Rahm Emanuel

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. That is a very important point.

Mr. EMANUEL. So that is about one third.

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

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

Mr. EMANUEL. I think it illustrates again what our good friend from Minnesota said and has brought forth examples is that, in fact, there is not a drug today, and we can also expand this to medical choice, but no drug today that is not being developed and has not been developed that is around the country that any way you look around the world in the major industrialized countries where we have trading companies, and the gentleman noted wheat, meat, steel, cars, computers, all types of products where there is ``free trade,'' and yet here in this specific area, we are paying top price, high-premium dollar. I think again, whether it is diabetes, breast cancer, there are other drugs that are on the market that affect other types of illnesses, and I think the gentleman highlights a very important point, especially given his district and my district that abut each other, how this creates inflation, and besides the uninsured, the cost of pharmaceutical drugs is the single largest cause for health care inflation in the health care industry which has been running at 20 to 30 percent of inflation. So he brings up, I think, a very good point, and I think it is relevant to the discussion we are having today. What I am most impressed with is the bipartisanship we have here in discussing this. And I think the truth is, and I would love to hear both their thoughts on this, that while we are doing a drug prescription benefit and we are talking about it in the Senate and we are going to be taking it up here in the House, without some type of ability to have competition in that process, we are really going to be offering a benefit at top dollar, and I think, as American taxpayers are going to be paying for the prescription drug benefit that we are going to add to Medicare, we should give them a sense of competition in the market so that we can find that drug cheaper in Canada, we can find that drug cheaper in Mexico or Germany, France, or England. We want to bring that so we can squeeze the most coverage out of our prescription drug plan for Medicare.

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

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

Mr. EMANUEL. Yes.

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

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, currently both the House and the Senate are in intense deliberations to forge a compromise on a prescription drug benefit for Medicare and Medicare recipients. I am glad to see that both Republicans and Democrats after all this time are working together to try to correct this critical deficiency in the Medicare program. When Medicare started in the early 60s, about 10 percent of the health care costs for a senior was dedicated to out-of-pocket drug costs. Today that is around 60 percent of their health care costs, or health care dollar. And so if we are going to have a health care plan for seniors and if Medicare is going to live up to its obligations that it was originally designed to do, Medicare must have a prescription drug plan. We all know that one of the most contentious issues in the prescription drug debate is the question of how much of the cost of drugs should be paid by government and how much should be passed on to seniors. But the crux of this problem is that both the U.S. Government and American seniors are paying too much for prescription drugs. Providing a prescription drug benefit through Medicare is unfortunately only the tip of the iceberg in addressing a widespread prescription drug access issue facing our Nation. Much more central to the inability of many seniors and other Americans to afford the prescription drugs they need is the fact that prescription drug prices are 30 to 300 percent higher than those in other industrialized nations. The truth is one of the big problems we have here in the country is that we do not have a free market as it relates to prescription drugs and drug costs. I really believe that one of the central points of this debate is that we need a free market. The three things I am going to discuss today are, A, the issue that American consumers, be they elderly or others, are denied access to prescription drugs from all over the world and they are a captive market, unable to buy drugs, be they in Canada, Mexico, Germany, France, where the same drugs are much cheaper than they are here in the United States. If our consumers were allowed to have access to those drugs, there would be competition and prices would drop. But because the free market is prohibited from exercising its magic, drug costs are artificially raised. The second point I want to discuss is the American taxpayer through two different venues provides direct and indirect assistance to the drug companies to develop the drugs. Drug companies reap all the profits, and the American taxpayers do not get any of the benefits back as an investor. If we were an investor, and I come from the private sector, private sector investors when they invest in a drug, they usually look for what is called a 30 percent IR, investment return on equity. Yet the taxpayer who provides through taxes both direct assistance to the FDA as well as through the tax write-off that pharmaceutical companies get, they do not reap any of the benefits from these drugs being developed. Yet we develop these drugs, taxpayers spend billions and billions of dollars helping develop these drugs, yet the only benefit they get besides taking the drug is they pay the highest premium price out there. I believe the right way to get the prices under control is for the investor, known as the American taxpayer, to reap the benefits of their investment dollars. And, third, deal with the area of generics and generic markets. If we allowed generics to get to market quicker, it would also create that type of competition. I think one of the problems we have here is that the American elderly, the American taxpayer and consumer have an artificial market that is in three areas, generics, taxes and access to the same drugs in other markets around the world. Because we are a captive market, we pay artificially high prices; and the American seniors specifically are the profit margin or, as I like to call them, the guinea pig profit margin for the pharmaceutical companies. I want the free market to work. The pharmaceutical companies are treating this market as a captive market. If we had a free market, we would have reduced prices. Medicare drug benefits being considered by Congress are very expensive. Many seniors, especially those who do not have secondary insurance, will continue to have significant out-of-pocket drug costs even with the passage of a Medicare drug benefit. In addition, the high cost of drugs remains a crisis for 42 million uninsured and countless underinsured who must pay all or most of their drug costs out of pocket. Addressing the cost of prescription drugs will both make a Medicare drug benefit less expensive for the government and greatly increase the value of what is provided for our elderly. It will also make it much more likely that millions of uninsured and underinsured in this country can afford lifesaving, life-preserving prescription drugs, what their compatriots in Germany, France, England and other industrialized nations get. Prescription drug companies are a business, and they need to earn profits in order to stay in business. But as they have the right and purpose like other businesses to earn a profit, they also have a responsibility to be a good corporate citizen and abide by the same standards as other businesses. As I said, I have worked in the private sector. I know that any private company when investing in research and development and in another company usually looks for a 30 percent return on their equity. The United States Government invests in pharmaceutical research by providing significant tax benefits for research and development expenses and American citizens subsidize the research as drug companies recoup their margins in America because of price controls in other countries. The American Government and the American people are getting no return on their investment. The pharmaceutical companies are reaping the financial benefits of the U.S. investments in their R&D without any responsibility to pass these benefits on to the government and American taxpayers. American consumers are bearing the burden of price controls in other countries. When 50 tablets of Synthroid cost $4 in Munich and $21.95 in the United States, the most vulnerable Americans suffer. Also it is one of the great reasons that we have inflation running at close to triple or quadruple here in health care in the United States as opposed to the market as a whole. We are using individuals as the profit guinea pigs for pharmaceutical companies. The legislation introduced by my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), last week takes important steps to address the shocking disparities in prescription drug prices between the U.S. and other industrialized nations. It puts essential safety precautions in place to ensure that by opening our markets, we do not expose Americans to the dangers of counterfeit drugs. When defending the high cost of prescription drugs in this country, people will often say that the U.S. has the best health care system in the world. People come here from overseas to get a better product. But we clearly have nothing close to the best prescription drug delivery system, as many individuals are now shopping overseas for their prescription drugs. If we are going to defend our status as the best place to get health care in the world, we need to make the pillar of many people's health care, prescription drugs, accessible and affordable. I yield to my good friend, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).

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

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), my friend, for yielding me this time. The underlying bill here I think reflects not only bipartisanship, but our common set of values. It is the right approach to how to protect our children. As the brother of a sister who is adopted, I applaud the efforts that are reflected here and the attempt here. But that bipartisanship, also those common set of values that we come together on, is in sharp contrast to what was done on the child tax credit. Mr. Speaker, the other day The New York Times reported that in Iraq right now, 200,000 Iraqis are getting $20 a day who do not show up for work. Mr. Speaker, 200,000 Iraqis, $20 a day who do not show up for work. I come from Chicago. We know something about no-show jobs. We think they are a good thing, periodically. But that stands in stark contrast to the 200,000 active duty troop members who are over there putting their lives on the line who will not get the full child tax credit. Now, where in our common values do we respect the people of Iraq, give them 20 bucks a day who do not show up for work, and yet, to our troops who are over there in Afghanistan and Iraq, whose families are only getting $450 per child tax credit, but not the full $1,000. Where in our common set of values do we say that is the right thing to do? Over the weekend the AP ran a story that Halliburton's bid for the oil drilling and oil work that they are doing in Iraq originally for $77 million is now running double. It was a no-bid contract and Halliburton, in the year of 2001, did not pay any Federal income taxes and, in fact, got an $85 million rebate. Last week when we were debating the child tax credit, some people described welfare as the full refundable credit; and I have a description of welfare, it is known as corporate welfare, that was done in Halliburton's case. We here in Congress earn $12,800 a month. That is equivalent to what some of these families earn in a full year who are worthy of this child tax credit. So I applaud the efforts that were done here to reflect our values and to take care of our children. I applaud the work done here on this bill; but I want to remind our colleagues, this bill's success comes from not only our bipartisanship but working on a common set of values. We need now to come together, come together, work on the conference, Democrats and Republicans, produce a bill, because as July approaches, some families will get this tax cut and other families, 12 million children, 6.5 million families who work full-time, sometimes more than 40 hours a week, will not be getting that tax credit. Now, originally this bill was passed to get a tax cut to get the economy moving. It was in there in the Senate when they went to conference, but when the Vice President showed up, somehow it got dropped. We all have an obligation from the White House to the Senate to the Congress, Democrats and Republicans, to work together to give these middle-class families a tax cut.

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 925 to designate Chicago's 1859 South Ashland Avenue postal facility as the Cesar Chavez Post Office. Born on the cusp of the Depression, he knew that hard work in hard times brought only hard luck for farm workers. As a 15-year-old, Chavez left school when his father was disabled in a car accident, and he took up work that would inform his legacy. He worked twelve hours a day hoeing beets and lettuce to help sustain his family. As a child he learned that farm workers' pay depended on the farm owner's good will or whim. As fields of fruit ripened before him, he saw that the agricultural economy depended on growers' abilities to hire enough short-term workers to harvest the crop. He also saw how immigration policies like the bracero program ensured a steady supply of labor willing to accept depressed wages. But the work that nearly broke his back only strengthened his spirit, and Cesar Chavez went on to be one of this nation's greatest advocates for farm workers. With first-hand knowledge of the field's wretched conditions, of farm workers' vulnerabilities and of the workers' essential role in maintaining agricultural production, he gave voice to hundreds of thousands of migrant workers who were too afraid to speak out alone. He mobilized the isolated and vulnerable into a unified power, and in the process strengthened the burgeoning civil rights movement. The union he founded, United Farm Workers, adhered to Gandhi's principles of nonviolence, and slowly improved the lives of farm workers and their families by insisting that work conditions are safe and humane. Cesar Chavez is an American hero. He believed in the dignity of work, and fought for the humane treatment of each worker. His life's work and guiding values make our society a better place. I am privileged to stand in support commemorating his life and work with the designation of the U.S. Postal Service facility at 1859 South Ashland Avenue in Chicago as the Cesar Chavez Post Office.

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S.J. Res. 8 to raise awareness and encourage prevention of sexual assault in the United States. I commend the leadership for calling up this resolution. When I worked at the White House to help pass the Violence Against Women Act, I became aware that sexual assault is a national trauma that affects hundreds of thousands of people each year. According to the National Criminal Victimization Study, 248,000 people over the age of 12 reported being raped in 2001. While no one is immune from sexual assault, some are more vulnerable than others. Sadly, children are at the greatest risk. According to the U.S. Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics, 67 percent of all reporting victims of sexual assault were younger than 18; 34 percent of all victims were under age 12, and one of every seven victims of sexual assault were under age 6. Most sexual assaults fit a similar profile where a child is assaulted by a family member, another trusted adult, or by a juvenile. The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry reports that although sexual abuse of children is reported up to 80,000 times a year, that number may be a low estimate of the actual number of such cases. Regrettably, too many cases go unreported because of children's fear of their abusers and a law enforcement and legal system that does not accommodate their special needs. Sexual assault can cripple a child's psyche and deprive him or her of hope. According to the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, ``A child who is the victim of prolonged sexual abuse usually develops low self-esteem, a feeling of worthlessness and an abnormal or distorted view of sex. The child may become withdrawn and mistrustful of adults, and can become suicidal.'' While no single solution will eliminate sexual assault, education and awareness can go a long way toward its prevention. Young adults must be given the assistance necessary to stop unwanted sexual advances and to minimize such risk. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in heightening awareness and encouraging prevention of this urgent problem by voting for this important resolution.

Mr. EMANUEL

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

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of more than 111,000 constituents of Polish descent, I rise to congratulate the Republic of Poland for its historic and overwhelming vote yesterday in favor of joining the European Union next May. For centuries Polish greats like Copernicus, Frederick Chopin, and Madame Curie have contributed significant economic, cultural and social diversity to Europe. As the first nation to have a written constitution in Europe, Poland is a shining example of democracy triumphing over four decades of communist rule. Its modernization is described most meaningfully by its current President, Aleksander Kwasniewski, stated, ``The transformation in Poland launched after the historic breakthrough in 1989 consists not only in reform of the economy but also in opening up to the world. Openness is the historical tradition of Poland . . . We are thinking not only of the benefits we will gain from accession to the European Union. We are also aware of the obligations incumbent upon us from our role in the unification of the continent.'' That 78 percent of Poland's population voted for unification is a giant step toward advancing democratic progress and prosperity to its 38 million people. Its integration into the EU assures that it can assume a strong leadership role in promoting important ethnic, social and cultural diversity to the global community. In exchange, Poland will benefit economically and politically from the standards and examples set by the other modern EU democracies. Mr. Speaker, Poland's accomplishments over the past 14 years since communism fell shows great promise for continued openness and solidarity in the years ahead. The United States should recognize Poland's tremendous achievement in clearing the way for EU membership. We should also express continued gratitude for its contributions to the global war against terror and its 200 troops during Operation Iraqi Freedom. We deeply value our friendship and commitment to strong security, diplomatic and economic ties with Poland and will continue to express our hope that the anticipated ratification of EU membership by May of 2004 remains on schedule.

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, yesterday's New York Times story ran a headline: ``Iraqis Are Out of Jobs, But Pay Day Still Comes.'' With the administration's blessing, 200,000 Iraqis are receiving $20 a day for no-show jobs. They do not work. They do not show up for work. They do not do any work. Twenty bucks a day. I come from Chicago, from Cook County. We like no-show jobs. We think that is a good thing. We built an entire political party on no-show jobs, not at 20 bucks a day; but for everybody's appreciation, in the last 2 months we have given Iraqi families nearly $900. That is equal to the amount that we would pay for the child credit. So we are paying Iraqis and Iraqi families 900 bucks over the last 2 months, which is equal to what we are fighting over here, which I do not believe we need to fight here in the House since the Senate agreed 94 to 6 for the same amount of money. Yet somehow we said in Iraq if they do not work, if they do not show up for work, we will give them 20 bucks a day. It is a no-show job. It looks pretty good to me. But here if they work full time, trying to help their families, trying to raise their kids with the right values, trying to provide them clothes for school, food for the summer, a camp, a program, YMCA, they are not part of the American family. I want to tell the Members something. Here is an American official, a government official who said nobody is going to quibble about paying a few dollars into this economy. I am going to quibble. I do not know whom he talks to. I do not know who is paying him except for all Americans, and he says nobody is going to quibble? But what we are quibbling about is whether the children of America, 12 million children, 6.5 million families, are going to get the same sense of value here in America that we are saying in Iraq that for 20 bucks a day they do not have to show up for work and we will pay them. But here if they show up for work, work hard and pay their taxes, they do not deserve a tax cut, that they are unappreciative. Who are these children? They are America's children, and they have done right. Parents are trying to raise them with good values, trying to teach them right from wrong. And what do we do in Congress? We turn those values on their head. We turn those values upside down and say if they work full time trying to do right by their kids, they do not deserve a tax cut. We are going to treat Iraqis with a different sense of values, a different sense of appreciation. Let us be clear about what this says about who we are. America's children. Enron in the last 4 out of 5 years had record profits, did not pay taxes 4 out of 5 years. They got breaks. WorldCom, $12.5 billion in profits, 2 out of 3 years did not pay any taxes. They were big recipients of government contracts, yet did not pay taxes. We are paying their taxes. Tyco decided to move their address down to Bermuda, got a new ZIP code, new area code. $600 million dollars in government taxes were not paid; yet they got benefits in government contracts. That is a form of corporate welfare. If they do not pay, if they do not work and they are a corporation, we take care of them. America's children, 12 million of them, we are not going to give them a tax cut. Recently on a Friday, the unemployment rate hit 6.1 percent. When this President came to office, the unemployment rate was 4 percent. Nearly 3 million Americans have lost their jobs, and we have added $3 trillion to the Nation's debt. What a deal, as we would say back in Chicago. $3 trillion dollars added to the Nation's debt, and Americans are paying with their jobs. I believe the Senate did right. They did right by our values as Americans; and I know people on the other side of the aisle. They are good people with good values, but those values that left the 12 million children on the floor while corporate interests were circling the conference room are not the values we came here to vote for. We all came not just to be a vote, but we came to be a voice for our values and the values that say WorldCom is going to get protected; Iraq, 20 bucks, no-show jobs, they are going to get protected; 6.5 million American families work full time, making somewhere around $20,000, and I am talking about a rookie cop, first-year teacher, first-year emergency worker, those types of people, they are not getting a tax cut. They are not worthy of it. What does that say about who we are? So that tax bill is not just dollars and cents. It is a reflection of our values as Americans. And this person, this body, is going to quibble with an American official who thinks that somehow paying 20 bucks a day not to shows up for work is valuable; but if one shows up every day trying to provide for their children, that is not valuable and it is not worthy of a tax cut. It is worthy of a tax cut. Those children are America's children. That mother and father earning $20,000 are as valuable as if that mother and father were earning $200,000. So I would say that this House, this body, we did not come here to just be a vote. We came here to give voice to our values and the values that we all represent regardless of what part of the country we come from. Regardless of what party we are from says that those 12 million children, they too deserve to go to school, they too deserve to go to the YMCA, they too deserve to go to the summer camp, and they too deserve for their parents to put funds away for their higher education; and we in this body need to take up the Senate bill, take up the DeLauro bill and vote on it immediately so the President can sign it so that on July 1 their tax cut gets sent too so that when they show up for school like the Iraqis who do not show up for work, they get a tax cut too.

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate the life of a true public servant for the people of Chicago, Frank Cirrincione, who passed away on June 9. Frank was born in Chicago on December 6, 1943. In 1964, he married the love of his life, Carole. Together they had two wonderful children, PJ and Maria, who made them the happy in-laws to Kevin and Adrienne and the proud grandparents of Brianna and Joanna Cirrincione and Zachary and Conor Martin. For the past two decades Frank worked diligently for the people of the North side of Chicago in the public service office of the great Alderman Patrick J. O'Connor of the 40th Ward. In that position he was always there to greet constituents with a smile and to work his hardest at helping them with their problems. The Ward office and the people of the 40th Ward will not soon forget Frank. Frank also was dedicated to his community outside of work, volunteering his time at the parish that guided his life, St. Hilary's. His devoted service included contributing to the Parish Council, as an usher during services, and even as coach of the basketball team. St. Hilary's Parish will not soon forget Frank. For me personally, Frank was always there to give me a friendly boost and support during my campaign for Congress. He was always ready to walk a precinct with me and introduce me to the neighbors and friends he knew so well. I will not soon forget Frank. Mr. Speaker, I join with the people of the 40th Ward in recognizing the life of Frank Cirrincione and the impact that he had on those of us who were fortunate enough to be touched by his kindness. I applaud the City of Chicago for forever celebrating Frank's life by designating the 5600 block of North Fairfield Avenue as ``Honorary Frank Cirrincione Way.'' Lastly, I wish to express my deep sense of sorrow to Carol and the rest of Frank's loving family.

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, every city block and every country road across this country is protected by potential heroes. But police officers like my Uncle Les of the Chicago Police Department, firefighters, and other officers of peace don the mantle of heroism every day, and are prepared to respond not only to forces of nature or forces of man, but also to forces of evil, like that which brought down the World Trade Towers and tore into the Pentagon. Peace officers are very real heroes, and must be honored as such. At risk to their own personal safety, peace officers put themselves between danger and the people they protect. Last year, more than 147 peace officers were killed in the line of duty during 2002, and the previous year 230 officers were killed, including 72 officers in the September 11th terrorist attacks. We will never know the number of lives that were spared because they gave their own. Too often round-the-clock news shows, television talk programs and supermarket tabloids elevate the frivolous to the famous, and blur the difference between the noble and the notorious. We must honor real heroes in a meaningful manner. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the President's proclamation designating May 15 as Peace Officers Memorial Day.

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Madam Speaker, today the headline in The New York Times reads: ``Iraqis are out of jobs, but payday still comes.'' With the administration's and the President's blessings, 200,000 Iraqis, employees of the government ministries and government-owned companies, are being paid $20 a day for no-show jobs. They do not work. They are getting paid $20,000 a day by the American taxpayers. They do not work. Let me read from the article. The story describes how ``mechanics linger listlessly around machines that don't run; clerical employees wait for assignments that never come. Most don't even bother to show up at all, except on payday,'' to collect their $20. There are 200,000 Iraqi people being paid $20 a day for no-show jobs. Now, I come from Chicago, and I know a couple party bosses in Chicago that would be really envious about 200,000 getting paid $20 a day for no-show jobs. They do not have to do anything, and they do not have to show up except for payday. What is interesting is if we do the math, these families in Iraq are getting about $1,000, equal to what we are asking for the children and their working parents here in America; for hardworking people who pay taxes to get as a child tax credit the same that this Iraqi citizen who has never worked, is not working, is getting, with the American taxpayers footing the bill for $1,000 for their no-show job. I go on to read from the article. According to one American official, an American official working for the government, working for the taxpayers of this country, for the U.S.-led administration in Iraq, he says, ``This is going to continue for a good while. Nobody is going to quibble about paying a few more dinars into this economy to get things moving.'' Well, this person is going to quibble. I do not know where we come off paying $20 a day to somebody who does not do any work, does not show up. Yet we have hardworking Americans who are trying to raise their children, who are trying to do right by their children, trying to raise them with the right values, to know the difference between right from wrong; and they are going to deserve a tax credit just like every other child in America. They are America's children, too. Now, if we can find the good will to pay these Iraqis $20 a day for no-show, coming to about $1,000, which is the same amount as we are asking for a child credit for 6\1/2\ million American families, they would get $1,000 per child, it would be the same amount as the Iraqi citizens. If they do not have a quibble there, I do not have a quibble here. But I have a quibble if we are going to give these people $20 a day for no-show, $1,000 in the last 2 months, and we cannot find the wherewithal to give 6.5 million American families, 12 million American children, the same tax break other children are getting or other Iraqis are getting. President Bush, who often says he likes to note that he is a man of his word, who says what he believes and believes what he says, and says what he does and does what he says, ``My jobs and growth plan will reduce taxes for everyone,'' at the signing of the bill the President said, ``We have taken aggressive action to strengthen the foundation of our economy so that every American who wants to work will be able to find a job.'' Well, we have people who are working who deserve a tax cut. They are not getting a tax cut. We have got 9 million Americans who are unemployed, 6.1 percent. When this administration started, they had 4 percent unemployment. We have got 6.1 percent unemployment now. We have added $3 trillion to the Nation's debt, and 3 million Americans have lost their jobs. As we say back in Chicago, what a deal. That is what has happened here. We have added $3 trillion to the Nation's debt and 3 million Americans are without jobs. Corporate interests and special interests are getting tax cuts, and the American people are paying with their jobs. Now we are footing the bill for $20 a day for people who do not show up for work, and yet we are denying 12 million American children their sense of economic justice. If we do not take care of this problem today and take up what the Senate did, 94 Senators, Democrats and Republicans, if we do not take it up, these children's children, these families, Americans, hardworking families trying to do right for their children will be denied the same tax cut that will be provided for those children of other families here in America and have been denied that same $1,000 we are providing for the families in Iraq. I think it is high time, after 3 million unemployed Americans, 5 million more Americans without health care since when the President took over, $1 trillion worth of corporate assets that have been closed down since this President's economic plan has been adopted, and 2 million Americans walked out of middle class to poverty, I think it is high time we take these 12 million children who are part of 6.5 million families and give those hardworking Americans a tax cut. They deserve the same chance at that dream. We are going to build a dream for Iraq, a better future for Iraq, one with roads, one with 13 million Iraqis with health care, 4 million Iraqi children will get early childhood education. Yet we are cutting 58,000 Americans from Head Start. If we are going to do this for Iraq, I call on the Speaker, I call on the President, and I call on the majority leader, who have denied these 12 million children the same economic equality and the same economic vision of a better future tomorrow that we have provided to these Iraqis who are getting $20 a day from the American taxpayer for no-show jobs.

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow morning the new unemployment numbers come out, and we are probably close to nearly 3 million people that will have lost their jobs in the last 2 years. We have added $3 trillion to the Nation's debt. That has been the end result of this economic plan. Now, what we are looking for here is 12 million children of working parents to get a tax cut and be treated like the rest of America's children. These are children of working people. Some, as the Children's Defense Fund report shows, are the children of our Armed Forces. They are also children of the law enforcement community, firefighters, first-year teachers, people who work in security in our office buildings across this country, people who work day in and day out putting their hours in and trying to teach their children right from wrong. What has gone on here is what is wrong with this House today. We came here not just to be votes but to give voice to our values. I know there are good people with good values on the other side of the aisle. There is nothing just in the notion of denying 12 million children, 6\1/2\ million families who work full-time, denying those children who are also America's children a tax cut. We can depreciate the machinery of our corporations, depreciate the value of their machinery; but we cannot appreciate America's children. I was part of an administration that created and extended the $500- per-child tax credit and gave health insurance to 10 million uninsured children whose parents worked full time. We balanced the budget. We also provided tax cuts in capital gains, but we balanced the budget. It was in balance with our values. These are not the values we espoused on Memorial Day when we welcomed home our veterans and remembered them for what they had done for this country. This vote should also be remembered. We can do right. We can correct the wrong, hold our heads up high, not wear this in shame for what it does. These are 12 million of America's children. Let us do right. Let us remember them as we do every day, trying to do right by our values.

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, when we were here in the House the other day to vote on the third tax cut of the President, the majority leader stated that we were going to be back and they were going to be back with another tax cut. Well, we have a tax cut. It is on behalf of working families and their children, so I would like to take the majority leader up on his offer to have another tax cut immediately following the first three tax cuts that they have passed, and bring up this tax cut that he said we were going to have, one right after we got back from session. We were going to have another tax cut. Not even was the ink dry, but we were beginning to work on another tax cut. I found it a little ironic that night when I heard the majority leader say that, because I thought this was going to be the jobs and growth tax cut. Why do we need another tax cut if this was going to be so effective? Maybe it will produce the same results the first tax cut did, which has resulted in 2.75 million Americans losing their jobs, 5 million Americans losing their health care, $1 trillion worth of foreclosed corporate assets, and 2 million Americans walking out of the middle class into poverty. But they want to do another tax cut; so, as we say in Chicago, I've got you one. That is, I have a tax cut for middle-class, working-class families and their children, the Rangel-DeLauro-Davis bill. It focuses our priorities on working families and children. It makes good economic sense, and it makes good moral sense. It reflects, most importantly, our values. Now, the President during the State of the Union said that we would not leave our burdens to our children, that we would solve our problems today. I cannot think of anything that more reflects those types of statements, and those values embedded in that statement than that we would focus our tax cuts on our children, the children of working parents who get up every day and struggle to do right. They do not choose welfare, they choose a paycheck. As my colleague, the gentleman from Texas, mentioned, we have to reward work. These are the children of working families. Now, in 1997, we had a balanced budget, a budget that was balanced with our priorities as well as our values. It expanded the earned income tax credit, it offered a $500 per child tax credit, and it provided 10 million uninsured children of working parents health care. It also cut the capital gains tax. We also created a tax credit for higher education, and we did it while balancing our budget. We met our obligations. We invested in the long-term growth of this country's economy. We got the economy moving by balancing the budget. We did not hurt the long-term opportunities, but we invested in education, health care, and the environment. Now this administration has chosen to have three tax cuts. What have they resulted in? $3 trillion have been added to the Nation's debt, and nearly 3 million Americans are without jobs. What a deal. What an opportunity. Now, the first excuse for having left 12 million children of working parents out of this tax cut was, we forgot. We did not know. That is interesting. When it came to closing the tax loophole for corporations that use the ZIP code of Bermuda, we did not forget them. We took that right out. We said, that does not belong in this tax cut. That is $30 billion of lost revenue that American working families have to make up. We did not forget them. We did not leave them behind. We remembered what ZIP code they were in. We remembered their area code. We got them right back where they belonged. Those are our pioneers. Those are our rangers, as they are known in some parts of this country. Now, the other excuse given was, these people do not pay taxes. That is funny, because when they get their paycheck their FICA is withdrawn, their State income tax is withdrawn, their property taxes they have to pay. They pay taxes. What is interesting, the very crowd they are criticizing was the crowd Ronald Reagan praised when he created in 1986 the earned income tax credit. Ronald Reagan was the one who signed this into law. President Clinton was the one who doubled it in 1993 and expanded it in 1997. We worked across party lines to help every child. These are America's children. We did not discriminate. We surely do not discriminate against the children of millionaires. Where are our common values? How do we choose to give such a high priority on the depreciation of machinery, yet we cannot appreciate our children? How do we make that choice? I know the men and women on the other side. They are good people with good values. These are not the values their parents raised them with, to choose the depreciation of machinery over the appreciation of our children. I believe that we have a tax cut. Democrats offer one in good faith, the type of tax cut Republicans have voted for both in the other body as well as in the past. As our majority leader of the House said before the last tax bill was voted on, we are going to come back and we are going to do another tax cut. The Senate leader said that we are going to do another tax cut. We have a tax cut. We stand ready to work with them and fulfill their obligations to get another tax cut passed, one that works and benefits our economy, the children of working families, enshrines the value of work, and holds that up; not just rewards passive income, but rewards active work.

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 195, Commemorating the 500th Major League Home run, by the great Sammy Sosa of our Chicago Cubs. With his blast on April 4, 2003 against the Cincinnati Reds at the Great American Ball Park, Sammy joined one of the most exclusive in baseball history, becoming only the 18th player to join the 500 home run club. This club includes such legends as Hank Aaron, Babe Ruth, and Chicago's own Mr. Cub, Ernie Banks. While proudly representing his beloved native Dominican Republic, Sammy Sosa has become as much a part of Chicago as the stuffed pizza and Navy Pier. His pride in his native roots is but one example of the cultural diversity that makes Chicago the great city it is. The bat that Sammy used to hit his 500th home run is now on display at Chicago's Field Museum as part of the National Baseball Hall of Fame's roving exhibit, Baseball As America exhibit. I urge all Chicagoans to visit this celebration of how baseball has been woven into the fabric of our nation's history. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Gutierrez and my other colleagues for introducing this resolution and bringing it to the floor today. I applaud the first place Cubs and wish them luck this weekend against the New York Yankees, in the Yankees first visit to Wrigley Field since the 1938 World Series. And I wish Sammy luck against Roger Clemens on Saturday, whom Sammy hit his home run off of in 1989. For these reasons, I strongly encourage my colleagues to vote for H. Res. 195.

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Zaccagnino family, from Elmwood Park, in the 5th Congressional District of Illinois. The Zaccagnino family was chosen from hundreds of families who submitted videotapes in hopes of winning the ABC Family cable network ``My Life Is a Sitcom'' contest, replete with a chance of starring in a sitcom based on their life. According to a recent Chicago Tribune article, the Zaccagnino family is already famous--and their sitcom hasn't even aired yet! Evidently, the family--Diane, Karen, Camille and Danny--have been feted by everyone in Chicago; and now Capitol Hill! Horwath's restaurant threw them a party; their state representative filed a resolution in their honor; teachers are using the family's history as assignments; and the creme de la creme--the family recently taped ``The Oprah Show.'' Finding humor in life is challenging, but the Zaccagnino family sets a great example. Karen is the owner of Karen's Hair'm, a beauty salon located on Belmont Avenue, where societal issues are viewed through changing hairstyles. And as Elmwood Park is known for its outstanding Italian food, it's understandable that a lot of the laughs take place in the kitchen. I am proud of Chicago's own Zaccagnino family, and I look forward to seeing their lives coming soon to a television near you. Chicagoans can see the funny family for themselves on the ABC Family website where visitors can view video submissions and vote for their choice for ``America's Funniest Family.'' I urge my colleagues, indeed all of America, to keep an eye out for the Zaccagnino family. I have a feeling we'll all be wishing we were part of such a loving, funny and lively family.

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, like my colleague from Illinois, I, too, have families that I represent. The gentleman spoke about a family who got a tax credit. I would like to talk about Renita Jackson-Keys, who works as a cook for the Chicago public schools. She earned $14,144 in 2002, raising four children from the ages of 18, 15, 12, and 4, separated from her husband, but not divorced yet. She receives no child support. If the child tax credit provision expansion had included families like hers, she would have received an increase of about $182, but she was not a priority. Renita said she could have used a $182 increase to help pay for her $540 monthly mortgage. In the final hour, the demand for a large dividend tax and more corporate welfare pushed away the child credit from low-income workers like Renita and her children. Renita does not just work as a way to pass the time of her day while she waits for her dividend check; she works because that is a value that we hold up in America. Her four children see her go to work every day. Work defines who we are as Americans. I worked in a White House that doubled the size of the earned income tax credit, which was first passed by Ronald Reagan in 1986. In 1997, in the balanced budget amendment, we balanced the budget, cut taxes for working people and corporations and also in the capital gains area, we provided a $50 per child tax credit, and provided 10 million children health care, whose parents worked full time and did not have health care. We did it while balancing our budget, and we did it because those were our values, and they were the right values. They speak to who we are as Americans, trying to raise our children to know right from wrong, with the right set of values. Now we have a tax cut that takes the value of respecting families, respecting hard work, and turns it upside down and inverts it. Somehow, nobody ever seems to complain about a corporation that does not pay taxes. Yet, all of a sudden, there are some who claim the reason we did not include these children of working parents is because they do not pay taxes. Nobody seems to complain when corporations do not pay taxes. First of all, they do pay taxes. As a percentage of income, one of the largest pieces of their income is drawn from taxes for paying Social Security and Medicare. So they do pay taxes. They pay more taxes, in fact, than the corporations that are sitting in Bermuda pay. There is a sense about this: we did not just come here to be a vote, we came here to be a voice for those values. We have turned those values backwards. What is it about those corporations and these wealthy individuals that they somehow got more protection than these children of working parents? President Kennedy said, to govern is to choose. I think people the other week we were here made the wrong choice. Now Republicans are saying they did not know what was in the bill, that the child credit does not help working Americans. The Vice President was in the room. He has been talked about as the enforcer, about the man who was actually in the room, va-boom, va-boom. Corporations got taken care of, but a boom landed on the heads of our children. Somehow SUVs got covered for a tax credit. We have a depreciation deduction for investments in equipment and facilities. Yet through that depreciation, we have not found the time to appreciate our children. These 12 million children are Americans, too. Their parents, their mother or their father or both, are hardworking. They deserve the same type of respect that we have given to offshore companies, the same type of respect and appreciation we have given to equipment and machinery, because they, too, represent our future. I did not support this last tax cut, and I did not support the tax cut of 2001. I have supported tax cuts in 1993 and 1997 when we balanced the budget. We did not make it an either/or choice. We can do right by our children; and in fact, when we balanced the budget, cut taxes for working families and middle-class families, and helped them go to college and pay for college, and gave health care to the uninsured children of working parents, we saw a decrease in our rolls of poverty. We saw a decrease in our welfare rolls. Those are our values that have been enshrined in this country. When we speak to those common set of values that define who we are, we can do right by this country, right by our children, and have those parents dream the American Dream for their children. We should not turn our backs. What happened here the other day is a shame. People now are pointing fingers. Rather than having pointed fingers, if they had the common decency to think of the children of America, of American families who also, like other families who will get that tax credit, these children deserve the tax credit. They deserve to be held up with the same type of respect that we have held up for corporations that needed to deduct for SUVs, corporations like Enron that needed to be taken care of, corporations that went overseas or deducted for their SUVs. These children deserve our care and protection. We have not provided them the health care. In fact, we withdrew the money from the States to provide health care for the children of working parents. We do not have a health care plan for the 45 million uninsured. We do not have an agenda for the $300 billion in unfunded assets. We have a higher education tax credit that will expire in 2005, just at a time college costs are going up at 10 percent annually. We have inflation in health care rising by 20 percent. Yet all we did was provide corporations a way to depreciate their interest or other forms of tax cuts, but we left 12 million children of working parents out. Those are not the values that my mother raised us to have, and those are not the values that hold us together as Americans. We can do better. We need to do better. We can put our children first and leave not one of them behind. When it comes to compassion, more than millionaires need compassion; our children need our compassion.