Stephanie Jones

Mrs. JONES of Ohio

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Thank God, Mr. Speaker. They finally woke up and decided that we needed to extend unemployment benefits. But they fell short. In fact, they have let so many people fall off the cliff, I wonder, where is the safety net? In Ohio, as a result of the proposal for unemployment benefits that is being presented, 36,500 people will not get unemployment benefits. Right now in Ohio, since this President took office, 167,000 people have lost their job. In the city of Cleveland, 57,000 people have lost their job. If you do not believe me about unemployment, let me go to somebody that everybody thinks is really great and ought to be heard. Let me tell you what Mr. Greenspan said about unemployment. He says: ``Unemployment insurance is essentially restrictive because it's been our perception that we don't want to create incentives for people not to take jobs. But when you're in a period of job weakness, where it is not a choice on the part of people whether they're employed or unemployed, then obviously you want to be temporarily generous.'' We ought to be temporarily generous. ``And I think that's what we have done in the past and it has worked well.'' He goes on to say this: ``I do, however, argue that we must be careful about creating permanent, temporary extensions, if I might put it that way. And I was suggesting to your colleagues that should you be going forward in an extension that it is far more important to have a short extension and if necessary just repeat it later.'' But I think this is important. ``And I think that because it is stringent in normal periods, that one should recognize that people who lose jobs not because they did anything and can't find new ones, you have a different form of problem, which means that you have to allow the unemployment system to be much broader and, indeed, that's what we need to do.'' So I say, pay no attention to me, listen to Mr. Greenspan where he says, but when you get into a period where jobs are failing, the arguments that people are worried about incentives should not apply.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Here we are on the brink of a Memorial Day recess debating the jobs and growth tax bill of 2003. Let us memorialize that at a time when unemployment is at its all time high, we are giving tax relief to the wealthiest of all Americans. Let us memorialize that this tax cut will not allow young men and women who need Head Start to go to school. Let us memorialize that using the chairman's terms, we are using a clean bill. The bill that will clean the clocks of the poor to enrich the wealthy. Let us memorialize that the same jobs promise, the same stimulus promise, the same economy boost promise made in 2001 has yet to materialize. Let us memorialize that in 2003 it will not come either. The chairman talked about sending $14 billion in checks to Americans with children under 17. Let us memorialize that the checks sent to senior citizens who need a prescription drug benefit will be marked insufficient funds. Let us memorialize that the people who are on unemployment whose unemployment will not be extended because they have run out of benefits will get an NSF check. Let us memorialize that the people of America who have no health care will get an NSF check. Let us memorialize that tax cuts do hurt government. Let us memorialize that we will create a deficit. Someone said earlier that there was fear, anger and hate on this side of the floor. There is a fear that seniors and workers will continue to be disappointed. There is anger and hate that we, the people of this House who could do more, are not doing more. We talk about growth. There is growth for those who already have it, hope for those who believe that government is not a safety net, and prosperity for those who already prosper. Let us memorialize that this tax bill is not benefiting those who need it most.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, May is an important month for the Tubbs-Jones family. On May 15, my sister Barbara Walker celebrated her birthday. Happy birthday, Sis. I could not be there with you. Yesterday, my son, Mervyn Leroy Jones, II, celebrated his 20th birthday. Today, my father, Andrew Tubbs, celebrates his 83rd birthday. Happy birthday, Dad. I love you. And on Thursday, May 22, my dad will be named Senior of the Year by Cleveland's City Council. Congratulations, Dad. I love you. Now, let me switch to something else very quickly. I rise today to bring to the attention of the Congress an issue related to women's health that is misunderstood, underfunded, and devastating to the physical and sometimes mental health of women. The issue is uterine fibroids. On Mother's Day, we took time out to honor our mothers, our grandmothers, our aunts and sisters; yet we have done very little to provide research and to educate our health care professionals and other women about uterine fibroids. Uterine fibroid-related expenses accounted for over $2 billion in hospital costs. The National Institute of Health spent only $5 million on uterine fibroid research this year. Today, I introduced the Uterine Fibroid Research and Education Act of 2003. One out of every four women in their 30s or 40s will seek medical care for uterine fibroids. Uterine fibroids are noncancerous growths in the uterus that cause abnormal bleeding, urinary frequency, pain in the back, legs and pelvis, infertility, and miscarriage. My legislation's number is H.R. 2157. This painful chronic condition disproportionately affects African American women, who are two to three times more likely to suffer from uterine fibroids than other women. Despite their prevalence, little is known about uterine fibroids and few good treatment options are available to women who suffer from them. More than 200,000 women will undergo a hysterectomy each year to treat uterine fibroids, which requires a 6-week recovery, has a 20 to 40 percent risk of complications, and means, in some instances, that a woman can no longer bear children. Other treatments for uterine fibroids have not undergone the rigorous testing that women expect. In fact, the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality, a Federal health agency, found a remarkable lack of high- quality evidence supporting the effectiveness of most interventions for symptomatic fibroids. Women deserve better. This legislation, the Uterine Fibroid Research and Education Act of 2003, commits the Federal Government to expanding and coordinating research on uterine fibroids at NIH. It authorizes a doubling of what is spent currently, authorizing $10 million for uterine fibroid research each year for 5 years. It provides education for health care providers so that they can educate themselves about the condition and do more to assist women with the condition. And, finally, it establishes a public education campaign for patients so that they have an opportunity to learn more about uterine fibroids. I ask all of my colleagues to support me in the passage of H.R. 2157.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise encouraging my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, and I rise today because right now in the State of Ohio since 2001 more than 167,800 people have lost their jobs. In the city of Cleveland, more than 53,900 people have lost their jobs. We must, as the body of the people, on behalf of working people throughout this country, put in place additional unemployment dollars to cover these people who are without jobs. We are all talking about a tax cut that would improve the economy and bring jobs to people at some time in the future, but the people in the city of Cleveland, State of Ohio, and across this country need support right now. As I look out at my colleagues seated here, I see my colleague from Youngstown, Ohio, and I know the people in Youngstown, Ohio, deserve and need unemployment benefits. It is past time, it is way past time that we do something for the economy of the United States; that we put money in the hands of the people who have not had money to spend. So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, and I urge this Congress to pass unemployment benefits before we go home for Memorial Day to memorialize all the veterans who have served on our behalf throughout this country. Let us help some of those who are on unemployment right now.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the Reverend Dr. Stephen Rowan in celebration of his 4-year anniversary as pastor at the Bethany Baptist Church. His dedication to the congregation and to the Greater Cleveland community is outstanding. Reverend Dr. Stephen Rowan has been a member of Bethany for more than 35 years and has served in the capacity of Sunday School teacher, Trustee, and as Director of the Bethany Male Chorus. His father, the Reverend Dr. Albert T. Rowan, Pastor Emeritus of Bethany Baptist Church, was his confidant, inspiration, and role model. Reverend Rowan has excelled academically. He earned a Bachelor of Arts in Sociology from Knox College, a Masters in Public Administration from Northern Illinois University, a Masters in Divinity from Trinity Theological Seminary and has recently earned his Doctorate of Ministry at Ashland Theological Seminary. Reverend Rowan is the current Program Officer for Economic Development with the Cleveland Foundation, the country's oldest and second largest community foundation. He was a former partner with Ulmer & Berne, L.L.P (1991-96), served as Chief Deputy County Administrator on the Cuyahoga County Board of Commissioners (1981-90), served as Interim General Counsel for the Cleveland Board of Education and was the former Director of Operations for the Western Reserve Area Agency on Aging (1975-81). Reverend Rowan is currently a member of the Cleveland Bar Association, Norman S. Minor Bar Association, United Way Strategic Planning Committee, Advisory Board for the Center for Adolescent Health (CWRU), Quality Committee and Graduate Education Committee of Meridia Health System and the Board of Trustees of the Cleveland-Marshall College of Law Alumni Association. On behalf of the people of the 11th Congressional District of Ohio and the United States Congress, I pay tribute to the leadership, dedication, support, and commitment of Reverend Rowan to the congregants and to the community.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, over the past 5 months I have had the opportunity to have my first service on the Committee on Ways and Means, and I must say it has been very, very interesting and a wonderful experience. Right now, in the State of Ohio where my colleague who sits on Ways and Means with me, we have 57,000 jobs that were lost in the City of Cleveland, 167,000 jobs that were lost in the State of Ohio, since this President took office. What I would have wanted to see is the people of the State of Ohio who have been laid off and blocked out having to have the opportunity to get unemployment benefits. What I wanted to see is when we are in a terrible situation, a recession, that my State would have received some money to help the people who need a prescription drug benefit, the kids who need child care and day care. What I did not see in this tax cut proposal presented by the chairman of the committee is any help for them. I understand business and business wants support, but all the business people in my community said do not give me a tax cut, help the poor.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. I thank the gentleman so much for his leadership and insight on this issue. I appreciate his assisting me with this special order.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue. This past January, Democrats presented a fair, fast-acting, and fiscally sound economic plan that would jump-start the economy, create jobs immediately, and promote long-term economic growth. The President then introduced a highly divisive plan that does not create jobs in the short term and endangers our economy by saddling us with these deficits. Much-needed immediate action on the economy is being thwarted because the Republicans disagree about the President's controversial plan and because the President is still pushing for a $550 billion package that Members of both parties in both Houses of Congress have soundly rejected. The past Democratic plans have included $32 billion in immediate tax relief to small businesses to generate investments. Only $29 billion of the GOP plan is targeted to small enterprise. Finally, the GOP plan will negatively affect investment in small business and their access to capital because it will increase interest rates and make investment in big business more attractive. There is no bang, but there certainly are bucks in the GOP plan. At least there are bucks for the wealthy. Economists have estimated that for every dollar spent on the dividend tax cut, only 9 cents in economic growth will be generated. Even the economists that the White House relied on for their job growth numbers ``predicted that if the tax cuts were not offset within a few years, interest rates would rise, private investment would be crowded out, and the economy would actually be worse than if there had been no tax changes at all.'' There is no focus in the GOP plan, there is no fairness in the GOP plan, and there is no fiscal responsibility. For the sake of our country, our health care and our infrastructure, I call on all Members of Congress to reject the Thomas plan just as you rejected the President's plan. Mr. Speaker, the Democratic plan will create 1 million jobs by the end of the year and is paid for through responsible tax policy that puts money in the hands of people who need it most. The Democratic plan is focused on job creation and long-term growth. By providing an immediate stimulus, the plan will create jobs. The Democratic plan will not leave States behind--instead it will provide $18 billion for Medicaid assistance to the States, $26 billion for infrastructure development, homeland security, education, and other needs jobs will be retained and created, our economy will revive itself. By extending unemployment insurance benefits, money will be put in the hands of those who need it most at the time it is needed most. Recipients of those benefits will be able to buy needed consumer goods, pay their bills, and be able to survive in these tough economic times. The Democratic plan will benefit small businesses by creating credits for businesses who hire the long-term unemployed and increase the expensing limits small businesses are able to claim. Further, it will temporarily increase the bonus depreciation for all businesses, which will in turn enable businesses to retain more capital for expansion and hiring. The child credit the Democratic plan has will accelerate to $800 and will directly benefit the families of 1.75 million children. Over the course of 10 years this will put $50 billion into taxpayers' hands that will in turn be used for savings and consumption. Today's New York Times cited the President's plan, the House Republicans' plan, and the Senate Republicans' plan as putting $400 per child into taxpayers' hands as this year's rebate. This is part of the ``carrot'' that Republicans are dangling in front of the middle and lower class taxpayers. And while they may in fact get this money this year, Republicans are remaining silent on what they will get next year, or 5 years from now, or 10 years from now. The reason for that silence is because next year, and 5 years from now, and 10 years from now they will not receive anything. Instead, they will be forced to pay more for health care, they will be forced to pay more for education, they will be forced to pay more for infrastructure development, and they will be paying more toward reducing the national debt--a payment that will not yield any tangible, graspable benefit.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Majette) for coming out to help me with this hour. As I stated before she started, this article cited a recent joint statement signed by 10 Nobel Laureates in economics and 450 other economists stating that there is widespread agreement that the purpose of the President's tax plan is for permanent change in the tax structure of the country and not the creation of jobs and growth in the near term. Now, if that is what he wants to do is to change the tax structure, just step on up there and say it, but do not put it under the veil of creating jobs and growth in the near term. These scholars single out the permanent reduction in the dividends and capital gains tax rates as not being credible as short-term stimulus. The Republicans claim is that their plan will generate more growth in gross domestic product and in jobs in the next 2 years. In fact, even under the most forgiving analysis of these plans, gross domestic product and jobs will decline in 2005, 2006, and 2007. Respected economic analysts have shown that any positive impact in the first 2 years of this irresponsible plan will be followed by a gross domestic product decline of .25 percent per year, thereafter resulting in a gross domestic product loss of 1 percent and 750,000 jobs by 2013. There are two reasons why this happens. First, tax cuts without spending cuts lead to sustained budget deficits. These deficits in turn raise long-term interest rates, suppress investment, and stop productivity growth. The second reason is that the administration's proposal is ineffective at raising long-term growth. Much of the package involves items that are already scheduled to be implemented, so their effect is minimal and illusory. Further, many economists, including the Nobel Laureates and other scholars mentioned previously, believe that dividend exclusion will actually depress investment. It is easy to understand why the Republican proposals are so ineffective at creating jobs in the near term. First, very little of the package stimulates the economy this year when jobs are needed most. Let me say this again. Very little of this package stimulates the economy this year when jobs are most needed. This stimulus package only offers $31 billion toward the short-term growth efforts. All of the other dollars, whether it is $550 billion, $726 billion, goes to other issues. Further, the proposed tax cuts are ineffective at stimulating consumption because they are so heavily targeted at the wealthiest members of our population who will likely take that extra money and put it into savings rather than consume goods and put that money into the stream of commerce. One of the biggest concerns of Americans today is whether they will have a job tomorrow, whether this stagnant economy will engulf their job, their savings, and their livelihoods, or whether Congress will do something that will secure their employment and economic future. The Republican plans do not provide that security to our citizens. It is a carrot for the middle class and nothing for the lower class. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) has attempted to veil some of the aspects of his plan as benefiting the middle class, in essence, dangling a carrot in front of them. But when the truth is peeled away from his plan, it becomes clear that members of the middle class will never get this carrot. Republicans have concealed the true nature of their tax cuts and the effect those cuts will have on the middle class, using clever gimmicks and ruses to trick working families into thinking they will enjoy a permanent benefit under their plan. For instance, the child tax credit offered in the plan is a hoax. Rather than making tax cuts for families the centerpiece of an economic stimulus plan, they have made the increase in the child tax credit a temporary afterthought so that the amount of the child tax credit will drop from $1,000 in 2005 to $700 in 2006 while, at the same time, the tax breaks to the wealthiest citizens are being made permanent. They are willingly going along with a plan that will sacrifice increases in the child tax credits that would add an immediate beneficial impact for all of our working families to make room for the President's plan to put even more money in the pockets of wealthiest Americans. Now, do not misunderstand me. I think wealthy Americans ought to be wealthy if they work to get to be wealthy, but they ought to share the brunt of tough times, tough economy, with all of us; and they ought to forgive or give up the opportunity to get these tax cuts to bring our country back to the best. The Republican plan jeopardizes Social Security to make room for tax cuts for the wealthy. Just as baby boomers are approaching retirement, the GOP is offering a plan that will borrow and spend all of the money from the Social Security trust fund over the next 10 years. The long- term cost of the Republican tax cuts is more than three times the entire long-term Social Security shortfall. And what does this pay for, one might ask? My answer is obvious: tax cuts for the wealthy. As I mentioned earlier, it was just announced that the Nation's unemployment rate has reached 6 percent. This figure seems to not have resonated with Republican Members of Congress. Even with this new high in unemployment, with the economic slump continuing, the GOP plan allows extended unemployment benefits to expire at the end of this month. Nowhere in their plan is there money to extend unemployment benefits. Nowhere in their plan are they even thinking about the people that are unemployed, other than saying, I am going to promise you a job later on based on the trickle-down theory. In just over 3 weeks, millions of families across the Nation will be denied desperately needed unemployment insurance. Extending these benefits will not only help the families of the nearly 4 million out-of-work Americans pay their bills, but it will also help the economy by putting money into the pockets of consumers who will spend it. Remember the ``stream of commerce'' I talked about earlier? That is where the money from these unemployment benefits will go. But the Republican message to these families is crystal clear. The message to these families is, Well, we are going to create you some jobs, but you can eat crumbs until we get those jobs in place. The Republican message to these families is, We would rather put more money into the pockets of the wealthy than to put immediate dollars into your pocket in an unemployment plan. The message to these families is, Tough luck. Now, let us talk about what the message is to the States. The message to the States is the same as the message to the poor: tough luck. Despite the fact that economists statistically rate aid to the States as one of the most effective immediate economic growth measures available for the money, the Republican economic plan, while calling for $1.2 trillion in new tax cuts, fails to include a single penny for State aid. States are facing the worst fiscal crisis since World War II, but the Bush administration is refusing to provide them any aid. As a result, States across the country are cutting education and health care programs, raising taxes and other fees, and putting a further drag on the sluggish economy. And with the GOP's refusal to include any help to the States in their economic plan, economic growth is undermined, not fostered. I have spent most of my time talking about what is wrong with the Republican plan, and believe me, I could talk for much longer, but I want to take some time now to discuss a Democratic plan that is fair, fast-acting, and fiscally responsible. I see that I have been joined by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), and I would like to yield to him.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, let me continue to speak on some of these issues. Again, let me reinforce the statement that I made at the beginning. We believe that a stimulus package must be fast, it must be fair and it must be fiscally responsible. The Republicans ignore the tried and true logic that long-term deficits are bad for future economic and job growth. The Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan, has repeatedly voiced his assessment that persistent budget deficits hurt economic growth over the long term because of the drain they cause on private savings that could, and should, be used for capital formation. The Thomas bill ignores the dilemma it will create when the expiration of unemployment benefits and state cuts in Medicare occur. Just as it makes no sense to down a few more drinks before hitting the road, it makes no sense for a country that is currently running a $436 billion trade deficit and depends on $474 billion in borrowing from abroad to adopt a budget that will borrow an additional $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years. Even the Congressional Budget Office, now headed by a Republican appointee, has found that the Republican budgets will have little positive effect on the country's economic growth. The tax cut being offered do not come anywhere close to paying for themselves by expanding the economy as Republicans claim they will. Deficits do matter. Sound economic policy recognizes that sometimes deficit spending, to a certain degree, makes short and long-term sense. But in this current climate, the proposed deficit spending will not result in a short-term stimulus because only a small percentage of the tax cuts being offered would take effect this year. In the long term, American taxpayers can expect to see an increase in taxes and interest rates and a drop in funding for education, Social Security and other social initiatives, as more of their earnings go simply toward paying off the interest on an increased deficit. Let me repeat that. American taxpayers can expect to see an increase in taxes and interest rates and a drop in funding for education, Social Security and other social initiatives, as more of their earnings go simply toward paying off the interest on an increased deficit. This deficit matters, and this deficit makes no economic sense. Yes, deficits matter. Chairman Greenspan has recognized this fundamental truth, cautioning repeatedly about the perils of increasing deficits without corresponding spending cuts. Yet the Republicans have taken every opportunity to distort his comments to suit their wayward economic agenda. Let us take a look at chart 5. The President has stated that we have deficits because we have been through a war. This is a shameless untruth. The Congressional Budget Office and the President's own budget acknowledge that deficits started well before the conflict in Iraq and are projected to continue indefinitely because of the President's own fiscal policies. Even without taking into account any of the costs of the Iraq war, the CBO has projected in early March that the President's budget would result in a $1.8 trillion deficit over the next 10 years. Let me refer to chart 5 on deficit projections. This chart has three projections. The dark line shows how the deficit will continue to increase under current economic conditions. The other line shows what will happen to the deficit under optimistic and pessimistic conditions. However, the optimistic scenario is unlikely because increased deficit spending and more tax cuts will not create an economy of growth and job creation. For example, the dark line, as I said previously, shows how the deficit will continue to increase under current economic conditions. In other words, it is going to go from where it is right now, down to 2050, down this far to minus maybe about 14 percent. Under the best economic conditions, based on the deficit spending we are doing, there will still be a deficit of about minus 0.3 percent. Then if you look under the lowest productivity growth, it will even be further. It moves further into the minus spending, down to minus 15 percent. So the reality is that no matter what the economy does with the deficit spending we are doing right now, we are going to be in bad shape, and our children will continue to pay and pay and pay. This bill claims to be about jobs, retaining them and creating them. Last week it was announced that the Nation's unemployment rate reached 6 percent. In the last 2 years, over 2 million jobs have been lost nationwide. Districts with heavy manufacturing industries have seen an even bigger job loss rate than the national average. This Congress needs to pass a bill that will bring those who lost their jobs back to work and keep them at work. But will the bill that has been introduced by the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) do that? Only if you think that giving over $350 billion worth of capital gains and dividend tax exemption to the wealthiest one-half of one percent of the population will create jobs. What kinds of jobs will this create? The only type of job I think that would be created would be hiring people to carry the buckets of money this wealthiest fraction of the country will receive to the bank. But with most of those gains being transferred electronically, even those types of jobs will not be available. Economists from all slants, conservative and liberal, have reached a broad consensus that cutting the tax on dividends will not create jobs. In fact, several Wall Street analysts have rated this tactic as one of the least effective options in terms of stimulating economic growth. The tax cuts being offered by the President and the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) are not about jobs. Instead, these tax cuts are about partying it up now and ignoring the consequences. This so-called jobs bill starves the government of revenue so that social priorities suffer, priorities like funding promised benefits for baby-boomers, cushioning the hardship of the unemployed, enhancing educational opportunity and improving homeland security. Just ask any mayor or local fire chief or local police chief about what money they got from homeland security. They are the first responders, and they are still waiting for this government to give them the money they need to do their job. Other people have noticed that this plan would not create jobs, not just those of us here in Washington. This past weekend, the Detroit News published an editorial from the President of the Economic Policy Institute that empirically described how these Republican plans will hurt the economy, will cause more jobs to be lost and dig our deficit hole deeper. This article cited a recent joint statement signed by 10 Nobel Laureates in economics and 450 other economists stating there is widespread agreement that the purpose of the President's tax plan is for permanent change in the tax structure of the country, not the creation of jobs and growth in the near term. Let me repeat that: That the purpose of the President's tax plan is for permanent change in the tax structure of the country; not the creation of jobs and growth in the near term. These individuals single out the permanent reduction in the dividends and capital gains tax rates as not being credible as short-term stimulus. The Republicans claim that their plans will generate more growth in gross domestic product and in jobs in the next 2 years, ignoring the horizon beyond those 2 years. Before I go on to that subject matter, I see that I have been joined by another colleague of mine, the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Majette). I yield to the gentlewoman.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, just to be clear for everybody, the gentleman is a tax man. Will the gentleman tell them what it is.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, what else was very interesting, I saw the other day, was an article that was discussing not only the fact that the low-income workers are not getting any benefit from the tax plan, that the IRS is now making proposals that people who get an earned income tax credit must have more documentation to show that they are raising their granddaughter's children or raising their cousin's children and on and on and on as if they are the tax cheaters instead of people who are at the top of the ladder who have something to cheat about.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting, has the gentleman been able in this plan anywhere to find any benefit for unemployed workers who are out of money who would spend their money right away if they were able to get any of this money?

Mrs. JONES of Ohio

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, it is nice to talk with the gentleman also. Have a wonderful evening.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I did not say he was shamefully untruthful. I said the representation of the tax package was untrue. But write it down. Call me out.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Before the week is out, that will be totally paid for, before the week is out. Let me also say to you, sir, that on the floor of the House you are entitled to talk about whatever it is you want to talk about as long as you do not get personal with your colleague, and I encourage you to pull my record. I encourage you to pull my voting record. I encourage you to look at the bills that I have introduced, and I encourage you to let the American public know that I am here fighting for the working class people of this country, that I support business, and that I believe that tax cuts would be appropriate if we were not in the situation that we are in right now. And that if we are going to have tax cuts, they must be fair, they must be fiscally responsible, and they must be fast acting. Now, I must leave. I have been here for an hour. If you had been here while I was speaking for an hour, I would have gladly yielded time to you as well. But I am looking forward to continuing the debate because the people of the United States need to understand that this Congress must do something to stimulate the economy and that what we do must be a stimulus. It must not be a facade. It must not be a charade. It must do what it is supposed to do. And I challenge you to tell the American public how much of the Republican bill that is being presented actually goes to economic stimulus, and how much of the rest of it goes to giving dividend cuts and capital gains cuts to the most wealthy Americans in the country. I look forward to debating with you, and I look forward to serving in the U.S. Congress with you because I know my constituency knows I am doing their job on their behalf.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman ready to yield to me right now?

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. All I want to say is pull my record, sir.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Sir, I will give you a tax plan that will be paid for before the week is out. I will give it to you before the week is out.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. I just need a couple of minutes.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I came here to talk about the proposed tax cuts, but as I sat here on the floor and listened to my colleagues, I would be remiss if I did not respond to a couple of issues that they raised. One of them was that they accused the Democratic Party of wanting the economy to stay in the dumps just so that we could be successful. I dare either of the gentlemen that just finished speaking to find any member of the Democratic Party that would want this economy to stay in the dumps just so we can be successful. But the Democratic Party is going to be successful on the issues and that is what I want to talk about. Let me do one more thing, though. One of the things that was discussed, and this is called misrepresentation. One of my colleagues who spoke before me said that the Democrats were holding up the appointment of Justice Estrada at a time when justice needed to be dispensed in the District of Columbia and at a time when law and order was out of place and that he could be there trying cases. I just want to remind my colleague that Justice Estrada was being considered for an appellate court, not a trial level court and that justices on the appellate court do not do trial of fact. So that is again a misrepresentation that people make when they are trying to make one party different than the other. But I am not going to spend my time today in response to some of those things. I would just suggest that everyone needs to pay attention and listen to the real words that people are saying. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concerns about the Chair of the Committee on Ways and Means' plan that was unveiled this week, marked up in a lively session of the Committee on Ways and Means yesterday and will be considered on this floor shortly. In my own city, the City of Cleveland, 53,900 people have lost their jobs since this President took office. That is 4.7 percent of the workforce. In my State, the State of Ohio, 167,000 people have lost their jobs since this President took office. That is 3 percent of the workforce. The Committee on Ways and Means considered over the past couple of days the plan of Chairman Thomas. Unlike the Democratic stimulus plan that will be fast acting, fair and fiscally responsible, let me say those three Fs again, fast acting, fair and fiscally responsible, the Republican plan is another in a series of GOP tax plans that is economically irresponsible, narrowly tailored to benefit the wealthiest percentage of the population, and will not provide the immediate stimulus our economy needs in the form of job creation and productivity growth. The chairman's bill has been referred to as a compromise to the President's so-called economic stimulus plan, perhaps with the hopes that Democrats would respond favorably to any compromise to the President's fiscally reckless plan. While Chairman Thomas' bill does indeed have a different approach to some of the proposals offered by the President, the end result is still the same. It is poorly timed, shortsighted and narrowly designed to benefit only a small percentage of the population. This compromise reminds me of an old witticism: You can hang a sign on a pig saying that it is a horse but it is still a pig. The gentleman from California has hung a sign on a bad economic policy and proclaimed it to be a fix that our economy needs. But just like the pig with the sign around its neck proclaiming it to be a horse, this plan has problems. Let me talk about just a few of them. The treatment of dividends and capital gains. The GOP plan is not fair. The President's proposal for exempting dividends from being taxed was the centerpiece of his economic stimulus plan. While the Thomas bill does not contain that proposal and I believe it does not contain that proposal because in committee meeting after committee meeting, I kept saying to members of the committee and witnesses before the committee, do you understand the impact that the dividend tax cut will have on low-income housing credits? Do you understand the impact that a dividend tax cut will have, in fact, on annuity programs? And I think he finally got it. While the Thomas bill does not contain the same dividend tax cut proposal that was presented by the President, it revolves around reducing the tax on capital gains and dividends as the cornerstone to sound economic policy. Under current tax laws, capital gains are taxed at 20 percent. Dividends are treated and taxed as income at the applicable tax rate. The Thomas plan will lower the capital gains tax rate to 15 percent and also provides that all dividends be taxed at the same rate. Unlike the President's plan, the Thomas plan provides dividend tax relief regardless of how much Federal income tax is paid by a corporation. In this regard, the Thomas plan does not have as great an adverse impact on low-income housing tax credits and other corporate tax benefits that would have resulted under the President's plan. But this is the least egregious aspect of the plan and it is overshadowed by so many more unwise proposals. The chairman's dividend capital gains proposal will cost approximately $300 billion of the total $500 billion cost of the plan. He boasts that this is less than the nearly $400 billion cost of the President's dividend proposal. But he is relying on accounting gimmicks and unrealistic expiration dates. Many of the aspects of his plan are set to expire in 2006. But will these provisions really be allowed to expire? Most likely not. The more realistic outcome is that they will become a part of the ever-increasing number of tax provisions that are extended every few years. A more realistic estimate of the Thomas plan's economic impact on the Treasury must assume that its provisions will be extended beyond 2005. Under this realistic assumption, the $550 billion cost of the Thomas plan not only exceeds the $726 billion cost of the Bush plan but suddenly results in a total cost of about $1 trillion through 2013, as indicated in the chart that I am about to show my colleagues. This chart breaks down certain elements of the Thomas plan as compared to the Bush plan and concludes with the result of the Thomas plan being even more expensive than the Bush plan. For example, under the Bush plan, the dividend and capital gains tax cut would have been $396 billion. Under the Thomas plan, $296 billion of the tax cuts do not expire. However, the top bracket rate reductions effective only for 2003 will be the same and the child tax credit increases will be the same. But here is where we have to take a look and go further. Under the Thomas plan, we widen the 10 percent bracket effective 2003. It is $45 billion. Under the Thomas package, it is $18 billion. But if the tax cuts do not expire, it will go back up to $45 billion as proposed in the President's plan. Tax breaks for married couples. Under the Thomas proposal, it expires in 2005. The impact under the Bush proposal is $55 billion. The Thomas, $45 billion. But if this 2005 date is extended, the tax break for married couples will cost us $55 billion. Again, let us take a look at the business expensing. Proposed to expire in 2005, it would only cost $9 billion under the Thomas plan but if in fact these cuts do not expire it will be $29 billion. I could go on. I know people get tired of a lot of numbers but I need to show the comparison of the tax cut packages. Let us put up chart 2. IRS data shows that households with incomes over $500,000 get, on average, 41 percent of their income from capital gains and dividends. On the other hand, households with incomes between 40 and $75,000 get only 4 percent of their income from those sources. The gentleman from California's claims will not be the panacea for our struggling economy. For example, if you make over $500,000, according to this, 40 percent of your income comes from capital gains and dividends. If you make only between zero and $20,000, your income from capital gains or dividends is only 4 percent. So clearly the package as proposed by the gentleman from California is going to benefit folks who make over $500,000. I do not know where many of you come from, but clearly this is not a package that will benefit the bulk of Americans. The same IRS data shows that the $500,000 income and higher households enjoy average capital gains and dividends of $70,000 while the 40 to $75,000 households have average capital gains and dividends of $2,000. Under the GOP plan, millionaires will receive over $100,000 from the new tax structure. But if you make $50,000, you will receive about $400. Or if you are in the lowest income strata, the new tax structure will give you back just $53. We heard the earlier speakers talk about the benefit of putting the money back in the taxpayer's pocket. How much is $53 going to buy? Especially when you think about collectively if we took all of our $53 and left them in the pot, perhaps our senior citizens might have an opportunity to get a prescription drug benefit. Perhaps we might be able to fund the No Child Left Behind program. Perhaps we might be able to fund health care for more Americans. And perhaps we might be able to extend the unemployment compensation to Americans across this country. Let me go to this chart very quickly. For example, taxpayer year 2003, if you made between 10 and $20,000, you are getting $53. If you made between 75 and $100,000, you are going to get $1,600. But if you are part of that fortunate few that this tax plan favors, you will get probably $105,000 from this particular tax cut. Those taxpayers who will reap the highest gains from the Thomas plan account for .5 percent or one-half of 1 percent of taxpayers. Let me say that again. Those taxpayers who will reap the highest gains from the Thomas plan account for just .5 percent or one-half of 1 percent of taxpayers. Yet they will receive over 57 percent of all of the capital gains and dividends. When we talk about a plan being fair, this plan is not fair. Quite the opposite is true for taxpayers in the 45 to $75,000 income bracket who comprise 21 percent of all taxpayers and account for 24 percent of income from all sources. Yet they will only receive 7 percent of the capital gains and dividends. Let us try chart 4. Finally, the Thomas plan will benefit the wealthiest one-half of 1 percent of taxpayers nearly universally, as 94 percent of that group of taxpayers receives dividends or capital gains whereas just one-third of the 45 to $75,000 income range taxpayers have investments that yield dividends or capital gains. For example, if we look at chart 4, we can see how much income is derived from capital gains and dividends based on income levels. It is a little different orientation from the chart I showed you that was chart 2. For example, if in fact you make over $500,000, you are coming above almost 100 percent, you will receive that amount from your capital gains or dividend income as compared to people at the lower bracket. The Republican Party will claim that the majority of senior citizens will benefit from dividends and capital gains taxes being reduced, but only 26 percent of seniors in this country receive dividend income that would be affected by this proposal. Let me say that again. Only 26 percent of seniors in this country receive dividend income that would be affected by this proposal. Republicans cite the fact that more and more people have a vested interest in the stock market. Yeah, we sure had a vested interest in the stock market and look what happened: Enron, Global Crossing, WorldCom, the list goes on, and that they would now benefit from this proposal. Maybe this proposal should have come around before all of us lost the money we lost in the stock market. While they are correct in the assertion that over 50 percent of the population is in the market, Republicans distort or ignore the manner by which people do participate in the market.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for the last 2 weeks, President Bush and his advisers have traveled the country, including a visit to my home State, trying to sell their massive tax cut to the American people. They are wrapping it in fancy paper and calling it a ``stimulus package'' or an ``economic plan.'' But the American people are not buying it. In fact, many members of the President's own party disagree with this reckless proposal. They can dress this tax cut up any way they want and it is still just that: a tax cut for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans that does nothing to create jobs and will only sink our Nation further into debt. A tax cut of this size directed to the privileged few will not help our struggling economy no matter what it is called. I represent the 11th congressional district of Ohio. Since 2001, Ohio alone has lost 167,800 jobs, which is more than 3 percent of its total workforce. In the city of Cleveland, 53,900 jobs have been lost since the President was sworn into office, which is 4.7 percent of its workforce. Over the last few weeks, I have spoken with many members of the Cleveland business community and most agree on one thing: this tax cut is useless as a tool to help their struggling businesses. For example, local businesses tell me that they are much more likely to invest in new jobs and new technology if they are allowed to write off more of those investments on their taxes, and workers in the health care field feel they are best helped by increased provider reimbursements, not a dividend tax reduction. What is more, the Republican budget will mean cuts in local services of all kinds. It means fewer qualified teachers in our public schools. It means fewer police to keep our neighborhoods safe. It means fewer firefighters and EMTs to respond to our emergencies, and it means fewer hospitals dedicated to caring for the veterans who have put their lives on the line to protect ours. We can and we must do better than that. Democrats are all for cutting taxes. The difference is that we believe in cutting taxes responsibly so that those cuts can serve as fuel to get our economic engines turning again. We believe responsible tax cuts take into account the future as well as the present and do not increase deficits, raise interest rates, or risk jobs. That is why Democrats have proposed cutting taxes by $85 billion, and our tax cuts would go to those who really deserve it: hard-working Americans who are most likely to put the extra money back into our economy, and small businesses which need incentives to invest. Our tax cut is a part of a real stimulus package, a $135 billion plan to put Americans back to work by investing in the things that are most important to them: homeland security, education, health care, and transportation. The difference between these two plans is clear. It is simply a question of priorities.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut for yielding, and I congratulate her and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons) for hosting this resolution for congratulations for UConn. I rise to celebrate the coaches and the rest of the team. But I rise in support of Barbara Turner. Barbara Turner is my constituent. She attended East Technical High School in the 11th Congressional District of Ohio, which is Cleveland. I watched her play basketball in high school. My son Mervyn graduated at the same time she did; he is a basketball player as well, and I wish I could say their school was doing as good as UConn. I cannot. But I am so pleased to join with all of my colleagues in celebrating UConn. I want to just close with two things. Is it not wonderful to see how well we are doing with this program as a result of the strong support of title IX? It is time for us to stand up and continue to support a successful program. It is time for us to stand up and continue to support another successful program in colleges and universities: affirmative action. I would just ask my colleagues across this country to think about how great those programs are. Finally, I invite my colleagues to Cleveland, Ohio, in 2007 for the women's NCAA finals. I am the Chair of that event. Come on to Cleveland, and we will celebrate another victory.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. I rise to honor an American hero, Brandon Ulysses Sloan, who lost his life during the conflict with Iraq. Private Brandon Ulysses Sloan was a native of Cleveland and a member of the 507th Maintenance Company of the United States Army. He was born on October 7, 1983, in Cleveland, Ohio to the union of Tandy U. and Kimberly T. Sloan. Brandon Sloan exhibited a unique blend of personality and strength. A loving child, Brandon always played and enjoyed spending time with other children. Brandon later became a big brother to his sister Brittany, with whom he shared a close friendship. Brandon began his education in the East Cleveland School District, and remained in the district until the family moved to Euclid, Ohio. While in the East Cleveland Schools, he developed a love for basketball and continued in various athletic pursuits. During the formative years, the family enjoyed many happy times together. Brandon in particular enjoyed playing basketball and developed a knack for making good friends. In 1996, the family moved to Oakwood Village, Ohio in the Bedford School District. There, Brandon became a Bedford ``Bearcat'', participating in high school football as a defensive lineman. Brandon confessed a hope in Christ during his high school years and was baptized at The Historic Greater Friendship Baptist Church. Later he decided to pursue a military career. He joined the United States Army to serve his country. After having served one year, Brandon gave his life for his country. Precious memories are cherished by his father, Rev. Tandy U. Sloan; mother, Kimberly T. Sloan; sister, Brittney; two grandmothers, Dr. R. Pippen (James) and Luberta Sloan. He also had a host of uncles, aunts and cousins. His friends are numerous but to name a few: Stephon, Romel, Cleo and Eddie (U.S. Marine Corps), all who mourn his loss. On behalf of the people of the 11th Congressional District and the United States Congress. I extend my heartfelt sympathy.