, General Abizaid said, ``We will fight our way through the elections.'' ``Through,'' not up to the elections.

And this weekend, Secretary of State Colin Powell said, ``Yes,'' Iraq is ``getting worse.'' It is getting worse, but we do not know it from the President's comments who says and sees Iraq as a success.

The President of the proud of the fact that he does not read the newspapers. Can somebody please arrange a briefing for the President?

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague beforehand who spoke, and I am pleased to be here in the chamber when he did.

Yesterday, on the subject of the marriage amendment and D.C. gun- rights bill, the House majority leader said yesterday, ``It is our job to make the laws in this country, and as easy as life would be for us if the most controversial bill we had to vote on was to rename a post office, that's not what we were elected to do.''

I find the majority leader's comments almost ironic. I have done some research.

This Republican-led Congress, the 108th, the House and Senate, has been hard at work naming post offices. In fact, more post offices were named in this Congress than ever in the history of the Congress. In fact, under the Republican leadership, we have named an impressive 94 post offices, just three last night. We have also named 22 Federal buildings, passed 34 resolutions honoring athletic teams, introduced 35 resolutions creating commemorative postage stamps, recognized the Garden Club of America, recognized the importance of music education and authorized the use of the Capitol grounds for the soap box derby.

This is in stark contrast to when the Republicans first took control of the House in the 104th Congress. They only managed to name 12 post offices, compared to 94 this Congress. The 106th only squeaked out a pitiful three resolutions honoring sports achievements.

Without question, this Congress has proved that it is the most adept at naming post offices and Federal buildings, honoring sports achievements and conceiving of new postage stamps of any Congress in the history of the United States.

It takes a lot of time and effort to name a post office. First, you have to decide which post office to name. This is not an easy task. Then you have to pick a name, build support for it back home among your constituents and among your colleagues. The final test is to get a vote on the name, which is no small feat when you consider only one out of every 100 bills ever sees a floor vote.

However, in this Republican-led Congress, 80 percent of the post office naming bills introduced in the House have actually been passed. That is a record to be proud of.

But while we have spent all this time naming post offices, we could have been dealing with the problems some of the American people are facing.

While Congress worked on the backlog of nameless post offices, we have lost 1.7 million jobs here in America; median household incomes fell by more than $1,500; household bankruptcies have sky-rocketed by over a third in the last 2 years; and health care costs are rising at three times the rate of inflation; and 5 million more Americans find themselves without health insurance, for a record 44 million Americans.

More than 1,000 Americans have been killed in action in Iraq. Reconstruction has been pushed to the sidelines because of mounting violence, and we have not found any weapons of mass destruction or called oversight hearings in this Congress about why we went to war on that premise.

President Kennedy once said, ``To govern is to choose.'' Unfortunately for us and unfortunately for the country, this Republican Congress has made some very tough choices.

Time after time, the Republican leadership has been forced to choose between naming post offices and using its control of the House, the Senate, the White House and the Supreme Court to improve the lives of millions of Americans. More often than not, they chose to name post offices.

Please do not misunderstand; I am not opposed to naming post offices. In fact, I have cosponsored a few pieces of resolutions naming post offices myself. Congress should do these things, but we should not do it at the expense of other activities and other responsibilities.

We should not use it as an excuse not to deal with the health care crisis in America; not to deal with the higher education crisis in America; not to deal with the stagnant wages and income in America; not to deal with a war for which we do not have an effective policy and a President who does not know it is a burning morass, as three Republican Senators said just last week; nor should we use them as excuses for failing at our most basic responsibilities.

It is now past 7 months before we passed a budget resolution, which is a responsibility of Congress. We have not done it. We have only passed one of the 13 appropriations bills we are required to pass. We have not passed a higher education reauthorization act required by law this year. We have failed to reauthorize a series of laws. We have not yet passed the highway and mass transit bill which employs billions of Americans in good paying jobs and guides this economy, and yet we have taken the responsibility with precious time that we are here to name 94 new post offices.

Our Nation and economy rely on the most basic functions of Congress. Yet, this Congress, the Republican Congress, has failed on both. We can do better. Congress can name post offices and keep our Nation moving forward.

Mr. Speaker, election day is only weeks away. I hope, when Americans go to the polls, they will reflect on what kind of job this Congress has done. Republican leadership has made their priorities clear, and that is for new post offices and the naming of new post offices in America.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my Special Order at this time.

Mr. Speaker, on the subject of the marriage amendment, the House majority leader said earlier today, ``It is our job to make the laws in this country. And as easy as life would be for us, if the most controversial bills we had to vote on was to rename a post office, that's not what we were elected to do.''

I find it ironic that the majority leader used the naming of post offices, especially for this Congress. I have done my own research. As it turns out, this Republican Congress, the 108th Congress, the House and the other body, has been hard at work at naming post offices. In fact, under the Republican leadership, we have named an impressive 92 post offices, and we just did 4 more today.

We have also named 22 Federal buildings, passed 34 resolutions honoring athletic teams, and introduced 35 resolutions creating commemorative postage stamps. That is in stark contrast to when the Republicans first took control of the House in the 104th Congress. They only managed to name 12 post offices. This Congress has done 92.

In the 106th Congress, they only squeaked out a pitiful three resolutions honoring sports teams and sports achievements. Clearly, the 108th Congress, this Republican Congress, has proven to be the most adept at naming post offices and Federal buildings, and honoring sports achievements and conceiving of new postage stamps.

Now, let me tell you something; it takes a lot of time and effort to name a post office. First, you have to decide which post office. Then you have to figure out what name. Then you have to pick a name and build support for it among your colleagues. The final test is to get a vote on the name, which is no small feat when you consider that, historically, only 1 out of every 100 bills ever sees a floor vote. In this Republican-led Congress, however, 80 percent of the post office naming bills introduced in the House have actually passed. That is something to be proud of.

But while we have spent all this time naming post offices, we could have been dealing with the problems which are facing the American people. After all, while this Congress is busy alleviating the apparent backlog of nameless post offices in America, we have lost 1.7 million private sector jobs. Median household incomes have fallen by more than $1,500. Household bankruptcies have skyrocketed, and today we see in articles that health care costs in America are rising at close to three times the rate of inflation.

In Iraq, more than 1,000 Americans have been killed. Reconstruction has been pushed to the sidelines. There is mounting violence, and we have not found any weapons of mass destruction or had any oversight hearings in this Congress as to why we went to war on that premise.

Mr. Speaker, today the majority leader quoted former President John Kennedy in justifying the votes we had. So in the same spirit, I will quote President Kennedy: ``To govern is to choose.'' And unfortunately this Congress, the Republican Congress, has made some tough choices. Time after time the Republican leadership has been forced to choose at their own making between naming post offices and using its control in the House, Senate, White House, and Supreme Court to improve the lives of millions of Americans. More often than not the Republican Congress has chosen to name post offices.

Please do not misunderstand. I am not opposed to naming post offices. In fact, I cosponsored a few of them myself. Congress should do these things, but we should not do it at the expense of our other responsibilities.

We should not do it as an excuse not to deal with the health care crisis, not to deal with the access to higher education crisis we have in America, not to deal with the fact that wages and income are stagnant in America, not to deal with the fact that we have a war being waged and we do not have a policy or a President that is cognizant of the fact that it is a burning morass, as three leading Republican Senators said last week.

We have only passed one of the 13 appropriations bills we are required to pass. We have not passed a Transportation bill that we are required to pass that would employ millions of Americans. We have not passed a higher education reauthorization bill as we are required to pass. We have not passed a budget under a Republican Congress. We have failed to reauthorize a series of things we are required to do, and yet we have taken on the responsibility of naming 92 new post offices.

Our Nation and economy rely on the most basic functions of this Congress, yet we have failed in both those activities. We can do better. Congress can name post offices and keep our Nation moving forward.

Mr. Speaker, Election Day is only weeks away. I hope when the American people go to the polls, it will reflect on the kind of job this Congress has done. The Republican leadership made their priorities clear. The 108th Congress will be remembered for its leadership on the naming of post offices.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding to me.

As he knows, the whole debate about prescription drugs was fundamentally about the price and affordability of those medications. What we all heard in our districts and different areas, at shopping malls, senior centers, and from people at their pharmacies, was that seniors could not afford the medications they needed. And the idea of a prescription drug benefit, when Medicare was first created, prescription drugs as a cost of a senior's health care budget was about 10 percent. Today it is about 60 percent, and yet we did not cover it. And the whole concept here was to deal with the price and affordability of prescription drugs for our seniors. We had this historic opportunity.

Pharmaceutical companies over the next 10 years, the length of this bill, are going to walk away with $140 billion in additional profit just from this legislation. And what do they get? No reimportation, which they did not want. No bulk negotiations, turning Medicare into one giant Sam's Club, negotiating prices like Sam's Club does for consumers, and they got weak provisions as it relies on generic medications coming to market to compete with name-brand drugs. Everything that had to do with price and affordability, pharmaceutical companies got what they wanted, check, check, check, and they got $140 billion in additional profits.

HMOs got an additional $130 billion worth of profit, and they too got what they needed most, which are bigger payments. But yet a GAO study showed on a demonstration project that HMOs and PPOs show no financial advantage to the taxpayers, no medical competition that was supposed to be. In fact, the beneficiaries get few advantages. That is the GAO report on this new benefit. What do they walk away with? A hundred and thirty billion dollars in taxpayer-supported additional profits.

Last week in ``The Hill,'' our journal here in the Capitol, there was an article about a Republican lobbying firm that is paying $4,000, funded by pharmaceutical companies, per senior citizen. They can find who will speak positively about the pharmaceutical prescription drug benefit. A $4,000 bounty. We have a $10 million bounty on Osama bin Laden; so we are now going to add happy seniors to that group of people that Republicans cannot find.

Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman want me to repeat it?

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, in ``The Hill'' article, our paper, a Republican lobbying firm who has Pharma as its client was offering a bounty of $4,000 per senior if that senior would come forward and say they are having a positive experience under the prescription drug benefit.

Right. But if the gentleman would continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, that was in the article. And my view is, I mean, it would be better if they gave a $4,000 prescription drug benefit. Maybe it would be much better if they just gave the benefit of $4,000. We would have accomplished what we set out to do.

We introduced in a bipartisan fashion a concept of reimportation, allowing people to get access to the same name-brand drugs that they have in Canada, that we have here, that they have in the United Kingdom, in Ireland, Scotland, Amsterdam, France, Germany. All those medications that we get on our shelves they get for 40 to 50 percent cheaper than we get here. On my Web site, I have a Costco in my district. It is a big discount retailer. There is a Costco in Toronto. I list the ten drugs in the Costco versus the Costco in Toronto. The same store retailer, the same discounter, the same low prices. People save $1,200 if they go to the Costco in Toronto verses the Costco in Chicago for the same ten drugs.

Reimportation brings competition to bear, and the pharmaceutical companies do not want price competition because they see the senior citizens, they see the taxpayers, as their piggybank to fund them. They use the American seniors and our taxpayers as their profit margin. People in Canada, their government is doing their job. They are

getting low prices. People in the United Kingdom and France and Germany, their government is representing their people. They are getting low prices. And we are getting the shaft and we have allowed it.

And the amazing thing is that this is not an accident. This is by creation by the government to create artificially high prices to benefit the pharmaceutical companies.

I have no problem with funding the research and development of new drugs. I have a problem when the taxpayer funds those drugs with taxpayer-paid dollars through the National Institutes of Health or the caps on research and development, a 50 percent write-off for R&D. And then I have a problem with turning around and saying to the same people who paid for that research that we are going to charge them twice as much as what the people in Canada and Europe get charged.

If we brought competition, the principles of the free market, to the pharmaceutical products, we would have the same prices as Canada and Europe. Bring some competition. But what do we do? We have got a closed market. We have got artificially high prices, and we have got senior citizens and taxpayers being shafted. That is what this Medicare bill did.

And let me say this: What is happening is not a coincidence. It was done by design. So do not walk up and say how did this happen? My colleagues do not think that the prescription drug companies and pharmaceutical companies pushing for a prescription drug bill did not know what they were getting when they got the $140 billion in additional profit and no restraints on pricing? My colleagues do not think the HMOs were spending the type of money they were spending on lobbyists and contributions to get $130 billion of extra profit and people getting worse care or not as good of care as guaranteed under Medicare? This was done by design. The results we have are the results of what they literally did when they drafted the legislation.

I would like to thank my colleague for allowing me to explain to people this bill. And the good news is our seniors know exactly what they got, which is why they are angry.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my warmest congratulations to John W. Rowe of Chicago on being honored by the American Jewish Committee for his continued civic leadership in our city.

For almost 100 years the American Jewish Committee has maintained its mission of promoting a world in which all are accorded the same civic treatment, promoting minority protection in democratic societies, and fighting against anti-Semitism.

Chairman and CEO of the Exelon Corporation, John W. Rowe is a person of great leadership who shares this same mission. By establishing the Exelon Corporation as one of Chicago's premier philanthropic and civically mindful corporations, he has consistently displayed excellent leadership and humanitarianism.

Mr. Rowe is chairman and CEO of the Exelon Corporation which was formed October 2000 by way of a corporate merging of the Unicorn Corporation and PECO Energy. Exelon, with some 5 million customers and annual revenues more than $15 billion, is one of the Nation's largest electric utilities.

Mr. Rowe also has a history of exemplifying great leadership through his previous work as chairman president, and CEO of the Unicom Corporation and Commonwealth Edison, as well as president and CEO of NEES, and president and CEO of Central Maine Power Company.

The past recognition Mr. Rowe has received is a testimony to his continued commitment to human rights. In 2002, Mr. Rowe was honored as the Citizen of the Year by the City Club of Chicago for his active responses to important environmental issues. In 2003, Mr. Rowe was awarded El Valor Corporation's Corporate Visionary Award, which honors corporate leaders for their vision and resolution for providing opportunities to all people. In May 2002, he was honored with the Corporate Leadership Award from the Spanish Coalition for Jobs for his outstanding civic commitment and contributions to the Latino community. In 2000, he was also the recipient of the Anti-Defamation League's ``A World of Difference'' award for his commitment to the promotion of civil rights through fighting discrimination, prejudice, and bigotry.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend John W. Rowe for his great leadership in our community and congratulate him on his well deserved Civic Leadership Award.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Ruth Page Foundation of dance and performing arts on more than 30 years of innovative dance and artistic excellence.

The Ruth Page Foundation was established in 1970 in order to uphold and promote the highest quality of performing arts as produced by choreographer and dance icon Ruth Page and continues to be at the forefront of innovative dance theater in Chicago.

A native Chicagoan, Ms. Page gained national recognition through her unprecedented incorporation of the era's social and political issues into her artistic performances. In addition, Ms. Page attained international prominence by becoming the first American to dance with Diaghilev's Ballet Russe. In later years, Ms. Page would go on to choreograph, commission, and dance in a string of hits such as Polka Melancholique and Hear Ye! Hear Ye!

During the Great Depression of the 1930's, Ms. Page teamed up with Bentley Stone to direct the federally funded Chicago Works Progress Administration (WPA) Dance Project. The duo had significant success with their groundbreaking feminist ballet American Patterns, and later became the first American ballet company to tour South America.

However, Ms. Page is probably best remembered for her assiduous efforts in creating and operating numerous dance companies throughout the Chicagoland area. From her first association with the Ravinia Opera in 1926, to her production of the The Nutcracker at McCormick Place's Arie Crown Theater in the mid 1980's, Ms. Page contributed to the city's cultural scene by taking on the roles of prima ballerina, choreographer, director, financial backer, and visionary. Ms. Page, who passed away in 1991, is still considered the grand lady of Chicago dance.

Mr. Speaker, I join with the people of Chicago in congratulating the brilliant Ruth Page Foundation, a company that continues to uphold the quality and discipline that was embodied by its namesake. I am proud of their numerous achievements both on and off the stage and wish them continued growth and success into the future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate The Joffrey Ballet of Chicago on more than 40 years of excellence and artistic achievement.

Since its foundation in 1956, the Joffrey Ballet has brought a unique and innovative approach to American dance theater. In addition to entertaining Chicago audiences for decades, the Joffrey exists as a touring company with a repertoire of original ballets and choreography that have been enjoyed by ballet fans worldwide.

Created by Robert Joffrey and Gerald Arpino, the Joffrey held its first major production at Chicago's 8th Street Theater on January 22, 1957. The performance proved to be a tremendous success, and helped establish the Joffrey as one of the best national companies of the day. In addition, the Joffrey has received international acclaim for its performances in 25 foreign countries, including Korea, Syria, and Afghanistan.

Renowned for a remarkable repertory of more than 225 ballets by 85 choreographers, The Joffrey commissioned the first ballets of such notable American choreographers as Alvin Ailey, Laura Dean, Anna Sokolow, and Chicagoan Randy Duncan. Furthermore, the company has revived many of the lost classics such as Parade from 1909, and The Three-Cornered Hat from 1919. In addition, The Joffrey has achieved great success by incorporating modern technology and pop culture into its productions to create ballets that are appealing to modern audiences.

Mr. Speaker, I join with the people of Chicago in congratulating The Joffrey Ballet of Chicago, one of Chicago's finest cultural institutions. From its brilliant original productions, to its extraordinary presentations of the classics, the company continues to perform ballet at the very highest of levels. I am happy to applaud their numerous achievements, and to wish them continued growth and future success.