Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1511, to award the Congressional Gold Medal to Tony Blair, Prime Minister of Great Britain.

The Congressional Gold Medal is the highest honor Congress can bestow to civilians and foreign leaders in recognition of their outstanding and enduring contributions to the

United States. It is fitting that we consider Prime Minister Blair for this award in the wake of a challenging and historic period for our two nations.

Upon the terrorist attacks of September 11, Prime Minister Blair was the first leader to rush to America's side to provide assistance. His expression of solidarity assured us that we were not alone in the world as a victim of terrorism, and that attacks on our soil were also as assault on the sovereignty of Great Britain, which lost more of its own citizens in the World Trade Center than any other foreign nation. In a very difficult time for our country, Mr. Blair has courageously demonstrated that the U.K. is our staunchest and most steadfast ally by helping us lead the coalition of democratic nations in the defense of our mutual security from terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Together with Great Britain we have made progress toward dismantling the global network of state sponsored terrorism. However, despite considerable public opposition and political fallout in his own country, Prime Minister Blair never wavered from his commitment to the United States and the international coalition to determine whether the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq presented an imminent threat to its neighbors and our troops based on the Middle East. Under the Prime Minister's leadership, Great Britain contributed troops and meaningful support for Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. As British troops fought shoulder to shoulder with American troops in Iraq, Mr. Blair made it clear all along that the U.K. shared our values and principles for the mission, particularly when he said, ``We go to liberate not conquer . . . and the only flag which will be flown in that ancient land is their own.''

Mr. Speaker, I applaud Prime Minister Tony Blair's extraordinary leadership and his nation's enduring commitment to our mutual support of liberty and democracy. I am proud to support H.R. 1511 to authorize the President, on behalf of Congress, to award the Gold Medal to Prime Minister Blair. I also wish to thank the people of Great Britain, the members of the royal armed forces, and their families for their shared commitment and many sacrifices for the preservation of democracy and liberty in a world allied against terror.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with a number of our preceding speakers who have talked about the importance of Medicare and why their principles and values are different than some of our other colleagues.

Tonight I would like to address another subject in the closing days before our July 4th district work period, and that is a child tax credit.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the president of Pakistan was here and the President of the United States guaranteed $3.5 billion to Pakistan. He came in, got a nice reception at Camp David, and flew out with a check for $3.5 billion. That is equal to the amount that it would cost to provide the 12 million children, 6.5 million working families a full $1,000 tax credit in this country; yet they are not receiving it.

In Pakistan they came in, smiled, shook hands, and walked out with $3.5 billion. In America, 12 million American children will be left without a tax cut as they go into the summer months. As their parents buy clothes and shoes and backpacks for the coming school year, they will not have the full $1,000 child credit.

Two weeks ago, The New York Times reported that we are providing 200,000 Iraqis $20 a day for no-show jobs. I come from Chicago. We know something about no-show jobs. We think we understand no-show jobs. Yet while we provide these Iraqis $20 a day, 200,000 of

them for the last 2 months, that comes to about $1,000, we have 200,000 active duty GIs who in the Republican tax bill are not provided the full $1,000 tax credit. Somehow we have put in this administration and in this Congress more priority on the 200,000 no-show Iraqis who are getting $20 a day than our active men and women who are getting shot at and could lose their lives. They deserve a tax cut.

I noted the other day in our commitment to Iraq for reconstruction, we committed to 20,000 units of housing reconstruction; and yet here in America under the President's budget, there are only 5,000 units of public housing. We committed to 13 million Iraqis getting universal health care, half the population, yet not a dime for America for the uninsured who work full time. We committed to rebuilding 12,500 schools in Iraq, yet in many of our schools across this country, there are no dollars for investment in remodernization.

What make Iraqis and the investments in Iraq more important than investments here? I support rebuilding Iraq, given the war; but we should not deconstruct here in America. We have set a set of priorities and principles in place that has put America behind where we put our priorities overseas. This administration needs to remember that here at home working families deserve a tax cut, the 12 million children of working parents, 6.5 million working families who will not get the $1,000 tax cut because this Congress, under the stewardship and leadership of this administration, is too busy.

Yet the Premier of Pakistan came in and walked out with an equal amount of dollars, $3.5 billion. In Iraq, folks will be getting $20 a day who do not show up for work, yet our GIs on active duty will not get the full $1,000 tax cut they are promised. Where are the values? Where are the principles that say you should do that? I think I know a number of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have good values. We have talked about our families, our hopes and faith. If their mothers knew what they were doing here, giving 200,000 Iraqis $20 a day, denying a tax cut to our GIs, I think they would have another view because those are not the values their mothers raised them with.

In closing, we make choices. President Kennedy once said to govern is to choose. I am saddened that, as we get ready to start sending out checks to the top 1 percent in the sense of wealth, that the 12 million children of working families will have been forgotten and will go without that tax cut.

Mr. Speaker, we will go home with unfinished business as it relates to our values and our principles. We should remember the folks who get up every morning, go to work, try to make that paycheck stretch all the way to the 31st of the month. We should remember what they are trying to do with their children, to know the difference between right from wrong; and what do we say to them, we are going to keep that speed bump in your way so your day is harder. But somehow, we are putting a better sense of values on the Premier of Pakistan who walked out in one day with $3.5 billion, equal to the amount it would cost to rectify the error in the conference when the Republican leadership of the Senate and the Republican leadership of the House and the Vice President of the United States sat in the room and cut those kids out of the tax cut.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1460, the Veterans Entrepreneurship Act of 2003. This is essential legislation which ensures that those courageous and honorable men and women who served in our armed forces have the opportunity to receive valuable educational and professional opportunities in the areas of entrepreneurship and business.

Veterans have served this country with distinction throughout its history, and many have risked their lives for our benefit. Especially in the wake of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, we should take steps to help our veterans successfully transition to civilian life.

The educational assistance provided by the Department of Veterans' Affairs is a benefit these veterans have earned, and it is important that they be able to use this assistance for valuable courses in the field of entrepreneurship, which teaches pragmatic and creative business practices useful in any field. In addition, by making it easier for disabled veterans to receive government contracts for their small businesses, this bill continues the partnership between these individuals and the government, and helps them to succeed in today's struggling economy. Operating a small business is a difficult but worthwhile endeavor, and veterans should have every opportunity to use their talents to aid the U.S. economy by starting new ventures based on their personal ingenuity.

Mr. Speaker, I applaud Representative Renzi and the other Members of the Committees on Veterans' Affairs and Small Business for introducing this legislation and bringing it to the floor today. It serves as a symbol of support for the heroes who have admirably protected our freedom and served this Nation in the armed forces.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Frank J. Wsol, the Secretary Treasurer of Teamsters Local 710, on being presented the Distinguished Community Service Award by the Anti-Defamation League at their annual dinner.

Frank Wsol epitomizes the principles of organized labor and the role it plays in our community. He has served loyally as a Teamster since 1946, and has ascended the ranks first as an Organizer, and later as Chairman of the Union's Health, Welfare and Pension Fund.

In addition to proudly serving as a Teamster, Frank has been a leader for all of labor including service as Chairman of the Illinois Joint State Grievance Committee and on the Executive Committee of the Chicago Federation of Labor. He currently serves as a member of the Executive Board for Joint Council 25.

Many of the principles of the organization and community that Frank has embodied for the last half century have come from his service to our country as a member of the U.S. Air Force. Frank served in both Japan and Korea, and has stayed active as a member of the Neer-Goudie American Legion Post 846.

Frank's care for his community has always included his love for children and his dedication to providing them with a bright future. He has dedicated time and energy to the Children's Advocacy Center in both Chicago and Hoffman Estates, and the Little City Foundation in Palatine.

Mr. Speaker, I join the Anti-Defamation League in recognizing Frank Wsol. I also congratulate Frank and his wonderful family: Florence, his wife of over 50 years, his late daughter Maureen, his son Michael and his fiancee Marlene Demuzio, his son Frank Jr. and his wife Madeline, and his grandsons Frank, Brian, Kevin and Steve. And I applaud the Anti-Defamation League for the work that they do to protect our liberty, and for honoring one of our most distinguished citizens.

Mr. Speaker, we are about to take up the prescription drug bill, and a group of Democrats and Republicans have come together on an amendment to the legislation that is the free market prescription drug bill. It has three components.

One is to bring generics to market so we can have competition between generics and name-brand drugs and force the prices down and make medications more affordable to more and more, not only of our elderly, but all consumers, and also help private businesses on their health care costs through their insurance policy.

The second provision allows consumers and also the government and also the private sector to buy prescription drugs in anywhere of the 27 countries, be they Great Britain, France, Germany, Canada, Italy, England. They allow it in Holland, where you can get competitive prices. Because today, in Germany, many of the name-brand drugs are 30, 40, 50 percent cheaper than they are here. And we can bring competition and the market forces to bear on the prices to make medications more affordable for our American consumers.

The third provision is that the taxpayers have been funding research through the National Institutes of Health. The truth is the NIH is one of the largest venture funds in the world. Yet American taxpayers get no return on their investment through the NIH. All the cancer drugs, all the AIDS drugs, a great deal of the blood thinner drugs and medications, and arthritis drugs were funded through government research.

In the private sector, many people who invest look for a 30 percent return on their investment. The taxpayer, through the government, gets no return on their investment. This legislation would call for a 10 percent return to the taxpayers for that research for all of the new medications the taxpayers have funded, and we could make the NIH and the FDA, Food and Drug Administration, self-funded in the future. In my view it would keep America in the forefront of new medication. We could bring medications down in price, and we could get real competition and make medications affordable.

What is really missing in this whole debate, in my view, is bringing the free market to play and to bear, and it would be successful. Unfortunately, the American taxpayer has been funding all the research and the only benefit we have gotten is that we pay the highest price. As we would say in Chicago, ``such a deal.''

Now, the truth is, in England, France, Canada, Germany, Italy, American-made pharmaceutical drugs are 30 to 40 to 50 percent cheaper in those countries than they are here at home. The American consumer, the American senior citizen, is the profit guinea pig for the pharmaceutical companies. For too long they have been gouging our seniors, using our elderly to make up their profit margins, while in Canada, in Germany, in France and in England they are getting cheaper prices. So it has a bipartisan approach around a commonsense set of principles to make medications, the drugs people need for their children, for themselves, or for their grandparents, more affordable, more accessible.

Now, why would it be that if we are about to go spend $400 billion over 10 years, why would we deny the government the ability, through the taxpayers, the ability to stretch that $400 billion to get more out of it? Nowhere else in the private sector would we do that. We are denying ourselves the right to use competition to bring down the price, to make medications more affordable to all of the folks, be they elderly or kids or families, so the family budget, the business budget, and the government's budget go cheaper.

I have confidence in the free market. I wish some of my colleagues here on the other side of the aisle would have as much confidence as we have in the free market. I do not know what they are all scared of. We would have generics competing against name-brand drugs, and we could pick based on price and quality. You would be able to buy drugs at the local pharmacy, or if you look on the Internet and find the same drug cheaper in Germany, you buy it there. If globalization is such a great thing, why do we not allow it to work for everybody, not just for a select few? Why let Germany get the advantages of cheaper medications made here in America by American companies funded by American taxpayers?

On the last account, allow our taxpayers to reap the benefits of their tax-funded research.

Mr. Speaker, in the private sector world, if you get less than 30 percent on your return, you know what you are called? Dumb money. I wonder how long we are going to treat the taxpayers as dumb money around here. This is taxpayer-funded research. Every drug related to cancer has been funded in part by taxpayer money; and the only thing we are guaranteed besides the medications, which we are not guaranteed, is to pay the highest price in the world for that medication. Yet people in Germany and England pay half that price.

I have full confidence, along with my colleagues on the other side and folks on this side of the aisle. We have come together on a common set of principles with a common set of values to ensure affordability and return for taxpayer rights on their investment.

I know the pharmaceutical companies do not want this bill because it would finally bring some real sensible principles like the free market to bear on the pharmaceutical industry and on the pricing of medication.

So I hope that we have the opportunity to offer this amendment and everybody can either start not just talking the talk, but start walking the walk when it comes to their views in espousing the free market.

Mr. Speaker, nearly a month ago, this body passed a $350 billion tax cut that benefited primarily the top 1 percent in the country. Warren Buffett and others, who although would benefit from it, spoke against that tax cut. Prior to that evening, the day before, Republicans out of the House and the Senate, with the Vice President, got together to work out an agreement. And we later found out, 2 days afterwards, nobody had known that 12 million children, 6.5 million working families, had been left out of that tax cut. It actually was in the Senate bill. Somehow, when the Vice President got in the room with the Republican House leadership here, the 12 million children of working families were left on the editing floor, because there was nobody outside of that conference room where the leadership met to represent the voice of 12 million children of working families.

Now, in about a week from now a good portion of the wealthiest 1 percent will begin to receive what people on average think is close to $100,000 worth of tax cuts. Now, we have passed in the other body and in the House a tax cut to ameliorate and address this shortcoming that both the President says he wants done, the other body leadership say they want done and leadership in this Chamber say they want done.

Now, we need to address this problem, because in one week we have a tax cut that is going into place that has left out 12 million children of working parents, 6.5 million families. These are the families that are rookie cops, first-year firefighters, first-year teachers, nurses, single mothers. We can provide a tax cut for these children.

Now, this is in contrast to in May, this body provided a $25 billion tax credit to the energy companies to do what? To drill for oil. Now, the last time I checked that is supposed to be in their business plan. They are supposed to be doing that as a purpose of their business. That is what they exist for. In the very week that we passed a $25 billion tax credit for the energy industry to do what, to drill, Exxon Mobil reported, and I want to read this absolutely correctly so nobody can get this wrong; Exxon reported that their net quarterly income had tripled and that it had $12.3 billion in cash on hand. Mr. Speaker, $12.3 billion cash on hand. Their net quarterly profits had tripled. We had passed them a $25 billion tax cut, so they could do what? Drill for oil. That is the main mission of what that energy company does.

Enron, in the 4 out of the last 5 years, had never paid any corporate income taxes, yet received subsidies to the tune of $200 million in tax subsidies, in grants through the Export-Import Bank, to do what? Provide an energy project in India. WorldCom, in 2 out of 3 years, paid no corporate income taxes and yet they reported $12.5 billion in corporate profits. In fact, last week in our Committee on Budget in a hearing on waste, fraud, and abuse, Robert McIntyre, as well as the comptroller of the country, spoke about many tax credits and tax incentives that are used for corporations to do what they are supposed to do, and a great deal of mismanagement of our dollars are spent for these corporate welfare programs. Yet 12 million children could be provided a tax cut as they go into summer camp, as their parents start planning for the next year to buy shoes and new clothes for the school year.

So myself and other Members are going to start marking off the day as we get closer and closer, as the wealthy in this country start to get their tax cut, we are going to mark off the days as we begin to forget our children. Today is June 23, and now we count down to the day in which the checks start to go out. Yet the conference has not met, there has been no leadership out of the White House; no leadership shown to bring together both parties around a common set of values.

Now, we can disagree about whether the first $350 billion tax cut should have been paid; we can disagree about whether corporate welfare should exist in the form of Enron not paying any corporate taxes; whether Exxon Mobil having $12.5 billion cash on hand deserved another $25 billion in tax credits to drill for oil. We can disagree on all of that, but surely we can come together around a common set of values, that if you work hard, if you are trying to do right by your children, raise them with the right set of values, that these families who make $12,000, $13,000, $14,000 a year, what a Congressman makes in a month, that they deserve a full $1,000 child tax credit.

We are going to count down the days every day to remind this body that until that day comes, that these families deserve a tax cut. They deserve to be rewarded for making the right choice of work over welfare. They deserve to get a tax cut like the wealthiest 1 percent in this country. Everybody seems to agree, yet nobody can come together into the same room to work out not only our economic interests, but our values and commonality.

So I would hope that as we mark this day that we would find the same interests that drove us so fast to give Exxon a tax credit to drill for oil, that we worked so fast and furious to give the wealthiest 1 percent in this country $100,000 in tax cuts, that we find the same moral courage, the same discipline, the same foresight to give the 12 million children, 6.5 million families who work every day, get up in the morning, do not come home until late at night, try to do right by their children, have chosen the voyage of work and raised their children with a common set of values that we all espouse to represent and to want to reward; that we should not put another speed bump in their way as they try to raise their family. We should give them the tax cut that says you have done right, your children deserve it, you deserve it, because this is their money, too.

So today we mark off that day as we count down to July 1, when the first set of checks go out to the wealthiest 1 percent, and yet we here in Washington representing these people have not found the time to come together to come to an agreement to give a voice to their values, to give a choice to our common sense of purpose here.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Rhode Island.

Tomorrow in a bipartisan fashion with about six Republicans and six- or-so Democrats, we will be introducing an amendment to the prescription drug bill that focuses on bringing competitive forces to the pricing of prescription drugs so we can make prescription drugs affordable to not only our elderly but our American families.

I think one of the things that is missing in this entire debate, in this entire strategy, is how to make drugs and prescription drugs more affordable and more accessible to people. How do you do that?

There are three parts to this bill. The first part would bring generic drugs to market quicker so name-brand drugs and pharmaceutical companies cannot employ frivolous lawsuits to keep generics off markets. If you had competition between generics versus prescription drugs, you would bring prices down from name-brand drugs.

The second portion of that bill, and that portion of the bill has been adopted by the Senate and also enjoys bipartisan support in this Chamber as it enjoys in the other Chamber. The second, as my good colleague from Minnesota, a Republican, a good colleague, enjoys overwhelming bipartisan support and also adopted in the Senate in bipartisan fashion, was the market access bill. It enables consumers, elderly as well as other families, to buy medications, Canada, Mexico, Israel, Italy, Germany, France, Netherlands, Great Britain and all of those countries, the same name-brand medications sold here in this country are sold in those countries at 50, 60, 70 percent reduced prices, but they are American-made medications.

Now, if we can import steel, we can import cars, we can import software, we can import wheat, food products and everybody always wants to espouse the virtues of globalization, well, let us allow them globalization to bring prices down here at home for prescription drugs.

Globalization is not supposed to be a one-way road just for corporations and their bottom line. Globalization is supposed to work for consumers. So allow globalization to work so if you can find that drug in the German market or the British market for cheaper, you could be allowed to buy it. It is called market access. So competition between generics versus name-brand. Allow us to buy products in West Germany or Canada or Mexico, wherever you can find them cheaper. Allow the global marketplace to determine the best price for the consumer.

The third portion of the bill is a bill that allows, take the family of drugs for cancer or AIDS. Every one of the medications on the market today was developed with government research, taxpayer money through the NIH. Allow the NIH to get a 10 percent royalty for that investment back to the taxpayers. You would do that, and in 10 years the NIH would be fully self-funded. It is one of the great venture capital arms in the entire world.

I worked in the private sector. We used to believe you look for a 30 percent IR, which is an investment return on your equity. Anything below a 30 percent return was considered ``dumb money.'' And we have been treating the taxpayers like dumb money. Give the taxpayers a minimum of 10 or 15 percent return on their investment, and the NIH would be fully funded in 10 years through investment royalties.

In addition to that tax-funded research, whether it is in cancer, AIDS or any medication out there, today the taxpayers subsidize research through the R&D tax credit, research and development tax credit. And so not only are the taxpayers in this country paying on the tax credit on the upfront side through NIH funded research, but on the back side through research and development tax credit. We are paying for it twice. And the only benefit left to the American taxpayer is they get to pay the highest price for that drug when it comes on the market. They fund the research, and they get to pay the highest price.

The pharmaceutical industry in this country has been treating the seniors of this country and the American families with sick children as their profit guinea pig. They earn their profits off the back of Americans who have paid for the research.

It is my view what is missing is we need the market forces to bring the prices down so they are more affordable and more accessible to our elderly. If we are going to spend $400 billion on a prescription drug bill do my colleagues not think we want to get the most for our money? So in my view what is missing from this debate, what is missing from this discussion, what would make sure that we spend our $400 billion wisely is a market forces of competition from generic to name brand, prices overseas in Europe to American prices and then a return on our investment. That would bring real competition, and therefore, we would have the market forces working on behalf of the taxpayer rather than against them.

I am proud that we have a bipartisan bill, a lot of Republicans on it, a lot of Democrats. I think it represents our common values, but a number of people in this Chamber who will always be up here, we will hear them on every other debate, espouse the virtues of a free market. I am going to allow free market to reign. I came from the private sector. I think it is a wonderful thing.

I do not fault the pharmaceutical industry. They bought and paid themselves out of a free market when it comes to name brand versus generics. They have bought themselves out of a free market when it comes to preventing consumers from buying things in other marketplaces like they do any other product, and they have treated us like nothing but chumps when it comes to getting our tax dollars to fund the research. Yet they get the profit and we get the biggest payday with the highest prices.

So it is my view that if we bring the market forces to bear we will make drugs affordable, and most importantly, because the government will be

funding the research as they do today, we will guarantee that those drugs continue to come to market and America stands as number one in the area of research for new drugs, new medications to cure other illnesses.

The Boston Globe did a story, and I will bring this back up. Thirty- two out of 35 of the drugs that they targeted were developed with NIH or FDA funding. We can make the whole NIH which is $26 billion fully self-funded. The last time in 1984 is when we passed a bill to get bring generics to market. Are we saying in close to 20 years our laws do not need an update, what it means to accelerating this research, that our laws allow pharmaceutical companies to keep generics off the market?

So we can do this, we can make the medication on our $400 billion we spend on a prescription drug benefit go farther, insure more people, get benefits and drugs cheaper to seniors, if we would allow the free market to reign when it comes to the pricing of drugs.

I know my fellows on the other side of the aisle believe in the free market. I am just going to give them a chance to put their money where their mouth is, and I look forward to the support of others in this area. I am pleased that my colleague organized this today because we focus the country on this. We are going to do I think what is right, get a prescription drug bill, but just because we do it does not mean it is right. It is how we do it that determines whether it is right.

I am pleased that we have support for all this. It is the right type of area. It makes sure that we have affordability. It makes sure, too, that we stay in the frontlines of having the best medications developed because we have been focusing on the taxpayers funding this research, now we are going to guarantee we get a return on our investment. As long as they want that tax R&D credit, which they should have, the pharmaceutical companies, we are going to make sure we get a 10 percent, 15 percent royalty on those dollars we invested.

Every cancer drug on the market today was funded by the taxpayers. Corporations got the profit and we got the biggest bill in America. Our brothers and sisters and fellow consumers in Germany and England and France are enjoying the benefits of taxpayer funded research. They are paying minimal prices at 50 percent, 60 percent less than we are. We are paying the highest price. They get the drugs for a cheaper price, and the corporations in America get the profits, and we get to pay the highest bill.

As we would say in Chicago, such a deal. That is what has happened.

So we need to take this three-step approach, all of it based on the principle of the free market. We bring the free market, we bring competition, it will drive prices down, spend $400 billion, reach more seniors with better affordable prescription drugs, and we will make the medications more accessible, more affordable because they will be cheaper in price.

Again, I want to thank my colleague from Rhode Island for organizing this and bringing the attention to this issue and allowing all the different perspectives to be brought to bear here in this Chamber.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. Con. Res. 43, expressing the sense that Congress should participate in and support activities to provide decent homes for working Americans.

As we recognize National Home Ownership Month this June, I believe that the ``Congress Building America'' program will go a long way toward improving the lives of our constituents. In the spirit of President Carter's Habitat for Humanity, this legislation inspires volunteerism. When people see their public servants living up to that title and building houses side by side with the people who will be living in them, they will want to help others provide decent housing for those in need.

My wife, Amy, and I look forward to leading by example and showing our children how working together can make a meaningful difference in the lives of our fellow Americans. Expanding the ``Congress Building America'' program beyond Washington to each of our districts is an important goal toward helping Americans find decent shelter and owning their own homes.

My district is home to thousands of historic bungalows, many of which, sadly, are in disrepair. I am working with public and private agencies to provide bungalow owners with both financial and technical assistance to restore their homes. These bungalows are not only a national treasure, but also one of few affordable choices for thousands of homeowners.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of S. Con. Res. 43 and continue supporting improved access to affordable housing in America.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

I was moved by my colleague's story who remembers his father here when he got sworn in. Just 5 months ago, my father sat up there and watched me get sworn in, and he came to this country in 1959. So whatever happens in his life and my life, I will always have that time that he was able to see, having coming to this country, his son get sworn in.

Now that I am a father of three children, I am reminded of what Mark Twain once said: ``At 12 I concluded my father was a fool. By 16 I was shocked what he could learn in only 4 years.'' I say that because I am going to provide for my children the same values that my father taught me and my mother. They are going to get love, education and a good kick out the front door so they can earn their way around this world the way I have.

The truth is, what we should be doing instead of helping wealthy people protect their wealth, we should help people build wealth. I had an amendment that is not allowed today on the floor that would support the Pomeroy substitute and give us estate tax relief where it should be provided for our farm and small business owners, but also provide a deduction for college tuition education for all families who are trying to send their children to college: $4,000 they are allowed to deduct for college education; families, up to $100,000. That deduction ends in 2005.

College costs have gone up by 20, 30 percent over the last couple of years. It is continuing to go up. Yet in 2005 that deduction for a middle-class family to send their kids to college is eliminated. It ends. That is about creating wealth. That is about our common shared values. So we can have an estate tax and help create wealth by making sure everybody gets access to that ticket to the middle-class dream, a college education.

That deduction is eliminated in 2005. I offered an amendment to extend it to 2013 so we can have estate tax reform and college education. What we should do is be in the position of not having an either/or policy, a tax reform on the estate tax and provide middle- class families the opportunity to give their children a college education, not go broke doing it, and make sure that the American Dream stays alive for generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), my friend, for yielding me this time.

The underlying bill here I think reflects not only bipartisanship, but our common set of values. It is the right approach to how to protect our children.

As the brother of a sister who is adopted, I applaud the efforts that are reflected here and the attempt here. But that bipartisanship, also those common set of values that we come together on, is in sharp contrast to what was done on the child tax credit.

Mr. Speaker, the other day The New York Times reported that in Iraq right now, 200,000 Iraqis are getting $20 a day who do not show up for work. Mr. Speaker, 200,000 Iraqis, $20 a day who do not show up for work. I come from Chicago. We know something about no-show jobs. We think they are a good thing, periodically. But that stands in stark contrast to the 200,000 active duty troop members who are over there putting their lives on the line who will not get the full child tax credit. Now, where in our common values do we respect the people of Iraq, give them 20 bucks a day who do not show up for work, and yet, to our troops who are over there in Afghanistan and Iraq, whose families are only getting $450 per child tax credit, but not the full $1,000. Where in our common set of values do we say that is the right thing to do?

Over the weekend the AP ran a story that Halliburton's bid for the oil drilling and oil work that they are doing in Iraq originally for $77 million is now running double. It was a no-bid contract and Halliburton, in the year of 2001, did not pay any Federal income taxes and, in fact, got an $85 million rebate. Last week when we were debating the child tax credit, some people described welfare as the full refundable credit; and I have a description of welfare, it is known as corporate welfare, that was done in Halliburton's case.

We here in Congress earn $12,800 a month. That is equivalent to what some of these families earn in a full year who are worthy of this child tax credit.

So I applaud the efforts that were done here to reflect our values and to take care of our children. I applaud the work done here on this bill; but I want to remind our colleagues, this bill's success comes from not only our bipartisanship but working on a common set of values. We need now to come together, come together, work on the conference, Democrats and Republicans, produce a bill, because as July approaches, some families will get this tax cut and other families, 12 million children, 6.5 million families who work full-time, sometimes more than 40 hours a week, will not be getting that tax credit.

Now, originally this bill was passed to get a tax cut to get the economy moving. It was in there in the Senate when they went to conference, but when the Vice President showed up, somehow it got dropped. We all have an obligation from the White House to the Senate to the Congress, Democrats and Republicans, to work together to give these middle-class families a tax cut.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include therein extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order today.

Mr. Speaker, currently both the House and the Senate are in intense deliberations to forge a compromise on a prescription drug benefit for Medicare and Medicare recipients. I am glad to see that both Republicans and Democrats after all this time are working together to try to correct this critical deficiency in the Medicare program.

When Medicare started in the early 60s, about 10 percent of the health care costs for a senior was dedicated to out-of-pocket drug costs. Today that is around 60 percent of their health care costs, or health care dollar. And so if we are going to have a health care plan for seniors and if Medicare is going to live up to its obligations that it was originally designed to do, Medicare must have a prescription drug plan.

We all know that one of the most contentious issues in the prescription drug debate is the question of how much of the cost of drugs should be paid by government and how much should be passed on to seniors. But the crux of this problem is that both the U.S. Government and American seniors are paying too much for prescription drugs. Providing a prescription drug benefit through Medicare is unfortunately only the tip of the iceberg in addressing a widespread prescription drug access issue facing our Nation.

Much more central to the inability of many seniors and other Americans to afford the prescription drugs they need is the fact that prescription drug prices are 30 to 300 percent higher than those in other industrialized nations. The truth is one of the big problems we have here in the country is that we do not have a free market as it relates to prescription drugs and drug costs. I

really believe that one of the central points of this debate is that we need a free market.

The three things I am going to discuss today are, A, the issue that American consumers, be they elderly or others, are denied access to prescription drugs from all over the world and they are a captive market, unable to buy drugs, be they in Canada, Mexico, Germany, France, where the same drugs are much cheaper than they are here in the United States. If our consumers were allowed to have access to those drugs, there would be competition and prices would drop. But because the free market is prohibited from exercising its magic, drug costs are artificially raised.

The second point I want to discuss is the American taxpayer through two different venues provides direct and indirect assistance to the drug companies to develop the drugs. Drug companies reap all the profits, and the American taxpayers do not get any of the benefits back as an investor. If we were an investor, and I come from the private sector, private sector investors when they invest in a drug, they usually look for what is called a 30 percent IR, investment return on equity. Yet the taxpayer who provides through taxes both direct assistance to the FDA as well as through the tax write-off that pharmaceutical companies get, they do not reap any of the benefits from these drugs being developed. Yet we develop these drugs, taxpayers spend billions and billions of dollars helping develop these drugs, yet the only benefit they get besides taking the drug is they pay the highest premium price out there.

I believe the right way to get the prices under control is for the investor, known as the American taxpayer, to reap the benefits of their investment dollars. And, third, deal with the area of generics and generic markets. If we allowed generics to get to market quicker, it would also create that type of competition. I think one of the problems we have here is that the American elderly, the American taxpayer and consumer have an artificial market that is in three areas, generics, taxes and access to the same drugs in other markets around the world. Because we are a captive market, we pay artificially high prices; and the American seniors specifically are the profit margin or, as I like to call them, the guinea pig profit margin for the pharmaceutical companies. I want the free market to work. The pharmaceutical companies are treating this market as a captive market. If we had a free market, we would have reduced prices.

Medicare drug benefits being considered by Congress are very expensive. Many seniors, especially those who do not have secondary insurance, will continue to have significant out-of-pocket drug costs even with the passage of a Medicare drug benefit. In addition, the high cost of drugs remains a crisis for 42 million uninsured and countless underinsured who must pay all or most of their drug costs out of pocket. Addressing the cost of prescription drugs will both make a Medicare drug benefit less expensive for the government and greatly increase the value of what is provided for our elderly. It will also make it much more likely that millions of uninsured and underinsured in this country can afford lifesaving, life-preserving prescription drugs, what their compatriots in Germany, France, England and other industrialized nations get. Prescription drug companies are a business, and they need to earn profits in order to stay in business. But as they have the right and purpose like other businesses to earn a profit, they also have a responsibility to be a good corporate citizen and abide by the same standards as other businesses.

As I said, I have worked in the private sector. I know that any private company when investing in research and development and in another company usually looks for a 30 percent return on their equity. The United States Government invests in pharmaceutical research by providing significant tax benefits for research and development expenses and American citizens subsidize the research as drug companies recoup their margins in America because of price controls in other countries. The American Government and the American people are getting no return on their investment. The pharmaceutical companies are reaping the financial benefits of the U.S. investments in their R&D without any responsibility to pass these benefits on to the government and American taxpayers.

American consumers are bearing the burden of price controls in other countries. When 50 tablets of Synthroid cost $4 in Munich and $21.95 in the United States, the most vulnerable Americans suffer. Also it is one of the great reasons that we have inflation running at close to triple or quadruple here in health care in the United States as opposed to the market as a whole. We are using individuals as the profit guinea pigs for pharmaceutical companies.

The legislation introduced by my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), last week takes important steps to address the shocking disparities in prescription drug prices between the U.S. and other industrialized nations. It puts essential safety precautions in place to ensure that by opening our markets, we do not expose Americans to the dangers of counterfeit drugs. When defending the high cost of prescription drugs in this country, people will often say that the U.S. has the best health care system in the world. People come here from overseas to get a better product. But we clearly have nothing close to the best prescription drug delivery system, as many individuals are now shopping overseas for their prescription drugs. If we are going to defend our status as the best place to get health care in the world, we need to make the pillar of many people's health care, prescription drugs, accessible and affordable.

I yield to my good friend, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).

Let me ask the gentleman a question. Can you repeat again for those who are watching, as you note, this is a miracle drug and all the investment the U.S. taxpayers did, repeat again so everybody knows the difference between the price overseas versus the United States for those two drugs.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my good friend, I did not mean to interrupt him. Did he want to keep going?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. What I would like to do is I am going to turn to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), our good friend and my colleague from Illinois, in a second. I would like to repeat just one point on this. If you take this market on either cancer or AIDS drugs, just those segments or families of drugs, there is not a single cancer drug today or AIDS drug on the market that was not directly developed with assistance from the United States Government, NIH; and it was not directly developed with the tax dollars from the taxpayer; and yet the only benefit of those drugs, obviously besides using them and saving lives, the American consumer, be they the elderly or just families and children, they pay, as the gentleman noted, three times more than do people in Germany, France, and other major industrialized countries; and yet we were the ones who developed it.

We were the ones who gave the tax dollars to develop this. We also not only gave it from the NIH direct funding, using tax dollars to fund it, but on the back end these companies write off their R&D. So we have to make up that loss in the tax revenue pool so they can develop these drugs; and as I think the gentleman noted in his statistics, we then get a minuscule amount of return. Actually in the private sector money like that is called dumb money. That is how they refer to it. It is foolish money. It is called dumb money. It is people who put up dumb money, do not look for the 30 to 20 percent IR on equity, and that is what has been going on for years here in this country, and we are paying premium prices; and in these companies they figure that in Germany they are going to pay X, in Canada they are going to pay Y for the same drug, England is going to pay, and they have got to make up their margin. Whom are they making up the margin with? Our neighbors, our friends, our family members; and we funded this research, and we developed these drugs.

My view is I would love for the free market to come to the pharmaceutical industry. It just has not. It is a protected industry by the United States Government, from the Tax Code to importation to the development of generics.

Yes.

I thank the gentleman. If he could yield, I would like to now ask the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), my good friend, who has joined us here to also speak about his district in Chicago that borders mine, but also about this issue as it relates to the pharmaceutical industry and prescription drugs and what is going on.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. He brought up the breast cancer; was that correct?

I think it illustrates again what our good friend from Minnesota said and has brought forth examples is that, in fact, there is not a drug today, and we can also expand this to medical choice, but no drug today that is not being developed and has not been developed that is around the country that any way you look around the world in the major industrialized countries where we have trading companies, and the gentleman noted wheat, meat, steel, cars, computers, all types of products where there is ``free trade,'' and yet here in this specific area, we are paying top price, high-premium dollar. I think again, whether it is diabetes, breast cancer, there are other drugs that are on the market that affect other types of illnesses, and I think the gentleman highlights a very important point, especially given his district and my district that abut each other, how this creates inflation, and besides the uninsured, the cost of pharmaceutical drugs is the single largest cause for health care inflation in the health care industry which has been running at 20 to 30 percent of inflation.

So he brings up, I think, a very good point, and I think it is relevant to the discussion we are having today. What I am most impressed with is the bipartisanship we have here in discussing this. And I think the truth is, and I would love to hear both their thoughts on this, that while we are doing a drug prescription benefit and we are talking about it in the Senate and we are going to be taking it up here in the House, without some type of ability to have competition in that process, we are really going to be offering a benefit at top dollar, and I think, as American taxpayers are going to be paying for the prescription drug benefit that we are going to add to Medicare, we should give them a sense of competition in the market so that we can find that drug cheaper in Canada, we can find that drug cheaper in Mexico or Germany, France, or England. We want to bring that so we can squeeze the most coverage out of our prescription drug plan for Medicare.

Right. I thank the gentleman. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

I appreciate that. I yield again to the gentleman from Minnesota if he had some additional comments because I have some other things, but I would like him to go ahead.

So that is about one third.

That is a very important point.

The only reason I had a smile cross my face is when you said the word ``embedding,'' I said who knew the Pentagon was going to be so far ahead of the pharmaceutical industry, and now they are going to copy from them.

But the truth is, we all were exposed in the '80s and '90s to the notion of the $500 hammer, where the Pentagon was off buying $500 hammers, when if you just went down to the hardware store you could go down there.

The fact is, your chart up there shows exactly the similarity that is happening now to the American taxpayer and consumers, where you could buy these same drugs overseas in different markets for far cheaper than we are buying them here, and it is the equivalent.

And why is that? Just like the $500 hammer, the fix is in. So if you go down the specific area, and I do not blame the pharmaceutical industry, they are playing the game just like they are supposed to play it, and they are rigging the game and system just like they are supposed to, for maximum profit.

But take it, whether it is in the generic drug laws or in our patent laws, they are keeping generic drugs off the market, therefore driving up the cost of name brand drugs, making it more expensive for all of us. If generic drugs were on the market and the system was not being fixed, you would have real competition.

What has happened is, the Wall Street Journal did a story the other day, as generics have started to come to market quicker and there has been a quicker process set in place by the FDA to approve generics, we have allowed that patent not to be gamed for an additional 30 months, we have, in fact, seen prices drop.

They have, in relation to the importation issue, pharmaceutical industries in that area have gamed the system very well, prohibiting us from buying the same type of drugs in either Germany, Canada, France, England, Italy, Israel, wherever, they have gamed the system. We are not prohibited from buying computers, cars, food items, other types of items. We are prohibited in this space.

What is the impact? Those same drugs, cheaper over there; more expensive here at home. Yet they are the same drugs we paid for the development.

Then through the Tax Code, the IRS, where we do an R&D tax write-off, where they are allowed and subsidized by the taxpayers for the research and development, yet they get a direct subsidy from the NIH.

I highlighted the area through the NIH of cancer drugs and AIDS drugs. Not a single drug in either one of those families has been developed without direct assistance by the government, yet, again, in that area we are paying prime dollar versus our brethren in the other industrialized nations.

So I actually take my hat off to the pharmaceutical industry, because they have worked the system to their benefit. Now, my hope is, if you go back in history and look at this in fact, when Medicare and Medicaid was first developed and voted on, it received overwhelming bipartisan support. Now, these are early preliminary stories in fact.

We are seeing right now that in the Senate, as they debate the prescription drug benefit for Medicare, we are seeing the early stages of bipartisanship, and we can discuss, argue, amend about the right approach. My hope is that when we have a chance here in the House, that that same bipartisanship would be approached with regard to the prescription drug bill, but that bill would include something on generics.

Over there they have a bill. Here, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) has a bipartisan bill dealing with generic reform, dealing with the update of the patent laws as it relates to what the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) developed and passed in 1984 and Senator Hatch. I would hope that we would update our laws in the generic area. I would hope we could update our laws as they relate to importation.

And we have a bipartisan bill, the gentleman and I have. We have a generic bipartisan bill here. So we would keep that spirit and that tradition as it relates to Medicare, as it relates to prescription drugs, that, through and through, that bill would be bipartisan. I would hope, obviously, it can relate to some of the funding issues and recoup some of the investment our taxpayers have made through the direct funding through the NIH or IRS piece of the Code where we pay and subsidize pharmaceutical companies to do what is in their business plan, develop drugs.

I yield additional time to my good colleague from Minnesota.

First of all, I thank the gentleman for organizing this and thank you for introducing your legislation. I think this is the right approach.

I think, again, whether it is the area of generics coming to market and updating our patent laws, whether it is the tariffs or limitations we put on importation or access to these drugs, the same drugs we see on the shelves in our pharmacies, that the American consumer has access to them, each of these, at least on the generic and reimportation, are bipartisan issues.

I think that this is the right approach, not only because it is bipartisan and it reflects our values and reflects a common set of values that we can come around, but, most important, is that in dealing with the issue of a prescription drug, the truth is, all these drug plans have some limitations. People will not be covered. So the question is, how do you squeeze the most out of that dollar? It may be $400 billion over 10 years. The final product may be $450 billion.

The question, though, we have to ask ourselves is, can we get more out of that? Can we get more people covered? Can more people get a plan, so their deductible is not as high as it is? And the only way to do that is to make sure that a prescription drug plan as it relates to Medicare, as it relates to the cost of prescription drugs in the dime stores and drugstores and pharmacies across the country, can we reduce the prices? We can do that if we would bring the free market approach to the pharmaceutical industry.

So I applaud this. I am very pleased to be a bipartisan supporter and original cosponsor of the gentleman's legislation. I am on the generic drug legislation.

I think that approach comes together, not just because we are Democrats and Republicans, we come together on a common set of values. We approach this from the basis we may need more money for a prescription drug benefit plan, but we are going to make sure this $450 billion over 10 years, we get the biggest bang for the buck, and that this game that has been going on, and they have been gaming the system, is going to come to an end.

We are not going to allow this to happen. We are not going to allow you to have frivolous lawsuits that keep patents on another 30 months. I want frivolous lawsuits to end. We are going to have them end. It is specifically how pharmaceuticals have been treating generic drugs and preventing them from coming to market.

We are not going to allow the pharmaceutical companies to keep up the game and not allow us to import the same drugs that overseas are at close to 30 percent to 300 percent cheaper than we pay here. And if you did that, you would be on your first step of controlling health care inflation that has been running at close to 20 to 25 percent, which is just suffocating our small and large businesses, who are seeing their insurance policies just go right through the roof.

The second item, obviously, and we may have a different approach to this, but the second item would be to insure the uninsured in this country. If you did that, and I also note when it relates to the working uninsured in this country, the only issue in which the Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO agree on on health care, and they are both running campaigns, is we have got to insure the working uninsured.

They are showing up in emergency rooms, they are driving up the cost of insurance policies, and the hospitals pass that on to insurance policies, insurance policies pass it on to businesses, and businesses now pass it on to employees. And those two factors, controlling the cost of drugs and insuring the uninsured, would literally be taking the steam out of the pipe as it relates to health care inflation. If we do that, we will see immediately the health care tax alleviation for our middle-class and working-class families all across the country.

I applaud the bipartisanship and look forward to working with the gentleman on this. Hopefully, we will get an opportunity to offer an amendment to the prescription drug bill when it is down here on the floor, because it is going to be essential in making sure that whatever dollars we spend of the taxpayers, that we stretch those dollars to the greatest possibility. I think the American people, if they knew that we had the opportunity to offer an amendment bringing free market principles, competition to this debate, to make sure that they got a return on their dollar of investment, to make sure that the pharmaceutical companies could not prevent other choices from coming to market, be they from overseas or in the generic area, they would applaud our work, Democrats and Republicans and Independents alike; people north, south, east and west would applaud us, because we would be coming around a common set of values that we all can agree on. So there will be places that we disagree, but on these there is bipartisanship. So that would be my hope. I think we will be successful if we can come together in this area, work together, make sure the principles of the free market and our values are reflected in what we pass.

So again, I want to applaud the gentleman for introducing this, bringing this to my attention, although I have talked to many people about it but, most importantly, being open to working together across party lines so we can represent the people we came here to, not only vote on their behalf, but to give voice to their values.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S.J. Res. 8 to raise awareness and encourage prevention of sexual assault in the United States. I commend the leadership for calling up this resolution.

When I worked at the White House to help pass the Violence Against Women Act, I became aware that sexual assault is a national trauma that affects hundreds of thousands of people each year. According to the National Criminal Victimization Study, 248,000 people over the age of 12 reported being raped in 2001. While no one is immune from sexual assault, some are more vulnerable than others. Sadly, children are at the greatest risk. According to the U.S. Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics, 67 percent of all reporting victims of sexual assault were younger than 18; 34 percent of all victims were under age 12, and one of every seven victims of sexual assault were under age 6.

Most sexual assaults fit a similar profile where a child is assaulted by a family member, another trusted adult, or by a juvenile. The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry reports that although sexual abuse of children is reported up to 80,000 times a year, that number may be a low estimate of the actual number of such cases. Regrettably, too many cases go unreported because of children's fear of their abusers and a law enforcement and legal system that does not accommodate their special needs.

Sexual assault can cripple a child's psyche and deprive him or her of hope. According to the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, ``A child who is the victim of prolonged sexual abuse usually develops low self-esteem, a feeling of worthlessness and an abnormal or distorted view of sex. The child may become withdrawn and mistrustful of adults, and can become suicidal.'' While no single solution will eliminate sexual assault, education and awareness can go a long way toward its prevention. Young adults must be given the assistance necessary to stop unwanted sexual advances and to minimize such risk.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in heightening awareness and encouraging prevention of this urgent problem by voting for this important resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 925 to designate Chicago's 1859 South Ashland Avenue postal facility as the Cesar Chavez Post Office.

Born on the cusp of the Depression, he knew that hard work in hard times brought only hard luck for farm workers. As a 15-year-old, Chavez left school when his father was disabled in a car accident, and he took up work that would inform his legacy. He worked twelve hours a day hoeing beets and lettuce to help sustain his family. As a child he learned that farm workers' pay depended on the farm owner's good will or whim. As fields of fruit ripened before him, he saw that the agricultural economy depended on growers' abilities to hire enough short-term workers to harvest the crop. He also saw how immigration policies like the bracero program ensured a steady supply of labor willing to accept depressed wages.

But the work that nearly broke his back only strengthened his spirit, and Cesar Chavez went on to be one of this nation's greatest advocates for farm workers.

With first-hand knowledge of the field's wretched conditions, of farm workers' vulnerabilities and of the workers' essential role in maintaining agricultural production, he gave voice to hundreds of thousands of migrant workers who were too afraid to speak out alone. He mobilized the isolated and vulnerable into a unified power, and in the process strengthened the burgeoning civil rights movement. The union he founded, United Farm Workers, adhered to Gandhi's principles of nonviolence, and slowly improved the lives of farm workers and their families by insisting that work conditions are safe and humane.

Cesar Chavez is an American hero. He believed in the dignity of work, and fought for the humane treatment of each worker. His life's work and guiding values make our society a better place. I am privileged to stand in support commemorating his life and work with the designation of the U.S. Postal Service facility at 1859 South Ashland Avenue in Chicago as the Cesar Chavez Post Office.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained today and missed rollcall votes 257 through 261. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on 257, and ``yes'' on 258, 259, 260 and 261.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate the life of a true public servant for the people of Chicago, Frank Cirrincione, who passed away on June 9.

Frank was born in Chicago on December 6, 1943. In 1964, he married the love of his life, Carole. Together they had two wonderful children, PJ and Maria, who made them the happy in-laws to Kevin and Adrienne and the proud grandparents of Brianna and Joanna Cirrincione and Zachary and Conor Martin.

For the past two decades Frank worked diligently for the people of the North side of Chicago in the public service office of the great Alderman Patrick J. O'Connor of the 40th Ward. In that position he was always there to greet constituents with a smile and to work his hardest at helping them with their problems. The Ward office and the people of the 40th Ward will not soon forget Frank.

Frank also was dedicated to his community outside of work, volunteering his time at the parish that guided his life, St. Hilary's. His devoted service included contributing to the Parish Council, as an usher during services, and even as coach of the basketball team. St. Hilary's Parish will not soon forget Frank.

For me personally, Frank was always there to give me a friendly boost and support during my campaign for Congress. He was always ready to walk a precinct with me and introduce me to the neighbors and friends he knew so well. I will not soon forget Frank.

Mr. Speaker, I join with the people of the 40th Ward in recognizing the life of Frank Cirrincione and the impact that he had on those of us who were fortunate enough to be touched by his kindness. I applaud the City of Chicago for forever celebrating Frank's life by designating the 5600 block of North Fairfield Avenue as ``Honorary Frank Cirrincione Way.'' Lastly, I wish to express my deep sense of sorrow to Carol and the rest of Frank's loving family.