Stephanie Jones

Mrs. JONES of Ohio

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a member of the Ways and Means Committee to express my concerns about the Central American Free Trade Agreement. My concerns regarding this agreement cover many issues such as access to U.S. markets for agricultural goods, textiles and apparel, rules giving foreign investors the right to circumvent domestic courts and sue countries in binding arbitration, and the failure of the CAFTA to include enforceable, internationally- recognized, core labor standards. CAFTA will lead to the expansion of export-oriented factories that are notorious for poor working conditions and exploitive working environments. Central America's textile industry is one of the most developed in the region. Companies that hire mostly women aged 15-25 at low wages and under poor working conditions produce most of the clothing. One of the poorest groups in the region are women that reside in rural areas. In fact, women are the heads of greater than 8 million rural households. Support for the rural sector in Central America is reflected by the lack of investment in rural infrastructure, financial services and human capital in the region. CAFTA only exacerbates the problems of the financially vulnerable small and medium sized farms forcing increased impoverishment of rural women. Additionally, I want to discuss the effect these agreements will have on our trade deficit and how they will harm American workers. The City of Cleveland in my congressional district currently has an unemployment rate of 13.1 percent. Much of that is due to lost jobs in the manufacturing sector. In fact, Cleveland has lost nearly 72,000 manufacturing jobs in the last four years. Additionally, in the State of Ohio, 18.8 percent of manufacturing job loss can be directly attributed to international trade. I anticipate that the most likely traded item this agreement facilitates will only be more U.S. jobs. Like NAFTA, the Central American Free Trade Agreement will cause shifts in production from the US that will further engorge the already bloated trade deficit and lead to the loss of more US jobs. Both of these agreements facilitate the shift of U.S. investments while doing little to increase U.S. exports. Even U.S. investors do not escape unscathed, because the agreements contain large loopholes that allow foreign investors to claim rights above and beyond those our domestic investors enjoy. The agreement before us today is taking us down the path of further job losses and I urge my colleagues to oppose this measure. Thank you Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise to encourage my colleagues to extend unemployment insurance benefits for 6 months in an effort to prevent over 2 million workers from losing benefits. With the ending of the Federal Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation (TEUC) program, jobless workers whose regular, State-funded unemployment insurance benefits run out before they can find a job no longer qualify for any Federal unemployment aid. Mr. Chairman, Congress rejected calls for a benefits extension before the December holidays, and job growth has since remained anemic. The previous unemployment insurance extension expired on December 20. Roughly 375,000 people exhausted their benefits in January, the largest number in a single month in 30 years, and these individuals are receiving neither a paycheck nor unemployment benefits. According to an analysis of Government data from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, nearly 2 million unemployed workers are expected to be in this situation during the first 6 months of 2004. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities also projected that 2 million people will exhaust their benefits between January and June, a record for any six-month period for which data are available, if benefits are not extended. In no other month on record--and in no other six-month period for which data are available--have so many unemployed workers exhausted their regular unemployment benefits without being able to receive additional aid. The unemployment rate is currently 6 percent in Ohio. In my congressional district, in the city of Cleveland, the unemployment rate is 13.1 percent--57,191 Ohioans are scheduled to lose their benefits over the next 6 months. Dear colleagues, how do you recommend I inform my constituents that Congress decided not to extend unemployment benefits? I ask my colleagues to join me and support the Democratic substitute. The Democratic substitute provides for continued participation by faith-based organizations in Community Services Block Grant programs, but prohibits religious discrimination with Federal funds. Colleagues, Congress has worked to eliminate discrimination since 1964 through the enactment of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals because of their religion in hiring, firing, and other terms and conditions of employment. How dare we, Members of Congress, allow legislation that will discriminate against anyone come before the House floor. Have we forgotten what Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits under religious discrimination: My history reflects working toward the Dream that Dr. Martin Luther King had that, ``one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.'' My work history exemplifies working toward bringing all races together for employment, education, and religious beliefs. I have worked with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. I will also remind all of you that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for religious discrimination: Employers may not treat employees or applicants less--or more-- favorably because of their religious beliefs or practices. For example, an employer may not refuse to hire individuals of a certain religion, may not impose stricter promotion requirements for persons of a certain religion, and may not impose more or different work requirements on an employee because of that employee's religious beliefs or practices. Employees cannot be forced to participate--or not participate--in a religious activity as a condition of employment. Employers must reasonably accommodate employees' sincerely held religious beliefs or practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer. A reasonable religious accommodation is any adjustment to the work environment that will allow the employee to practice his religion. Flexible scheduling, voluntary substitutions or swaps, job reassignments and lateral transfers and modifying workplace practices, policies and/or procedures are examples of how an employer might accommodate an employee's religious beliefs. An employer is not required to accommodate an employee's religious beliefs and practices if doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employers' legitimate business interests. An employer can show undue hardship if accommodating an employee's religious practices requires more than ordinary administrative costs, diminishes efficiency in other jobs, infringes on other employees' job rights or benefits, impairs workplace safety, causes coworkers to carry the accommodated employee's share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work, or if the proposed accommodation conflicts with another law or regulation. Employers must permit employees to engage in religious expression if employees are permitted to engage in other personal expression at work, unless the religious expression would impose an undue hardship on the employer. Therefore, an employer may not place more restrictions on religious expression than on other forms of expression that have a comparable effect on workplace efficiency. It is also unlawful to retaliate against an individual for opposing employment practices that discriminate based on religion or for filing a discrimination charge, testifying, or participating in any way in an investigation, proceeding, or litigation under title VII. It is vital that Congress authorizes additional funds under Community Services Block Grants to be used to pay for a 6-month extension of unemployment benefits. Benefits paid under Community Services Block Grants that will be modeled after the Unemployment Insurance program that expired for workers exhausting regular unemployment benefits after the week of December 20, 2003. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to join me and support the Democratic substitute, and vote to provide continued participation by faith-based organizations in Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) programs, but prohibits religious discrimination with Federal funds.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise to encourage my colleagues to extend unemployment insurance benefits for 6 months in an effort to prevent over 2 million workers from losing benefits. With the ending of the Federal Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation (TEUC) program, jobless workers whose regular, state-funded unemployment insurance benefits run out before they can find a job no longer qualify for any federal unemployment aid. Mr. Chairman, Congress rejected calls for a benefits extension before the December holidays, and job growth has since remained anemic. The previous unemployment insurance extension expired on December 20. Roughly 375,000 people exhausted their benefits in January, the largest number in a single month in 30 years, and these individuals are receiving neither a paycheck nor unemployment benefits. According to an analysis of government data from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, nearly 2 million unemployed workers are expected to be in this situation during the first 6 months of 2004. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities also projected that 2 million people will exhaust their benefits between January and June, a record for any 6-month period for which data are available, if benefits are not extended. In no other month on record--and in no other 6-month period for which data are available--have so many unemployed workers exhausted their regular unemployment benefits without being able to receive additional aid. The unemployment rate is currently 6 percent in Ohio. In my congressional district, in the city of Cleveland, the unemployment rate is 13.1 percent--57,191 Ohioans are scheduled to lose their benefits over the next 6 months. Dear Colleagues, how do you recommend I inform my constituents that Congress decided not to extend unemployment benefits? I ask my colleagues to join me and support the Democratic substitute. The Democratic substitute provides for continued participation by faith-based organizations in Community Services Block Grant programs, but prohibits religious discrimination with Federal funds. Colleagues, Congress has worked to eliminate discrimination since 1964 through the enactment of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals because of their religion in hiring, firing, and other terms and conditions of employment. How dare we, Members of Congress, allow legislation that will discriminate against anyone come before the House floor. Have we forgotten what Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits under religious discrimination: My history reflects working toward the Dream that Dr. Martin Luther King had that, ``one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.'' My work history exemplifies working toward bringing all races together for employment, education, and religious beliefs. I have worked with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. I will also remind all of you that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for religious discrimination: Employers may not treat employees or applicants less--or more-- favorably because of their religious beliefs or practices. For example, an employer may not refuse to hire individuals of a certain religion, may not impose stricter promotion requirements for persons of a certain religion, and may not impose more or different work requirements on an employee because of that employee's religious beliefs or practices. Employees cannot be forced to participate--or not participate--in a religious activity as a condition of employment. Employers must reasonably accommodate employees' sincerely held religious beliefs or practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer. A reasonable religious accommodation is any adjustment to the work environment that will allow the employee to practice his religion. Flexible scheduling, voluntary substitutions or swaps, job reassignments and lateral transfers and modifying workplace practices, policies and/or procedures are examples of how an employer might accommodate an employee's religious beliefs. An employer is not required to accommodate an employee's religious beliefs and practices if doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employers' legitimate business interests. An employer can show undue hardship if accommodating an employee's religious practices requires more than ordinary administrative costs, diminishes efficiency in other jobs, infringes on other employees' job rights or benefits, impairs workplace safety, causes coworkers to carry the accommodated employee's share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work, or if the proposed accommodation conflicts with another law or regulation. Employers must permit employees to engage in religious expression if employees are permitted to engage in other personal expression at work, unless the religious expression would impose an undue hardship on the employer. Therefore, an employer may not place more restrictions on religious expression than on other forms of expression that have a comparable effect on workplace efficiency. It is also unlawful to retaliate against an individual for opposing employment practices that discriminate based on religion or for filing a discrimination charge, testifying, or participating in any way in an investigation, proceeding, or litigation under title VII. It is vital that Congress authorizes additional funds under Community Services Block Grants to be used to pay for a 6-month extension of unemployment benefits. Benefits paid under Community Services Block Grants that will be modeled after the Unemployment Insurance program that expired for workers exhausting regular unemployment benefits after the week of December 20, 2003. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me and support the Democratic substitute, and vote to provide continued participation by faith-based organizations in Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) programs, but prohibits religious discrimination with Federal funds.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to be heard. I want to congratulate my colleague on his leadership as the head of the Congressional Black Caucus. He has been doing a fantastic job, and all the people across America and across the world need to know that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) is leading the charge on behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Congressional Black Caucus and a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, I rise to discuss our Nation's budget priorities. The Congressional Budget Office's most recent report identified an optimistic increase in economic growth, while the outlook deficit worsened by over $1 trillion in fiscal year 2004. The administration's tax cutting agenda is largely responsible for that turnaround. Yet the administration will continue to push for making the tax cuts permanent. Under the administration's stewardship, the $5.6 trillion surplus estimated by CBO in 2001 has entirely disappeared, replaced by $2.4 trillion in deficits. Please understand that our Nation's economic growth results from an increase in capital income while income from wages and salaries have decreased. Since this administration's policy taxes wages and income and affords tax breaks and shelters on capital income, much of our Nation's income and economic growth is removed from the tax base. Under the administration's stewardship, that $5.6 trillion surplus estimated in 2001 has entirely disappeared. Budget deficits are harmful to longer-run economic growth for the simple reason they decrease national saving by directly reducing the public sector's contribution to saving. Given that the retirement of the baby boomers is now within the 10-year budget window, policy-makers should be focusing on ways to increase, not reduce, national saving. It is not at all clear that the stated deficit reduction goals of this administration are sufficient to prepare for this imminent increase in fiscal pressures. Despite the economy's current ``recovery,'' we have continued to lose jobs, over three-fourths of 1 million jobs, in fact, since the end of the recession in 2001. Of the 8.4 million unemployed workers, 1.9 million of them have been unemployed for more than 26 weeks. Moreover, the 8.4 million does not include about 4.4 million additional Americans who want a job but are not counted among the unemployed, nor the additional 4.7 million people who are underemployed. The President unveiled a new job-training program in the State of the Union, including grants to community colleges, but this is really a mere pittance compared to the job losses. It is vital that we establish policy that will provide jobs to all of those citizens who have become unemployed in the previous 4 years. America's highways provide an opportunity to create jobs throughout communities nationwide. Every $1 billion that we invest in transportation generates more than $2 billion in economic activity. Our roads, ports, and rails are essential to America's economic success; but they are deteriorating. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to take a look at this budget that this administration has put forth and make statements that it is not sufficient, that it is not doing the things that we need. I thank the gentleman for the opportunity.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a pioneer in the field of cosmetology. Christina M. Jenkins, a resident of Cleveland Heights, Ohio who invented the process known as hair weaving, passed away recently at the age of 82. A native of Louisiana, Christina Jenkins graduated with a bachelor's degree in science from Leland College near Baton Rouge, Louisiana in 1943. She began researching ways to secure wigs and hairpieces while working for a Chicago wig manufacturer in 1949. She moved to Malvern, Ohio near Canton and continued developing what she called the Hairweev process, which was designed for making hairdos longer and fuller by weaving extensions onto existing hair. She received a patent in 1951 for her hair weaving method that continues to be used by hairstylists around the world. Jenkins taught her technique to cosmetologists at Christina's HairWeev Penthouse Salon in Shaker Heights until 1993. She also conducted training sessions in Europe. Once a process only used by entertainers and people with extreme hair loss, hair weaving has become a common practice allowing people to appear as though they were born with thick, luxurious heads of hair. Its popularity has made the hair weaving business a billion dollar industry. Christina was married to popular jazz pianist Herman ``Duke'' Jenkins. To this union was born one daughter, Sheila Jenkins-Cochran. On behalf of the people of the 11th Congressional District, I wish to commend Christina Jenkins. Her revolutionary contributions to the field of cosmetology have helped to boost the self-esteem of men and women across the world.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a pioneer in the legal profession. J.C. Williams of Cleveland Heights, Ohio passed away recently at the age of 82. His efforts to provide legal services for low-income people through President Lyndon Johnson's War On Poverty have set the standards for these practices to this day. A native of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, he served in the Army during World War II. He went on to graduate from Wilberforce University and received his law degree from Western Reserve University in 1949. He worked as an assistant police prosecutor in Cleveland before joining the poverty program. A lawyer with the Legal Aid Society for 22 years, J.C. Williams served as director of offices throughout the 11th Congressional District of Ohio, in the Hough, Glenville and Central communities of Cleveland. After joining the society in 1966, he developed a collective bargaining program for landlords and tenants in Hough in which they could settle disputes by turning them over to third-party arbitrators. He served as a lawyer for needy clients until his retirement from the society in 1988. He maintained a private practice until his death. J.C. was a member of Saint James A.M.E. Church. He was also an active member of the Ohio and Norman S. Minor bar associations, Omega Psi Phi Fraternity Inc., and the Ambassador Social Club. It is because of his commitment to the community and desire to help those less fortunate that I wish to acknowledge the contributions of J.C. Williams on behalf of the Congress of the United States and the citizens of the 11th Congressional District. J.C. Williams was an outstanding man who will always be remembered for his outstanding good deeds to his community and beyond.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, without embellishing my statement, I adamantly oppose the legislation that is before us on behalf of the millions of low-income workers who will not receive adequate funding under this bill.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have had the opportunity to serve my first year on the Committee on Ways and Means. And I think it is important for America to know that, finally, we had an African American male on the Committee on Ways and Means who rose to ranking member, who rose to representation on the conference committee, and he was excluded from being part of the willing coalition. I say to people across America, particularly the African Americans in this country, you were not at the table, your interests were not represented. Let me, in addition, say that since we have two Houses in this Congress, the House of Representatives and the Senate, that the House was not represented on the Democratic side in this report. But let me address another issue. And I have got a written statement that I will submit for the Record. Everybody keeps saying about AARP and how renowned they should be. But they do not talk about that in the last 4 years AARP made $608 million in insurance-related expenses, 30 percent of its income. They do not talk about that AARP had a 10-year Medigap contract with some company and the business is now worth $3.7 billion. They do not talk about that AARP made $10.8 million last year by selling its member list to insurance companies. And they do not talk about the fact that AARP spends $7 million in support of this legislation. Talk about a conflict of interest. If there ever was one, it is right there. So I say to you, we are going to ruin neighborhood drug companies. We are not drug pharmacies. Do not vote for this bill. This bill is not in the interest of senior citizens. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition and with great disapproval of the Medicare conference agreement. The republican leadership in the House of Representatives has excluded Democratic Members from the negotiations and has written a Medicare bill that bows to major drug companies and prevents Medicare from negotiating better prices. This agreement masquerades as an attempt to add a long-overdue prescription drug benefit, but this is really a Trojan horse designed to dismantle Medicare, as we know it. This agreement is flawed in countless ways. Its concentration on privatization is misguided at best and devastating. This is a special interest giveaway to the insurance companies with provisions including a $12 billion slush fund to bribe HMO's and PPO's to participate, all at the expense of taxpayers and the elderly alike. The agreement leaves a substantial number of the 6.4 million low-income Medicare beneficiaries who are also eligible for Medicaid worse off by requiring them to pay higher co-payments for prescription drugs than they pay today. This agreement also prevents Medicaid from filling in the gaps of this new, limited benefit. This bill squanders $6 billion needed for coverage on tax breaks for the wealthy which in fact creates an unprecedented tax loophole that would undermine existing employer coverage and adds to the ever-growing number of uninsured. These funds should be used to prevent employers from dropping coverage or to improve the drug benefit. Even worse, this bill would force some low- income seniors who have modest savings to impoverish themselves in order to take advantage of the extra help allegedly available in this bill. A disproportionate share of African American Medicare recipients are disabled. The cut-off points chosen in this conference agreement will pigenhole African Americans into what is referred to as the ``donut'' on paying for the drug benefit. This will unreasonably hurt African American Medicare recipients, many of whom have chronic ailments. We are forcing our seniors to choose among purchasing food, prescription drugs or paying for a roof over their heads. In closing, please let me inform America that this bill does not address the needs of our citizens. This bill would manufacture a crisis when an arbitrary cap on general revenue funding is reached, which would trigger a fast-track process for consideration of legislation to radically cut Medicare, including benefit cuts, payment cuts for hospitals, nursing homes, home health providers and increased cost sharing. Without hesitation, Congress provided $87 billion to rebuild Iraq; is it too much to provide the appropriate funding needed to give our Nation's seniors what they deserve--an affordable and guaranteed medicare drug benefit? Mr. Speaker, I represent 206,000 constituents in my district who are 65 and older and are below the federal poverty level. The same constituents I promised that I would vote for a Medicare prescription drug bill that would be affordable with reasonable premiums and deductibles that are designed to significantly reduce the price of prescription drugs; a meaningful medicare prescription drug bill that would be defined, provide guaranteed benefits, there would be absolutely no gaps; no separate privatized plan; and most important, I repeatedly told my constituents that I would support a Medicare prescription drug bill that would be available to all seniors and disabled Americans. The results of the Medicare conference agreement is not what I expected. Dear colleagues, I ask that you join me and vote against this measure. [From USA Today, Nov. 21, 2003] AARP Accused of Conflict of Interest (By Jim Drinkard and William M. Welch) Washington.--AARP, the nation's leading lobbying force for retirees, has a major conflict of interest in its backing for a new Medicare prescription drug plan, opponents charge. The organization receives millions of dollars a year in royalties for insurance marketed under its name. It stands to reap a windfall from the plan, which would pump $400 billion into a new drug benefit and open Medicare to private insurance competition. AARP's annual reports show it has received about $608 million in insurance-related income over the four most recent years for which data are available. That's 30% of its total income, roughly equal to what it collects in membership dues. ``It's almost unimaginable that they wouldn't stand to gain'' if the new benefit is passed, says David Himmelstein of Harvard Medical School. He is a proponent of national health insurance. Much of AARP's insurance business is in policies that pay costs not covered by Medicare--so-called Medigap insurance. UnitedHealth Group signed a 10-year contract with AARP in 1998 to provide health coverage to its 35 million members. The business was worth $3.7 billion last year to the insurance company. ``The same folks who are in the Medigap market would want to get into this, and the best route in is through the AARP membership list,'' Himmelstein says. AARP also collects millions of dollars a year from insurance and drug companies that advertise in the magazine it mails to members. It also makes money--$10.8 million last year--by selling its members list to insurance companies. From its earliest roots in the 1950s, AARP has been closely tied to the insurance business. It grew out of a retired teachers group that sought to provide health insurance to its members. ``They have always had this commercial identity,'' says Jonathan Oberlander, a political scientist at the University of North Carolina who has studied the politics of Medicare. The breadth of AARP's business activities--which include not only insurance but credit cards, travel packages and prescription drugs--has drawn unwanted attention before. In 1995, Sen. Alan Simpson, R-Wyo., convened hearings that alleged the group was abusing its non-profit status. AARP was forced to pay back taxes on its earnings from those commercial ventures. and the group has faced periodic questioning about whether its business interests at times overshadow the interests of its members. Simpson, now retired from the Senate, remains one of the group's sharpest critics. ``If there was a sublime definition of conflict of interest, it would be AARP from morning to night,'' he says. AARP is tax exempt and officially non-partisan. ``We made public policy decisions without regard to business considerations,'' says the group's policy director, John Rother. Spokesman Steve Hahn says some of its Medigap policies and mail-order pharmaceutical sales are likely to be hurt by passage of the Medicare bill because it will increase competition. Democrats in Congress seemed stunned this week when AARP announced it would support the Republican-drafted Medicare compromise and pour $7 million into a TV ad campaign urging passage. Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., say the legislation would sell out the interests of senior citizens. It ``undermines Medicare and serves the agendas of big drug and insurance companies,'' they wrote in a letter to AARP head William Novelli. They asked Novelli to pledge not to profit from any program that might be created. Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., called the legislation a ``special-interest boondoggle'' that will split AARP's leaders from its grass roots. On Thursday, a message board on the group's Web site was peppered with angry postings from members, including 839 new missives under the title, ``AARP sellout.'' For a decade, AARP has been a sleeping giant. The organization felt burned after its support for a catastrophic insurance benefit in 1988 backfired with seniors and had to be repealed. It had since been reluctant to take positions on hot political issues. Its membership is evenly divided among Democrats, Republicans and independents, making it hard to take sides in policy fights. But when the group does decide to engage, its clout is unmatched. ``They are the most important and well-organized association in Washington,'' says James Thurber, who teaches lobbying at American University in Washington.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I too have a lot of respect for the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), and he has been very helpful in letting the issue of uterine fibroid research be heard, and I thank him for that. But I have to differ with him on a few things, and one of those would be we are discussing this prescription drug benefit like it is going to happen tomorrow. I want seniors, if the bill passes, to understand it will not happen until 2006, so we are clear on that. Mr. Speaker, I had a town hall meeting for my seniors and what they said to me is, they wanted a prescription drug benefit that would be fair, that would be guaranteed, and that would be affordable. I have been talking and talking about how I want it to be fair, guaranteed, and affordable and, as I review this bill, it is not that. I am here talking on a motion to instruct because as a new member of the Committee on Ways and Means, I thought that my ranking member would have a chance to be in the meeting. Now, the reality is, the Democratic House Members were not included. We went to a meeting with the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), and he said, only those who are Members of the willing, or however the heck he described it, get to come to the private meetings of the conference committee. Our conference folks would get invited to the official meetings of the conference, but they would not be invited to the meetings where things that were accomplished in this bill were included. History taught me that there is a Senate and then there is a House of Representatives and, true, those two Senators sat down with the Republicans, and they call it bipartisan, but they are not my Senators. We stand up as Members of the House, and we are entitled to participate in the process. Mr. Speaker, I had Tom Scully in my district because I am truly concerned about what is happening in health care, and he came in and talked to my hospitals, and my colleagues heard what the hospitals said, and they got more money. And the doctors sat with Tom Scully, and my colleagues heard what they said, and they got more money. My son Mervin is 20 years old and he uses the term, ``I ain't mad.'' And I ``ain't mad'' at the hospitals that they got money to be able to provide services. And I ``ain't mad'' at the doctors because I thought they should be paid more. But I am mad because my seniors are not getting what I thought they were entitled to, which is a guaranteed, affordable benefit. There is a gap in coverage, there are all kinds of things. I am running out of time, but I am here to speak on behalf of the 11th Congressional District. I ain't voting for this bill, and I ain't mad.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, on election day Tuesday in the city of Cleveland, Ohio, the voters of the city of Cleveland elected four smart, intelligent, good-looking African American women to the municipal court: Emanuella Groves, reelected; Lauren Moore, elected for the first time; Anita Lassiter May, elected for the first time; and Pauline Tarver, elected for the first time. We are so excited about the opportunity for these young women to serve and provide justice to the people of the city of Cleveland. I join with the voters of the city of Cleveland in congratulating these fine young women who will serve well as Cleveland municipal court judges.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of National Breast Cancer Awareness Month. In October 2003, the National Breast Cancer Awareness Month campaign celebrates 18 years of educating women about breast cancer, especially the importance of detecting the disease in its earliest stages through screening mammography, clinical breast examination, and for women 20 years of age and older, breast self- examination. The third Friday in October each year is National Mammography Day, first proclaimed by President Clinton in 1993. On this day, or throughout the month, radiologists provide discounted or free screening mammograms. In 2002, more than 680 American College of Radiology (ACR) accredited facilities took part. In 2003, National Mammography Day was celebrated on October 17. Ohio ranks as the 6th highest percentage of new cases of breast cancer in the nation. Ohio ties with Illinois for the 6th highest percentage of deaths due to breast cancer in the nation. All women are at risk for developing breast cancer. The older a woman is, the greater her chances of developing breast cancer. Approximately 77% of breast cancer cases occur in women over 50 years of age. According to the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program of the National Cancer Institute: White, Hawaiian, and African-American women have the highest incidence of invasive breast cancer in the United States (approximately four times higher than the lowest group); Korean, American Indian, and Vietnamese women have the lowest incidence of invasive breast cancer in the United States. African-Americans have the highest death rate from breast cancer and are more likely to be diagnosed with a later stage of breast cancer than White women; In the age groups, 30-54 and 55-69 years, African-American women have the highest death rate from breast cancer, followed by Hawaiian women, and white non-Hispanic women. However, in the 70 year old age group, the death rate from breast cancer for white women is higher than for African-American. The key to surviving breast cancer is early detection and treatment. According to the American Cancer Society, when breast cancer is confined to the breast, the five-year survival rate is close to 100%. The early detection of breast cancer helps reduce the need for therapeutic treatment and minimizes pain and suffering, allowing women to continue leading happy, productive lives. Beginning at the age of 20, every woman should practice monthly breast self-exams and begin a routine program of breast health, including scheduling physician performed clinical breast exams at least every three years. As a woman ages, her risk of breast cancer also increases. About 77% of women with breast cancer are over age 50 at the time of diagnosis. Women between the ages of 20 and 29 account for only 0.3% of breast cancer cases. Beginning at the age of 40, all women should have annual screening, mammograms, receive clinical breast exams each year, and practice breast self-exams every month. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reiterate my support for National Breast Cancer Awareness Month. ``Making Strides Against Breast Cancer,'' is a true pink slogan of this year's American Cancer Society campaign to educate women and girls about breast cancer. In 2000, the ACS fought to make the Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act federal law, earmarking $1,000,000,000 to treat medically underserved women. The reality is that breast cancer spells death for approximately 40,000 women in the U.S. a year. There is an urgency to educate and support early detection, which is critical to prevent this ugly mass. The cost of breast cancer on women's lives cannot be overstated. As Cleveland ``Plain Dealer'' columnist Regina Brett stated in 2000: ``The approximate cost for surgery for breast cancer is $6,000. Four cycles of chemotherapy is approximately $5,000. Six weeks of radiation is $16,000. Living to see your children grow up: PRICELESS.'' Day after day, when dollars are not provided for research and or treatment, more women struggle and don't receive the medical assistance that is needed. If you don't have insurance or enough revenue Liz Schulte, president of Northern Ohio Breast Cancer Coalition states, ``you quit your job, sell your car, give up your home and go on disability.''

Mrs. JONES of Ohio

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of every American's basic right to vote and to have that voted counted. As it stands, voters have no way of knowing what is actually recorded, once they vote. H.R. 2239, the bill introduced by my colleague from New Jersey, would make certain the process of voting is not in any way a leap of faith. This act would ensure our constituents see a record of verification for the votes they cast. When Americans go to the bank, they receive some manner of documented record, ensuring that their money is going where they intended. Likewise, Americans who use voting machines deserve a documented record confirming their vote was recorded correctly. Nine percent of the U.S. population records their votes electronically. These numbers greatly vary from State to State. Twelve percent of Ohio votes are recorded electronically. Eighty percent of Kentucky voters use electronic ballots. Without an adequate confirmation method, mechanical misvotes could have a drastic impact on close elections. The problem would go unnoticed. H.R. 2239 would also accelerate the deadline for compliance with voting systems standards from January 1, 2006 to the regularly scheduled November 2004 general Federal election. In order to guarantee accurately recorded votes for next year's election cycle, Congress must act now. We cannot put the basic rights of our constituents on hold. The right to vote is a right every citizen of this country deserves. As Members of Congress, we all have an obligation to make sure all of our constituents' votes are counted through the most fair and accurate means available. Not just the blacks. Not just the whites. Not just the browns. Not just the yellows. Not just the Christians. Not just the Jews. Not just the Muslims. Not just the Atheists. Not just the Republicans. Not just the Democrats. The right to vote should not be reserved for just most of our constituents, but for all of our constituents.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to the dramatic downfall in Ohio employment since this current administration took office in January of 2001. This downfall is being felt by middle-class workers throughout Cleveland, throughout Ohio and throughout our Nation. In January of 2001, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that Cleveland benefited from 1,147,700 jobs. By January 2003, that number plunged by 55,000 jobs. After two additional years of fiscally reckless policies from this administration, current preliminary estimates state less than 1,113,100 jobs now exist in the City of Cleveland. In September of 2001, Cleveland had 183,100 manufacturing jobs. The current number of manufacturing jobs has dipped to 165,700. The amount of job losses in manufacturing for the State of Ohio since August 2001 now total 86,700. A great many of these unemployed manufacturing employees are dependent on benefits provided under the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation program. The total number of unemployed workers in Ohio who have exhausted these benefits amounts to 126,000. Ohioans must have the means necessary to aid them through these troubling economic times. I would urge this administration to focus on initiatives to boost employment--not just tax cuts. Ohioans deserve a resolution to this unemployment spell. The facts show that too many are still out of work. Ohioans deserve to know why.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a fellow Ohioan whose career and service deserves recognition. Stanley Friedlander is the outgoing president of the American Land Title Association (ALTA). The American Land Title Association is composed of 2,400 title insurance companies, their agents, independent abstracters and attorneys who search, examine, and insure land titles to protect owners and mortgage lenders against losses from defects in titles. Many of these companies also provide additional real estate information services, such as tax search, flood certification, tax filing, and credit reporting services. These firms and individuals employ nearly 100,000 individuals and operate in every county in the country. Stanley's entrepreneurial spirit is inspiring. While attending Kent State University, Stanley started his first job in the title insurance industry and within a year had launched his own title agency. Currently, Mr. Friedlander is the president of Continental Title Agents Corporation, which he co-founded 30 years ago, based in Cleveland, OH. Stanley's four-decade career has been committed to helping the American dream of homeownership come true. It is no surprise that Stanley became president of the American Land Title Association. As a title agent, Stanley insures that a property bought by a consumer comes with all ownership rights or a ``clean title.'' When purchasing a home or other real estate, one actually does not receive the land, but rather a title to the property, which may be limited by rights and claims asserted by others. Problems with title can limit one's use and enjoyment of real estate, as well as bring financial loss to both the individual purchaser and the mortgage lender. Protection is available through title insurance. Title insurance, unlike other types of insurance, offers protection against loss arising from hazards and defects already existing in the title. The common types of problems include: deeds, will and trusts that contain improper vesting and incorrect names, outstanding mortgages, judgments and tax liens, easements or incorrect notary acknowledgments. Specifically, a previously undisclosed heir may make a claim against a property or a forged deed was used in the transfer of title making it invalid. Title insurance offers financial protection against these and other hazards through negotiations by the title insurer with third parties, payment for defending against an attack on title as insured, and payment of claims. As President of ALTA, Stanley is committed to guiding his industry through a time of potential challenges and recently testified before the House Financial Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity. Mr. Friedlander is also a leader in his community. He has served on the Moreland Hills Community Council and is currently involved as a member of the community's Planning Commission and the Cuyahoga County Bar Association's Grievance Committee. He is also involved in Cleveland's Hebrew Free Loan Association whose mission is to provide interest free loans to those in need. Stanley has been active in the Ohio Land Title Association (OLTA), where he chaired the Education Committee, served on the Board of Governors, and as OLTA president. Mr. Friedlander is married to Cheryl Karner, a common pleas court judge. Together they have two children, Jennifer and Joey both in their early twenties. I am pleased to submit this statement for the Congressional Record. I congratulate Mr. Friedlander on his service to ALTA during the past year and wish him continued success.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring recognition to one of the 20th century's greatest public servants, the Honorable Mother Teresa of Calcutta, whose birthday was August, 27 and who will be beatified by Pope John Paul II in Rome on October 19, 2003. Her life was a steadfast devotion to providing needed assistance to the most destitute of her fellow neighbors. Mother Teresa was born Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu in Albania, August 26, 1910. She decided to become a Roman Catholic Sister at the tender age of 18. She left home to join a community of Irish nuns in Calcutta. Here she took the name `Sister Teresa,' after Saint Teresa of Lisieux, the patroness of missionaries. She spent the following 17 years teaching and being principal of 500 students at St. Mary's High School. In 1946, she fell ill with suspected tuberculosis and was sent to the town of Darjeeling to recover. ``It was in the train I heard the call to give up all and follow him to the slums to serve him among the poorest of the poor,'' she recalled. Pope Pius XII would later grant her permission to leave her order. She arrived in the slums of Calcutta to start a school for children. It was there that she was first addressed as Mother Teresa. Her impact was mostly felt in her adopted home, Calcutta. Over time, the work of her order, the Missionaries of Charity would spawn a global network of homes for the poor reaching from Calcutta to New York, including one of the first homes of AIDS victims. Missionaries of Charity continues its service to this day in locales across the United States and throughout the world. By 1996, she was operating 517 missions in more than 100 countries. Mother Teresa was a paradigm of humility. When Pope Paul VI gave her a white Lincoln Continental, she auctioned the car, using the money to establish a leper colony in West Bengal. Despite her humble nature, even she was not without critics for holding steadfast positions against abortion, divorce and war. Mother Teresa was undeterred by criticism stating, ``No matter who says what, you should accept it with a smile and do your own work.'' After an increasing frequency of heart problems, she passed away on Sept. 5, 1997. When asked how she managed to do all she did, Mother Teresa responded, ``What matters is why you do it. If you do it out of duty or obligation, it will deplete you; but if you do it out of love, it will not; it will energize you.'' These words should be taken to heart by all public servants, in the House of Representatives and beyond.

Ms. JONES of Ohio

Ms. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to support my colleague from Massachusetts who has offered this motion to recommit H.R. 7 to the Ways and Means Committee with instructions to incorporate provisions that have not received the attention they deserve from this Congress. I am speaking of course about the child tax credit that Democrats have been calling to strengthen, only to see our calls fall on deaf ears, despite the clear benefits such action will have on strengthening our stagnant economy. This plea was ignored while Congress went on vacation, it was ignored while a tax cut that increased our Federal deficit to new highs was signed into law, it was ignored while young men and women were sent to fight in Iraq, and is being ignored while the Congress is being asked to consider authorizing even more money for Iraq operations. It is being ignored while those very men and women who we sent to Iraq could benefit from action expanding the child tax credit to lower income families. In a time where a saying like ``I support the troops'' is a common mantra among Congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle, in both chambers of Congress, and among all walks of life and ideologies, I call on my colleagues in the House of Representatives to put your money where your mouth is and support this motion to recommit that will bring much needed, much appreciated, and much deserved tax relief to Americans who will most benefit from it.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Second Anniversary of the September 11 attacks. This week we commemorate the Second Anniversary of the September 11 attacks. A day that will forever remain in our memories as we endured the loss of over 3,000 innocent people in New York, Washington, D.C. and Pennsylvania. Despite this tragedy we continue to press on rebuilding our communities and renewing our spirits. I would like to share with you a poem written by one of my constituents and a dear friend, Ms. Danita Harris, news anchor for Good Morning Cleveland on WEWS News Channel 5 in Cleveland. It reads: On September 11, 2001 . . . our hearts were pierced by the loss of our fellow Americans in the terrorist attacks On September 11, 2001 . . . we held on to the one thing that stands when all else fails, our faith in God On September 11, 2001 . . . there was a rebirth, an awakening, a national acknowledgement of the power and love of Almighty God On September 11, 2001 . . . in the midst of mourning the loss of a mother, a father, a sister, a brother, someone found Jesus--a comforter, a friend, a saviour On September 11, 2001 . . . knees bowed down and tongues cried out ``HELP US GOD!'' On September 11, 2001 . . . the salt of our tears fell on the earth giving our country a new flavor of freedom and pride On September 11, 2001 . . . hatred and ignorance showed its ugly face as terrorism penetrated America's front door On September 11, 2001 . . . we put aside our differences, our prejudices, our isms, and our schisms On September 11, 2001 . . . the only race was the human race, not connected by blood but united by spirit On September 11, 2001 . . . our voices sang God Bless America, but in our spirits we were all singing Amazing Grace Because if it wasn't for God's grace it could have been you in that building it could have been you on that airplane it could have been you. May we remember those families who lost loved ones during this tragic event during this time and continue to renew our spirits.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring recognition to a close and dear friend of mine, Mrs. Nora G. Clemons McCowan. Mrs. McCowan was actually born in Terrell, Tennessee on September 17, 1913. She moved to Cleveland in 1946 upon wedding Wilmer R. McCowan, affectionately known as Winnie. Their marriage endured for 52 years. For several years, the couple won the Cleveland Press Beautiful Block Contest for their infamously marvelous yard. Wilmer McCowan passed away in January of 1999. Mrs. McCowan had one daughter, Dexter Louise Mosley. I sailed with her grandson on many occasions. I know Mrs. McCowan to be a devout member of East Mt. Zion Baptist Church. She has held this membership for over 70 years. She sings in the Sanctuary Choir, leads Group 22 and is president of the Group Leaders Council. She is also involved in the Missionary Society and the Sunday school. In the community, Mrs. McCowan sports active membership with the Passadena Street Club and serves as Precinct Captain during election season. I have known Mrs. McCowan my entire life. She is a clear role model for all people in Ohio's 11th Congressional District.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I come from the great city of Cleveland where the voucher program was upheld by the Supreme Court, and I look in the eyes of the parents of every one of those children everyday and say to them that public education is what we ought to be supporting. Let us put some of that $87 billion we are getting ready to send to Iraq into public education. Let us put some of these dollars that we are setting aside into public education. Let us reduce student-teacher ratio. Let us increase the opportunity for our children to do well. I am not going to take 5 minutes either, but I could not let you leave with saying you could not look into eyes of the parents. I look in their eyes everyday, and they say, Stephanie, send me more teachers, send me more money for our schools, and give our children an opportunity.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. It is very interesting that this committee would say that the mayor and the chair of the school board of the D.C. school systems want this money. What mayor and what chairman of a school board would not want more money? But the reality is that this $10 million should perhaps be going towards adequately funding public schools. Perhaps it should be going towards teacher training so that the teachers in the classroom are better trained to do what they need to do. Perhaps the money should be going towards special education. But I stand here from a community, the city of Cleveland, that was the test case in the Supreme Court for vouchers. And I stand here capable and able to tell you that an independent study from Indiana University reported that the children in voucher schools are doing no better than the children in Cleveland public schools. I stand here to say to you that instead of parceling out $10 million here and $10 million there, we ought to fund public education at a level that every child in the United States of America is getting a decent education. We ought to be saying to parents across this country that we want you to have the opportunity to fund education in public school systems. Now, the reality is we keep talking about parental choice. Even in the Cleveland school system case, there was only a choice. All children who did not go to public schools and took a voucher went to Catholic schools. There was no choice. It was either public school or Catholic school. And it is clear in the language of the Supreme Court case that parents ought to have a choice. Let us get real in Congress. Let us get real. Let us talk about funding public education where all children have an opportunity to get a decent education. Let us talk about taking money and improving the building systems. Let us talk about taking money and reducing the teacher-student ratio. Let us talk about making real, making real this piece that we talk to children about, the importance of education, the importance of doing well. By doing this $10 million voucher program for the D.C. school systems, we are leaving out so many other children that ought to have a decent education. The reality is in these United States the way we fund education based on property taxes does not, in fact, make it fair. The Supreme Court of Ohio found that the way we fund education in the State of Ohio is unconstitutional because it means that if you live in a community where the property tax is high and the dollars are allocated for property tax for schools, that children in some parts of the State get a better education than children in the other parts of the State. I say this morning, our job is to defeat this voucher program for the D.C. school systems, to support the amendment of my colleague, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) and to support a strong public education for all children.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Absolutely.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. I will reiterate that it is so important that everybody understand that even though Chile and Singapore may be better than other countries, these agreements are set to be a model for future trade agreements, and we do not want to set the model at the standard that we have in these agreements. I am pleased to stand here with my colleagues in opposition to this legislation.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. The wonderful thing about all these agreements is that, right in the Ohio delegation, we have five members in our delegation who are on record in opposition to this trade agreement. I believe it is probably the largest number of Members who are engaged.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2210, the School Readiness Act of 2003. In my State of Ohio, the State Head Start Program, as passed by the Ohio General Assembly, and signed by Governor Taft, provided funding to serve only 11,672 children in fiscal year 2004 using $57,170,000 in TANF Block Grant funds, which is a reduction of services to 6,328 kids. In the second year, funding was increased to $110,184,000 in TANF Block Grant Funds with an anticipated enrollment of 14,000 children--still 4,000 fewer children that were served compared to last year. There is only a small amount of State funds that are included in the Head Start line item, $16 million in General Revenue Fund (GRF) money-- $11 million in fiscal year 2004 and $5 million fiscal year 2005. But, State funds can only be used for start-up, and can only be used for TANF-eligible services. This means that homeless children, children whose parents are unemployed, and foster care children are ineligible for State-funded Head Start. The State contends these children can be served by Federal Head Start even though there is no increase in funding in H.R. 2210 to accommodate these children. Since the State program is funded almost exclusively by TANF, except for the self-imposed funding restrictions on the State money as mentioned above, comprehensive health services will not be able to be provided to children in State-funded Head Start. This violates both performance standards and common sense as to what we know these children need. In tough economic times, one of the first programs to be cut in Ohio, as well as other States, has been early care and education services. The goal of creating a comprehensive early care and education system that provides quality services for children, easier access for parents, and fabulous results for all children is laudable and one for which we all strive. In the last several years Ohio has taken several steps in the opposite direction by continuing to flat fund preschool, lowering child care eligibility, cutting 6,300 low-income children off of State Head Start, and eliminating almost all State resources to support one of our most vulnerable populations. Until Ohio has proven on a consistent basis that a comprehensive, appropriately funded early care and education system is one of its top priorities, Ohio should be one of the last in line for flexibility to do what it will with children: recent history already has shown we are not ready for it. Mr. Chairman, I rise to reiterate my opposition to H.R. 2210. Funding authorization in H.R. 2210 does not even cover cost of living increases, let alone provide enough to implement improvements in teacher credentialing and wages or to increase the number of children served in Head Start, Early Head Start, and the Indian, Migrant and Seasonal Head Start programs, all of which are woefully underfunded. Ohio has done much work to help Head Start teachers receive higher credentials and degrees, but it takes a long time and significant resources. States given the option to administer Head Start would have little federal monitoring. The states would be free to determine their own standards and monitor their progress, unlike the current requirements to closely monitor Head Start programs. This is of great concern. Finally, several Ohio faith-based organizations and coalitions are not in support of provisions in H.R. 2210 that allow discrimination in hiring based on religion. My constituents believe that discrimination of any kind should not be allowed in this bill. It is also of great concern should this provision extend to volunteers. Parents are often the ones encouraged to volunteer in their child's classroom. Parents often are ultimately hired as staff in Head Start centers. Do we want to discourage parent involvement and a potential job applicant pool because of their religion?