Rahm Emanuel

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my colleague from North Carolina for his kind words. I would like to also congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) for cosponsoring our amendment that deals with medical information and blacking out that information. This is a landmark bill that will help American consumers by giving them important new rights and protections. Our economy benefits from a national credit reporting system like no other in the world, and this legislation strikes the right balance by safeguarding consumers while also ensuring continued access to our instant credit system. Medical information should have no place in employment decisions or credit determinations, and corporate affiliates should not be able to share it. This information deserves the strongest protection under the law, but beyond that it is important that we give consumers back some control over who can and cannot use this information. In fact, a recent Gallup poll showed 95 percent of consumers are worried that their health providers or insurers may be sharing their private medical information with others. Beyond this concern, however, they fear losing more control every day over sensitive medical information. No longer will we ask whether you opt in or opt out. Your medical information, medical information in your family from here forward is blacked out. It protects you in the most sensitive area. It blacks out the use of medical information in the credit-granting process. It establishes strict limits on the use of medical information for employment purposes. It blacks out the indiscriminate sharing of medical information among corporate affiliates. It blacks out the use of medical information to create individualized or aggregate lists based on consumers' payment transactions for medical products; creates a new and higher standard for reporting by credit reporting agencies to others who have requested information; and establishes strict limits on the reuse of medical information. This is both good for consumers and good for business. In a typical way when you have a win-win situation, it will also in my view garner great bipartisan support. Again I want to close by thanking the chairman and the ranking member for having a bill that brings together business interests and consumer interests not only throughout the bill but also in this particular area, by blacking out medical information and giving consumers again control over their own lives.

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, well over 6 months ago, Secretary of the Army, General Shinseki, was asked his opinion about how many soldiers we would need in Iraq. He said a couple hundred thousand. Today, we have about 180,000 troops in Iraq and Kuwait. The President's economic adviser, Larry Lindsey, was asked what he thought the cost of the war would be. He said around $200 billion. Today, we are nearing $160 billion. When those two gentlemen were asked their professional judgment, they were run out of town, ridiculed, their careers were run down for what they did. Today, as we look at what they said 6 months ago, they were right on both accounts. We do not do this enough in this town. So to General Shinseki and to Larry Lindsey, I want to thank you for your patriotism and I want to thank you for your honesty. Had we listened to you a long time ago, or at least had the willingness to have an honest debate, we would have known that we would have 187,000 troops in the Iraq theatre of war. And to Larry Lindsey, who predicted it would cost us about $200 billion of hard-earned taxpayer money, if we had listened to you rather than run you down, we would be honest and be able to handle this $87 billion that the President has requested. So, again, thank you for your patriotism and thank you for your honesty.

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, just over a month ago, the Federal court ruled that IBM violated Federal anti-age discrimination laws when it converted from its traditional pension plan to a cash balance plan in the 1990s. As a result, over 130,000 of IBM's longest-serving workers, including many in my home State of Illinois, moved one step closer to receiving the retirement benefits they rightfully earned. Despite the court's decision, this administration is pushing regulations allowing companies to switch to cash balance. Let us be honest: cash balance plans can work. We can create a win- win situation here just along the model that the Secretary of Treasury did at CSX, where you grandfather in older workers. We do not need to create a win-lose situation that only benefits employers and harms employees. There is a way to create a win-win situation that reflects the commitment of long-serving workers and older workers who are nearing retirement, and also gives younger workers a plan like a cash balance retirement plan that is a hybrid between both the defined benefit and the defined contribution plans. When Secretary Snow was at his confirmation, he talked about what they had done at CSX when he was CEO and chairman. We always around here laud the private sector as a model. Well, I present to you a model, what CSX did for its own employees. It created a win-win situation for the company and for the individuals there, whether they were 58 and near retirement, or 38 and started as new workers. That should be the way we approach this situation. I am a proud original cosponsor of this legislation. I think it reflects our values of rewarding work, loyalty, and taking responsibility. Thousands of companies are awaiting this decision. I, along with the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), my colleagues, went to testify when there were hearings for this rule change. It would be wrong to pull the carpet from underneath employees who are nearing retirement, relying on that retirement, planning on that retirement. As we say in our own legislation, if this is good enough for the private sector, let us adopt it here in Congress. Let us have a cash balance plan. We all know the study that was done. It would affect older-serving Members who have years of service here who have relied open that retirement plan. If it is good enough for people in the private sector who are older workers, should we try it here in Congress? The answer resoundingly would be ``no.'' But, again, we are not going to debate today the principles underneath this bill. What we are going to say is while this decision is moving through the court, the funds through this appropriation process cannot be used to go around the court and implement this plan. Yes, later on we will debate a pension plan and reform the system. We have the right values in this legislation. I believe it is correct to withhold the funds to ensure Treasury does not go around the court and have this decision work its way so we do not in any way send a signal to other employers to pull the rug out from underneath their employees. Let the court decision go its way. Do not allow them to fund this process and go around the court ruling.

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, in Sunday's Chicago Sun Times, they had a headline noting the skyrocketing health care costs in America and how they were punishing consumers and businesses. One out of ten Illinois businesses are now looking at cutting their health care totally to their employees. We have double-digit insurance costs rising. And what does the administration propose as we have record uninsured and record inflation in health care? Their proposal was to shut the hospital doors to the uninsured. And yet in Iraq, we are opening new hospitals. So on one day we shut the doors here in America to the uninsured, and on the next day we are opening new hospitals to deal with the uninsured in Iraq. Today we have record unemployment, record uninsured in this country. In Iraq, we envision half the population to get universal health care and 100 percent maternity coverage. And yet today, we offer the uninsured in this country nothing. That is our vision. We have a major health care crisis in this country, and the administration has not taken a single action to lower the number of uninsured. We cannot deny Americans the same dreams of affordable health care, quality education, a safe place to live that we promise to Iraqis. The same values and future that we hold for Iraq, we must pledge for all Americans as well.

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, today in USA Today, they released a poll that showed that 71 percent of the American people believe they should be allowed to buy prescription drugs from Canada and other European countries. People from around the world come to the United States for their medical care, yet Americans are forced to go around the world for their medications. The American people know what is going on here, and they know the situation is wrong and it is unsustainable. A recent Families USA study found that the prices of 50 drugs most commonly used by seniors have increased in price by an average of 3.5 times the rate of inflation over the past year. Between 2000 and 2003, seniors' expenditures on prescription drugs increased by 44 percent. For too long, seniors have been paying premium prices for the same prescription drugs that are available in other countries. Take tamoxifen. It costs $60 in Germany, and $360 in the United States. We cannot sit back and allow this situation to continue. Right before we left for recess in August, the United States House of Representatives passed legislation to allow Americans, elderly, folks of any age, to buy their medications in Canada and Europe. It is competition, the free market, and allowing choice to exist. Today we exist in a closed market and Americans pay the highest price. If we had a free market system, allowing Americans to buy their prescription drugs if they want in Canada or Europe, their name-brand drugs, prices would drop dramatically in this country. Today we are paying 40 to 50 percent more than the poor starving French and Germans. That price would be reduced here in the United States. A lot of folks in the pharmaceutical industry say it is a safety risk. Right after our vote here in the House, Pfizer, the largest pharmaceutical company in the country, said they were going to pull out of the Canadian market or limit their sales in Canada. It had nothing to do with safety. When people tell you it ain't about money, folks, it is about money. The second argument the pharmaceutical industry raises is they say this will endanger research and development. Today the American taxpayers fund the National Institutes of Health for $27 billion. They also fund research at the pharmaceutical industry with a tax credit for R&D. There is not a single cancer drug or major AIDS drug or drug dealing with diabetes that has not been developed without taxpayer-funded research. The American people pay for the research on the front end, and they pay the most expensive prices on the back end. That is a system we have created. It is working for the pharmaceutical industry, and it is time we changed the law so it works on behalf of the American people. Today our legislation is in conference on the prescription drug bill. We are thinking about a $400 billion expansion of an entitlement, the largest expansion of an entitlement program in over 40 years, and I think we owe the taxpayers of this country, if we are about to go spend $400 billion of their money, we owe them the decency to get them the best price, not the most expensive price. Today, all we can guarantee is 20-year-old legislation on generics that guarantees that generics are held off the market, which would save our seniors money. We guarantee the pharmaceutical companies tax credit R&D as well as the National Institutes of Health funding, so the taxpayers pay for all the research, and we guarantee that the Americans pay the highest price for the prescription drugs. There is a reason the pharmaceutical industry has paid $28 million to try to defeat the legislation, because they have got a good thing going here and they do not want to change it; because they have got taxpayers funding the research on the front end, and they have got Americans paying the most expensive prices on the back end. So we have a chance to change that system. We have a chance to bring competition and choice to bear on the market, and the pharmaceutical industry will try to live under the free market, like every other industry. Right now, they have a closed market, and the end result of it is the American people are paying the highest prices. We can make a difference here. We did it in the House. We now need our colleagues in the other Chamber to do better and join us in giving a voice to the 71 percent of Americans who said they too want the choice of the free market. No more continuation of this closed market, forcing Americans to pay the highest prices. Over the summer, the reputable group called the AARP, that speaks for 34 million seniors, endorsed this legislation. Today their seniors, who are members of the AARP, who buy their pharmaceutical products in Canada, get reimbursed from United Health Insurance that represents the AARP members. Now, do you really believe the AARP would be endangering the health of their members? There is a reason they did this: because the market is speaking. They pay 25 to 30 percent less in Canada than we here in the United States for the same drugs.

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Billions of dollars.

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I am anxious to make a point. I am glad my colleague started on this, asking the administration to come forward with what is our exit strategy, how long will the American troops be there and what will be the total cost to the American taxpayer. My colleague knows that since 2001, about 3 million Americans have lost their jobs, 5 million more Americans have lost their health insurance, to the record heights of people working without health insurance. Nearly $1 trillion worth of corporate assets have been foreclosed on, and more than 1 million Americans have walked out of the middle class to poverty in this country. Yet at the same time, the United States Government has pledged $8 billion dollars to pay Iraqi Government salaries for people who do not show up for work in Iraq, $7 billion for repairs to public works and services, $5 billion in humanitarian aid and $3 billion to settle 1 million Iraqi refugees next year alone. That is some of the costs the American taxpayer is being asked to foot while we have record-high unemployment, record foreclosures, losses of health insurance, no plan for middle-class families to afford their college education. I come from Chicago. We think we know something about no-show jobs. The notion there would be close to 100,000 Iraqis getting a salary with no-show jobs can make a workman in Chicago a little jealous; but let alone that over the summer, while we were also gone, America experienced an unprecedented blackout where the infrastructure and America's electrical grid was short and not capable of handling the type of economy we have. At the same time, the head of Iraq's reconstruction, American counsel Paul Bremer announced that he would like $2 billion to rebuild the Iraqi electric grid. Yet here in the United States we were the ones with the blackout, and we cannot get a single dollar from the administration to help rebuild our electric grid which is an important piece of our economic infrastructure to allow the economy to grow. As many people said, we have a world-class economy sitting on top of a Third World economic grid. Yet Iraq, $2 billion to the electric grid; America, a blackout.

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, one thing I want to run the statistics by is the people who remember, because I think it is often in this administration where the right hand misses what the left hand is doing. In the area of health care, there is a proposal for 13 million Iraqis, half the population, to get universal health care. Yet America now has record-high uninsured in this country, with no plan on the table. A hospital and clinic in Baghdad is operating and one in every city will be up and running. In education, there are proposals on the table to rebuild 1,200 schools in Iraq. Yet the administration fights and it does not have a single dollar for rebuilding and modernizing America's schools. There are 25,000 units of affordable housing in Iraq, yet only 5,000 proposed here for the United States. In the area of infrastructure we have a 10 percent cut in the Corps of Engineers proposed by the administration; yet the deepwater port of Umm Qsar in Iraq will be built from top to bottom. We have a plan for Iraq's reconstruction and its economic growth in the future, and yet the entire proposal here for the United States is blackouts, cuts in education, cuts in health care, cuts in infrastructure and cuts in housing. My point is the American people, ever since World War II, have been unbelievably generous and they will continue to be. Yet we cannot offer the Iraqi people a future that is brighter than the one we are proposing for our own children. I do want to add one point away from the financing to the issue of the loss of lives of Americans in Iraq. Some people have gone to Iraq and come back and said, what we need is more American troops. The fact is, we need more American allies, not more American troops. Second is, there have been four major battles since the post-Cold War: Gulf War 1, Bosnia, Kosovo and Gulf War 2. In every war except for this war, the democratic nations of the world have spoken with one voice against tyranny, and the loss of life by Americans has been minimal. There is only one war where the democratic nations of the world were divided and the loss of life by Americans has surpassed all other wars. Foreign policy based on ``my way or the highway'' has not served our men and women correctly. They deserve better. Their families are facing losses. They are doing their job under tremendous stress, unbelievably well, and we should have a foreign policy that brings people together to speak for democratic values in one voice, and yet we are not doing that. The American servicemen and -women are bearing a burden that is not being shared, and the American taxpayer is paying a price that is not being shared. The consequence both here at home and overseas in Iraq is devastating to Americans, and we deserve to give the American people and our American men and women in uniform a better national agenda and an international posture than the one they have been getting.

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, if my colleague will yield for one last comment. In Bosnia, the United States troops share a burden with other Democratic nations under the command of a United States general. They are not serving under anybody else's command. There has not been any major deaths post combat. That is true also in Kosovo.

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

Mr. EMANUEL. One out of four children in America are covered by Medicaid for the maternal care. So the cuts in Medicaid affect directly the newborn children and the health care coverage, where we are talking about universal coverage in Iraq.

Mr. EMANUEL. Right. This is the only war post combat, after the President has declared hostilities have ceased, that there have been more deaths in the aftermath of the war than during the war. Again, I think it comes back to the fact that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant. That is not an arguable fact. The arguable fact was are we going to do this alone, or should we have done the hard work that was done by the first Bush Presidency, of calling up allies, calling up friends, having the Democratic nations of the world and others speak as one voice about ridding the world of an aggressive act. But in this war, because we refused to do the hard work of listening and persuading and talking, deciding to go alone, deciding to make other political points, more Americans have died after the hostilities have ceased than prior. It is a policy that does not do justice to the sacrifice on the ground by our men and women. It is the only war post the Cold War in which, as I always say, the Democratic nations were divided, not united. And because of that, and because of the result that we do not have other American allies but we have mainly American men and women there, more Americans, such as the family from the gentleman's district who he just spoke about, touching all of us about how it has come home, this war. There has not been an exit strategy provided for. We have not talked about what it takes to bring allies to bear, about burden sharing. We can do better. The American people and the American servicemen and women deserve better. And then there is a whole discussion about the reconstruction of Iraq. At a time when the American people are paying astronomical taxes, property taxes, seeing service cuts at their schools, having their health care costs explode, having the cost of a college education for their kids explode, with no plan provided for that, and yet there are some in this Chamber and across the hall whose recommendation to the American people is we will stay the course. We will put more American troops, more American hard-earned dollars to work in Iraq while here at home that is not the recipe that the American people deserve. They deserve a plan for here as much as for Iraq. They deserve a policy that says we will bring Democratic nations together, not divide them.

Mr. EMANUEL. But when the President said ``bring it on,'' it was close to putting, unfortunately I think given the guerilla warfare and the terrorists that have now come into Iraq, I think it has put a target on the American service people that existed before but only heightened given the war psychology and world opinion that terrorists are playing against this administration. I do not know of another time a President has ever done that or an administration has done that. I want to add one other thing. I think Mr. Bremer said that in a few weeks from now Iraq will run out of money, and they will have to come to the United States for more financial assistance for all the reconstruction they are planning. I plan on reintroducing my American parity bill that says whatever we plan on spending in Iraq for housing, health care, infrastructure, economic growth, salaries, for no-show jobs, we have to do the same here at home. They should not have a better housing plan than what we plan for here at home. They should not have a better education plan in Iraq than we have for modernizing our schools. They should not have a better health care plan for half the population when we have nothing for our population. So I will be introducing that bill as an amendment to the Iraq reconstruction supplemental, that we should have an American parity act. I am going to vote to help Iraq, but I am not voting for deconstruction in the United States.

Mr. EMANUEL. Well, Mr. Speaker, having worked in the White House, I want to be clear, I do not think anybody here is saying the President, and I am sure the President, the First Lady, and the entire administration feels for every one of these families. Having worked in the White House, I think we all know there are things either a President or even ourselves have said that we wish we had never said.

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate John J. Sexton of Chicago on his recent retirement from his position as Superintendent of the Meter Division of the City of Chicago's Water Department. For the last 30 years, John Sexton has risen through the ranks with the City, from machinist, to foreman, to Assistant Superintendent of the Meter Division, and finally Superintendent. His dedication to his job and the city he loves is an example of why Chicago is known as ``The City That Works,'' John Sexton is very proud of the northwest side of Chicago, the area he has called home for his entire life, and of the Hiawatha Park neighborhood, the area where he and his wife have raised their family. John has been very active at the part and is a past president of the Hiawatha Boys Baseball Organization. As church life plays such an important role in the lives of so many Chicagoans, John has been a member of several esteemed Northwest side parishes. He grew up in Presentation Parish, attended grammar school at St. Angela's and high school at St. Michael's. He currently is a member of St. Francis Borgia Parish. The Northwest side has produced some of Chicago's finest leaders, and John Sexton has played an active part in the success of many of their careers. John's work in Chicago politics began when he was 16 as a precinct worker for former Alderman Thomas Casey. He is now a precinct captain in the mighty 36th Ward Regular Democratic Organization, working with Alderman William J.P. Banks and State Senator James A. DeLeo. John would be the first to tell you that his family is his first priority, and they have provided support for all of his activities. He has been married for 31 years to his wonderful wife, Rosetta. His family also includes his daughter, Laurie Moran, and her husband Joseph, his son, John Jr., his daughter, Diana, and his sister Mary Kay Kuhter. Mr. Speaker, I join with the people of Chicago in wishing John Sexton a happy and successful retirement, and wish him all of the best in the future.

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise to address the proposed overhaul of the Head Start program. Created in 1965 as part of President Johnson's ``Great Society,'' Head Start is a program that successfully extends educational opportunity to disadvantaged children across the country. Recently, the President called into question the successes of this program, saying that Head Start is merely, ``working OK.'' While I agree with the President that there is always room for improvement, I think he needs to take a closer look at the remarkable track record of this program. Head Start has a long and proven record of success: Head Start narrows the achievement gap between disadvantaged and other children; Head Start children show IQ gains compared to children who are not in the program; and Head Start children are much more likely to graduate from high school and college. Head Start has effectively opened doors and improved the quality of life for 20 million kids over its 38-year history. Yet, today we consider a bill that threatens to cripple this successful program. I would like to take this opportunity to remind my colleagues across the aisle that a vow to ``Leave No Child Behind'' means that you can't turn your back on those who need your support the most. By creating a system of block grants, this bill means that there is no longer a guarantee that federal money will go towards Head Start programs, leaving the burden on the states. In these times of economic hardship, there is a very real possibility that these funds could be diverted to fill holes in tight state budgets, leaving Head Start and our children with nothing. A recent survey of state funded preschool programs confirms these fears. This study found that when states managed their own preschool programs they frequently failed to provide the same level of services as those required by Head Start. I would like to applaud President Bush for his call to improve the quality of teaching in Head Start programs by putting a qualified teacher in every classroom. But I would also remind the President that this is a meaningless promise unless he and the Congress can supply the estimated $2 billion needed to attract and pay more highly qualified teachers. The last thing the states need now is another unfunded mandate. Head Start is one of our nation's great success stories. It has a proven track record, and what we should be doing is expanding it and giving it stronger support, not the opposite. For the sake of the one million kids nationwide, 42,000 Illinoisans and 469 children in my district who depend on Head Start annually, I urge you to vote ``no'' on the bill.

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my concerns about how H.R. 2861 would adversely affect affordable housing in my home State of Illinois and across the United States. As a former vice chairman of the Chicago Housing Authority, I am keenly aware of the benefits of ``Section 8'' grants. The Section 8 voucher program enables low-income families with children, the elderly, and the disabled to rent apartments in the private market. This program provides a critical source of support for more than 2 million families by making up the difference between what low-income people can afford to pay for housing and the cost of private rental payments. Without vouchers, many of these families would have no other choice but to live in overcrowded or unsafe housing, or worse yet, to become homeless. Although today's bill improves upon the Bush Administration's Section 8 funding request, it still falls short of the amount needed to continue all vouchers in use, according to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office. The result of this shortfall will be that 85,000 families will not have the funding for their vouchers renewed. Mr. Chairman, it is my hope that we can address these concerns when the Conference Committee meets later this year. If we fail to do so, 85,000 families will pay the price. We cannot in good conscience allow that to happen. I am also concerned that this bill did not fund my priority request for the largest locally funded rent subsidy program in the country, the Chicago Low Income Housing Trust Fund. This highly successful program helps house almost 3,000 families with incomes as low as $10,000 per year. It has had an enormously beneficial impact on my hometown, but there is considerable need for affordable housing, and we must do all that we can to continue supporting affordable rental units.

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, today, along with Congressman Buck McKeon and 13 additional bipartisan cosponsors, I introduced the Financial Aid Simplification Act of 2003. This bill stands to make applying for financial aid significantly easier for students and families. The process of applying for the Pell Grant and other student financial aid is unnecessarily complicated. The Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) is a one hundred-plus question, extremely complicated form that creates an unnecessary barrier to students applying for aid. The bill directs the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, which provides advice and counsel to Congress and the Secretary of Education on student financial aid matters, to conduct a thorough study, within two years, of how to streamline the aid process and make it easier for students. Within one year after the study is completed, the Secretary of Education must implement the recommended changes. The Committee's goals will include significantly reducing the number of questions on the FAFSA, simplifying the language used on the form itself, revising the needs analysis formula to reduce the administrative burden for students, higher education institutions, and the federal government, and allowing certain students to be fast- tracked through the application process when they have already provided financial information to the federal government by qualifying for other forms of federal financial assistance. In addition, Mr. Speaker, the Financial Aid Simplification Act of 2003 requires the Secretary of Education to make special efforts to notify students who qualify for free lunch or food stamps of their eligibility for the maximum Pell Grant. This bill will go a long way to help American families gain access to higher education. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today in recognition of a truly amazing woman, Lucille Coughlin. Last year, Lucille was named the top usher at Wrigley Field, home of the World Famous Chicago Cubs. While we are all extremely proud of Lucille for becoming the Cubs' ``top usher,'' we are even more impressed that she achieved this at 88 years young. A true Chicago Northsider, Lucille is a graduate of Lakeview High School--one of Chicago's finest public schools. She was married at St. Andrew Parish and lived 40 years of her life in the Sauganash neighborhood. Lucille raised three children, one of whom is our own Chaplain, Reverend Daniel Coughlin. Today, she lives near Lake Michigan and enjoys spending time with her five grandchildren and eight great- grandchildren. Approximately 15 years ago, Lucille and her friends at St. Andrew began looking for ways to stay involved in their community. After exploring a few options, they decided on working at Wrigley. Among the original group of St. Andrew's parishioners who began ushering at Wrigley Field, only Lucille remains, working nearly every day. Because she is universally loved and recognized for her cheerful and friendly demeanor, I share the joy felt by so many thousands of Cubs fans who are thrilled she has been honored with the Usher of the Year award for the 2002 season. During her years at Wrigley, Lucille has witnessed the addition of lights to the field, rejoiced when the Cubs won the National League East title in 1989, lamented the retirement of Cub legend Ryan Sandberg, mourned the loss of Harry Carey, and celebrated many of Sammy Sosa's 505 home runs. Knowing Lucille, she'll be around when the Cubs finally return to the World Series. But if you ask Lucille why she still works, she will tell you that it's partly to stay active, but mostly because of the great friends she has made. As an usher she has met some of the players, past and present, as well as many important public officials. But, as interesting as the VIPs are, it is the strong bonds she has made with co-workers and fans which keeps her coming back. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to call Chicago home because of people like Lucille. When she retired, she chose to stay active and involved in the community she has called home for more than 88 years. This August, Lucille will turn 89, and I hope to see her at Wrigley for years to come. Lucille Coughlin is a great Chicagoan. I congratulate her on her successes, and I wish her a happy birthday and the best in whatever life sends her way.

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. People from around the world, Mr. Speaker, come to America for first-class medical care, but Americans need to travel around the world for affordable medications. Between 2000 and 2003, seniors' expenditures on prescription drugs increased by 44 percent. The legislation we are debating today is about inserting competition into drug pricing to ensure that Americans no longer have to pay a 25 to 40 percent premium over the prices paid in other countries. For too long, price gouging of our seniors has gone on, subsidizing the discounts the French, Germans, and Italians enjoy. We are about to embark on the largest expansion of an entitlement in over 40 years, spending $400 billion of taxpayer money. We owe it to our taxpayers to ensure that they are getting the best price, not the most expensive price. And to the issue of safety, I would like to address two points. One, I spoke to Donna Shalala, the former Secretary of HHS, on Friday. She never said that you could not do this. She said you could ensure the safety if you put the resources behind the FDA. And a lot of folks wants to build a mythology around what she said. Second, in 2001, we imported $14.8 billion of medications. Lipitor is manufactured in Ireland, and it is on the shelves here in the United States. So to those who spout this myth about safety, we better take Lipitor off the shelves. Let me also say one thing. When people say something is not about money, well, it is about money. I understand how this system works. There is a pharmaceutical lobbyist and a half for every Member of Congress. They have spent $100 million in contributions, entertainment, and lobbying expenses all focused on this body. Meanwhile, our seniors are being overcharged by approximately $100 billion. The question before us tonight is, are we going to put more priority on the $100 million focused on us or the $100 billion our constituents are overcharged? Now, I know we all came here for a set of values and a set of ideas. We ran on those values and those ideas. Whether we believe in competition, protecting taxpayers, or affordable prices for our seniors, let us ensure tonight that the people we represent have a voice, not the special interests.

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, people from around the world come to America for their medical care. Yet Americans travel around the world for affordable medications. Between 2000 and 2003, seniors' expenditures on prescription drugs increased 44 percent. The legislation we are debating today is about inserting competition and the free market into the pricing of medication to ensure that Americans no longer have to pay a 25 to 40 percent premium over the prices paid in other countries. For too long, our constituents have subsidized the starving French, Germans, Italians and Canadians. Americans have also subsidized the research and development for pharmaceutical companies through the NIH funding and through the R&D tax credit. We are about to embark on the largest expansion of entitlement in over 40 years and spend $400 billion of the taxpayers' money. We owe it to the American taxpayer to ensure that they are getting the best price for their money, not the most expensive price. I want to address and speak to the myth of safety concerns. Last year, Americans imported $14.8 billion worth of medications from around the world. Lipitor is a cholesterol drug that is on every pharmaceutical counter. It is made in Ireland, but we import it. If it is unsafe, get it off the counter and get those ads off the television, because we import Lipitor from Ireland. Folks, when somebody tells you it ain't about money, it is about money, and that is what this debate is about. I know how this system works like everybody else here. There is a pharmaceutical lobbyist and a half for every Member of Congress. They have spent over $100 million in contributions, entertainment, lobbying expenses, all focused on us. But meanwhile our seniors are being overcharged approximately $100 billion. The question before us tonight is, are we going to put more priority on the $100 million focused on us or the $100 billion that our constituents are overcharged? I know why we all came here. We ran for a set of ideas, a set of values and a set of principles. They may be different, but we share a common set of values. Whether you believe in competition in the free market, protecting our taxpayers or ensuring affordable prices, tonight the vote is about the special interests versus the American people. I ask you to support our constituents.

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2357, the ``Veterans Health Care Improvement Act.'' This bill will bestow Filipino veterans with the honor and dignity they deserve for their service in the Pacific theatre of World War II. Filipino soldiers fought shoulder-to-shoulder and died alongside American troops at some of the war's most horrific battles like Bataan and Corregidor. During the infamous Bataan Death March, Filipino soldiers swelled the ranks of the dead to over six thousand. Yet for all their sacrifices, Congress in 1946 divested Filipino soldiers of their military benefits while soldiers of other allied countries retained their status and privileges as American veterans. It is long past time to reverse that injustice by enacting this legislation. H.R. 2357 will restore veterans' status to the 14,000 permanent legal residents who are Filipino veterans of World War II. This will go a long way to provide comfort and security to them in their twilight years. For those suffering service-connected illnesses and injuries, Filipino veterans will finally receive the right to medical care they earned so long ago. The most elderly veterans will be granted urgently needed nursing home care. Mr. Speaker, young Filipino men responded to the call of duty over sixty years ago and fought valiantly under the American flag. Now toward the end of their lives, they deserve to benefit from the values that the American flag represents. To that end, I stand in strong and proud support for H.R. 2357.

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Con. Res. 212, to proclaim 2003 as the Year of the Korean War Veteran. As we commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Korean Armistice, it is entirely appropriate to pay tribute to the nearly 1.7 million troops who fought on the Korean peninsula by designating this year in their honor. U.S. troops endured some of the most brutal conditions ever experienced in the history of American warfare. They fought in extreme heat as well as cold so severe that some troops literally froze to the floors of their foxholes. But sadly, their sacrifice and bravery are often overlooked. In response, this resolution ensures that the ``Forgotten War'' is always remembered in American history, and that we will never forget the 37,000 troops who sacrificed their lives and the 104,000 Americans injured in Korea. I am honored to represent 31,611 veterans who make their home in Illinois' Fifth Congressional District. One of them is a Korean War Veteran I am honored to call a good friend--Mr. Eugene Piltaver. For many years, Gene has devoted his time to ensuring that his fellow veterans are honored for their service to our country. A testament to his commitment is symbolized by the United States Military Armed Forces Veterans Memorial in his hometown in Franklin Park, Illinois. Gene not only conceived of the idea for the Memorial, but also rallied support and funding to build this impressive monument dedicated to the bravery and patriotism to Franklin Park's veterans. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Eugene Piltaver and all of the veterans who have served and sacrificed for our nation, I am proud to support the Year of the Korean War Veteran.

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker I rise today in support of House Resolution 240, to establish National Community Health Centers Week. This resolution highlights the importance of health centers throughout the nation, and aids these organizations in promoting their valuable health services to the public. Community health centers provide a wide range of essential health services, often to uninsured and underinsured individuals. Especially in this era when so many Americans remain uninsured, the role of community health centers in the health care system is critical. Among the important services provided are mental health care, senior care, HIV/AIDS services, substance abuse treatment, and immunizations. Filling a gap in providing care for low income individuals, including those without insurance, community health centers should be recognized for their dedication to the improvement of America's public health. Thousands of these institutions operate nationwide, and in my own district in Illinois, the Melrose Park Family Health Center and the new Peterson Family Health Center are examples of the tremendous service they provide. More than 5,000 visits were made to the Melrose Park Family Health Center within three months after it opened in October 2002. Serving a wide variety of patients, many of whom have no insurance, the Center's most common services include immunizations, and treatment for respiratory infections and hypertension. As part of Chicago's Citywide Emergency Response Program, the Center also would treat victims in the case of a bio-terror attack. Mr. Speaker, I applaud Representative Davis and the Members of the Committee on Government Reform for introducing this legislation and bringing it to the floor today. It highlights the crucial efforts of community health centers across the nation that improve and even save the lives of numerous Americans on a daily basis.

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. There is no doubt he read those that were presented, and especially on the doorstep of war.