Rahm Emanuel

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I am glad you pointed that out. In each of those years pharmaceutical products ran higher in the sense of inflation by the average of 5 to 6 percent more than the core inflation rate.

Mr. EMANUEL. Thank you. Five to six times more than the core inflation rate, and it is what drives seniors. I have done town halls, but also I still do office hours at grocery stores and pharmacies where I just meet constituents; and seniors always tell you, I cannot afford the drugs I need. There is an issue of price. The second issue they said, do not harm the plan I have. I have a good plan from where I work; please do not harm it. Lastly, and in this order basically, they would then say can we not get a benefit under Medicare, and in the bill that was just passed here and the reason I opposed it is on the fundamental issue of price and affordability. The legislation on prescription drugs was totally silent on dealing with price. And what we have proposed here, your legislation, deals with the issue of price and affordability and allowing pharmaceutical products and allowing Americans to get the products they need at world- class prices, that is, at 50 percent discount, 40 percent discount, and what people in Germany, France, England, Canada, Italy, the Netherlands, or Ireland is paying. That is what we are trying to do, is address the issue of price and affordability that all of our seniors have talked about. Then it brings up the other issue. If we are going to have this benefit as part of Medicare, whether our taxpayers today or our children tomorrow pay for it, to me it is mind-boggling why, when you know that you could get prices cheaper for the same brand-name drug, Lipitor or Zocor, why you would get those drugs and pay 40 percent more when you know you can get them 40 percent cheaper. Any CEO who told their board, look, we have checked it out, our supplier, we can get a better price, 40 percent better, but we are going to take a pass on it, that CEO would be fired. We as the stewards of the taxpayers as well as our senior citizens have an obligation if we know we can get that same drug, that same product for 40 percent less, we have an obligation to do that. Eventually, we are going to turn our time to the issue of safety, but Health and Human Services is spending $80 million on a commercial to convince people the prescription drug bill they passed was a good bill. For about $80 million we could literally put in place, the Food and Drug Administration, a safety plan so that when people bought their drugs in Canada, Europe, et cetera, they could know for sure that they were safe. Today, not a single drug, in the last 10 years, has anybody ever gotten sick from buying drugs from Canada. We know that for a fact. But for the same amount of money that they are using to try to persuade people that what we did was good, we could put a safety program in place and allow the free market to operate the way it is supposed to operate.

Mr. EMANUEL. Right. First of all, 2 years ago is the last year for which we have data, and the data shows that the United States imports $15 billion, just shy of $15 billion a year of pharmaceutical products into the country. $15 billion. We already do it. Lipitor used to be manufactured in western Michigan. Today, Lipitor, a drug that some of our colleagues use, we know the Vice President of the United States uses, we know the Secretary of Health and Human Services uses, is now manufactured in Ireland.

Mr. EMANUEL. Before I leave, I wanted to add one other point. I think the gentleman explained this, and I had not even known this, but on Tuesday night, the pharmacies across America get the new prices coming in over their fax machines. Going to that other chart, this year we are expecting pharmaceutical products will go up 18 percent. Inflation will be at 2 percent. So if you go to your pharmacy, to all the people who may be watching, and you go to fill your prescription, then you wonder why the same prescription that 3 months ago if you get a 3-month supply or a month ago cost 21 bucks or 50 bucks and this month, the same drug, nothing changed, nothing, but it is up $12, it is all because of that chart. You can go ask your pharmacist if you have time on your hands on Wednesday how much they priced up all the products. Unfortunately, what the pharmaceutical companies have done, we just talked about it, they game the tax laws. Again, no criticism, but they have gamed the patent laws in this country, they are gaming the legislation on prescription drugs, and what they decided to do was price up the pharmaceutical products right before this discount card is introduced. So what it is going to look like is a sale at Neiman Marcus around America, which is rather than paying and getting, quote-unquote, this 25 percent discount, which I am not really sure will ever materialize, what you are really going to see is a run-up in prices right before this summer, and you are seeing it today at your pharmacy. So if your prices are going up, you know what is going on, and when this big balloon, big announcement is going to happen, you are going to see a big sale at Neiman Marcus right here in America. You are not going to get a sale price. They are just plussing it up before the big discount card. Our American senior citizens are going to be running around in a cul-de-sac chasing themselves, and there is going to be no discount, the taxpayers are going to be saddled with a big bill, they are going to pay $35 a month for this card, and they are going to see no discount. Yet we literally have in front of us the opportunity, and the gentleman noted a figure, I think it is an accurate figure, at a minimum, to save $60 billion this year if we had competition in the free market. That could go toward other things in our system, a college education, buying things for kids' education, other type of health care needs; but it just could be so much more productive than what we are doing with it. I think it is so important that we pass this legislation so that the legislation we do pass finally deals with the central issue our constituents tell us about, price and affordability, and so we do not have to hear the story about a mortgage consultant doing reverse mortgages for our senior citizens so they can literally take the equity out of their homes so they can buy their medications that they need. This is the greatest country in the world. We are all fortunate to live here. We can do better than what we have just seen in front of us. I thank the gentleman for taking this time to organize this.

Mr. EMANUEL. Every tablet is manufactured in a facility not in the United States. It used to be here, but it is manufactured in Ireland. Then it is exported, same packaging, to the pharmacy shops in France, Germany, England, Ireland, United States, Canada, and around the world. Yet that drug, Lipitor, we pay 50 percent more in the United States than they do in Canada for Lipitor. It is the number one selling drug for senior citizens with high cholesterol.

Mr. EMANUEL. I thank my colleague, Mr. Speaker. The reason I brought up the $80 million being dedicated towards advertising the prescription drug legislation and that for that same amount of money we could put in place a system at the Food and Drug Administration to ensure that people could buy their drugs safely is because President Kennedy once said, ``to govern is to choose;'' and that is the choice we have made. With that system in place, we would have, as the gentleman said, rather than having specifically a benefit that some do not think accomplishes that much, we would bring the discounted prices, the 40 percent retail discount price, right to our pharmacies in the United States and to our consumers, saving billions of dollars throughout the health care system that could be dedicated towards the uninsured, towards whatever we wanted to dedicate it to. It would literally wring out an inefficiency in the health care system by allowing the, irony of ironies, the free market to work. Secondly, we know from the Wall Street Journal, I think about 3 months ago, that the pharmaceutical industry thought that the best way to defeat this legislation was to scare people by talking about people getting sick, the safety risk of the pharmaceutical drugs imported from Canada. Yet in sworn congressional testimony, the Food and Drug Administration acknowledged not one person they could find has ever gotten sick from buying drugs from Canada and Europe, and yet 2 million Americans do it every year. People have gotten sick from food that has been imported from around the world, but not one person who bought their drugs from Canada has ever gotten sick, according to the Food and Drug Administration, and close to 2 million Americans do it a year. So that is number one. Number two, in my State, my governor conducted a study looking at the likelihood if they were to import medications from Canada how much they could save Illinois. We spend close to $350 million a year for retirees and State employees. The State would save its taxpayers $91 million if they bought their drugs competitively. In addition to that, and the New York Times acknowledged this about the study, the study in Illinois found that Canada actually had a safer system than the United States because less people touch the drug from manufacturing to the shelf in the pharmacy. So this whole notion of fear was literally an embellished story by the pharmaceutical industry as a way to defeat this legislation. And what I am proud of is that not only the American people have not bought it, but 243 Members of our colleagues here in this hall did not buy it, passed this legislation this year not once but twice, and, hopefully, the other body, the other Chamber will follow suit. This whole notion of safety was a red herring by the industry to intimidate people. I will make one last comment about safety. Six years ago, when the generic industry was just being started, the name-brand pharmaceutical industry said the problem with generics was safety. What did we discover? We discovered that a lot of those generic pills were being manufactured at the same facilities that the brand-named drugs were being manufactured at. Then they walked away from the safety argument, and generics have grown as an industry, saving tens of billions of dollars for our consumers. They left that argument on the shelf, but when it came to competitive pricing for pharmaceutical products, which allow the market to work, which the gentleman's legislation does, they brought up the safety issue. And, once again, we have shown in sworn testimony where the FDA says not a single person has ever been recorded getting sick, and the American consumers have not bought that argument that the industry has tried to scare them with. They know they can do. They do it every year. My colleague and I run into seniors every year, I run into them at some of the public housing and some of the other senior housing in my district, where somebody on the haul will get everybody's prescription and will go up to Canada, fill everybody's prescription, and come back. They know it is normal. They do not think anything is wrong with this. They just cannot understand why we cannot do it here. So on that issue I wanted to address those specific points on safety, and I yield back to my colleague.

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, why do you not do the charts because I think it is always the most informative for our audience.

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, not only did we cut the taxes in 1993 and 1997 in our budget this time, it resulted in 22 million jobs, a reduction in poverty, a reduction in those who were without health insurance. And today under your economic stewardship, 2.5 million Americans have lost their jobs, 43 million Americans are without health care, 2 more million Americans are in fact in poverty that used to be in the middle class, and a trillion dollars worth of corporate assets have been foreclosed on. These are the economic results of your economic plan. It does not set priorities. It assumes all tax cuts are equal. And if you think a tax cut allowing a corporate jet to fly around when children of working families do not get a tax cut, those are the wrong priorities that resulted in the economic losses that you have on your record. The 90s were the best economic period of time; $550 billion of deficit cannot be erased in a 1-minute speech.

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, in the 2000 election, President Bush declared that he was against nation-building. When we look at the Republican budget, who knew it was America he was talking about. They have three wars financed with three tax cuts, resulting in a $550 billion deficit. This budget by the Republicans continues the same policies that have led to 2.5 million Americans losing their jobs, 43 Americans who work without health insurance, 2 million Americans who used to be in the middle class who now are in poverty, and only a 1.6 percent growth in wages, leading to wage recession in this country. Now, what we need, and what we have seen today with this budget and the budget in Iraq is the ``tale of two budgets.'' In their budget, Pell grants are frozen for college education. There is a cut, and we do not fully fund the Leave No Child Behind; yet, in Iraq, 2,300 new schools have been opened. In health care, $90 million has been cut for the underinsured, yet we have opened up 150 hospitals in Iraq, spending $800 million in Iraq. In the United States, $659 million cut from the police. Yet we are rebuilding the police in Iraq to the tune of $500 million. Veterans, we just heard a debate about the priorities in veterans, yet did you know in Iraq we are spending $150 million to help train the Iraqi veterans from their past wars? That is the tale of two budgets. One priority for Iraq, another priority for the United States. The Spratt budget lays the right priorities for the United States to begin the job growth, to begin the burden-sharing by all Americans so the future for America's children are as bright and as strong as the one their budget envisions for Iraq. It is time to not continue the policies as a result of the economic failures here at home that have resulted in a $550 billion deficit, $3 trillion dollars of national debt, 2.5 million Americans unemployed, 43 million Americans without health insurance, 2 million more Americans in poverty, and a wage recession that has led to the lowest economic growth in wages in a period of economic growth. It is high time we turn around and put this country in the future by dedicating resources to college education, to health care and the environment and reducing the deficit and cutting taxes for the middle class.

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, having worked on the 1993 budget that cut taxes for working families and reduced the deficit by $500 billion and having worked on the 1997 budget that balanced the budget and cut taxes for middle-class families so you could both reduce the deficit and cut taxes, I not only know the music, I know how to dance to that music.

Mr. EMANUEL. 1993 and 1997.

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my colleague from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt). Both the 1993 and the 1997 budget, of all people, I do not think we need to go through this; but if we have to, we will. The 1993 budget reduced the deficit and cut taxes. And it cut taxes on working families who needed it most and put our priorities and our fiscal house in order. The 1997 balanced budget built on the shoulders of the 1993 budget, balanced the budget and cut taxes. It was the first time the $500 per- child tax cut was introduced. It was targeted tax cuts to working families. This budget that you have guarantees and locks in deficits as far as the eye can see, and every budget that has been introduced by the Republicans and President Bush has guaranteed us the largest deficit and national debt ever in the history of this country. And that is the difference. Not every tax cut is good and not every tax cut is bad, but the tax cuts you have chosen have laden the economy with the largest debt and the largest deficit in the history of the economy. That is what Ronald Reagan used to say, ``Facts are stubborn things.''

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, telling the truth and facing the consequences in the Bush White House has become truth and consequences. General Shinseki, retired Army Chief of Staff, said occupying Iraq would require several hundred thousand troops, and was forced to resign. Marine Commander General Zinni said there were greater priorities than Iraq; Zinni was not reappointed as Middle East adviser. Larry Lindsey, the President's chief economic adviser, said the war in Iraq would cost $200 billion; he was fired. John DiIulio, former director of Faith-Based Initiatives, said there was no policy apparatus in the White House and was forced to quit. Our chief Medicare actuary knew the real cost of the Medicare bill and was told there would be extreme consequences for insubordination. Paul O'Neill, the former Secretary of the Treasury, criticized the tax cuts as stated in ``The Price of Loyalty'' and what they would do to the fiscal order in the United States; he was fired. Joe Wilson challenged the claim that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa; his wife, an undercover CIA agent, was outed. And now Dick Clarke joins a list of officials whose character was assassinated for telling the truth, truth and consequences in the Bush administration.

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, in the 2000 campaign, President Bush declared that he opposed nation-building. Who knew it was America he was talking about? When we look at this higher education agenda, the President can run for reelection saying he kept his promise against nation-building. Everybody understands the importance of higher education, opening doors of economic opportunity in a time of changing economic conditions. Pell Grants, the single largest educational opportunity we provide at the Federal level, is frozen. In fact, as tuition has been going up by 14 percent a year for the last 3 years, we have kept constant the Pell Grant and have not allowed it to increase with the cost of college education. Today, at the University of Illinois, the average graduate from the University of Illinois graduates on graduation day, gets a diploma plus $18,000 in debt. They get their first Visa bill when they graduate from college. We have frozen higher education assistance to middle-class families. During the campaign, President Bush promised to increase the Pell Grant to $5,100. Despite an average tuition increase of 14 percent, the Pell Grant today sits at $4,050. To me, that is a fascinating way to invest in America's future. We make available all these types of assistance to corporations. That child is as important to America's future as a corporation, yet we have frozen and closed the doors of economic opportunity. And all while we were freezing our assistance to college education, in Iraq we have opened up 2,300 schools and distributed 1.5 million secondary and 800,000 primary school kits to the children of Iraq. We need to have a budget that reflects our values here at home with the same type of commitment we have held for the people of Iraq and for their children. Here in America we are limiting the educational options available to students and limiting the ability of Americans to compete in the world marketplace. I am glad to see the President kept his commitment, that is, to be opposed to nation-building. Unfortunately, he has chosen America as his model. This budget returns us and, in fact, you could label this budget as a back-to-the-future budget. What has it resulted in in the last 3 years? Two-and-a-half million Americans have lost their jobs, 43 million Americans are without health care, 2 million American children went from the middle class to poverty, and the most important fact is, we have had a wage recession in America, a 3 percent decline in wage income in America under this administration. This budget consistently follows the path of the last 3 years, the last three budgets of the President, and takes us back to the future to an economic time in which we have seen the job decline and the health care decline in this country. Unfortunately, in the area of higher education, they have frozen and kept the doors closed to middle-class families at a time when it is essential for them to go forward.

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for yielding me this time. In the 2000 Presidential election, President Bush declared that he was against nation building. Who knew it was America he was talking about? President Kennedy used to say, to govern is to choose, and how we make our choices in this budget is a reflection of our values and the choices we want to make for the American people. It is not just a set of numbers; it is a set of priorities, a set of values, a set of principles. I put together an analysis of what the President has done here in America with his budget and what he is doing in Iraq with the American taxpayers' money. Take job training, for instance. In the United States, although we have cut $316 million in vocational education, in Iraq, $60 million for demobilizing and job training for 130,000 enemy combatants. Funding is $353 million for American enterprise fund and job training. $151 million has been cut in adult training here in the United States. Those are values; those are priorities. Take the area of college education. Here in the United States we have cut $101 million in the President's budget for Perkins loans; $327 million has been cut in Pell grants for college education. In Iraq, $20 million for higher education and development projects creating U.S.- Iraqi university partnerships. Expanding literacy, we have cut reading programs here in the United States; $40 million for building 275 schools and training 10,000 teachers in Iraq. That is just one example of the set of priorities and values that the President's budget reflects here at home. My view is, I am for investing in Iraq's future, giving the children of Iraq a future, but not one that is less promising and less strong and less valuable than the one we have here for the people in the United States. We should not invest in Iraq for things we are not willing to invest for here in the United States. Take the issue of health care. Americans are facing a huge health care crisis. Costs are growing by 20 percent a year for the last 3 years and are expected to grow like that going forward. What have we done since the President got elected? We used to have 38 million uninsured in America, today we have 43 million uninsured, and not a single proposal to deal with it. In the President's budget, we cut $278 million for health professional training. In Iraq, we fund free training for 2,200 health professionals and 8,000 volunteers. There has been a $94 million cut to community access programs to coordinate health care services to underinsured. In Iraq, $793 million has been spent for health care construction and medical equipment. $78 million in the United States is cut for health activities to provide health care for rural America; $28 million is provided for operation and staffing of 150 health clinics for 3 million Iraqis. Down here, funding has been cut for all child care programs here in the United States; $44 million is provided for community development projects in Iraq for child care facilities. Those are our values; those are our priorities. Why is Congress willing to fund Iraq's health care professionals, why are we investing American money for 2,200 new health care professionals, yet here in the President's budget we cut health professional training not just by $78 million. That is a 64 percent cut in that budget. What is it about the Iraqi health care system that we can see an investment that will reap the benefits of a stronger, healthier Iraqi population; but here at home, we say to rural America and community health care, we say to control cost, we are going to cut and slash. Those are our values; those are our priorities. These budgets are not numbers. They reflect what we care about and what we envision. We cannot have a vision for Iraq that is stronger and better than the one that we envision for the American people. Mr. Speaker, that is just in the area of health care. In the Corps of Engineers, in Iraq we have opened up a new port for commerce. In the United States, the Corps of Engineers, we have a 10 percent cut in their budget, in the President's budget. We are investing $4 billion to open up a new port in Iraq, and we are cutting the Corps of Engineers here in the United States that helps economic growth and the movement of goods and services. That budget for Iraq reflects our values, and that budget for America reflects our values. These are not our values at work. We can have differences among our parties; but ultimately the budget has to reflect what we think and how we see America growing, how we see our children getting educated, how we see our workers getting trained, and how we see the health care for our communities. We cannot invest in Iraq in a way that envisions they have a brighter future than the one we are envisioning for our own families. As we hear from my colleagues this evening about the budget choices we make, there are other areas we are going to be talking about on education, job training, health care, commerce, the environment. We have a policy for the marshes to be restored in Iraq, yet we are cutting the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States. We have a $4 billion water program going on in Iraq, yet for our drinking water facility we have cut $300 million here at home. Those are not our values; those are not our priorities. So when the President declared in 2000 when he was running for the Presidency that he was against nation building, he was right; but who knew it was the United States he was talking about. But think of the upside: in 2004 when President Bush seeks reelection, he can at least say he kept his commitment, that he was against nation building because the end result of his economic policies, the end result of his budgets, 9 million uninsured Americas, 2.7 million Americans who had jobs since he became President lost their jobs, 43 million Americans have no health care, 33 million Americans work full time without health care, 2 million additional children who used to be part of the middle class are now in poverty, and a trillion dollars' worth of corporate assets have been foreclosed on. As Ronald Reagan once said, facts are a stubborn thing. Those are the facts, and those are the results of the President's economic priorities. This is his fourth budget since being President. He has made an investment in Iraq that he has not measured up and made here in the United States. We must have the priorities that we hold for Iraq to be true for the United States. That is what this debate and this discussion about the budget is. Mr. Speaker, I thank again the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for allowing me this opportunity to lay out some of the choices that I went through on the budget.

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, Richard Clark is a career civil servant and registered Republican who served in four administrations: President Reagan, President Bush, President Clinton and now our present President Bush. Most recently, he served for this President as a counterterrorism czar for President George W. Bush. Apparently, he committed an unforgivable sin on ``60 Minutes'' Sunday night. In his new book, ``Against All Enemies,'' Mr. Clark lays out a detailed, factual, substantive critique of the President Bush's failure to adequately address the threat of terrorism and specifically al Qaeda before September 11. I worked in the Clinton White House. I worked with Dick Clark. We did not always agree on everything; but we never doubted his patriotism, and working for four Presidents, one Democrat and three Republicans, he was committed to this country and to his mission in serving it. Let me give my colleagues a quote from that show: ``I think the way he,'' that is, the President, ``responded to al Qaeda, both before 9/11 by doing nothing, and by what he's done after 9/11 has made us less safe. Absolutely.'' ``He [President Bush] ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know.'' What has been the consequence? He has been castigated since the newscast aired Sunday night. The White House has attacked him professionally and personally, going to the point of questioning the loyalty and integrity of a man who clearly was not in the business for politics. But Dick Clark joins a long list of ex-administration officials who have one thing in common: they told the truth. They told the truth in the face of great political pressure and personal risk, knowing they would be attacked for what they said, and this is a long list of people that exited the administration. This administration prides themselves on having all these MBAs. The first thing you do when you have an MBA is assess the people around you. They have either got the greatest amount of names that have ever been assembled or the greatest amount of truth tellers, but they cannot handle the truth there. I do not understand how they have hired Richard Foster, current chief Medicare actuary, who wanted to tell the truth about the cost of the prescription drug. Paul O'Neill, former Secretary of Treasury, former chairman of ALCOA, he told the truth about what was happening to America's fiscal house. Joe Wilson, former U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria. Eric Shinseki, retired Army chief of staff. John DiIullio, former White House director of the faith-based initiatives. Anthony Zinni, retired Marine general and President Bush's envoy to the Mideast. Larry Lindsey, the President's former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, and now Dick Clark. These people told the truth despite the pressure to otherwise tell the American people the facts. For these acts of simple honesty, they deserve to be called patriots rather than be cast aside and have their patriotism and their professionalism questioned. Let us review the facts: Richard Foster, current chief Medicare actuary. The truth: the chief Medicare actuary, Richard Foster, revealed the real cost of the Medicare bill was $550 billion, not $400 billion. Consequences: he was warned that the consequences for insubordination are extremely severe if he told the Congress and the American people the truth. Bruce Buckheit, EPA director for air quality. Truth: Mr. Buckheit said the new mercury standards were written to benefit the administration's corporate friends and polluters. Consequences: five current EPA officials corroborated Buckheit's story, but according to the Los Angeles Times chose to remain anonymous for fear of retribution. Mr. Buckheit resigned in December. EPA Administrator Leavitt is now reexamining the mercury rule and may propose a more stringent one, but he had to leave. Paul O'Neill, former Secretary of the Treasury. Truth: Secretary O'Neill described in his book, ``The Price of Loyalty,'' that President Bush is distracted, incurious and makes decision on the economy and national security based on poor information or for political motives. He called President Bush ``a blind man in a room full of deaf people.'' He criticized his tax cuts and his plan to invade Iraq since week one. He criticized the tax cuts because he said they would leave America fiscally unsound. We have $3 trillion additional debt because of these tax cuts. Consequence: it took the White House less than 24 minutes after Mr. O'Neill's ``60 Minutes'' interview to launch an investigation into his use of ``classified'' documents and then they fired him. He was actually fired before that. I will submit the rest of my text into the Record herewith. Joseph C. Wilson--former U.S. Ambassador to Niger. Truth: In a July 6, 2003, New York Times Op-Ed, Ambassador Wilson challenged the President's claim that Iraq tried to buy uranium ore from Africa. The White House later admitted he was correct and the President's claim shouldn't have appeared in the State of the Union address. Consequence: According to government sources, Administration officials leaked the name of Ambassador Wilson's wife, an undercover CIA agent, to a journalist. A White House senior official admitted about the leak, ``Clearly, it was meant purely and imply for revenge.'' General Shinseki--retired Army Chief of Staff. Truth: Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki told Congress that occupying Iraq would require ``several hundred thousand troops.'' Consequence: Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz criticized his estimate as ``wildly off the mark.'' Shinseki later resigned. John DiIulio--former White House Director of Faith Based Initiatives. Truth: ``There is no precedent in any modern White House for what is going on in this one: a complete lack of a policy apparatus,'' DiIulio told Esquire in January 2003. ``What you've got is everything--and I mean everything--being run by the political arm. It's the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis.'' Consequence: Under intense pressure from the White House, DiIulio apologized for his statement and was forced to say he didn't mean it. General Zinni--Retired Marine General and President Bush's envoy to the Middle East. Truth: Zinni, a retired Marine Corps General who was Bush's middle east envoy, told a foreign policy forum before the Iraq war that the Administration had far more pressing policy priorities than Iraq and said there could be a prolonged, difficult occupation after the war. Consequence: Zinni was not reappointed. Larry Lindsey--the President's former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors. Truth: Larry Lindsey told a newspaper that the Iraq war would cost $200 billion. Consequence: The President fired him. As President Ronald Reagan said, facts are stubborn things. Richard Clarke and the many others we should recognize as Patriots have pulled back the curtain and revealed facts that are not only stubborn, but also inconvenient and damaging to Mr. Bush, the self-described ``War President.'' They told the truth and are now facing the consequences.

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I ask to take the gentleman from Missouri's (Mr. Hulshof) time.

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, the consequences for insubordination are extremely severe. That was the warning that the Medicare actuary Richard Foster received from his superiors for trying to tell the truth about the real costs of the Medicare bill. The penalties for misleading the American people are extremely severe as well. Today, we learned that some in the Republican leadership knew all along the real cost of the prescription drug bill and yet continued to hide that information from their colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Let me again quote from the Wall Street Journal's lead editorial yesterday: ``What's a mere $140 billion among friends?'' This is a case not only of politics trumpeting policy but of politics trumpeting principle. Some think that there are consequences for insubordination, but all of us know that the consequences of deception are extremely severe as well.

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker; I rise to congratulate Gerald E. Baker on his recent retirement from the Airline Pilots Association. Jerry Baker is a graduate of North Park College, now North Park University, located here in Chicago's Fifth Congressional District. He received an M.A.T. from Northwestern University and a J.D. from the National Law Center at George Washington University before embarking on a distinguished career spanning 35 years promoting the airline industry, its workers and their important interests before the U.S. Congress. From 1968 to 1976, Jerry served as the legislative representative for American Airlines, and has served as the legislative counsel for the Airline Pilots Association since 1976. During his 28-year tenure with ALPA, Jerry has been involved in virtually every piece of legislation that affects the professional interests of commercial airline pilots. From the deregulation of the airline industry in the 1970's, the turbulence of the 1980's, the relative prosperity of the 1990's, and the devastating events of September 11th, Jerry Baker has served the airline industry with competence and professionalism. Jerry also enjoys a solid reputation for developing personal relationships that he has fostered on both sides of the aisle. Leaders in both the House and Senate look to Jerry for his experience, diligence and his bipartisan approach toward advancing the interests of the airline industry. Away from Capitol Hill and downtown Washington, one of Jerry's principal interests is The County Club of Woodmore in Mitchellville, Maryland, where he has served for the last four years as the president of their Board of Directors. Here's hoping that Jerry gets to spend even more time there with this family and many good friends in the coming years. I have tremendous respect for Jerry's knowledge of the industry, his integrity and his firm advocacy for airline workers and their families. He is a shining example of leadership and commitment to hard-working Americans and their values. I am grateful for our friendship and mutual support for a strong airline industry in the United States. Mr. Speaker, I join with all of the airline pilots he represents and on behalf of the Illinois delegation in congratulating Jerry Baker on his retirement. I wish him, his wife Barbara and their three daughters all the happiness and continued success into the future. His presence will certainly be missed by all of us here in Congress.

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, due to a family emergency, I missed rollcall votes 58, 59, and 60. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on each measure.

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Jam Productions, Ltd. of Chicago after 33 years of excellence and dedication to their work in music promotions. Jam Productions was co-founded in 1971 by Jerry Mickelson and Arny Granat, and has since become one of the country's leading promoters of concerts and shows, including public concerts, theatrical performances and private and corporate events. During this time, Jam Productions has made Chicago proud through its efforts working with organizations and businesses in the community. They have worked with top names in the music industry, like U2, Frank Sinatra and Paul McCartney. They have produced meetings and events for Fortune 500 companies including Ameritech, Philip Morris Companies, Miller Brewing, Ford Motor Company and HBO Entertainment. Jam has developed close relationships with their clients by working through the entire production process for each individual project. This determination has made them the preferred production house at both Soldier Field and the United Center in Chicago. In addition, Jam Productions, Ltd. has been continuously involved with organizations and events such as the Illinois state Gubernatorial Inauguration, the Democratic National Convention, the Grand Opening of Chicago's Museum Campus, the Chicago's AIDS Foundation annual gala benefit, the 100th Anniversary of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the Grand Opening of Chicago's Navy Pier. The staff of Jam Productions is considered an expert at each process of design and logistics, pre-show planning and production. Their valuable experience working with audiences both large and small continues to be a model for both Chicago businesses and for the entertainment field. Mr. Speaker, I join with the people of Chicago in congratulating Jam Productions, Inc. on their achievement, and wish them continued growth and accomplishment in the future.

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Marilyn Bickel of Chicago on her recent retirement after seventeen years of excellence and dedication as Chief of Staff to Alderman Patrick J. Levar of the 45th Ward. Marilyn Bickel has served the Chicago City Council and the Jefferson Park neighborhood ever since Alderman Levar was first sworn in on April 16, 1987. She met the Alderman when he was a junior attending St. Patrick High School and began working for him during his first election. During this time, Marilyn was asked to work with the Polish-speaking community in the St. Constance Parish area and was later given a permanent place on his staff. Marilyn worked hard to develop close relationships with the many Chicago departmental representatives and always knew the right person to contact for a constituent in need. Marilyn always went out of her way to provide assistance to those who were unable to access alternate means of assistance. In addition, Marilyn has served as a liaison to local chambers of commerce for Alderman Levar. She calmly dealt with many difficult circumstances, most notably the period following the terrorist attacks of September 11th. In a time of apprehension and doubt, Marilyn worked to console the fears of her fellow Chicagoans, and the residents of the 45th Ward. Marilyn's family has also been a priority in her life. Her two children, Robert and William, are the proud parents of her grandchildren Bob, Ashley, Debbie and Bailey. In retirement, she will join her husband, Bill Bickel, who retired after a 32 year career with the Chicago Police Department. Marilyn and Bill will now have the opportunity to travel more, something Marilyn has long been waiting to do. Mr. Speaker, I join with all of the residents of Jefferson Park and the 45th Ward of Chicago in congratulating Marilyn Bickel on her retirement, and wish her, and her wonderful husband Bill, all the happiness in the future.

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, last year Congress created a zone of privacy that blacks out the transfer of personal medical information. There should be a sign above one's medical information that reads, ``Do not enter.'' It has been a bipartisan effort. On Monday, a Federal judge interpreted that law to mean that the Justice Department's demands for medical records from university hospitals, like Northwestern University in Chicago, was an undue intrusion on patients' rights. Federal and State laws already on the books prevent that kind of intrusive breach. Congressional action last year to black out sharing confidential health records further solidified bipartisan support for medical privacy for all Americans, and I am pleased that in the last 48 hours, the Justice Department has decided to withdraw their subpoena and information request from the hospitals who have stood strong in the face of this intrusion of privacy by the Federal Government. As William Safire of The New York Times this morning noted, ``a balance must be struck between protecting all of us and protecting each one of us.'' Mr. Speaker, guaranteeing Americans their medical privacy is a critical first step toward that goal.

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to note that we go back to the fact that for many months we paid Iraqis wages who never showed up for their jobs. Nothing like that has ever been envisioned here at home; and so as my colleague said, we are stuck and we have America stuck in a jobless economy, in an income recession, and what has resulted is it will be the first President in the United States since Herbert Hoover who has a net loss of jobs in the United States under their stewardship, and yet the Secretary of Labor and Secretary of Commerce were sent to Iraq to praise and come up with an economic strategy that would have a better tomorrow than the one they have. I want to bring up two other areas before our time is up because I think it is important. In Iraq, we are investing close to $3.5 billion for water and sewage services repair. In the President's budget there is a $500 million cut representing close to 40 percent for a clean water State revolving fund. It provides loans to local communities to rebuild their sewer system and their water treatment facilities. Every community in this country has borrowed from that fund, the revolving fund. It is how we keep our water system and drinking water safe in this country. We have a $500 million cut in that area for the United States and a $3.5 billion investment in Iraq's, in water, drinking water. It is one of the great standards in which you decide whether a country is part of the developed world or developing world, and yet we are making a $3.5 billion investment in Iraq's water system and a $500 million cut here at home for America's drinking water. It is a fascinating strategy. I have never thought of it. I think it takes unique insight to come up with those two conflicting strategies. Yet the one administration, two sets of taxpayers, two different investment strategies. On top of that $3.5 billion, there is $153 million invested in Iraq for solid waste management treatment and $775 million for water resources improvement. The United States, we get cut in those programs. $875 million in Iraq for irrigation and wetlands restoration; $2.8 billion for safe drinking water programs. In the United States, we have had many of the programs dealing with our environmental protection cut. That is not, both the drinking water and environmental protection, what I would consider a consistent and thoughtful strategy. The only place consistency exists is in Iraq and the investment in Iraq's future, not one here at home. That has been the strategy of this administration. Would my colleague want to add?

Mr. EMANUEL. I want to turn to transportation. In Iraq, the President has budgeted $835 million for three new Iraqi airports, $240 million for road and bridge repairs. Last year, the President's budget cut 10 percent of the Corps of Engineers. This year an additional 5 percent. We are struggling beginning with a highway and transportation bill here in the United States, that are investments that everybody knows in this Chamber, in this body, both in a bipartisan consensus, that it is essential to our investment and our economic strategy. Iraq already has a highway and mass transit bill. They are getting new airports, three of them. Chicago, we are trying to rebuild our O'Hare Airport, which provides 150,000 jobs. They have $240 million for roads and bridges. Yet, the President's budget for the United States cuts $300 million in Federal highway funding, $50 million in essential air service program, $318 million cut in Amtrak, $600 million cut in mass transit funding. These are not the investments that lead to an America ready to seize the 21st century and make it as great as the 20th century. These are not the type of economic strategies. I know there is bipartisan consensus. The one thing you would think if you produced only 21,000 jobs last month when you need 200,000 a month just to stay even, the economy has lost 3 million jobs since the date the President was sworn in. You would think the one thing this Congress could do is create a transportation and investment bill because you know it will create jobs, and we cannot do that. We are talking about a 1-year extension. Maybe 2-year extension. We do not have that for Iraq. We have a strategy for Iraq. We have three new airports. We have roads. We have the Umkasar Port so it can move goods. It is an economic strategy. We do not have that for the United States. We cannot get the Republicans in the House and in the other body and the White House to agree on an economic strategy. The one thing we would have is a highway bill for the United States, and the President of the United States threatened to veto it. You would think with 2\1/2\ million additional Americans out of work since the time you have been sworn in, you are the only President since Herbert Hoover who will have job losses under your watch, and your only strategy is to veto a bill that would put people back to work. It takes a unique insight to economic strategy to come up with that strategy for the United States. And to submit a budget that has cuts in mass transit, cuts in Amtrak, cuts in air service, cuts in the Corps of Engineers, so we can invest in our waterways, and yet in every corresponding area in Iraq, they will get a new deport which they got, three new airports, many new roads and bridges so they can move their goods and services, it is a bright future in Iraq, and yet, that same strategy seems to have failed us here at home. It boggles the mind how one could see how here at home we cannot get an agreement on an investment strategy for the United States. One thing that we know for sure, because you cannot build roads in the United States built by Japanese, Chinese or other people, it would be only to be built by the United States, workers who get paid good wages and we cannot get an agreement, and the only reason is because we are sitting there with Presidential veto over our neck. It is a unique job strategy to threaten to veto a bill that would produce jobs in the United States. It comes from the same strategy that thinks outsourcing is a full employment program; and yet in Iraq, God bless them, they are going to get three new airports and about $250 million in new investments in roads and bridges.