Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to recognize the Reverend John P. Minogue, a great American and dedicated leader in the Catholic and higher education communities of Chicago. Last week, Father Minogue announced his plans to retire after a decade as the tenth president of DePaul University, located in my district on the North side of Chicago.

Under Father Minogue's leadership, DePaul has reached major goals projected under the university's strategic plan, ``Vision 2006.'' DePaul's students, faculty, staff and trustees, as well as the City of Chicago itself, have benefited tremendously from Father Minogue's leadership and vision. During Father Minogue's tenure, DePaul University has become the largest Catholic university and the eighth- largest private university in the United States. This fall's record enrollment of nearly 24,000 students represents the tenth consecutive year that DePaul has posted historic enrollment gains.

Expanding access to learning has been the hallmark of Father Minogue's presidency. The university supports 130 academic programs and a faculty and staff totaling over 4,200 people. He led efforts to provide increased access to high-quality education for a diverse student population. He also championed global education by establishing a variety of international sites and programs. Suburban campuses grew from two to five, and the university welcomed Barat College into the DePaul family as its ninth college in 2001.

During Father Minogue's tenure, DePaul celebrated its centennial and transformed its city campuses with additional facilities that

offer students every state-of-the-art service. Those facilities include the renovation of DePaul Center; construction of the McGowan Biological and Environmental Sciences Center and Centennial Hall; the Ray Meyer Fitness and Recreation Center and a car parking facility on Clifton Avenue; the new student center; and the University Center of Chicago joint residence hall in the Loop to be completed in 2004.

Father Minogue also revolutionized student access to and implementation of technology at DePaul. He worked tirelessly to redesign university business processes to offer students real-time services on the Web, ultimately enabling them to conduct many transactions at any hour of the day from any computer station. It was under his leadership that the School of Computer Science, Telecommunications and Information Systems was created and became one of the largest computer science schools in the nation. A man on the cutting edge of the digital age, Father Minogue conceived DePaul's Digital Media Center and has helped to develop an innovative program that will enable students to be in the forefront of a new form of global communication.

Both academics and student satisfaction have flourished under Father Minogue's guidance. In 1998, DePaul was named one of seven finalists for College of the Year in ``The Best College for You,'' by Time magazine and the Princeton Review. Additionally, U.S. News & World Report has ranked DePaul's part-time MBA in the nation's top ten for eight consecutive years. Father Minogue can be especially proud that DePaul's students were named happiest in the nation twice by the Princeton Review. He devoted a considerable amount of personal time and energy to building relationships with students and often could be found joining them in community service and leadership opportunities.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of a deeply grateful community and with enormous appreciation for a decade of dedicated service to students, alumni, faculty, staff and friends, I thank Father Minogue for his extraordinary leadership and selfless commitment to learning and to the City of Chicago. Father Minogue left a mark on the institution that will not be forgotten, and we will always remember his countless contributions and wish him continued success in his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, people from around the world come to America for their medical care. Yet Americans are forced to travel around the world for their prescription drugs and medications. Today, in the Washington Post, there was a poll conducted by the Washington Post and ABC News showing more than two-thirds of Americans think it should be legal to purchase medications from Canada and Europe and other industrialized nations.

I think this is significant given on the eve that the conference on prescription drugs is meeting to know where the American people are on the major issue of allowing them to purchase medications from either Europe or Canada, allowing competition to pervade in the prescription drug area, allowing choice to consumers. Two-thirds of the Americans think it is the right thing to do.

In the meantime, millions of Americans are forced to either cut their medications in half, skip a month, forgo their prescription drugs entirely, or cut their pills, as I said, in half. Yet of those who choose not to do that, many are forced to go to Canada to buy their medications.

And what do our drug companies provide these seniors who are in dire need of life saving medications? Today, Eli Lilly announced joining other major companies like Glaxo, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer, they are going to begin to limit their sales to Canada, cut off their supplies to Canada. Rather than allowing competition and choice to exist in the system, these prescription drug companies are going to deny access to the Canadians where Americans get competitive prices.

You take the cancer drug Tamoxifen, $360 in the United States; Canada, $33. Life-saving medication for women with breast cancer. You go down the list, line by line. Last week, USA Today ran an article going line by line over major medications, and they were all somewhere between 40 to 50 percent cheaper in Canada than they are in the United States.

And the irony of all of that is many of those medications were developed with U.S. taxpayer dollars. So what have we provided? Not only do we fund the research and development of these new life-saving medications, we are provided the unique opportunity of paying the most expensive prices in the world for medications that were originally developed with U.S. tax dollars.

Many in the industry not only now are limiting sales, they argue about the safety of these medications purchased from Canada. Yet today, we import $15 billion worth of medications from around the world. Nobody argues about their safety. And the most telling example about the issue of Canada is that in October 2000 when the United States Government needed a vaccine for anthrax, where did they turn because there was a shortage here in the United States?

They turned to Canada. If it was so unsafe for our consumers to go to Canada to buy medications, where did the United States Government go in dire need? They went to Canada because the system in Canada is comparable to our system.

A recent Wall Street Journal/Harris Interactive poll shows 77 percent of Americans believe it is unreasonable for pharmaceutical companies to take actions like Eli Lilly did today.

The facts are that the claims made by the FDA and the pharmaceutical companies about the dangers of these

drugs simply do not hold. They did not hold when the United States Government needed them, and they do not hold today when our seniors and others are forced to go to Canada to get life-saving medications.

This system is not some great beyond that we do not know. Today in Europe the system of parallel trading exists, free trade where people in Germany or France or England or Ireland buy medications wherever they need them in Europe. That system exists, and it is the most competitive market in the pharmaceutical industry.

What I am suggesting, what others in bipartisan fashion have passed in July, the legislation known as market access, are suggesting is allow the United States to participate in that market access. Allow the barriers to come down, allow the market to organize and properly manage itself and prices in the United States would come down, rather than allowing a 40 to 50 percent disparity between the prices in Canada and Europe between the United States. That is what would happen if we passed this legislation today.

For too long, if we take a look at it, in Families USA, the 50 most commonly used drugs by our seniors have risen 3\1/2\ times the rate of inflation. Between 2000 and 2003, seniors' expenditures on prescription drugs increased by 44 percent.

The costs of medications are too expensive. Eli Lilly and the other pharmaceuticals are limiting the sales to Canada in an attempt to cut off the seniors. And what does the United States Congress do and what does the United States Senate do? When they passed a prescription drug, when it came to the issue of price and affordability, the Congress did nothing. And so people are forced to take action in their own hands and go to Canada.

We should not turn our grandmothers and our grandfathers into drug runners, filling up prescription bags for people that live in the housing centers with them. We can deal with the issue of cost. Allow the free market system to work and allow choice to exist and prices would come down here in the United States.

For too long the American people have been forced to subsidize the starving French and Germans. We should give them competitive prices, give them choice, allow the free market to work; and we will finally get the prescription drugs people need and deserve.

I thank my colleague from Wisconsin for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of our troops in Iraq. Thousands of young men and women, my neighbors and yours, remain in harm's way. They are suffering casualties daily and fatalities every week. We must do all we can to provide for their protection. We are indebted to our troops for their service and sacrifice. The men and women of the Armed Forces make all Americans proud. My vote for this bill is for one reason only, to give our troops the resources they need to carry out their mission. But my vote should not be interpreted as supporting this administration's postwar policy in Iraq or the lack of one.

As I cast a ``yes'' vote, I will supply the troops with the resources they need. My hope is that the President and the administration will finally supply a policy the Nation deserves. Because the absence of a policy has never measured up to the valor and patriotism of our troops. As we will do our part in Congress, now it is long overdue for the administration to do theirs, enunciating a policy. Our troops will get the Humvees and the Kevlar vests they need, but the policy is as important for their protection as the equipment.

Just over 2 years have passed since the September 11 attacks when the world reached out and expressed sympathy and solidarity with America and Americans. Because of our arrogance, we have turned the world's sympathy into antipathy. This administration lacks a policy that is coherent, that spells out a clear vision for Iraq's mission, invites support from our allies and provides an exit strategy that will bring our troops home and reunite American families. I supported the war. I still believe getting rid of Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do. But the administration has made a legitimate war illegitimate through its actions. While it sold the war on a set of claims that were never true, the administration never leveled with the American people.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of our troops in Iraq. Thousands of young men and women, my neighbors and yours, remain in harm's way. They are suffering casualties daily and fatalities every week.

We must do all we can to provide for their protection and safe return. We are indebted to our troops for their service and sacrifice. The men and women of our Armed Forces make all Americans proud.

My vote for this bill is for one reason only: to give our troops the resources they need to carry out their mission. But my vote should not be interpreted as supporting this Administration's post-war policy in Iraq or the lack of one.

The only way my vote should be interpreted is of one opposing this administration's post-war policy in Iraq or the lack of one.

As I cast my ``yes'' vote, I will supply the troops with the resources they need. My hope is that the President will finally supply a policy the Nation deserves. Because the absence of a policy has never measured up to the valor and patriotism of our troops.

As we will do our part in Congress, now it is long overdue for the administration to do theirs--enunciating a policy.

Our troops will get the Humvees and the Kevlar vests they need. But the policy is as important for their protection as this equipment, and this administration has failed in that endeavor.

Just over 2 years have passed since the September 11 attacks when the world reached out and expressed sympathy and solidarity to America and all Americans. Because of our arrogance we have turned the world's sympathy into antipathy.

This administration lacks a coherent policy that spells out a clear vision for the Iraq mission, invites the support of our allies, and provides an exist strategy that will bring our troops home.

I supported the war, and I still believe that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do.

But the administration has made a legitimate war illegitimate through its actions. While it sold the war on a set of claims that were not true, the administration never leveled with the American people.

As we fought the war nearly alone, so we are left to go it alone in the reconstruction.

The irony is that this administration is committing American families to pay for investments in Iraq that it is unwilling to provide for here at home. We are paying for basic health care for half of Iraq's population, but will not provide coverage for any of the almost 44 million uninsured Americans.

We are footing the bill for world-class police and security forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan, but American communities are imperiled by deep funding cuts to their police and firefighters. With taxpayers spending nearly $6 billion to completely overhaul Iraq's electricity system, not one single dollar is provided in the Energy bill for overhauling our own electrical grid.

Because the administration's reconstruction budget for Iraq is so flawed and filled with cronyism, it has insisted on attaching it to the military budget--in effect, holding our own troops hostage.

I will not cast a vote that might endanger our troops in any way. But I will not continue to support indefinitely a failing and flailing policy in Iraq, and neither should the American people.

When this administration comes back to Congress again for more funding, as it surely will, it must accompany that request with a real plan, which to date it has not--or it must bring our troops home.

Offered By: Mr. Emanuel

Amendment No. 35: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following new section:

Sec. XX. (a) New Offense.--

(1) In general.--Chapter 47 of title 18, United States

Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: ``

``Sec. 1037. War profiteering and fraud relating to military

action, relief, and reconstruction efforts in Iraq

``(a) Whoever, in any matter involving a contract or the

provision of goods or services, directly or indirectly, in

connection with the war, military action, or relief or

reconstruction activities in Iraq, knowingly and willfully--

``(1) executes or attempts to execute a scheme or artifice

to defraud the United States or Iraq;

``(2) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick,

scheme, or device a material fact;

``(3) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent

statements or representations, or makes or uses any

materially false writing or document knowing the same to

contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent

statement or entry; or

``(4) materially overvalues any good or service with the

specific intent to excessively profit from the war, military

action, or relief or reconstruction activities in Iraq;

shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not

more than 20 years, or both. In lieu of a fine otherwise

authorized by this section, a defendant who derives profits

or other proceeds from an offense under this section may be

fined not more than twice the gross profits or other

proceeds.

``(b) Extraterritorial Jurisdiction.--There is Federal

jurisdiction over an offense under this section regardless of

whether the acts constituting the offense occur in the United

States.

``(c) Venue.--A prosecution for an offense under this

section may be brought--

``(1) as authorized by chapter 211 of this title;

``(2) in any district where any act in furtherance of the

offense took place; or

``(3) in any district where any party to the contract or

provider of goods or services is located.''.

(2) Conforming amendment.--The table of sections for

chapter 47 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by

adding at the end the following new item:

``1037. War profiteering and fraud relating to military action, relief,

and reconstruction efforts in Iraq.''

(b) Forfeiture.--Section 981(a)(1)(C) of title 18, United

States Code, is amended by inserting after ``1032,'' the

following: ``1037,''.

(c) Money Laundering.--Section 1956(c)(7)(D) of title 18,

United States Code, is amended by inserting before ``,

section 1111'' the following: ``, section 1037 (relating to

war profiteering and fraud relating to military action,

relief, and reconstruction efforts in Iraq)''.

Offered By: Mr. Emanuel

Amendment No. 36: At the end of title II, insert the

following new section:

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in honor of the Illinois Nobel Laureates. Illinois has always been well represented in this competition of the world's best and brightest, but this year three individuals from Illinois have won the Nobel Prize: Paul Lauterbur, a researcher at the University of Illinois, won for his research leading to the development of MRI technology; Alexei Abrikosov of Argonne National Laboratory; and Anthony Leggett, another researcher at the University of Illinois won for physics.

Each of these individuals works at a public institution dedicated to the exploration and expansion of human knowledge, and each of these institutions relies on public support to do the public good. These individuals and their work represent the future of our country; and if we are to maintain our status as a world leader, we must continue to support their works.

Mr. Speaker, although their work is diverse, their ability to pursue their intellectual endeavors is singular. So those who run down our public institutions, I hope they take note of these individuals' accomplishments.

Mr. Speaker, these Nobel Prize winners are from Illinois, we are proud of them, but they are national treasures.

Mr. Speaker, just yesterday in USA Today they ran a story, ``Once Just a Trickle, Canada's Rx drugs pouring into the United States'' and predicting that it is now coming close to $1 billion worth of business where people are buying their medications, name brand drugs, from Canada. And why? Because the same drugs that we have developed here, the name brand drugs, are in Canada for 40 to 50 percent cheaper than they are at our local pharmacy and drugstore. We cannot afford the drugs we need, and we are not doing enough here in Washington to help make that medication accessible.

We passed a piece of legislation back in July with 88 Republican votes and 153 Democratic votes that brought competition and choice to the pricing of pharmaceutical medications. Today if one went to Europe and Canada for the same medications dealing with blood pressure, cholesterol, heart disease, those medications are 40 or 50 percent cheaper than they are in the United States. Why? Because in those countries they have competition, and it makes the prices go down. If we brought competition and choice to the market, we could actually have the type of prices that are being afforded right now in both Canada and in Europe.

A couple statistics that are so important that people should know, a recent Families USA study found that prices of the 50 drugs most commonly used by seniors increased by three and a half times the rate of inflation. Between 2000 and 2003, seniors' expenditures on prescription drugs increased by 44 percent. Seventy-one percent of Americans think it should be legal to purchase their medications in Canada, in Europe, France, England, and Germany where prices, again, are cheaper than they are here at home. We are asking our folks here in this country to pay a premium price, the most expensive price in the world, not the best price; and we have an obligation to help them get the best price, not the most expensive price.

My governor from Illinois and governors in Minnesota and in Iowa have decided to study what the savings would be to their taxpayers and their consumers if they were to buy medications competitively. Those studies in short order will be out, and I think the Members will see that tremendous savings could be accomplished for the taxpayers in those States.

That is relevant to what we do here on the prescription drug bill. If we are about to spend $400 billion of the taxpayers' money on the largest expansion in over 40 years on Medicare, we owe an obligation not only to the seniors who will get it but to the taxpayers who will pay it to get them the best price, not the most expensive price; and we want to use the free market principle of competition to bring prices down and to give consumers the choice that they need.

What I find interesting is that we have a $1 billion business today going on. The FDA does not think there is anything wrong with it but all of a sudden has been lately lip-syncing the pharmaceutical industry's line by saying that there is an issue of safety. Yet they will not in any way try to deal with clamping down or stopping folks from buying those medications because they do not really believe there is a safety issue. The fact is on March 27, 2003, when the FDA testified in front of a congressional committee, when asked

if has anybody has ever been sick, if anybody ever been found to be sick, not one person has ever gotten sick by purchasing medications, name brand medications, from Canada.

The second argument that the industry puts out is somehow it will affect the research and development for new medications. The fact is the taxpayers, through the National Institutes of Health, have funded research into pharmaceutical drugs for $27 billion a year. Second, they write off all their R&D investment and the taxpayers cover for them.

In my view, the taxpayers have been tremendously generous to the industry and to the development of new drugs and that all the new drugs, if we take a look at cancer, AIDS drugs, other types of medications, they have all been funded by taxpayer-paid research. So first the strawman made the argument about safety. In fact, the legislation we passed here in the House improved the safety by dealing with counterfeit.

Another issue is that somehow it impacts the development of new medication, life-saving medications. The fact is it does not touch it. I think we will maintain the tax credit for research and development, and we will continue to fund the National Institutes of Health to the tune of $27 billion, and the taxpayers have been quite generous. In fact, what they are owed is a return on their investment.

So what I believe, and would hope that others have seen this article and know what they are having in their own district and as the conference meets here on the prescription drug bill, is that any piece of legislation that does not deal with price does not deal with the primary issue affecting the senior community and that we have an obligation to get them the best price and get the taxpayers the best price we can get them through a prescription drug bill that allows the free market to work. Because for too long we have had a closed market here. We need to open up the market and allow the principle of competition to work.

Second, and I think in addition to that, is that we talk about expanding Medicare. We need to ensure that for that $400 billion we get the most for our money. Everybody today knows if they go to any senior center and talk to folks they will tell them, because there is somebody from their senior home who has gone over the border, gone into Canada and bought prescriptions filled out for everybody in the unit or everybody at the housing project, they have bought medications. We have turned our grandparents into drug runners, and that should not be illegal because what they are trying to do is meet the obligations they have for their own health.

For too long we have all heard stories of people who have cut medications in half, skipped a month so their spouse can get the medications they need. That is a health and safety risk.

This legislation that was passed out of this Congress with bipartisan majority would address that health and safety risk. It would address the need of our taxpayers who are more than willing to help get a prescription drug bill but not do it when we are paying inflated prices, sometimes as high as 60 percent, to the pharmaceutical industry. If someone takes one medication like Tamoxifen, which costs $360 here in the United States, it fights what? Breast cancer. In Canada, it costs $33.62. That is the difference, and it means life or death for a lot of the people here in this country.

I call on the conference to quickly pass a prescription drug bill that has this reimportation provision and ask that my colleagues look at the article the other day in USA Today.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 355 to celebrate a century of strong diplomatic relations with Bulgaria.

Bulgaria has more than 1,300 years of history, culture and tradition in Western Civilization. Its ancient forefathers were the Thracians, whom Herodotus described as the second largest tribe in the Ancient world. And its unique ethnic identity, religion, and culture remain vibrant, even after five centuries under the rule of the Ottoman Empire and another two centuries under Byzantine rule.

In modern times as in ancient ones, Bulgaria has been torn by conflict. The nation gained full independence from the Ottoman Empire in 1878, and its people suffered through the first and second Balkan Wars in the early part of the 20th century. Even as the nation fell behind the Iron Curtain after World War II and gained a reputation as the Soviet Union's staunchest ally in the Warsaw Pact, our two nations still maintained diplomatic ties throughout the most difficult periods of the Cold War.

Mr. Speaker, today U.S. relations with Bulgaria have never been stronger. Since 1989, Bulgaria has transformed into a vibrant democracy and market economy. Our two nations have become steadfast partners in business and industry. Our strong ties to Bulgarian culture and education are invaluable and have proven mutually beneficial to both countries. On behalf of my constituents in Northwest Chicago, including more than 1,500 of Bulgarian descent, I applaud this centennial of diplomatic relations and look forward to continuing strengthened partnerships.

Madam Speaker, I rise today as an original cosponsor of this resolution expressing the House's condolences to the family of Foreign Minister Anna Lindh, to her many friends, and to the people of a country left a sadder place for her absence.

While her brutal murder shook the foundation of that proud and peaceful nation, it is her life--not her death--that is her legacy.

In only 46 years of life, Anna Lindh rapidly ascended the European political community to become one of its most capable, competent, and respected members. She was a singularly instrumental figure during the Swedish presidency of the European Union in 2001.

From joining the Swedish Social Democratic League at age 12, Ms. Lindh was destined for a career in public service. She was elected to the Swedish parliament the year she graduated from law school. She later became the Deputy Mayor of Stockholm, Minister of the Environment, and eventually, Foreign Minister.

The impact of her political skill and achievements touched people worldwide, most notably in the Balkans, where her remarkable talents helped prevent war in Macedonia.

Building coalitions was her calling, and her success in this critically important area earned the respect of leaders from around the globe. When asked once what he appreciated most about Sweden, our own Secretary Colin Powell once replied ``Abba, Volvo, and Anna.''

Anna Lindh truly epitomized a new generation of internationally- minded politicians. Her murder was a tragedy that cannot be forgotten, but it will not overshadow her achievements and her lasting contributions to the international community.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this important resolution. On behalf of more than 12,000 of my constituents of Swedish descent, I offer my sincere condolences.

Mr. Speaker, in 2 days the House Committee on Appropriations will take up the $87 billion that the administration has requested for Iraq and Afghanistan. This is the second down payment on top of the first $75 billion that has been requested. Secretary Powell and others in the administration recently said this is a down payment, and that they will be back in 6 months from now with an additional request on top of the $160-some-odd billion we spent on these two operations, for more money for reconstruction of both Afghanistan and Iraq. This funding contains a $20 billion request, taxpayer financed, for the reconstruction of Iraq.

Back in April I introduced a bill called the American Parity Act, which required that for every dollar we invest in Iraq's health care, education, and transportation and infrastructure we also invest here at home. Today we have 102 cosponsors.

Now, I think everybody that has signed on to this agrees that the same values that we hold for Iraq, we must pledge for all Americans. The same goals we envision for Iraq's future, we must envision for America's future. Unfortunately, to date, we have had two priorities, two sets of values, two sets of books, one for Iraq and one for America. I did a T-shirt the other day which I brought down to the floor showing all of the investments we had planned for Iraq and all the cuts here at home we had planned in the corresponding areas.

Now, two colleagues before me who are part of my freshman class from the other party talked about waste, fraud, and abuse. I would like to bring to their attention, and I have the same sense that if we were able to cut some of the waste, fraud, and abuse, we could fund other initiatives dealing with the uninsured in this country.

But to point to some waste, fraud, and abuse: in the President's request for Iraq, there is $3.6 million for 600 radios and telephones at $6,000 each. I highly recommend that maybe we should hear the word Radio Shack. If you cannot get a telephone for less than $6,000, you may want to consider Radio Shack.

We have also in the request $2.5 million for pickup trucks at $33,000 apiece. Has anybody ever heard of zero percent financing by GM, Ford, or Chrysler? You can get a pickup truck for less than $33,000. Mr. Speaker, $100 million to hire 500 people at $200,000 a person to investigate crimes. Mr. Speaker, $20 million to finance 200 election experts, election experts for 6 months at $100,000 per expert. Now, I come from Chicago. I think I can get a ward committeeman to do it just slightly cheaper than that.

So if we are interested in waste, fraud, and abuse, I recommend maybe we take a look at what we are recommending as a first down payment of what will be a total bill to the American taxpayers for $60 billion in the area of waste, fraud, and abuse.

If I may take some more time, they did not want to mention the $5.6 billion for the new electric grid in Iraq. Yet here in America, what did we get for that? The blackout. And how much is invested in America's electric future, in our energy future, in a massive investment here? Zero. We could create 100,000 jobs. We do not mention that when it comes to waste, fraud, and abuse.

In the area of health care, we are talking about $150 million more for a new children's hospital in Basra. Yet, in that same week, we had a report that there are 10 million uninsured Americans. And what is the initiative? We cut the funding for the children's health insurance program. We have 44 million uninsured Americans, and not a single bill on the floor to insure the uninsured Americans.

In the area of police, there is $4 billion planned for the Iraqi police, and yet what do we do? We cut the 100,000 police program here in the United States practicing community policing at $1 billion. Mr. Speaker, $5 billion for water, drinkable water in Iraq and wetlands restoration and irrigation; yet we have frozen the funds for the Corps of Engineers, and we do not fund any cleanup and improvement in the Great

Lakes of America where 40 million Americans get their daily drinking water. I am interested in the area of waste, fraud, and abuse; and I would like to talk about it.

In the area of veterans, we have a $6 billion cut here at home for our veterans for their health care and other benefits, and yet what do we plan? To rebuild Iraq's national army.

So when it comes to waste, fraud, and abuse, I would hope my colleagues would join me on the floor and talk about some of the waste, the fraud, and the abuse that will go on in the $60 billion reconstruction project the American taxpayers are being asked to pay and foot the bill for, while 3.1 million Americans have lost their jobs, 5 more million Americans have lost their health insurance, $1 trillion worth of corporate assets are foreclosed on, and 5 million Americans have walked out of middle class into poverty; and that has been the net result over the last 3 years in economic stewardship.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with great pride following last night's National League Central Division champion Chicago Cubs' first playoff victory on the road since 1945.

I am proud to represent tens of thousands of loyal and patient Cubs fans who have so patiently waited for this opportunity to compete for its first National League Pennant in almost 60 years and its first World Series title since 1908. 1 join the City of Chicago in cheering for the Cubs to overcome history by this year's nearly 90 wins and first place in the Central division.

I think most long-time Cubs fans would agree that there could not have been a more exciting route to the playoffs than the 2003 season. All season long, Chicago traded first place back and forth with the Houston Astros in the major league's most competitive division. After this weekend's victory against Pittsburgh, jubilant fans remained celebrating in the stands an hour after the game as Cubs players jogged around the perimeter of the field to salute their fans and soak up the delirious atmosphere at Wrigley Field.

Those of us on Chicago's north side are especially grateful for the arrival of first-year manager Dusty Baker, his winning attitude and proven leadership on the field and in our community. Dusty and his outstanding coaching staff made believers out of the players and Cubs fans. He held our team together during some of the season's most difficult times.

We must attribute much of this year's success to Dusty's clever off season personnel moves and Sammy Sosa's great batting, including his towering 40th home run this past weekend that made him the first player in National League history to hit 40 home runs in six consecutive seasons. This historic feat was achieved on top of slamming his 500th home run earlier this season. Sammy has become as much a part of Chicago as the stuffed pizza and Navy Pier. His pride in his native Dominican Republic is but one example of the cultural diversity that makes Chicago the great city it is today, and how baseball has been woven into the fabric of our Nation's history.

When I attended one of the Cub's home victories earlier this year, I was joined by the Chaplain of the House of Representatives, The Rev. Daniel P. Coughlin, before the game to honor his 89-year-old mother, Louise Coughlin, as the Cub's Usher of the Year. Moments like these and the team's winning ways are what made 2003 such a special season and why I will always be proud to represent the Cubs in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I salute the Cubs for their first-place finish, and I join with the entire City of Chicago and Cubs fans everywhere in wishing them continued success in the playoffs. I join Cubs fans in cheering that one of baseball's most storied franchises ends a nearly century long championship drought. Win or lose, Chicagoans will be always be proud of their Cubs.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my appreciation to the members of the Transportation Appropriations Committee for their leadership in support of the rehabilitation and expansion of Chicago's Ravenswood Elevated Line.

Built more than a century ago, the Ravenswood Line, known by Chicagoans as the ``Brown Line,'' is one of the City's fabled elevated trains and serves as a vital link between the area that I'm proud to represent--the northwest side--and downtown. Along the way, it winds through some of Chicago's historic neighborhoods: Ravenswood, North Center, Wrigleyville, Lakeview, Lincoln Park, and of course, the Loop.

With more than 60,000 commuters each day, ridership has increased approximately 73 percent since 1979. In the past year alone, the number of riders has increased by 10 percent, the highest rate of growth anywhere in the Chicago Transit Authority's (CTA) rail transportation system.

Because of the Brown Line's age, it can only accommodate six-car trains, and not the eight-car trains used elsewhere on the CTA system. Thus, the Ravenswood Line is not able to handle the growing demand. In fact, it is not unusual for commuters to wait several full trains before being able to board a train in the morning rush hour. Clearly, the Brown Line renovation is necessary to keep pace with the rapidly growing demand for mass transit services in Chicago.

For these reasons, since arriving in Congress I have worked closely with the City of Chicago, CTA, and U.S. Department of Transportation to ensure that the Brown Line revitalization received the support it needed to continue. I was also pleased to appear before the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee to discuss why expanding the line is so important to ensure the safety of Chicago commuters and to improve its efficiency.

I am pleased that both Committees agree that the Brown Line rehabilitation is a critically necessary and worthwhile project. It was included in the original Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), and I am hopeful that it will be included in the upcoming bill to reauthorize TEA-21. On behalf of Chicago's riders, I am deeply grateful that the members of the Appropriations Committee included this project in the Fiscal Year 2004 Transportation-Treasury Bill passed two weeks ago by this body. Because of this support, the Ravenswood Line rehabilitation project will be able to stay on schedule, benefiting my district, and indeed the entire City of Chicago.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to personally thank all the members who supported this project crucial to Illinois' Fifth Congressional District, particularly Speaker Hastert and Congressman Lipinski for their assistance, hard work and unyielding commitment to the project. Further, I look forward to working with them in support of this project as the bill moves into conference and onto the President's desk for signature.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate the memory of a remarkable woman who dedicated her 87 years of life to reaching out to poor, suffering and dying people all over the world, Mother Teresa.

Mother Teresa was born in Albania on August 26, 1910. She chose to become a Roman Catholic sister at age 18 and was assigned to a convent in Calcutta where she taught history and geography at St. Mary's School. Discontent to simply teach, Sister Teresa dedicated her life to creating a new religious order to serve the sick, disabled and dying no matter where they lived.

In 1948, Mother Teresa received approval from the Pope to create a religious order known as the Missionaries of Charity. She sought out nuns who were educated as nurses and asked them to train her. She returned to Calcutta where she opened a hospice. In her later years, Mother Teresa devoted her time and energy to establishing hospice programs for suffering from AIDS.

In 1979, Sister Teresa was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and in 1985, the Presidential Medal. She was also given the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Foundation for Hospice and Homecare. However, it was clear that what she most cherished was the satisfaction of delivering care and comfort to millions of needy people.

Guided by her 40 years of leadership, the Missionaries of Charity grew from one to more than 400 missions worldwide. Today, there are approximately 5,000 sisters in the order.

Mother Teresa was universally loved and will always be remembered. This was evidenced by the fact that both chambers of Congress passed commemorative resolutions within just days of her death in 1997. They also posthumously awarded her the Congressional Gold Medal, the highest honor bestowed on a civilian.

The world will again remember her legacy of compassion when Pope John Paul II celebrates a three hour Mass next month for the her beatification.

Mr. Speaker, throughout her life, Mother Teresa knew no limits when caring for others as she gave unconditional love to all. On this day, let us once again remember her lasting contributions and goodwill for all mankind.

Madam Speaker, we are on the verge of considering $87 billion to be spent in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is the second payment on top of the first $70 billion that was requested by the administration, and Secretary Powell the other day noted this is a down payment for an additional request to come 6 months from now.

Back in April, I introduced a bill called the American Parity Act, which said whatever we invested in Iraq's health care, their education, their infrastructure, their armed forces, we ought to do here at home. Today, I am proud to announce we have 102 sponsors; but in his recent request, there is $6 billion for the Iraqi electric grid, and what does America get? They get the blackout. Not a single dollar invested in America's electric grid.

Iraq is being pledged, and thought of, $4 billion for water purification, a wetlands restoration project for Iraq, we finally found an environmental policy the administration can support, and all types of water projects in Iraq. Yet in the Great Lakes, where 40 million Americans get their daily drinking

water, there is not a single dollar dedicated to deal with the drinking water in the recent environmental degradation of the Great Lakes along New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Illinois, Minnesota, and Indiana. We have a bipartisan bill to dedicate $4 billion over 5 years to restore and upgrade the environmental quality of the Great Lakes where drinking water is provided for 40 million Americans, equal to the amount we are pledging for 1 year in Iraq.

Just this week, we are talking about spending $4 billion for the Iraqi police. Yet the administration's budget cuts $1 billion for the 100,000 police program here in the United States.

So what I did is produce a T-shirt. It envisions and puts on the front the President's reconstruction budget for all of Iraq and Afghanistan, the two proposals. On the back are the cuts here at home in the respective areas of health care, education, veterans health care and veterans hospital, veterans benefits, but also the cuts in job training and job growth.

In the last 2 years, Americans have lost 3 million jobs, 45 million Americans are without health insurance, 25 million of that 45 work full-time but have no health insurance.

We have taken 4 million Americans out of the middle class and put them in poverty and nearly $1 trillion worth of corporate assets have been foreclosed on. That is the net result of the economic policies.

We have a vision for Iraq with an additional $20 billion of reconstruction dollars, of American taxpayer dollars being spent on their roads, their health care, their ports. Um Qsar, a great port in Iraq, is being redredged. Yet we have a 10 percent cut in the Army Corps of Engineers here in the United States, which all of us use to keep our economic vitality and job growth in our districts.

The same values that we hold for Iraq we must pledge for all Americans. The same goals we envision for Iraq's future we must envision for America. Unfortunately, we have had two priorities, two sets of values, two sets of books, one for Iraq, their children for tomorrow and one for America.

I do not think I will ever not support our efforts in Iraq, but I will not support the deconstruction of the United States, and somebody can be cynical enough to now see how the votes for Iraq's reconstruction can be compared to what we are doing here at home, a $90 billion cut in Medicaid, compared to the 13 million Iraqis who will get universal health care. Somebody could see that as wrong; opening up new universities in Iraq, while we cut $500 million from Pell grants here in the United States.

So I ask my colleagues on the other side as they consider on the eve, and I understand the pressure of being loyal to our President and loyal to an administration's goal, to think about what this means what we are doing here at home. Americans over the last 40 to 50 years have been very generous. They have funded the Marshall Plan, brought Europe back to its feet, helped build Japan after World War II. They have continually donated and helped other countries, but America will not be generous if the dream of a tomorrow for America is diminished compared to the dream we hold for the Iraqi people.

So as we are on the eve of debating the $87 billion, we need to support our troops; but we need to support our people here at home for their education, their jobs, their health care, their economic development of their communities and the safety of their communities. We should treat our veterans who come home with the same respect we are treating the forces in Iraq that we are trying to rebuild.