Rahm Emanuel

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, under the new tax cut agreement, some investors could cut their tax liability to zero. I want to read a few excerpts today from the Wall Street Journal: ``After Congress gets through with President Bush's tax cut proposal, some rich investors may be able to avoid paying almost any taxes . . . '' `` . . . This relatively simple strategy could become more attractive and convenient for wealthy investors because investors could obtain tax advantages . . . '' These quotes provided by one of our papers, major papers, the Wall Street Journal. I would like to read the headline: ``Some Investors Could Trim Their Tax Bills to Near Zero.'' It will give rich investors tax advantages that the rest of us do not enjoy. So if they are not part of the select elite, they will see their taxes, property taxes and others, go up to make up the difference for the privileged few. If they do not pay zero this year, they actually end up paying taxes. They should know that a tax bill was never intended to help them. So I would like to submit into the Record the Wall Street Journal article and its headline ``Some Investors Could Trim Their Taxes to Near Zero.'' Others of us will not be able to have that advantage. [From the Wall Street Journal, May 22, 2003] Some Investors Could Trim Their Tax Bills to Near Zero (By John D. McKinnon and Ann Davis) After Congress gets through with President Bush's tax proposal, some rich investors may be able to avoid paying almost any taxes. The latest tax-cut proposal being honed by House and Senate leaders Wednesday night would reduce tax rates for most investors to 15 percent from the current 38.6 percent maximum for dividends; the typical 20 percent for capital gains would also shrink to 15 percent. A Senate plan would go further, allowing taxes on dividends to disappear, at least temporarily. Those are juicy breaks by themselves, but some experts warned the potent changes could combine with other existing tax-law provisions--particularly the deductibility of interest on funds borrowed for capital investments--to give some investors very low effective tax rates or even no tax. For example, well-to-do taxpayers could borrow large sums, sheltering much of their income from personal-tax rates that would run as high as 35 percent under the bill, and invest the money in stocks paying dividends that would be taxed at very low rates. (Taxpayers may have to review some other popular investment plans.) ``I guarantee it produces very, very low [tax] rates,'' possibly even zero, says Ronald Pearlman, a tax-law professor at Georgetown University. The strategy is available not for investors willing to borrow and invest in growth stocks that produce capital-gains income. Deductions are somewhat limited by current tax rules. Still, without changes in the rules, this relatively simple strategy could become more attractive and convenient for wealthy individuals, because investors could obtain tax advantages from investing in dividend-paying stocks as well. And experts warned of still-more-complicated games. Officials estimated that for 2003, about $290 billion in capital-gains income and $120 billion in dividends would be subject to the new 15 percent rate. Pamela Olson, the assistant Treasury secretary for tax policy, dismissed many of the concerns as ``hyperventilating'' by congressional critics opposed to the bill. Other experts also played down the risk of gaming the new tax rules under the emerging House-Senate compromise. Much of current tax-shelter alchemy involves trying to turn ordinary income like dividends--now taxed at the highest rates--into capital gains, which enjoy a preferential tax rate. Equalizing the rate for dividends and capital gains at 15 percent would eliminate much of that gaming and could actually simplifying the tax code somewhat. But Ms. Olson said there are specific avoidance schemes that could be of concern in the new system, without citing examples. The Treasury might need broad authority to write rules to prevent abuses, she said. Wednesday, congressional aides were working on language that would deny the tax break for some foreign personal holding companies, which often are located in tax havens. Foreign companies with U.S. shareholders generally were going to get the break, but some further exceptions were possible. Another potential loophole, some experts said, would allow shareholders to significantly reduce their capital-gains taxes. That would happen because the proposal as now envisioned wouldn't limit companies to distribute their current earnings. For example, a company might issue new shares as dividends until all its historical earnings and profits are distributed. Under the tax code, shareholders could be able to avoid tax on future cash dividends. This is because dividends are taxable as income only to the extent a company has any accumulated earnings and profits. Ms. Olson said she doubted many companies would try such a move because investors would shun firms whose dividend payouts gyrated enormously from year to year. ``I just don't see how that would happen in the real world,'' she said. During debate in Congress, the administration embraced a provision that would allow companies to accumulate earnings over several years that could be used to pay out tax-free dividends, but would impose some limit on the fund. Meanwhile, many ordinary investors also could realize more garden-variety tax savings, for example by trading in their taxable bonds for tax-advantaged stock. That would also generate a new wave of business for investment banks, whose underwriting business has been moribund. ``All manner of preferred stocks will become more popular for the retail investor'' if the plan becomes law, because of their newly tax-advantaged dividends, said Robert Willens, managing director and tax and accounting analyst for Lehman Brothers. And many companies will consider replacing their debt with equity to take advantage of the demand. One of the products that could get a boost, he said, is convertible preferred. Another product he expects to see, which he says hasn't been issued recently, is called ``discounted preferred stock.'' It is a product similar to a zero-coupon bond, where an investor buys preferred stock at, say, $25 and can redeem it at $50 after a seven-year maturation period. The difference between the purchase price and the redemption price is treated as dividend income. In the old tax scheme, this wasn't attractive because the ``phantom'' income of $25 had to be taxed on an ``economic accrual basis'' over the seven-year period at high rates. ``But at 15%, it begins to look a lot more attractive,'' he said.

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, in Illinois we have unemployment now of 6.7 percent; 17,000 workers have lost their job in the last 6 months; 2.5 million Americans have lost their jobs in the last 2 years; and 2 million of those jobs are manufacturing jobs. One gentleman brought up the statistics and said that the statistics, and we are talking about the 1 million people who are left out, they were put out by the Center for Budget Priorities. In fact, the Department of Labor also recognized that 1 million people would not be covered by this unemployment insurance. The fact is, I believe people on both sides are going to support this because people on both sides believe that people are hurt and need support. But this is an itsy-bitsy unemployment insurance program, when we can cover another 1 million people. That is how some people refer to the $350 billion tax cut. In my view, this is an itsy-bitsy unemployment tax cut. We can do more because we are able to do more. We should not make that choice, that if you are unemployed you cannot get unemployment insurance. I believe that is the value we want to put in place. Although a number of us will support this, we can do better than the economic plan envisioned here.

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule. The underlying bill does very little for those working Americans whose benefits have run out. In my home town of Chicago unemployment is up to 6.7 percent. My State of Illinois has lost 17,400 jobs in the last month alone. We have lost in this economy 2.75 million jobs, 2 million manufacturing jobs. Two weeks from today, on June 6, the new unemployment figures will come out; and we will get close to, as indications are now, losing 3 million jobs. Since the first economic package that the President has passed, 2.5 million Americans have lost their jobs, 5 million Americans have lost their health care. Nearly a trillion dollars' worth of corporate assets have been foreclosed on, and 2 million Americans have gone out of the middle class to poverty. That has been the net result of the economic program put together. And as Ronald Reagan used to say, ``Facts are a stubborn thing.'' USA Today reported just the other day that they have the lowest amount of job-wanted ads since 1964. The only two things that seem to be growing in the President's growth package is the deficit and unemployment. We have gone from a surplus to a slump. Now to the earlier speaker who took a $20 bill out of his pocket and my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mika), that $20 is the same amount of money our government and our taxpayers are paying individual workers in Iraq and Iraqis. That is what we are paying them. We are offering them $20 as a form of employment to get the economy in Iraq moving. We have an agenda for Iraq. It is investing in 20,000 schools, 25,000 units of housing, text books for schools, 4 million children get early childhood education in Iraq. We have an economic plan for Iraq, and we have an economic plan for America; and it does not just count on stimulating only the stock market. We have to stimulate the job market as well as the stock market. And our economic plan does exactly that. It does not force Americans into an either/or choice. And there will be people who will be left out, unlike the tax cut that leaves no millionaire behind.

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, since everybody liked to quote President Kennedy, I would like to quote President Reagan: ``Facts are a stubborn thing.'' After the 2001 tax cut, 2.5 million Americans have lost their jobs, 5 million Americans have lost their healthcare, $1 trillion worth of corporate assets have been foreclosed on, and 2 million Americans have walked out of the middle class into poverty. Facts are stubborn things. We can produce economic growth if we reduce the deficit, open up markets to American-made products and invest in education and healthcare. That is what we proved collectively in the 1990s, both the government, the private sector and the American people. They invested in their economic future. They invested in their children. We gave college education grants and tax credits so they can do that. That is an approach that is proven time and again. Rather than change course and invest in our future, we are putting our foot on the accelerator pedal to get the same results that we have produced to date: 2.5 million Americans without work. And on June 6 a new unemployment number will come out, and we will get 3 million people without work. That will be the net result. Facts are stubborn things.

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to 67 of my colleagues who have cosponsored my bill, the American Parity Act. They join me in supporting a funding boost for health care, education, and public safety by the same amount we have pledged to rebuild Iraq. We are in the process now of beginning to spend down the $1.7 billion we have dedicated to the housing, the education, the health care, and the infrastructure of rebuilding Iraq; and yet here at home our schools are closing, athletic programs are shut down, summer school activities are being shut down, hospitals are not being able to provide the health care they need, projects for economic growth and economic investment in local communities are being delayed. Yet we are in the process of being about to rebuild Iraq. Let me give an example. The other day I pulled an RFP from USAID. Two million dollars has already been designated for Iraq and another $70 million will be spent next year for desks, computers and supplies. Schools in Basra and Umm Qasr have already been given kits containing enough supplies for every student for the next year. Yet here in America 59,000 kids will be eliminated from Head Start. Our teachers in our schools must buy books and supplies out of their own wages and then eventually maybe get a tax credit or be reimbursed later on. Up to $94 million is now today being spent to give 13 million Iraqis, half the population, universal health care and maternity care for 100 percent of the population in Iraq. Yet Medicaid will be cut; 14 million Americans will be denied access to health care in this country. Up to $680 million will now be spent over the next year and a half repairing six airports in Iraq, 100 hospitals, and 6,000 schools. Another $5 million is pledged to complete the only deep water port in Umm Qasr, Iraq. Yet we are cutting housing here in America. We are cutting our ability to invest in local infrastructure. In fact, the Corps of Engineers is facing a cut of 10 percent in its budget. Chicago will be directly affected in the projects there. I will support the reconstruction in Iraq, as others in this Chamber have. Yet I will not support the deinvestment in America. When President Kennedy said we will bear any burden, pay any price, he did not mean it would come at the expense of the American Dream here at home. We can only be strong overseas as long as we come together and are strong here at home. In the last 2 years, 2.5 million Americans have lost their jobs. Five million Americans have lost their health care. Nearly $1 trillion worth of corporate assets have been foreclosed on, and 2 million Americans have walked out of the middle class into poverty. Those are the economic facts that our country faces. I do not think when the American people said that they were willing to do what they needed to do in Iraq that it would come at the expense of their unity, their dreams, and their security here at home. The children of Iraq should not be provided a safer, more secure and more generous future than the one we are welcoming our GIs home to. The GIs who fought there, the people here that support the reconstruction in Iraq, who are paying for the reconstruction of Iraq, deserve the type of education, health care, and housing and economic investment that we envision for Iraq's future. I believe that we are on the wrong road when it comes to balancing our priorities. The American people have proven over the last 50 years that they will be a very generous people, willing to help others on their path to a more democratic and more healthy and more economically promising future. But they will not do it and pay that price when they think their dreams for their children, the security of their communities, are less than what they are providing for other people. Nor should they. Again, I will support, as others will, the reconstruction of Iraq but not the deconstruction of America. So I am pleased I have the support of my colleagues, 67 of them, for the American Parity Act. I will continually come down to the floor to talk about what we are doing in Iraq as it compares to what we are doing here at home, because the American people I think expect us to not only have our commitment to Iraq but to fulfill our commitment to them here at home. They cannot have 59,000 American children kicked out of Head Start, yet the children of Basra be supported by the American people for a full year of great education. We cannot have 14 million Americans kicked out without healthcare from Medicaid, yet have 13 million Iraqis get universal health care. Those are the not the choices we should be providing, and we should not have it be an either/or, and that is the choices the American people are facing today.

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Con. Res. 147, Commemorating the 20th Anniversary of the Orphan Drug Act and the National Organization for Rare Disorders. This resolution honors an exemplary organization that has vastly improved the lives of millions of Americans with rare diseases and their families. The Orphan Drug Act of 1983 filled a void in our health care system-- the fact that drug companies were unwilling or unable to invest in developing products to treat rare diseases. The incentives that the Orphan Drug Act put into place have made dramatic improvements in the availability of treatments for the 25 million Americans affected by rare diseases. In the decade before the Orphan Drug Act was signed into law, ten treatments for orphan disease were developed. In the last 20 years, more than 200 treatments for rare diseases have been approved by the FDA, and more than 900 more are in development. The National Organization of Rare Disorders has represented a lifeline for millions of families since its inception in 2003. It has been instrumental in providing information about diseases and their treatments, and for connecting individuals impacted by rare disorders with advocacy organizations and with each other, allowing patients and families to gain invaluable support and advice from those suffering from the same conditions. It has connected patients with drug assistance programs, to help them to access life improving drugs that they otherwise could not afford. I want to draw particular attention to the various disorders characterized as types of epilepsy. The Orphan Drug Act has been instrumental in the development of epilepsy treatments such as sodium valproate and a gel form of diazepam, or Valium. But, for epilepsy and thousands of other disorders, there is much more work to be done. New evidence of the damaging long-term effects of seizures represents an additional call to action to develop better treatments for the various epileptic disorders. Twenty-five percent of epilepsy patients have uncontrolled seizures, and even those for whom medicine or surgery are effective still suffer seizures and their damaging effects. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Foley and the entire Energy and Commerce Committee for introducing this important resolution and bringing it to the floor today. And I applaud the perseverance of NORD founder Abbey Meyers and the other courageous individuals who advocated for the passage of the Orphan Drug Act and have given a brighter future to millions of American families over the last 20 years. For these reasons, I strongly encourage my colleagues to vote for H. Con. Res. 147.

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 192, ``The Microenterprise for Self-Reliance Act of 2000,'' which would help the poorest people, in the most impoverished countries, achieve self- sufficiency and enjoy an improved quality of life through borrowing small loans in amounts as low as $100 million, to start up or expand small businesses. Microenterprise loans are among the most effective foreign investments our Nation can make. This important legislation promotes opportunity and free enterprise for millions of poor families around the world. A typical recipient of a micro loan is a mother with two or more children who lives in a developing country and uses the money for a small capital investment. Womens' Enews recounts the success story of 33-year-old Maria Elba Contreras Lopez of Huatabampo, Mexico: ``Contreras Lopez invested her first loan of 1,000 pesos (less than $100) into a gas stove to make tortillas. Two years and another loan later, she has enlisted her husband's help and tripled the family's income.'' Stories like Maria's abound. Small infusions of cash around the world transform despair into hope, dejection into optimism and subsistence into prosperity. Families that regularly experienced infant mortality, untreated illnesses and malnutrition through no fault of their own can now glimpse a higher standard of living. As each family benefits, so does each community. The microenterprise program opens the doors of the global economy to the poorest villages in the most remote locations where entrepreneurial creativity and hard work become bankable assets. As the story of Contreras Lopez indicates, devoting greater resources to effective humanitarian programs like microenterprise yields hope and empowerment to the world's poorest people and demonstrates that the United States is committed to spreading the rewards that can proliferate in a free-enterprise system. I firmly support expanding the reach of the Microenterprise for Self-Reliance Act of 2000 as a proven method of improving the lives of families and communities across the world, and I am proud to support this important measure.

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, last week the House of Representatives passed the Workforce Investment Act, a reauthorization bill short- changing job training programs in America. A current beneficiary of WIA funds is the Youth Community Technology Program administered by Korean American Community Services on the northwest side of Chicago. I am very proud to represent this organization in Congress because it has a proven record of success by helping hundreds of young people in my district learn how to build and maintain computers, gain valuable experience through internships in area non-profit organizations, and benefit from the experience and companionship of professionals working in the information technology industry. Regrettably, the Youth Community Technology Program recently lost all WIA support to serve students, and funding to serve youth not in school was severely reduced. The consequences of diminished federal investment in youth workforce development are easily observed at the local level: Eight of 29 local WIA youth programs for in-school youth, including the Youth Community Technology Program, were eliminated in response to a 20 percent cut in federal WIA Youth Program appropriations in fiscal year 2003. As a result of these cuts, more than 150 youth were enrolled in these programs. These young people will not have the opportunities provided to Mario Argueta, one of my constituents and a participant in the Youth Community Technology Program. Without these important programs, young people like Mario could join the ranks of the more than 80,000 Chicago youth ages 16 to 24 who have dropped out of school and remain out of work or are at risk to violence, delinquency, early pregnancy, and dependency. The bill passed by the House last week cuts WIA Youth Program formula funds, and this could have a direct impact young Americans like Mario and the community organizations that serve them. Young people deserve increased federal investment in education and training, not another funding cut. Additionally, diverting one quarter of WIA Youth Program formula funds to create discretionary ``Challenge Grants'' would result in yet another round of severe cuts for local providers who depend on this money to serve youth like Mario. Any new grant created through reauthorization of the WIA Youth Program must be created with additional funds, not by diverting formula funds, in order to allow providers who are already meeting the challenge to continue their critical work. The United States is currently experiencing a jobs recession in which 2.5 million Americans have lost their jobs in the last two years, including two million in the manufacturing sector. Unemployment in Illinois has reached 6.6 percent with 17,400 jobs lost in the last month alone. It is important now more than ever to ensure that the unemployed and those workers who want to improve their skills and participate in the new economy can look forward,to a future in which they can achieve the American dream for themselves and their families. Mr. Chairman, Mario Argueta is a young man pursuing that dream. He wrote the following letter about how the Youth Community Technology Program has changed his life for the better and which I now submit for the Record. The Way My Life Is Going Now Is Just Perfect (By Mario Argueta, participant in the Youth Community Technology Program) My name is Mario Argueta. I was born in the city of Chicago during the summer of 1985. When I was 2 and a half months old my mother sent me to live with my grandmom in Guatemala. I grew up over there and did pretty well in school. I completed eighth grade, then my mom decided to bring me back to the United States. I came back to the Chicago to live with my mom, when I was 13 years old. Because of language problems, I had to repeat the 8th grade. I attended Irving Park Middle School for 4 months. I graduated from eighth grade, then I started going to Edwin G Foreman H.S. It was difficult for me, because I did not speak English and could hardly understand. I was doing really badly, my grades were very low, and I had a lot of problems at home. I dropped out of high school because 1 got desperate and felt that I could not improve. But I knew I was a good kid with no bad habits. I was smart and also respectful to people. I realized that I needed some help. Someone told me about Antonia Pantoja Alternative High School. I applied, passed the entrance test, and started attending that school. My grades started to improve because of all the help I was getting. There were a lot of people helping me in class, after school, during lunch, and sometimes on Saturdays. I accepted the help because I wanted a good future. My social worker at Antonia Pantoja told me about Youth Community Technology Program (YCTP). When I got in touch with them, I found out that my old English teacher at Antonia Pantoja was working as the education coordinator at YCTP. After being accepted into the program, I went to YCTP after school, four days a week, for about three months. I had a good time, and learned a lot about computers. After teaching me how to build computers and maintain operating systems, YCTP matched me with an internship. Right now, I am working on the internship at a non-profit agency called ``Computers For Schools''. So far, everything is going great. While working there I have gained a lot of skills in different areas, especially in hardware. Sometimes we work on machines that need network cards, sound cards, or video cards. Sometimes we have to ``ghost hard drives,'' which means copy an operating system to them, or sometimes wipe the hard- drives. I have fixed more than 25 machines. I work with a variety of systems. Now, I can understand a lot of things that I wouldn't have even imagined before. I have work experience to put on my resume, and am also giving something back to the community. My long-term goal is to get a degree from a college and make the rest of my life comfortable. I still attend Antonia Pantoja right now and will graduate in two more semesters, but I'm close enough to feel like a winner already. Even though I am still learning a lot of things, the way my life is going now is just perfect.

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, today many of us will join law enforcement officers from across the country on the west lawn of the Capitol to honor police officers killed in the line of duty. I have a special affinity for our men and women in blue, especially the members of the Chicago Police Department, including my Uncle Les who has been on the force for as long as I can remember. This year 337 names will be added to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial. I find it ironic that as we remember these lost heroes, the Republican leadership refuses to renew the Assault Weapons Ban. Even worse, they will not even allow the bill to be called for a vote in the House. Is this the best way we could choose to honor our fallen officers? Is this how we should remember Donald Marquez, a 20 year veteran of the Chicago Police Department who was gunned down while trying to serve a summons? Year after year gunshot wounds are the leading killers of police officers on duty. Keeping guns out of the hand of criminals would be an even better tribute, and as a member of Congress I will work hard to make our streets safer. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to join me in this endeavor.

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Democratic substitute to H.R. 1000, the Pension Security Act. The Republican bill just does not do enough to take care of retirement security for American families. In particular, I support the substitute's fight against cash balance conversion, which pulls the rug out from under employees midcareer. I worked on the moratorium that my colleague talked about when I was in the White House. Today 500 companies have converted to cash balance. There have been more than 1,000 age discrimination claims filed with the EEOC over these plans. Three hundred fifty companies are on the sidelines waiting to convert, which affects thousands upon thousands of employees. Cash balance conversion can be done right. They are a good financial instrument if done effectively, but if we create winners and losers, that is the wrong approach. The right approach is to include a grandfather clause to ensure workers who are 55 or older have a choice, that can work both for the employees and the employers. There is a right way and a wrong way to go about this. I want to also speak about another situation in the bill. Even worse than the cash balance, the bill fails to require companies to notify employees when executives dump company stock or provide adequate notice to employees of excessive stock holdings. This bill treats the CEO retirement one way and treats employees' retirement another way: Two sets of books, two sets of standards and two sets of values. Mr. Speaker, in contrast, the Democratic substitute does two important things. It protects workers when their pensions are converted to cash balance plans, and it ensures that workers' and executives' pension plans are treated equally.

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding time. The American people find themselves in the middle of a job recession. This tax bill does nothing to kick-start the economy. In Illinois, in Chicago, we have lost 56,000 jobs, one of the greatest losses. Fifteen months ago, we passed one of the largest tax cuts in history. The net result? 2.5 million Americans have lost their jobs, 5 million Americans have lost their health care, $1 trillion worth of corporate assets have been foreclosed on and 2 million Americans who were at one time in the middle class are now in poverty. That has been the net result of a tax plan that was passed 14 months ago. That is how it has affected the American people. This tax cut only does exactly what the first tax cut did. It puts its foot on the accelerator and does nothing to focus its benefits on the economy and the job recession the American people find themselves in today. If we would focus on jobs and job creation, we would have a tax plan that would get bipartisan support. That is the goal of what our plan does, which is to produce jobs and kick-start the economy today so we can get economic growth. Less than 10 percent of this tax plan is designed on the economy today. That is why it will continue the sluggishness that our U.S. Treasury Secretary acknowledged the economy is in and continue the jobless recession that has been produced by the first tax cut of 2001.

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1261, the Workforce Reinvestment and Adult Education Act. We are in the middle of a jobs recession where 2\1/2\ million Americans have lost their jobs in the last 2 years, 2 million in the manufacturing sector alone. It is more important now than ever that we ensure that those workers who want to train up and participate in the new economy get a chance to participate in the new economy, and this job training bill and a job training program is so essential. I want to pick up on what my colleague from California said because in 1998 we did work together in a bipartisan fashion. We put aside politics. We zoned off the area of job training and ensured that we put people first and not politics first, and that is why we got a bipartisan agreement. We should not roll back on the principle that we did in 1998. We should press forward in doing what we did in 1998 by coming together, putting people first and not exactly politics. My view here is that tomorrow we are going to be voting on a tax cut. This bill focuses on the job market. We should not focus on the stock market at the exclusion of a job market. It needs the same attention, the same interests and the same investment that we are about to do in just the stock market alone. The job market has as much priority as the stock market. On the budget that we passed 2, 3 weeks ago, there were about $700 million in cuts over 2 years in the President's budget in the job training area. That is not the type of investment, that is not the type of values that both parties share. People are hurting out there. My colleagues have seen them when they have gone in the one-stop shop and talked them, as I have, in this time of recession and unemployment where 2 million Americans in the manufacturing sector have lost their jobs. It is a time that we in both parties need to come together and ensure that they have the opportunity to participate in the new economy, to participate and have a future whether they are unemployed or they want to ensure they have a chance at the American dream for them and their family.

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 175, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, we recognize older Americans each May. This May we must address the unpleasant fact that too many of our elders are beaten, neglected, and extorted. Like other family crimes such as child abuse and domestic abuse, elder abuse has existed for too long in the dark shadows of our society. Elder abuse remains underreported, underresearched, and underenforced. As high as 5 million elderly cases of abuse occur in nursing homes, nursing institutions, and private homes each year; but 80 percent never get reported. In my home State of Illinois, 186 nursing home residents actually died of starvation, dehydration, or infected wounds in 1999 alone. In response, with the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), I will introduce the Elder Justice Act which makes elderly abuse a Federal crime, helps law enforcement work hand in hand with our health and social service agencies that have always fought alone against this type of neglect. It is a bipartisan bill. We have a number of Republicans here in the House, and 12 Republicans and 11 Democrats who are also introducing a bill in the Senate. Mr. Speaker, the most meaningful way to honor our elder Americans this month is to pass the Elder Justice Act.

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 164, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in celebration of Polish Constitution Day, Saturday, May 3rd. More than 111,000 people of Polish descent live in the Fifth Congressional District of Illinois. Amazingly, Chicago has more people of Polish descent than any other city except Warsaw, and I know they will all be reflecting on their proud heritage this Saturday. Members of this body may not be aware of the Third of May Constitution, but passed on May 3, 1791, it was the second constitution in the world--second only to the Constitution of the United States. It was the first in Europe. This important event in the history of Poland, indeed the history of the world, is too often overlooked. Recently, however, there has been a movement to resurrect the memory of this important event, and today I stand before you in honor of its significance. Slavic in origin, Poland has a tremendous history of more than a thousand years. During that time it has been invaded, occupied and liberated on numerous occasions. Yet, throughout a tumultuous history, Poland has remained uniquely Polish. Today Poland plays a vital role in Eastern Europe and is a friend to the United States. Like most of Europe, Poland began life as a feudal state. But it also has a rich democratic history. In 1346 Casimir the Great established the first Polish legal code and in 1364 laid the foundation of Krakow University, providing two vital ingredients for democracy--rule of law and an educated populace. In 1430, Poland established the ``Nieminem Captivabimus,'' similar to our Habeas Corpus. By 1493, Poland established a Parliament with two houses, a Senate of dignitaries, and the Sejm which consisted of elected representatives. Following 1505, Parliament's consent was required for all new laws. The Third of May Constitution represents the culmination of these democratic reforms. On May 3rd, 1791, the Sejm passed the Government Act, or what is today known as the Third of May Constitution. Embracing Enlightenment ideals like Rousseau's doctrine of national sovereignty and Montesquieu's concepts of a tripartite government, the Third of May Constitution demonstrates Poland's important role in helping to establish the modern world. While the Government Act still retained some resemblances of Poland's feudal heritage, it extended rights to citizens who previously had little or no rights. Peasants, for example, were officially placed under the protection of the ``law and government of the country.'' Unfortunately, soon after enactment Russia invaded Poland and the country was partitioned by Germany and Russia, abolishing the Constitution. Still, Poland can proudly look back on 1791 as a time when Poland helped establish modern democracy. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday I look forward to joining the people of my district, as well as those of Polish descent around the world, in celebrating the common bond of democracy. I hope the members of this body will join me in saluting this important day.

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize one of Chicago's most venerable and longstanding institutions, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, on its 30th anniversary. The CBOE began as a spin-off of the Chicago Board of Trade in 1973, and in short order revolutionized options trading by creating standardized, listed options and an exchange-based market. Individual investors the world over quickly adopted the concept of listed options, and the CBOE soon became the world's largest options exchange. As a result of superior management and cutting-edge product offerings, the CBOE has never looked back. Today, the CBOE is responsible for more than 51 percent of all options trading as well as 91 percent of all index options trading in the United States. The CBOE has maintained its leadership position because of the dedicated efforts of all of those who work in its state-of-the-art 45,000 square foot facility, led by Chairman and CEO William J. Brodsky and Vice Chairman Mark F. Duffy. CBOE management has led the industry on issues ranging from corporate governance to investor education. In fact, Mr. Brodsky was recently commended by the Securities and Exchange Commission for his efforts at maintaining market integrity in the face of several recent corporate scandals. The CBOE is also a key employer in the Chicago region and an important driver of the local economy. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Chicago Board Options Exchange on reaching the important milestone of its 30th anniversary, and I look forward to continuing to work together in the months and years ahead to ensure that the CBOE maintains its competitive superiority and remains a pillar of Chicago's business community.

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize The Friendship Club of St. Genevieve's church. On April 23, 2003, the Friendship Club celebrated 31 years of service to Chicago's Northwest side. Led by Jean Juske, the group's president of the past 17 years, the club of 550 active members has worked to educate seniors on issues important to them. Throughout the years, the Friendship Club has held bi-monthly meetings on issues such as personal finance, public safety and politics. The group also helps seniors find safe and affordable housing. My friends at St. Gens, however, say that some of their most popular activities are the social ones such as dinner theatre trips. Whatever the activity, I salute the Friendship Club for their service to Chicago. Neighborhood organizations like this one form the backbone of communities, and Chicago is a much stronger place because of the Friendship Club. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Friendship Club for all they have done in service to our community and wish them the best of luck for their next three decades and beyond.

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, Ronald Reagan once said: Facts are stubborn things. Since the economic management in the last 2 years, 2\1/2\ million Americans have lost their jobs; 5 million Americans are without health care who had health care before; $1 trillion worth of corporate assets, small and large, have been foreclosed on; and 2 million Americans have walked out of the middle class to poverty. Those are the facts of the economic performance of the Republican administration and the Republican Congress. Tomorrow, we are going to be asked to vote for reconstruction for Iraq. They will be provided funds for 20,000 units of housing in Iraq. Yet in this budget, in this economic plan for America's, there are only enough dollars for 5,000 units of housing. There will be 13 million Iraqis who will get universal health care in tomorrow's vote. In this, not a single dollar for the working uninsured in America. Twenty-five thousand schools in Iraq will be rebuilt; not a single dollar to modernize a single American school will be provided for in this budget. There are 12,500 schools in Iraq that will get basic books and supplies. In this budget, we are asking teachers to take it out of their wages here in America. Four million Iraqi children will be given early childhood education; yet this budget, this economic plan, calls for 28,000 children to be cut from Head Start. There will be 3,000 roads paved, enough to reach from New York to California, in the budget for Iraq. This budget cuts $6 billion from America's infrastructure. A port in Iraq, the only deep port, will be rebuilt from beginning to end; yet this budget cuts 10 percent from our Corps of Engineers. Reconstruction for Iraq, rebuilding Iraq, we are asking our troops to come home to a diminished American dream, a smaller American dream. We are providing for Iraq an economic plan that envisions a future. The future envisioned here in America is one with less education, one with less health care, one with less infrastructure, one with a less promising future. When the fog of war is lifted, the facts on the ground will be 2\1/2\ million Americans without work, 5 million Americans without health care, $1 trillion worth of foreclosed corporate assets, and 2 million more Americans who walked out of the middle class into poverty. Those are the facts of this economic performance and economic mismanagement. We can do better. Our troops expect more. They are coming home to a smaller American dream, a diminished American future. We are talking about reconstruction for Iraq, yet this deconstructs America's future. We can do better. This budget, this economic plan, has resulted in a diminished future for our children; yet, we are asking our people to finance a bigger, stronger, and a fairer future for Iraq. There should not be that disconnect between Iraq's future and the one here in America.

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to echo what other speakers on both sides of the aisle have talked about, talking about jobs, creating new jobs, saving jobs now in jeopardy as our economy continues to deteriorate. I am privileged to represent one of the most ethnically diverse districts in the Nation. Jobs in my district prove that the American dream is alive and well and that anything is possible through hard work. On February 20, the FCC had an opportunity to create and save jobs while boosting the economy. Since 2000, we have lost 2\1/2\ million jobs in this country. Instead, this decision means job losses in the long term, for the Nation's telecom sector and for my home State of Illinois. The FCC's decision also means companies will not be able to make critical investments in the area of broadband deployment. It means an entire segment of the U.S. economy faces a future of uncertainty for its employers and customers. The job-loss message was heard loud and clear. One analyst of the industry wrote, and I quote, ``Usually a decision of this magnitude would bring with it greater certainty and clarity. Yet, in this instance, we believe the issue is as confused and as uncertain as ever.'' Mr. Speaker, I encourage the administration to remember that uncertainty leads to job loss, both on Main Street and on Wall Street.

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1036, the Gun Manufacturer's Liability Reform Act. Shielding gun makers, dealers and distributors from liability and dismissing all pending lawsuits is the most egregious form of corporate welfare I have yet to see. This is special treatment for a special interest. The gun industry would become the envy of every industry. It is a back-handed insult to tens of thousands of victims of gun violence each year. Let us apply the Firestone tire test. We should all agree that those who have been in accidents caused by Firestone tires have the right to their day in court. If Firestone had provisions similar to H.R. 1036, Americans whose families were either killed or injured would lose their right and there would be no recourse. On July 3, 1999, 43-year-old Ricky Byrdsong, basketball coach for Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, was out walking with his children. During his walk, he was shot and killed with a gun which was illegally purchased from a dealer who probably should have known better than to sell the weapon. The family of Ricky Byrdsong, the coach, is currently suing. This bill on this floor today would automatically dismiss that suit without so much as a trial. I do not know if the dealer is liable in this case, but that is not my decision to decide, nor is it the people of this body's decision to decide. Mr. Chairman, this bill denies Americans one of their most basic rights. I understand that the issue of gun violence is a contentious one, but I think we can all agree that this body should work to protect our citizens, not the Washington gun lobby. This is special protection for a very special interest. This is a bad bill, which sets a dangerous precedent, and I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides, people of good values and good principles, to vote against this legislation.

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow I will introduce the American Parity Act which provides for American families, just as the supplemental appropriations which we approved last week provides for Iraqi families. It is simple, straightforward and fair. I already have 16 original cosponsors on the legislation. Last week in the supplemental we provided $1.7 billion for the reconstruction of Iraq. All we are asking for today is the same for America. The same goals that we establish for Iraq, we establish for American families here at home. I have gone and looked at some of the plans that the administration has for Iraq, post this war. In Iraq, we are planning 20,000 units of housing to be reconstructed. Yet in the budget approved by this body, we have only 5,000 units of housing planned for America: 20,000 for Iraq and 5,000 for America. Under education, there will be 4 million Iraqi children guaranteed early childhood education. Yet in the budget approved by this body for American families, we are cutting 28,000 children from Head Start. Twelve thousand and five hundred schools will be deprived of basic books and supplies; yet in America teachers have to take out of their wages the dollars to buy supplies for their kids. Twenty-five thousand schools will be reconstructed in Iraq; in America the budget provides not a single dollar for modernizing American schools, and 40 educational programs here in America have been zeroed out by the administration's budget. Under the area of healthcare for Iraq, let us look at the agenda for Iraq's healthcare. Thirteen million Iraqis, half the Iraqi population, will be given universal healthcare. In America we have 50 million uninsured, not a single dollar dedicated to the working uninsured in America. Every major city in Iraq will get a hospital. We will have 100 percent maternity coverage for the Iraqi women; yet we are cutting $100 billion from Medicaid where one out of three children are covered at birth. That is in the healthcare area. Under infrastructure, 3,000 miles of roads for Iraq; yet we are cutting $6 billion from our Highway Construction Budget and Trust Fund. We have enough money to build a road from New York to California as it relates to Iraq; yet we are cutting our investment here in America. In the area of other infrastructure, there will be complete reconstruction, the only deep-water port in Iraq. In America our Corps of Engineers' budget will be cut by 10 percent under the administration's budget and under the budget passed by this Congress. I support the reconstruction in Iraq. I think it is the right thing to do given what we have done there, what we need to do, the future we have to promise the Iraqi people; yet that should not come at the expense of the dreams of America's families. This lays out every proposal that exists for Iraq versus what the budget the President and the Republican Congress proposed for America. I do not believe that the way we greet our soldiers when they come home is a smaller American dream, one that does not invest in healthcare, one that does not invest in America's schools, one that does not invest in America's roads, one that does not invest in America's housing. In the last 3 years, the last 2 years, America has shed 2.5 million jobs, over 1 million manufacturing jobs. Four million more Americans have gone without healthcare who used to have healthcare. Nearly $1 trillion worth of corporate assets have been foreclosed on, and 2 million Americans have gone from the middle class to poverty. That has been the economic agenda and the economic record of this administration. As Ronald Reagan used to say, facts are stubborn things, and those are our facts. In my view maybe what we should do for Iraq is to cut their capital gains tax and see if they can grow their way out of this problem. If cutting taxes are so great for America, why do not we use that as the economic program for Iraq and bring all those investments home to America? Since it seems to be that the agenda and the strategy for Iraq is to invest in its schools, invest in its roads, invest in its housing, and invest in its healthcare which will give Iraqi families a better future than the past and in America we are going to get tax cuts on capital gains and tax cuts dedicated to the wealthy, why do we not give Iraq the tax cuts and get all these investments back here at home since it is supposed to be a promising future for the Iraqi people? Again, I want to be clear. I am going to support the reconstruction of Iraq, but I will not support the two budgets, the supplemental and the budget the President has laid down for America, one that offers a brighter future for the Iraqi people than it does for the American people. Either America will be brought up to Iraq's standard or Iraq will come down to America's standard.

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of my special order.

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise as an original cosponsor and in strong support of House Resolution 149, expressing the sorrow of the House of Representatives in response to the assassination of Serbian Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic earlier this month. On behalf of more than 1,000 of my constituents of Serbian descent, I commend the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde); the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) ranking member; as well as the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the Europe Subcommittee chairman; and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler), ranking member, for their leadership in recognizing a truly remarkable reformer and a champion of democracy in the Balkans. The world has lost a great friend and a true democrat in the Prime Minister. While our brave troops engage in another war-torn region, we identify with the war-weary citizens of Serbia and Montenegro who lived under Milosevic's cruelty. Serbia has courageously demonstrated that it is willing to defeat a brutal tyrant and will not allow its democratic progress to unravel. As we mourn the Prime Minister's death, this resolution says loud and clear that America will work with Serbia to ensure that its path to democracy will never be deterred. To all the young democracies of tomorrow, who, like Serbia, have also thrown off the yoke of dictatorship and totalitarianism and embraced the values of liberty and freedom, this resolution says to them that the United States, the House of Representatives, the people's House will stand with them no matter how many tomorrows it takes to achieve democracy. The Serbian people are our fellow countrymen and allies because they embrace the values of democracy and freedom. Our nations share a mutual admiration for democracy, which is never a guarantee or a foregone conclusion. It is accomplished only through perseverance and courage. Democracy requires the force of vision and determination endowed upon great leaders like the late Prime Minister. His death at only 50 is a great loss for his family and friends, and it is also a tremendous loss for the democratic progress in the Balkans. The New York Times editorialized on the day after his murder: ``In countries that lack institutions, individuals matter greatly.'' After Yugoslavia fell apart following Marshal Tito's death, a common line that the nation had been held together by the force of his personality, Milosevic dragged Yugoslavia back to a darker time by igniting human genocide not seen in Europe since Hitler. But the brilliance, the charisma, the force of vision of Zoran Djindjic steered Serbia away from an era of ethnic cleansing and towards liberty and equality. The Prime Minister was a reformer who envisioned a free and modern Europe. In less than 2 years he liberalized markets, elections, the press, and parliamentary debate. He showed that the human spirit and desire for freedom can never be extinguished. Through calm persuasion he brokered a compromise with Montenegro, helped prevent further bloodshed in Kosovo, restored human rights and economic realization, the rule of law to a nation torn apart by four wars and two rebellions started by his predecessor, Milosevic. After extraditing Milosevic and other war criminals, the world contributed more than $1 billion in economic aid which proved a tremendous boost to a people whose standard of living had long been the worst in Europe. He taught his countrymen to appreciate the rewards of integrating into the Europe of tomorrow, the Europe of the 21st century, and his steadfast pursuit of reforms gave democracy a foothold in Serbia and the people of Serbia a hope of tomorrow. In these difficult times, Mr. Speaker, we stand with our friends in the Balkans as they mourn a fallen hero and search for a new leader dedicated to fulfilling the democratic vision of modern Serbia who will always be remembered in history for his honor, his greatness, and his selfless commitment to the public good.

Mr. EMANUEL

Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of more than 25,000 of my constituents who are of Irish descent, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1208, which recognizes the importance of funding the peace process in Northern Ireland. The people of Ireland, the people of Great Britain are long-standing friends and allies of the United States and the American people. In these difficult times, we are deeply grateful for their partnership in the coalition against terror and their invaluable contributions in the war in Iraq. Our investment in the International Fund for Ireland contributes to strengthening relations and creating thousands of new jobs and businesses for Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland. Importantly, more than 80 percent of the Fund's contributions have targeted disadvantaged areas by offering job training programs for unemployed youth and through the economic, social, and physical regeneration of deprived areas. We should continue to support the Fund's community-building programs promoting greater dialogue and understanding between Catholics and Protestants. We should also help advance the Fund's role in the development of a new generation of leaders in Northern Ireland in order to bring about a more peaceful and prosperous future in the region. The Good Friday Agreement of 1998, which called for basic human rights and marked the first meaningful step toward reconciliation in Northern Ireland was suspended last year. Elections in May will determine the future prospects of the agreement, which makes this resolution especially relevant and timely. Mr. Speaker, our shared goal with Ireland is for all Catholic and Protestant families to live in peace, free from discrimination, terrorism, and intolerance. That is why I strongly support fully funding the International Fund for Ireland and encourage my colleagues to vote for this legislation.