Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of more than 111,000 constituents of Polish descent, I rise to congratulate the Republic of Poland for its historic and overwhelming vote yesterday in favor of joining the European Union next May.

For centuries Polish greats like Copernicus, Frederick Chopin, and Madame Curie have contributed significant economic, cultural and social diversity to Europe. As the first nation to have a written constitution in Europe, Poland is a shining example of democracy triumphing over four decades of communist rule. Its modernization is described most meaningfully by its current President, Aleksander Kwasniewski, stated, ``The transformation in Poland launched after the historic breakthrough in 1989 consists not only in reform of the economy but also in opening up to the world. Openness is the historical tradition of Poland . . . We are thinking not only of the benefits we will gain from accession to the European Union. We are also aware of the obligations incumbent upon us from our role in the unification of the continent.''

That 78 percent of Poland's population voted for unification is a giant step toward advancing democratic progress and prosperity to its 38 million people. Its integration into the EU assures that it can assume a strong leadership role in promoting important ethnic, social and cultural diversity to the global community. In exchange, Poland will benefit economically and politically from the standards and examples set by the other modern EU democracies.

Mr. Speaker, Poland's accomplishments over the past 14 years since communism fell shows great promise for continued openness and solidarity in the years ahead. The United States should recognize Poland's tremendous achievement in clearing the way for EU membership. We should also express continued gratitude for its contributions to the global war against terror and its 200 troops during Operation Iraqi Freedom. We deeply value our friendship and commitment to strong security, diplomatic and economic ties with Poland and will continue to express our hope that the anticipated ratification of EU membership by May of 2004 remains on schedule.

Mr. Speaker, every city block and every country road across this country is protected by potential heroes. But police officers like my Uncle Les of the Chicago Police Department, firefighters, and other officers of peace don the mantle of heroism every day, and are prepared to respond not only to forces of nature or forces of man, but also to forces of evil, like that which brought down the World Trade Towers and tore into the Pentagon.

Peace officers are very real heroes, and must be honored as such. At risk to their own personal safety, peace officers put themselves between danger and the people they protect. Last year, more than 147 peace officers were killed in the line of duty during 2002, and the previous year 230 officers were killed, including 72 officers in the September 11th terrorist attacks. We will never know the number of lives that were spared because they gave their own.

Too often round-the-clock news shows, television talk programs and supermarket tabloids elevate the frivolous to the famous, and blur the difference between the noble and the notorious. We must honor real heroes in a meaningful manner.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the President's proclamation designating May 15 as Peace Officers Memorial Day.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday's New York Times story ran a headline: ``Iraqis Are Out of Jobs, But Pay Day Still Comes.'' With the administration's blessing, 200,000 Iraqis are receiving $20 a day for no-show jobs. They do not work. They do not show up for work. They do not do any work. Twenty bucks a day. I come from Chicago, from Cook County. We like no-show jobs. We think that is a good thing. We built an entire political party on no-show jobs, not at 20 bucks a day; but for everybody's appreciation, in the last 2 months we have given Iraqi families nearly $900. That is equal to the amount that we would pay for the child credit. So we are paying Iraqis and Iraqi families 900 bucks over the last 2 months, which is equal to what we are fighting over here, which I do not believe we need to fight here in the House since the Senate agreed 94 to 6 for the same amount of money. Yet somehow we said in Iraq if they do not work, if they do not show up for work, we will give them 20 bucks a day. It is a no-show job. It looks pretty good to me. But here if they work full time, trying to help their families, trying to raise their kids with the right values, trying to provide them clothes for school, food for the summer, a camp, a program, YMCA, they are not part of the American family.

I want to tell the Members something. Here is an American official, a government official who said nobody is going to quibble about paying a few dollars into this economy.

I am going to quibble. I do not know whom he talks to. I do not know who is paying him except for all Americans, and he says nobody is going to quibble? But what we are quibbling about is whether the children of America, 12 million children, 6.5 million families, are going to get the same sense of value here in America that we are saying in Iraq that for 20 bucks a day they do not have to show up for work and we will pay them. But here if they show up for work, work hard and pay their taxes, they do not deserve a tax cut, that they are unappreciative.

Who are these children? They are America's children, and they have done right. Parents are trying to raise them with good values, trying to teach them right from wrong. And what do we do in Congress? We turn those values on their head. We turn those values upside down and say if they work full time trying to do right by their kids, they do not deserve a tax cut. We are going to treat Iraqis with a different sense of values, a different sense of appreciation.

Let us be clear about what this says about who we are. America's children. Enron in the last 4 out of 5 years had record profits, did not pay taxes 4 out of 5 years. They got breaks. WorldCom, $12.5 billion in profits, 2 out of 3 years did not pay any taxes. They were big recipients of government contracts, yet did not pay taxes. We are paying their taxes. Tyco decided to move their address down to Bermuda, got a new ZIP code, new area code. $600 million dollars in government taxes were not paid; yet they got benefits in government contracts. That is a form of corporate welfare. If they do not pay, if they do not work and they are a corporation, we take care of them. America's children, 12 million of them, we are not going to give them a tax cut.

Recently on a Friday, the unemployment rate hit 6.1 percent. When this President came to office, the unemployment rate was 4 percent. Nearly 3 million Americans have lost their jobs, and we have added $3 trillion to the Nation's debt. What a deal, as we would say back in Chicago. $3 trillion dollars added to the Nation's debt, and Americans are paying with their jobs.

I believe the Senate did right. They did right by our values as Americans; and I know people on the other side of the aisle. They are good people with good values, but those values that left the 12 million children on the floor while corporate interests were circling the conference room are not the values we came here to vote for. We all came not just to be a vote, but we came to be a voice for our values and the values

that say WorldCom is going to get protected; Iraq, 20 bucks, no-show jobs, they are going to get protected; 6.5 million American families work full time, making somewhere around $20,000, and I am talking about a rookie cop, first-year teacher, first-year emergency worker, those types of people, they are not getting a tax cut. They are not worthy of it.

What does that say about who we are? So that tax bill is not just dollars and cents. It is a reflection of our values as Americans. And this person, this body, is going to quibble with an American official who thinks that somehow paying 20 bucks a day not to shows up for work is valuable; but if one shows up every day trying to provide for their children, that is not valuable and it is not worthy of a tax cut. It is worthy of a tax cut. Those children are America's children. That mother and father earning $20,000 are as valuable as if that mother and father were earning $200,000.

So I would say that this House, this body, we did not come here to just be a vote. We came here to give voice to our values and the values that we all represent regardless of what part of the country we come from. Regardless of what party we are from says that those 12 million children, they too deserve to go to school, they too deserve to go to the YMCA, they too deserve to go to the summer camp, and they too deserve for their parents to put funds away for their higher education; and we in this body need to take up the Senate bill, take up the DeLauro bill and vote on it immediately so the President can sign it so that on July 1 their tax cut gets sent too so that when they show up for school like the Iraqis who do not show up for work, they get a tax cut too.

Madam Speaker, today the headline in The New York Times reads: ``Iraqis are out of jobs, but payday still comes.''

With the administration's and the President's blessings, 200,000 Iraqis, employees of the government ministries and government-owned companies, are being paid $20 a day for no-show jobs. They do not work. They are getting paid $20,000 a day by the American taxpayers. They do not work.

Let me read from the article. The story describes how ``mechanics linger listlessly around machines that don't run; clerical employees wait for assignments that never come. Most don't even bother to show up at all, except on payday,'' to collect their $20. There are 200,000 Iraqi people being paid $20 a day for no-show jobs. Now, I come from Chicago, and I know a couple party bosses in Chicago that would be really envious about 200,000 getting paid $20 a day for no-show jobs. They do not have to do anything, and they do not have to show up except for payday.

What is interesting is if we do the math, these families in Iraq are getting about $1,000, equal to what we are asking for the children and their working parents here in America; for hardworking people who pay taxes to get as a child tax credit the same that this Iraqi citizen who has never worked, is not working, is getting, with the American taxpayers footing the bill for $1,000 for their no-show job.

I go on to read from the article. According to one American official, an American official working for the government, working for the taxpayers of this country, for the U.S.-led administration in Iraq, he says, ``This is going to continue for a good while. Nobody is going to quibble about paying a few more dinars into this economy to get things moving.''

Well, this person is going to quibble. I do not know where we come off paying $20 a day to somebody who does not

do any work, does not show up. Yet we have hardworking Americans who are trying to raise their children, who are trying to do right by their children, trying to raise them with the right values, to know the difference between right from wrong; and they are going to deserve a tax credit just like every other child in America. They are America's children, too.

Now, if we can find the good will to pay these Iraqis $20 a day for no-show, coming to about $1,000, which is the same amount as we are asking for a child credit for 6\1/2\ million American families, they would get $1,000 per child, it would be the same amount as the Iraqi citizens.

If they do not have a quibble there, I do not have a quibble here. But I have a quibble if we are going to give these people $20 a day for no-show, $1,000 in the last 2 months, and we cannot find the wherewithal to give 6.5 million American families, 12 million American children, the same tax break other children are getting or other Iraqis are getting.

President Bush, who often says he likes to note that he is a man of his word, who says what he believes and believes what he says, and says what he does and does what he says, ``My jobs and growth plan will reduce taxes for everyone,'' at the signing of the bill the President said, ``We have taken aggressive action to strengthen the foundation of our economy so that every American who wants to work will be able to find a job.''

Well, we have people who are working who deserve a tax cut. They are not getting a tax cut. We have got 9 million Americans who are unemployed, 6.1 percent. When this administration started, they had 4 percent unemployment. We have got 6.1 percent unemployment now. We have added $3 trillion to the Nation's debt, and 3 million Americans have lost their jobs. As we say back in Chicago, what a deal.

That is what has happened here. We have added $3 trillion to the Nation's debt and 3 million Americans are without jobs. Corporate interests and special interests are getting tax cuts, and the American people are paying with their jobs. Now we are footing the bill for $20 a day for people who do not show up for work, and yet we are denying 12 million American children their sense of economic justice.

If we do not take care of this problem today and take up what the Senate did, 94 Senators, Democrats and Republicans, if we do not take it up, these children's children, these families, Americans, hardworking families trying to do right for their children will be denied the same tax cut that will be provided for those children of other families here in America and have been denied that same $1,000 we are providing for the families in Iraq.

I think it is high time, after 3 million unemployed Americans, 5 million more Americans without health care since when the President took over, $1 trillion worth of corporate assets that have been closed down since this President's economic plan has been adopted, and 2 million Americans walked out of middle class to poverty, I think it is high time we take these 12 million children who are part of 6.5 million families and give those hardworking Americans a tax cut. They deserve the same chance at that dream.

We are going to build a dream for Iraq, a better future for Iraq, one with roads, one with 13 million Iraqis with health care, 4 million Iraqi children will get early childhood education. Yet we are cutting 58,000 Americans from Head Start.

If we are going to do this for Iraq, I call on the Speaker, I call on the President, and I call on the majority leader, who have denied these 12 million children the same economic equality and the same economic vision of a better future tomorrow that we have provided to these Iraqis who are getting $20 a day from the American taxpayer for no-show jobs.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow morning the new unemployment numbers come out, and we are probably close to nearly 3 million people that will have lost their jobs in the last 2 years. We have added $3 trillion to the Nation's debt. That has been the end result of this economic plan.

Now, what we are looking for here is 12 million children of working parents to get a tax cut and be treated like the rest of America's children. These are children of working people. Some, as the Children's Defense Fund report shows, are the children of our Armed Forces. They are also children of the law enforcement community, firefighters, first-year teachers, people who work in security in our office buildings across this country, people who work day in and day out putting their hours in and trying to teach their children right from wrong.

What has gone on here is what is wrong with this House today. We came here not just to be votes but to give voice to our values. I know there are good people with good values on the other side of the aisle. There is nothing just in the notion of denying 12 million children, 6\1/2\ million families who work full-time, denying those children who are also America's children a tax cut. We can depreciate the machinery of our corporations, depreciate the value of their machinery; but we cannot appreciate America's children.

I was part of an administration that created and extended the $500- per-child tax credit and gave health insurance to 10 million uninsured children whose parents worked full time.

We balanced the budget. We also provided tax cuts in capital gains, but we balanced the budget. It was in balance with our values. These are not the values we espoused on Memorial Day when we welcomed home our veterans and remembered them for what they had done for this country. This vote should also be remembered.

We can do right. We can correct the wrong, hold our heads up high, not wear this in shame for what it does.

These are 12 million of America's children. Let us do right. Let us remember them as we do every day, trying to do right by our values.

Mr. Speaker, when we were here in the House the other day to vote on the third tax cut of the President, the majority leader stated that we were going to be back and they were going to be back with another tax cut.

Well, we have a tax cut. It is on behalf of working families and their children, so I would like to take the majority leader up on his offer to have another tax cut immediately following the first three tax cuts that they have passed, and bring up this tax cut that he said we were going to have, one right after we got back from session. We were going to have another tax cut. Not even was the ink dry, but we were beginning to work on another tax cut.

I found it a little ironic that night when I heard the majority leader say that, because I thought this was going to be the jobs and growth tax cut. Why do we need another tax cut if this was going to be so effective? Maybe it will produce the same results the first tax cut did, which has resulted in 2.75 million Americans losing their jobs, 5 million Americans losing their health care, $1 trillion worth of foreclosed corporate assets, and 2 million Americans walking out of the middle class into poverty.

But they want to do another tax cut; so, as we say in Chicago, I've got you one. That is, I have a tax cut for middle-class, working-class families and their children, the Rangel-DeLauro-Davis bill. It focuses our priorities on working families and children. It makes good economic sense, and it makes good moral sense. It reflects, most importantly, our values.

Now, the President during the State of the Union said that we would not leave our burdens to our children, that we would solve our problems today. I cannot think of anything that more reflects those types of statements, and those values embedded in that statement than that we would focus our tax cuts on our children, the children of working parents who get up every day and struggle to do right. They do not choose welfare, they choose a paycheck.

As my colleague, the gentleman from Texas, mentioned, we have to reward work. These are the children of working families.

Now, in 1997, we had a balanced budget, a budget that was balanced with our priorities as well as our values. It expanded the earned income tax credit, it offered a $500 per child tax credit, and it provided 10 million uninsured children of working parents health care. It also cut the capital gains tax.

We also created a tax credit for higher education, and we did it while balancing our budget. We met our obligations. We invested in the long-term growth of this country's economy. We got the economy moving by balancing the budget. We did not hurt the long-term opportunities, but we invested in education, health care, and the environment.

Now this administration has chosen to have three tax cuts. What have they resulted in? $3 trillion have been added to the Nation's debt, and nearly 3 million Americans are without jobs. What a deal. What an opportunity.

Now, the first excuse for having left 12 million children of working parents out of this tax cut was, we forgot. We did not know. That is interesting. When it came to closing the tax loophole for corporations that use the ZIP code of Bermuda, we did not forget them. We took that right out. We said, that does not belong in this tax cut.

That is $30 billion of lost revenue that American working families have to make up. We did not forget them. We did not leave them behind. We remembered what ZIP code they were in. We remembered their area code. We got them right back where they belonged. Those are our pioneers. Those are our rangers, as they are known in some parts of this country.

Now, the other excuse given was, these people do not pay taxes. That is funny, because when they get their paycheck their FICA is withdrawn, their State income tax is withdrawn, their property taxes they have to pay. They pay taxes.

What is interesting, the very crowd they are criticizing was the crowd Ronald Reagan praised when he created in 1986 the earned income tax credit. Ronald Reagan was the one who signed this into law. President Clinton was the one who doubled it in 1993 and expanded it in 1997. We worked across party lines to help every child. These are America's children. We did not discriminate. We surely do not discriminate against the children of millionaires.

Where are our common values? How do we choose to give such a high priority on the depreciation of machinery, yet we cannot appreciate our children? How do we make that choice?

I know the men and women on the other side. They are good people with good values. These are not the values their parents raised them with, to choose the depreciation of machinery over the appreciation of our children.

I believe that we have a tax cut. Democrats offer one in good faith, the type of tax cut Republicans have voted for both in the other body as well as in the past. As our majority leader of the House said before the last tax bill was voted on, we are going to come back and we are going to do another tax cut. The Senate leader said that we are going to do another tax cut.

We have a tax cut. We stand ready to work with them and fulfill their obligations to get another tax cut passed, one that works and benefits our economy, the children of working families, enshrines the value of work, and holds that up; not just rewards passive income, but rewards active work.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Zaccagnino family, from Elmwood Park, in the 5th Congressional District of Illinois. The Zaccagnino family was chosen from hundreds of families who submitted videotapes in hopes of winning the ABC Family cable network ``My Life Is a Sitcom'' contest, replete with a chance of starring in a sitcom based on their life.

According to a recent Chicago Tribune article, the Zaccagnino family is already famous--and their sitcom hasn't even aired yet! Evidently, the family--Diane, Karen, Camille and Danny--have been feted by everyone in Chicago; and now Capitol Hill! Horwath's restaurant threw them a party; their state representative filed a resolution in their honor; teachers are using the family's history as assignments; and the creme de la creme--the family recently taped ``The Oprah Show.''

Finding humor in life is challenging, but the Zaccagnino family sets a great example. Karen is the owner of Karen's Hair'm, a beauty salon located on Belmont Avenue, where societal issues are viewed through changing hairstyles. And as Elmwood Park is known for its outstanding Italian food, it's understandable that a lot of the laughs take place in the kitchen. I am proud of Chicago's own Zaccagnino family, and I look forward to seeing their lives coming soon to a television near you.

Chicagoans can see the funny family for themselves on the ABC Family website where visitors can view video submissions and vote for their choice for ``America's Funniest Family.''

I urge my colleagues, indeed all of America, to keep an eye out for the Zaccagnino family. I have a feeling we'll all be wishing we were part of such a loving, funny and lively family.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 195, Commemorating the 500th Major League Home run, by the great Sammy Sosa of our Chicago Cubs.

With his blast on April 4, 2003 against the Cincinnati Reds at the Great American Ball Park, Sammy joined one of the most exclusive in baseball history, becoming only the 18th player to join the 500 home run club. This club includes such legends as Hank Aaron, Babe Ruth, and Chicago's own Mr. Cub, Ernie Banks.

While proudly representing his beloved native Dominican Republic, Sammy Sosa has become as much a part of Chicago as the stuffed pizza and Navy Pier. His pride in his native roots is but one example of the cultural diversity that makes Chicago the great city it is.

The bat that Sammy used to hit his 500th home run is now on display at Chicago's Field Museum as part of the National Baseball Hall of Fame's roving exhibit, Baseball As America exhibit. I urge all Chicagoans to visit this celebration of how baseball has been woven into the fabric of our nation's history.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Gutierrez and my other colleagues for introducing this resolution and bringing it to the floor today. I applaud the first place Cubs and wish them luck this weekend against the New York Yankees, in the Yankees first visit to Wrigley Field since the 1938 World Series. And I wish Sammy luck against Roger Clemens on Saturday, whom Sammy hit his home run off of in 1989. For these reasons, I strongly encourage my colleagues to vote for H. Res. 195.

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague from Illinois, I, too, have families that I represent. The gentleman spoke about a family who got a tax credit. I would like to talk about Renita Jackson-Keys, who works as a cook for the Chicago public schools. She earned $14,144 in 2002, raising four children from the ages of 18, 15, 12, and 4, separated from her husband, but not divorced yet. She receives no child support.

If the child tax credit provision expansion had included families like hers, she would have received an increase of about $182, but she was not a priority. Renita said she could have used a $182 increase to help pay for her $540 monthly mortgage.

In the final hour, the demand for a large dividend tax and more corporate welfare pushed away the child credit from low-income workers like Renita and her children.

Renita does not just work as a way to pass the time of her day while she waits for her dividend check; she works because that is a value that we hold up in America. Her four children see her go to work every day. Work defines who we are as Americans.

I worked in a White House that doubled the size of the earned income tax credit, which was first passed by Ronald Reagan in 1986. In 1997, in the balanced budget amendment, we balanced the budget, cut taxes for working people and corporations and also in the capital gains area, we provided a $50 per child tax credit, and provided 10 million children health care, whose parents worked full time and did not have health care.

We did it while balancing our budget, and we did it because those were our values, and they were the right values. They speak to who we are as Americans, trying to raise our children to know right from wrong, with the right set of values.

Now we have a tax cut that takes the value of respecting families, respecting hard work, and turns it upside down and inverts it. Somehow, nobody ever seems to complain about a corporation that does not pay taxes. Yet, all of a sudden, there are some who claim the reason we did not include these children of working parents is because they do not pay taxes. Nobody seems to complain when corporations do not pay taxes.

First of all, they do pay taxes. As a percentage of income, one of the largest pieces of their income is drawn from taxes for paying Social Security and Medicare. So they do pay taxes. They pay more taxes, in fact, than the corporations that are sitting in Bermuda pay.

There is a sense about this: we did not just come here to be a vote, we came here to be a voice for those values. We have turned those values backwards. What is it about those corporations and these wealthy individuals that they somehow got more protection than these children of working parents?

President Kennedy said, to govern is to choose. I think people the other week we were here made the wrong choice. Now Republicans are saying they did not know what was in the bill, that the child credit does not help working Americans. The Vice President was in the room. He has been talked about as the enforcer, about the man who was actually in the room, va-boom, va-boom. Corporations got taken care of, but a boom landed on the heads of our children. Somehow SUVs got covered for a tax credit.

We have a depreciation deduction for investments in equipment and facilities. Yet through that depreciation, we have not found the time to appreciate our children. These 12 million children are Americans, too. Their parents, their mother or their father or both, are hardworking. They deserve the same type of respect that we have given to offshore companies, the same type of respect and appreciation we

have given to equipment and machinery, because they, too, represent our future.

I did not support this last tax cut, and I did not support the tax cut of 2001. I have supported tax cuts in 1993 and 1997 when we balanced the budget. We did not make it an either/or choice.

We can do right by our children; and in fact, when we balanced the budget, cut taxes for working families and middle-class families, and helped them go to college and pay for college, and gave health care to the uninsured children of working parents, we saw a decrease in our rolls of poverty. We saw a decrease in our welfare rolls.

Those are our values that have been enshrined in this country. When we speak to those common set of values that define who we are, we can do right by this country, right by our children, and have those parents dream the American Dream for their children. We should not turn our backs.

What happened here the other day is a shame. People now are pointing fingers. Rather than having pointed fingers, if they had the common decency to think of the children of America, of American families who also, like other families who will get that tax credit, these children deserve the tax credit. They deserve to be held up with the same type of respect that we have held up for corporations that needed to deduct for SUVs, corporations like Enron that needed to be taken care of, corporations that went overseas or deducted for their SUVs.

These children deserve our care and protection. We have not provided them the health care. In fact, we withdrew the money from the States to provide health care for the children of working parents. We do not have a health care plan for the 45 million uninsured. We do not have an agenda for the $300 billion in unfunded assets.

We have a higher education tax credit that will expire in 2005, just at a time college costs are going up at 10 percent annually. We have inflation in health care rising by 20 percent. Yet all we did was provide corporations a way to depreciate their interest or other forms of tax cuts, but we left 12 million children of working parents out.

Those are not the values that my mother raised us to have, and those are not the values that hold us together as Americans. We can do better. We need to do better. We can put our children first and leave not one of them behind. When it comes to compassion, more than millionaires need compassion; our children need our compassion.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.