[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3781-3787]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         A TALE OF TWO BUDGETS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Wicker). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, in 2 days, the House Committee on the 
Budget will introduce and start to mark up a budget for the United 
States. This budget is being drafted by the majority, reflective of the 
President's budget submitted in early February.
  I thought it would be an opportune time to discuss and go over the 
review of this budget and the economic policies that have resulted from 
the President's past budgets here at home, with also the type of 
priorities that have been claimed for the people of Iraq, and compare, 
in my view, the tale of two budgets.
  What we have here, which I think would be a rude awakening for the 
American people, is what has resulted here at home for the people of 
the United States and their jobs, their healthcare, their education, 
their housing, versus what we are doing in Iraq. If you really go 
through it, what you really have is the tale of two budgets, of two 
economic programs.
  I think the American people would be surprised to find out that of 
the $87 billion we voted on last year for the funding of the war in 
Iraq and Afghanistan and for rebuilding the communities of Iraq and 
Afghanistan, that is more than the combined investment in the United 
States in the areas of education, job training and employment, the 
money in one shot for Iraq. Remember, that does not count the $70 
billion we spent on the first stage of the war with Iraq.
  The $87 billion spent in Iraq and Afghanistan for the war part, as 
well as for the rebuilding of their healthcare system, their job 
training, their physical infrastructure, roads and bridges and water 
system and water treatment, that is more than the entire combined 
investment in the United States for education, job training and 
employment services.
  To me, the reason we have a $3 trillion debt, additional debt on the 
books, nearly 3 million Americans have lost their jobs, as well as 43 
million Americans without health insurance, 2 million more Americans 
who have gone from the middle-class to poverty, and nearly $1 trillion 
worth of bankruptcies, both corporate and individual, is we do not have 
an economic policy and focus coming from the administration.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, if I could interrupt my friend for a 
moment, the gentleman indicated the total amount that we have already 
expended in terms of our intervention in Iraq. Obviously, that includes 
supporting our troops, and, at the same time, beginning the 
reconstruction of Iraq.
  Does the gentleman remember the debate that occurred months ago when 
the supplemental came to this floor?
  Mr. EMANUEL. The $87 billion?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. The $87 billion. Does the gentleman remember that many 
of us on this side actually voted against authorizing the President to 
launch this intervention because we did not believe the evidence for a 
variety of different reasons that he presented to us and to the 
American people, but we did understand an obligation to help Iraq get 
back on its feet?
  Does the gentleman remember the debate about whether it would be 
loans, or whether we would just simply give the money away, give the 
taxpayer dollars away?
  Mr. EMANUEL. The administration came out and said it would be wrong 
to do it as loans. We needed, because of the international community, 
to make it a U.S. taxpayer-funded $87 billion investment.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. If I can continue to interrupt the gentleman, I made a 
point of examining the record in terms of other international donors. 
There was a conference in the capital of Spain, in Madrid, where other 
international donors came together. Among them, they were willing to 
contribute some $15 to $16 billion. By the way, very little of which 
has been seen yet. I can only find one other Nation that did not insist 
on the money being paid back. That was Japan, for $1.5 billion.
  The gentleman mentioned a word that really made me seek to interrupt, 
and that was ``debt.'' We are never going to see that money.
  Mr. EMANUEL. No.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. That is gone. I dare say there have been about other 
speakers on the floor here this evening that have talked about the 
failure in this budget to be forthright and honest, and we all know, 
and the American people should know that the money we have already 
spent is a down payment, and it is not much of a down payment as to 
what it is going to cost the taxpayers far into the future.
  Mr. EMANUEL. If I may, we have voted in this Congress on $160 billion 
of investment in the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and the rebuilding of 
those countries, healthcare, housing, jobs, roads, bridges. As the 
gentleman wanted to remind me of a point in that debate less than a 
year ago, at that point, Secretary Powell said the $168 billion is a 
down payment, that they would need an additional $50 billion, which 
they will probably seek, just for that exceeding the $200 billion in 
Iraq, which we will never see, or, when I say ``we,'' the U.S. 
taxpayers will never, ever see. That is $200 billion.
  One can argue whether we are better off or not in Iraq, with Saddam 
Hussein having been deposed from Iraq, but the taxpayers will never see 
that investment back. Those are all dollars we are being told on a 
series of fronts, when we do not have the resources here at home.
  My purpose here, before we mark up this budget, and spend the next 3 
or 2 months discussing the budget is to draw the parallel between what 
we are investing in Iraq. On housing, we have 7,000 units of housing 
planned for Iraq, yet only 5,000 for the United States. We have a water 
irrigation system, well over $800 million for a new irrigation system 
in Iraq, for water treatment; in America, in the President's budget, a 
$500 million cut in water and sewer treatment facilities here in the 
United States. That goes on and on.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Before the gentleman goes any further, he mentioned, I 
think, an interesting point that those who are watching here this 
evening and are listening really should take note of. The gentleman 
mentioned the figure $50 billion. I do not think there is

[[Page 3782]]

any Member in this House on either side of the aisle that would deny 
that $50 billion. But it is not part of this budget. When will that $50 
billion be revealed to the American people?
  Mr. EMANUEL. As the gentleman probably remembers, last year when we 
voted on our budget for the United States, they projected a deficit at 
that point of a little north of $300 billion. Then they brought up the 
investment of $87 billion in Iraq after the fact, so it was not 
included in the budget, because it would have made the deficit look far 
worse.
  So this year we are going to vote on a budget that has a $500 
billion-plus deficit, nearly half a trillion dollars, and then we will 
get the request for the war in Iraq, an additional $50 billion put on.

                              {time}  2100

  It is basically playing real quick with the hands.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. When will we get that? When will that come before us?
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, to my colleague from Massachusetts, we do 
not know when we are going to get that.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Can I just put out here, I want to submit, because 
maybe we can make this a friendly wager. I bet that that $50 billion 
will come to the floor of this House in November or December, sometime 
after the election because, clearly, that $50 billion is going to 
exacerbate the deficit. It is a debt. But maybe I am wrong. Maybe the 
White House will insist on doing the right thing and being honest and 
forthcoming with the American people and tell us the true cost of where 
we are.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this evening, because this 
administration has two books, two sets of values, two priorities, and 
two budgets, one for Iraq and one for the United States. And the 
American people, with 43 million Americans without health care, 2.7 
million additional Americans without jobs, 9 million Americans without 
jobs, close to 12 million Americans now living below the poverty line, 
are being told on a repeated basis that they do not have the money for 
schools, for police, for health care clinics. Do my colleagues know in 
the United States that every year the President's budget cuts, cuts 
health care clinics and community health care services to the United 
States to the tune of $600 million to $700 million a year? Yet in Iraq, 
and we will get to the statistic later, in Iraq since the end of the 
war, 52 new hospitals and clinics have been opened up, 5 million 
children have been given vaccines. In the United States, cuts in health 
care services to the tune of $600 million a year, in the President's 
own budget. He has a vision, a focus, and an agenda for Iraq not 
matched or paralleled or equal to the vision for the United States. The 
United States people are very generous.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Can I just ask a question?
  Mr. EMANUEL. Yes.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I think the gentleman mentioned two budgets.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Two values.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Two values and two budgets, a budget for the United 
States of America and a budget for Iraq. But the truth is, the reality 
is that it is the American taxpayer.
  Mr. EMANUEL. One source.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Is paying for the budget for the United States of 
America, with all our responsibilities, all of the issues that we are 
concerned about here domestically and internationally, and then the 
American taxpayer is also paying the budget for Iraq. I really hope 
that we do not find ourselves in a situation where we will be coming to 
the floor with a third budget.
  The gentleman from Michigan earlier talked about what transpired 
these past several weeks in Haiti. I can imagine that we will have to 
provide humanitarian assistance, but are we also going to be picking up 
additional budgets as we go?
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, that is a fair question. I think that the 
budget that we are submitting, and one of the things I want to talk 
about and start off with is that it is not just a budget, and it is not 
just a set of values, and it is not just a set of priorities. But the 
President's own cabinet, six members out of 15 have been to Iraq to 
praise and laud the work of our reconstruction in Iraq. I am going to 
bring up a couple of things that they have said on their trips to Iraq, 
because I think it highlights not just the type of dollars we are 
investing, but what we are saying.
  My first is in October of 2003, Secretary Evans of Commerce, the 
Commerce Secretary said, and I quote from October 16, 2003: ``Americans 
need to come here and see the opportunity.'' This is about Iraq. ``This 
is great economic opportunity.''
  Three months after that in Ohio, the President of the United States 
announces that he is going to have a manufacturing czar. Today, 5 
months after that, that job goes unfilled; and since that time, 250,000 
manufacturing jobs have been lost in the United States. Yet Secretary 
Evans is over in Iraq praising the economic opportunity in Iraq; and 
yet here in the United States, a job for a manufacturing czar to 
oversee what has happened to the 2 million-plus lost manufacturing jobs 
in the United States has yet to be appointed. In every budget the 
President of the United States has submitted to this Congress, the 
manufacturing extension program, which helps small manufacturers in the 
United States compete in the world market, has been cut.
  We had a prior speaker who noted the fact that the budget is supposed 
to have $130 million; the President submitted $36 million or $10 
million, way off the mark. This helps 50 workers or less in 
manufacturing and in places of employment. We do not have a 
manufacturing czar. The budget of the United States eliminates 
manufacturing opportunities, yet the Secretary of Commerce of the 
United States is in Iraq praising the economic opportunity.
  In January of 2004 Labor Secretary Elaine Chao visits Iraq. Quote, on 
January 28: ``Democracy is an essential part of creating a new Iraq, 
and for democracy to move forward in a positive fashion, finding 
employment for the people is very important.''
  It is interesting, because at that point it was one week before the 
President's budget was submitted to Congress, just a few days after the 
President's State of the Union; and yet the President's budget for the 
United States has dislocated adult training and dislocated worker 
programs, cut by $150 million in the United States, yet opening job 
training in Iraq.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, if I could interrupt very briefly, it 
sounds like an economic stimulus package.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Baghdad is doing well.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Maybe, just maybe we can find the secret so that we can 
avoid a jobless recovery for Iraq and learn those lessons so that we 
can replicate them here in the United States.
  Mr. EMANUEL. The President's budget also freezes job training. We 
have a cut, as I said, of $151 million in dislocated worker problems, 
dislocated from economic trade and globalization. Yet, at that time, 
with one week to go in the President's budget, the Secretary of Labor 
is not in her office, is not over in the White House negotiating on 
behalf of American workers. She is talking about the employment 
opportunities in Iraq.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. In Iraq.
  Mr. EMANUEL. In Iraq.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. So if you are looking for a job and you want the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), who was the last speaker before we took 
the floor, if you are one of his constituents in Ohio.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Where there is 16 percent unemployment rate.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. We could recommend that somehow they contact the 
Department of State or the Department of Commerce and maybe there are 
jobs in Baghdad or Kirkuk or Basra. There are certainly none in Ohio.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman probably knows, right 
after the war, we were paying hundreds and thousands of Iraqis for no-
show jobs, literally paying them; but they did not have to work, just 
to put

[[Page 3783]]

money into the economy of Iraq. Now, I am from Chicago. I think we know 
something about no-show jobs. We think we have written the book on no-
show jobs. There are so many no-show jobs in Iraq where people do not 
have to show up for work, but get paid, you can make an alderman in 
Chicago pretty jealous; but that is what is going on with U.S. taxpayer 
dollars.
  Let me tell my colleagues another thing. Just recently, less than a 
month ago, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson, 
visits Iraq, and I quote: ``The U.S. aid to provide universal health 
care to Iraq should not be compared to the efforts in the United States 
to guarantee the same thing. Even if you don't have health insurance in 
America, you get taken care of. That can be defined as universal health 
care.''
  What a fascinating, insightful take on universal health care. We have 
43 million Americans without health insurance; yet we have universal 
health care provided in Iraq, but not here in the United States.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I guess maybe one would call it socialized medicine is 
good for Iraq, but universal health care here in the United States is, 
if the gentleman would help me with the word; it escapes my mind.
  Mr. EMANUEL. It would be a government-controlled program.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. A government-controlled program.
  Mr. EMANUEL. So my colleagues understand, as we have opened 52 
hospitals and clinics in Iraq, just a month earlier than the 
President's budget, he froze the National Institutes of Health's 
budget; rural health care was cut by $638 million, and $785 million the 
next year; a 64 percent cut from health professionals training 
programs. We have 33 million Americans who work full-time without 
health care, and we have underfunded the Children's Health Insurance 
Program.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, while here in this country, and I am sure 
this has impacted just about every Member's district throughout the 
entire United States, while in this country, community hospitals that 
tend to be the hospital of the first response for that sudden heart 
attack, for that emergency room treatment, they are being closed; and 
yet the American taxpayers are building how many hospitals?
  Mr. EMANUEL. My last count says in Iraq there have been 52 hospitals 
and health care clinics that have opened up since the end of the war.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. That is a pretty good record, for Iraq.
  Mr. EMANUEL. It is very good, a very good record. I am impressed. I 
am very, very impressed. They have done a great job. There has been in 
Iraq free training provided to 22 Iraqi health professionals and 8,000 
volunteers. Yet a $278 million cut, 68 percent, to the health 
professionals training program here in the United States.
  Now, what is it that Iraq needs about the health care training of 
doctors and nurses and technicians that is not necessary here in the 
United States? Any thoughts?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I have none.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, $793 million for health care facility 
construction and medical equipment replacement throughout Iraq. Yet 
there has been a $94 million cut to community access programs here in 
the United States, a 90 percent cut in that budget. Mr. Speaker, $28 
million in Iraq for operation and staffing of 150 clinics for 3 million 
Iraqis. Yet there has been a 78 percent cut, that is $789 million in 
all health activities to provide health care access in rural America.
  Mr. Speaker, I did not get to it, but let me continue. The 
agricultural Secretary, Ann Veneman, was in Iraq on November 13, 2003, 
praising our investment, she calls it how our government can help. Need 
I remind her, it is our taxpayers, not our government. But yet, in the 
President's budget, $198 million has been cut from USDA farm loans, 
crop insurance, disaster relief, and field offices, representing about 
a 4 to 5 percent cut in the agriculture budget.
  There have been a total of 6 cabinet Secretaries who have visited 
Iraq. Do my colleagues get a feeling that the cabinet Secretaries have 
been outsourced to Iraq in the many ways that our jobs have been 
outsourced to India? They are focused. We have the Commerce Secretary 
there, the Labor Secretary there, the Agriculture Secretary there, the 
Secretary of Defense is there, the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services is there, the Secretary of State is there, not counting the 
deputies. Yet in every area corresponding, and we are going to go 
through that in a little more detail, we have seen cuts here at home in 
the President's budget.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. But the Government of Iraq is being well financed.
  Mr. Speaker, if I can continue for a moment, because the picture that 
the gentleman is drawing is rather clear to me. I noted in a report 
from my hometown paper, the Boston Globe, that the Senator from 
Arizona, Senator McCain, in response to a question in a very forthright 
manner made this statement: ``The era of big government is back and 
Republicans seem to like it.'' I presume that he was referring to Iraq 
or maybe he was referring to that deficit that is creating a future 
Armageddon for our children, our grandchildren, and even our friends in 
North Carolina.

                              {time}  2115

  Mr. EMANUEL. Let me, if I could, to take back a little time here, I 
have put up another chart dealing on education in Iraq and education in 
America and job training.
  In Iraq, we have renovated a little over 2300 schools in all of Iraq. 
1.5 million secondary school student kits have been sent out. 800,000 
primary school kits have been sent out. In America, the President's 
Leave No Child Behind has been underfunded by $8 billion.
  Teacher quality impact aid and after school programs have been frozen 
in his budget. Reading programs are cut by $8 million. And 38 other 
educational programs in the President's budget have been eliminated.
  In Iraq, 2,300 schools nationwide have been either rebuilt and opened 
since the end of the war. Not that Iraqi children do not need an 
education, not that they do not need their books and textbooks, but I 
would hearken, and I would hope others remember in the United States, 
we have teachers who are paying for school supplies out of their own 
salaries, because the school budgets, educational system has been cut 
so bad we do not have resources for our kids. Teachers are paying for 
it. Not the government taxpayers, which is funded.
  Iraqi children are going to have a great future. We should have the 
same type of future, same commitment to American children.
  I want to point, if I could, to a few things we did here on the 
chart. Job training in Iraq. $60 million for demobilizing and job 
training for 130,000 enemy combatants. $353 million for American Iraqi 
enterprise fund and job training.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, can my colleague repeat those? How many 
enemy combatants? Presumably those are former Iraqi soldiers.
  Mr. EMANUEL. That is exactly what it is.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. In other words, they would be Iraqi veterans of war.
  Mr. EMANUEL. The gentleman took the words right out of my mouth. Yes, 
that is correct, former soldiers.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Former soldiers. I only wish that the American veteran 
was treated as well.
  What I find particularly unacceptable is the budget that was 
submitted by this White House and this President, as far as it relates 
to the American veterans. The various veterans service organizations, 
the American Legion, the VFW, the Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed 
American Veterans claim that the White House budget, as submitted to 
this Congress, one, would only worsen the backlog processing disability 
claims; secondly, reduce the number of VA nursing home beds just as the 
number of veterans who need long-term care is swelling, and force some 
veterans to pay a fee simply to gain access to the VA health care 
system, despite the promise that this Congress made back in 1996, that 
if you were an American veteran, you were

[[Page 3784]]

entitled to health care, provided by the Veterans Administration.
  This is a report in the Washington Post dated last week. The 
commander in chief of the VFW called the President's proposed budget 
for veterans health care, and this is his quote, ``a disgrace and a 
sham.'' And, yet, we are supporting health care for 130,000 former 
Iraqi soldiers, who I am sure are benefiting from the largesse of the 
American taxpayer. It is time we take care of our own, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, this is a tale of two budgets. Let me point 
to one thing: $353 for an American Iraqi enterprise fund and job 
training. $353 million. Yet, the President's budget cut $316 million in 
the vocational education program. That represents a 24 percent cut 
there.
  Let me go on. There is a $20 million grant for higher education and 
development projects creating U.S. Iraqi university partnerships to 
expand access to higher education for all Iraqis. $100 million cut for 
the Perkins loan, which represents a 60 percent cut in that program 
here in the United States for college education, a $327 million cut in 
Pell Grants for low and moderate income children, closing the door to 
higher education for those children. We got a grant for Iraqi children 
going to college.
  In Illinois, my home, the average graduate from the University of 
Illinois gets a diploma and $20,000 in debt because of the cost of 
higher education in the United States. Yet, in Iraq job training and 
higher access to universities.
  Expanding literacy. We have $40 million dedicated to Iraq for 
rebuilding 275 schools and training 10,000 teachers for Iraqi schools. 
Yet, we have cut $8 million from reading programs in the Department of 
Education for American children.
  Another statistic. USAID accelerated learning program provides 
intensive personal education to low income and at-risk Iraqi children. 
At-risk Iraqi children and low income Iraqi children. The President's 
budget, $177 million cut in funding for Head Start, even though Head 
Start could only serve a 13.5 percent of the eligible children because 
of funding restrictions. Children who are eligible for Head Start. We 
do not have the resources for Head Start, yet we have funding for at-
risk Iraqi children.
  This is just an example of the types of education cuts we are making 
here at home and the types of investments we are making overseas in 
Iraq.
  These are not the priorities of the American people. These are not 
the values of the American people. These are not the economic 
investments the American people called on. And our result, all these 
cuts in education and here at home, all these cuts at at-risk children 
here at home, all these job training cuts here at home, as Ronald 
Reagan once said, facts are a stubborn thing. 2.7 million Americans 
have lost their jobs since President Bush has been President. Two 
million more American children have entered the levels of poverty who 
have left the middle class.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, we know that we have a jobless recovery. 
Clearly it is an issue that has grabbed the attention of the American 
people. But there is another aspect of our economic picture that I 
think should disturb all of us on both sides of the aisle, and I hear 
nothing coming from this White House addressing it. We all agree that 
there has been a net loss of jobs. In other words, jobs have been 
created, but millions of more jobs have been lost than have been 
created. But what is untold here, what has not been said, and I think 
we all owe an obligation to tell this to the American people and we 
should start here tonight, is that while we have a jobless recovery, we 
have a wage recession. We have a wage recession. The new jobs that are 
replacing the old jobs are at wage scales that are 21 percent less than 
the jobs that they replaced.
  Now, that is like if you are unemployed and you find a job after your 
unemployment runs out, because we do not count those folks anymore, we 
call them discouraged workers, but if you are lucky enough to find a 
job you are taking a 21 percent pay cut. What does that do in terms of 
the hopes and dreams and the living standards that you have for 
yourself and your families?
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, if we are going to spend $3 trillion, I 
would think we would get more than 21,000 jobs out of it. And of the 
21,000 jobs that were created last month, not the 200,000, unknown, but 
it is right there in the statistics, of the 21,000 jobs, 20,000 of 
those jobs were government jobs. So in the private sector of the United 
States only created 1,000 jobs last month.
  Jay Leno had a funny joke and I must repeat it. He says, ``You know 
why President Bush is in such trouble? He is overseeing more gay 
marriages than he has jobs created in the United States.'' And it 
captures pretty much what is going on. We have a jobless economy and an 
endless occupation in Iraq. It has resulted in the fact that the 
American people are calling for a new direction and change in our 
priorities. And these budgets reflect the problem we have here at home 
because of what people are seeing is that our future is being promised 
to Iraq, and the people of Iraq, and that the same commitment is not 
being held here at home.
  The American people have been very generous. They will continue to be 
generous, but not at the expense of their future and their children's 
future.
  I would like to turn to health care, since we have done job training 
and education. In the area of health care, as I mentioned just the 
other day, Secretary Thompson visited Iraq opening hospitals. In Iraq, 
52 hospitals have been renovated. Three million children under the age 
of 5 have been vaccinated in Iraq. And the President's budget, health 
care centers for the second year in a row have been cut $638 million 
this year, next year, $785 million.
  I want to read a couple numbers. Iraq, free training provided to 
2,200 Iraqi doctors and nurses and 8,000 volunteers. In the United 
States, $278 million cut to the health professionals training program 
for doctors and nurses and other specialists. Free training in Iraq for 
2,200, $278 million cut here in the United States.
  In case anybody has missed it, 43 million Americans without health 
insurance. Inflationary costs rising at 10 to 20 to 20 percent a year. 
$793 million for health facility construction and medical equipment 
throughout Iraq. A $94 million cut to community access programs to 
coordinate health care services to the underinsured here in the United 
States.
  In case you are missing this, kind of one strategy for Iraq, one 
strategy for the United States. $28 million for operation and staffing 
of 150 health clinics for 3 million Iraqis, a $78 million cut in all 
health activities to provide health care access in rural America.
  Let me ask a question. Is there one group that works on the budget 
for the United States in this administration and another group that 
does the budget for Iraq? I mean, does the right hand not know what the 
left hand is doing? We have a health care crisis.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I will tell the gentleman presumably there is a stealth 
OMD somewhere. Maybe it is in the Department of Defense. My colleague 
knows how they have that office of strategic planning.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I know this sounds horribly rude and 
sarcastic, but could David Kay be appointed to coordinate these two 
budgets together? I mean, he is available after all.
  If one looks at this, $44 million in community development projects 
including child care centers and youth centers in Iraq. $44 million for 
child care and youth centers. The President's budget for the United 
States, a funding freeze for all child care programs for helping 
parents who want to go to work and put their kids at places that are 
safe and secure. And it is projected to climb to $53 million in 2006. 
That is a fascinating way to leave no child behind in Iraq. I wonder 
what the strategy is behind that.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, in terms of the health care, I am 
convinced that it is some sort of socialized medicine initiative that 
is surprising, since this administration decries efforts to adopt a 
universal health care

[[Page 3785]]

coverage Federal policy here in the United States.

                              {time}  2130

  Mr. EMANUEL. Let me add one other thing. Ensuring a nation of healthy 
children. This is the last point on our health care chart; 4.3 million 
Iraqi children have been immunized, yet the maternal and child health 
care block grant has been frozen. Prenatal care in Iraq and food 
provisions for 240,000 pregnant women, full funding. Yet we have cut 
WIC here and frozen it and frozen the Healthy Start program. 100 
percent of prenatal and infancy needs of all Iraqi citizens, and yet we 
have frozen, which means a cut of care in the pediatric graduate 
medical education and Title 10 family planning here in the United 
States.
  Now, why is it that 4.3 million Iraqi children need to be immunized. 
I assume that is a good idea. Any thoughts?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I think it is an excellent idea.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Why would you freeze then the maternal and child health 
care block grant, which basically does the immunization programs here 
in the United States? What would make you freeze it here in the United 
States, but somehow think that 4.3 million Iraqi children deserve that 
type of aid? I think it is a good idea. My father is a pediatrician. I 
am the son also of a radiologist nurse. I happen to think these 
investments are good. Guess what, the administration is right about one 
thing, the Iraq of tomorrow will be better than the Iraq under Saddam 
Hussein, because it is being funded by the taxpayers of the United 
States.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. The question is will America of tomorrow be better, 
given the policies enunciated and the policies we have witnessed over 
the course of the past 3\1/2\ years? That is the question facing the 
American people as we look towards November of 2004, when probably 
December of 2004 we will be provided with a supplemental budget that 
will come as no surprise to those of us that work here in this 
institution, but that we know will further add to that debt that is 
outstanding.
  Mr. EMANUEL. I want to again remind us of one of the headlines here. 
Training of health care professionals, 2,200 Iraqi doctors and nurses 
will get free training, $278 million cut in the United States' budget 
in this area.
  We will go on to the next chart of the area of security and justice 
and investment in what we call safety of our streets versus what we are 
doing in Iraq. In that area we basically have, I think, an interesting, 
very interesting set of priorities. And again, it is a tale of two 
budgets, two values, two priorities.
  In Iraq, we have placed 150,00 police and security personnel on the 
street. I do not know if you know this and it may come as a surprise to 
everybody. But in New York City, there are 3,000 less police on the 
street since 9-11, because the President's budget we have cut a billion 
dollars in the police program to keep police doing community policing 
in the United States. Three thousand less police on the streets of New 
York since 9-11. That is a fascinating way to execute a high school 
strategy. Yet, in Iraq, 150,000 police and security personnel.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Can I interrupt for a moment? During the 1990s, we saw 
a profound decline in the rate of violent crime. Many criminologists 
and others in the criminal justice system attributed the significant 
portion of that decline in the so-called COPS program, where the 
Federal Government provided the funding for the training and the hiring 
of police and other law enforcement agents for State and local and 
county investigative agencies, highway patrol, local police 
departments. Clearly it made a difference. It made a difference.
  In this budget from this White House, that program has been cut 87 
percent. I spent 21 years of my life as the chief prosecutor in a 
jurisdiction in metropolitan Boston. I fear, and I say this truly, what 
these cuts are going to do in terms of the next 2 or 3 years as far as 
the instance of violent crimes all over our country, in our 
communities. We are losing police officers. Every single community has 
suffered some reduction in the size of their police forces, their 
public safety agencies. And yet we hear, coming from the White House, 
talk of homeland security. There is an inconsistency here. The reality 
is not matched with facts or, rather, the reality is not matched with 
the rhetoric.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Let me add, as I said, that we have 150,000 police being 
paid by the United States taxpayers for 150,000 police officers and 
security personnel in Iraq. I would like that to be noted that in my 
hometown of Chicago, we do not have an additional bio-terrorist center 
that we were seeking for fire department.
  In veterans, in Iraq, we pay the salaries and benefits for 170,000 
Iraqi military and security personnel. In America, 260,000 children of 
active duty military personnel have been dropped from the earned income 
tax credits. It is a very interesting strategy. Again, two budgets, one 
for Iraq. One for the United States. Here, helping the police and fire 
departments combat terrorism. In Iraq, a $500 million fund to 
counterterrorism policing program in Iraq; $50 million for emergency 
global peacekeeping operations; $80 million for disaster assistance. In 
the United States, a $648 million cut in the Department of Homeland 
Security for funding of police, firefighter and emergency personnel. In 
Iraq, you have made an investment close to $630 million. In the United 
States, a cut of $640 million for the same activities, the same type of 
strategy.
  We have also had a $246 million cut in the firefighter assistance 
grants.
  Protecting ports, we have made $150 million investment for border 
protection in Iraq. The port of Umkasar has been completely rebuilt. It 
is a deepwater port in Iraq. Yet, here a $79 million cut to port 
security upgrades, representing a 64 percent cut in the budget for port 
security here in the United States.
  Supporting law enforcement, police departments, $76 million 
investment in Iraq's defense corps, training and development, $25 
million for counter-drug assistance in Iraqi police, $200 million for 
Iraqi security for judges, prosecutors and courthouses, a $500 million 
investment for facility protection and demining in Iraq, $35 million 
for nonproliferation anti-terrorism demining in Iraq. Yet, a $659 
million cut to the Department of Justice programs to assist local 
communities in hiring, training and equipping police officers for 
America's streets.
  Again, a juxtaposition where one is getting invested in because you 
need the resources to deliver the types of services of police 
protection. Here in the United States we are making corresponding cuts 
in the same areas.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. If the gentleman would allow me for just a moment, I 
think what I find particularly disturbing is, and we discussed this 
last week, those of us that have come to this floor on a regular basis 
to discuss Iraq, the monies that are continuing to be paid to Iraqi, 
so-called Iraqi opposition groups, we talked about an individual by the 
name of Ahmed Chalabi, who when asked did he feel at all chagrined by 
the fact that the information that he provided through his 
organization, the so-called Iraqi National Council, was false. He said 
no, he did not. I am in Baghdad. Saddam is gone. Well, Saddam having 
gone, we can all agree is good. But the information that he provided, 
the defectors which he purportedly coached, gave information which 
police led eventually the American people in terms of the rationale for 
all military intervention.
  This same Ahmed Chalabi, who was convicted of embezzling some $300 
million from a bank that he founded and established in Jordan. He was 
convicted in Jordan and sentenced to 22 years in prison. He departed 
rather quickly from Jordan in the middle of the night and he is now 
serving on the Iraqi Governing Council and has taken the portfolio, the 
finance portfolio, a convicted felon, a convicted felon who was charged 
and convicted in a neighboring nation, Jordan, who has historically 
been a solid ally of the United States, has attempted to foster peace 
with Israel, and we never consulted

[[Page 3786]]

that kingdom of Jordan; and we are continuing to pay his group some 
$350,000 a month. And meanwhile, as the gentleman has pointed out, we 
cannot build roads. We cannot do school rehabs or reconstruction. We 
cannot provide veterans services benefits for our own people; and we 
are paying $350,000 a month.
  Mr. EMANUEL. I want to turn to transportation. In Iraq, the President 
has budgeted $835 million for three new Iraqi airports, $240 million 
for road and bridge repairs. Last year, the President's budget cut 10 
percent of the Corps of Engineers. This year an additional 5 percent. 
We are struggling beginning with a highway and transportation bill here 
in the United States, that are investments that everybody knows in this 
Chamber, in this body, both in a bipartisan consensus, that it is 
essential to our investment and our economic strategy.
  Iraq already has a highway and mass transit bill. They are getting 
new airports, three of them. Chicago, we are trying to rebuild our 
O'Hare Airport, which provides 150,000 jobs. They have $240 million for 
roads and bridges. Yet, the President's budget for the United States 
cuts $300 million in Federal highway funding, $50 million in essential 
air service program, $318 million cut in Amtrak, $600 million cut in 
mass transit funding. These are not the investments that lead to an 
America ready to seize the 21st century and make it as great as the 
20th century. These are not the type of economic strategies.
  I know there is bipartisan consensus. The one thing you would think 
if you produced only 21,000 jobs last month when you need 200,000 a 
month just to stay even, the economy has lost 3 million jobs since the 
date the President was sworn in. You would think the one thing this 
Congress could do is create a transportation and investment bill 
because you know it will create jobs, and we cannot do that. We are 
talking about a 1-year extension. Maybe 2-year extension.
  We do not have that for Iraq. We have a strategy for Iraq. We have 
three new airports. We have roads. We have the Umkasar Port so it can 
move goods. It is an economic strategy. We do not have that for the 
United States. We cannot get the Republicans in the House and in the 
other body and the White House to agree on an economic strategy. The 
one thing we would have is a highway bill for the United States, and 
the President of the United States threatened to veto it. You would 
think with 2\1/2\ million additional Americans out of work since the 
time you have been sworn in, you are the only President since Herbert 
Hoover who will have job losses under your watch, and your only 
strategy is to veto a bill that would put people back to work.
  It takes a unique insight to economic strategy to come up with that 
strategy for the United States. And to submit a budget that has cuts in 
mass transit, cuts in Amtrak, cuts in air service, cuts in the Corps of 
Engineers, so we can invest in our waterways, and yet in every 
corresponding area in Iraq, they will get a new deport which they got, 
three new airports, many new roads and bridges so they can move their 
goods and services, it is a bright future in Iraq, and yet, that same 
strategy seems to have failed us here at home.

                              {time}  2145

  It boggles the mind how one could see how here at home we cannot get 
an agreement on an investment strategy for the United States. One thing 
that we know for sure, because you cannot build roads in the United 
States built by Japanese, Chinese or other people, it would be only to 
be built by the United States, workers who get paid good wages and we 
cannot get an agreement, and the only reason is because we are sitting 
there with Presidential veto over our neck. It is a unique job strategy 
to threaten to veto a bill that would produce jobs in the United 
States. It comes from the same strategy that thinks outsourcing is a 
full employment program; and yet in Iraq, God bless them, they are 
going to get three new airports and about $250 million in new 
investments in roads and bridges.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I would just say that I think it is 
important to try to paint the macropicture, if you will, and that is, 
in the President's budget, he put forth a package of some $257 billion. 
The Senate, the Republican Senate, his own party, came through with a 
figure of some $318 billion. The gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the 
chairman of the appropriate committee in this House, has valiantly and 
assiduously attempted to secure more funding because not only do we 
need our infrastructure updated, but for the very reason that my 
colleague articulated, it produces jobs, tens of thousands, hundreds of 
thousands of jobs so that our jobless recovery, with its attendant wage 
recession, will receive a stimulus that will hopefully lift all boats.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to note that we go back 
to the fact that for many months we paid Iraqis wages who never showed 
up for their jobs. Nothing like that has ever been envisioned here at 
home; and so as my colleague said, we are stuck and we have America 
stuck in a jobless economy, in an income recession, and what has 
resulted is it will be the first President in the United States since 
Herbert Hoover who has a net loss of jobs in the United States under 
their stewardship, and yet the Secretary of Labor and Secretary of 
Commerce were sent to Iraq to praise and come up with an economic 
strategy that would have a better tomorrow than the one they have.
  I want to bring up two other areas before our time is up because I 
think it is important.
  In Iraq, we are investing close to $3.5 billion for water and sewage 
services repair. In the President's budget there is a $500 million cut 
representing close to 40 percent for a clean water State revolving 
fund. It provides loans to local communities to rebuild their sewer 
system and their water treatment facilities. Every community in this 
country has borrowed from that fund, the revolving fund. It is how we 
keep our water system and drinking water safe in this country. We have 
a $500 million cut in that area for the United States and a $3.5 
billion investment in Iraq's, in water, drinking water. It is one of 
the great standards in which you decide whether a country is part of 
the developed world or developing world, and yet we are making a $3.5 
billion investment in Iraq's water system and a $500 million cut here 
at home for America's drinking water.
  It is a fascinating strategy. I have never thought of it. I think it 
takes unique insight to come up with those two conflicting strategies. 
Yet the one administration, two sets of taxpayers, two different 
investment strategies.
  On top of that $3.5 billion, there is $153 million invested in Iraq 
for solid waste management treatment and $775 million for water 
resources improvement. The United States, we get cut in those programs. 
$875 million in Iraq for irrigation and wetlands restoration; $2.8 
billion for safe drinking water programs. In the United States, we have 
had many of the programs dealing with our environmental protection cut.
  That is not, both the drinking water and environmental protection, 
what I would consider a consistent and thoughtful strategy. The only 
place consistency exists is in Iraq and the investment in Iraq's 
future, not one here at home. That has been the strategy of this 
administration.
  Would my colleague want to add?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. No, because I think what my colleague has said is so 
informative. I think it reveals the flaws in not only the foreign 
policy but particularly in terms of the economic strategy of this 
particular White House.
  There is another observation I would like to make because the reality 
is that the median income of the family of four in the United States is 
declining. If we continue along this path, we are in danger. We are in 
danger of creating a gap between those that have and those that do not 
have. While we are attempting to create a middle class in Iraq, because 
the middle class is absolutely essential for a democracy, we know that, 
we are seeing our own middle class shrink in the United States. The 
most recent statistic is that one percent of the American population is 
now earning 17 percent of our income.

[[Page 3787]]



                          ____________________