Stephanie Jones

Mrs. JONES of Ohio

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. As I leave, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that it has been wonderful to have an opportunity to engage in a colloquy with my colleague, the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman). She has been a leader in this area.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. I cannot forget that, in the course of my decision to come to Congress, I was engaged in a town hall meeting; and one of the people in the audience says, Well, why don't you buy every constituent in your district a pill cutter? I said, do what? Buy them a pill cutter, and then they could cut up the pills that they have and it would extend over a longer period of time. I said, Sir, the real reason I won't buy one is I am not a pharmacist or a doctor. And how can I tell a constituent of mine how much medicine to take and when they should take it? That is why we license doctors to prescribe and why we license pharmacists to dispense on the prescriptions. I could not believe it. But the reality is that we do have people across this country who have gotten pill cutters and started thinking that they can self-prescribe by saying, well, instead of taking one pill today, I will cut it in three and take it three times in a day and really not understanding how different prescriptions interplay with one another and the impact they can have on their health long term. We have been joined by our colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), who is actually our leader on this particular issue. Mr. Speaker, can I get a ruling from the Chair as to how I would now turn this time over to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) so I will not cause us to lose this time, please.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Under the circumstances.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Over and over.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. And to allow for prescription drug benefits.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. And the thing that is so important is that we have as a Nation now developed our health care in a delivery system where we can engage in preventive health care. And if we could engage in preventive health care with certain prescription drugs, then we could really save ourselves dollars on the other end of the lifeline. We need to be able to provide the necessary prescription drug benefit to people at an early age, to keep them from getting themselves in harm's way. One of the prevalent conditions that exists across the country is the whole issue of diabetes and trying to reach diabetes at an early age so individuals do not develop to the level where they have to take insulin, which is much more costly than watching your diet and taking some type of prescription. That would be significant in all families. Let us even take a look at the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), our colleague, who was talking earlier about the whole issue of prostate cancer and having the ability to do the diagnosis, the preventive care, the type of prescription drugs to be able to arrest that situation early on and to give advice and counsel. That would be significant.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Absolutely.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Correct.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. And the advancement in medicine that has been made. But the reality of it is that there are people across our country that cannot afford to purchase the drugs at the costs that are currently set; and we really need an opportunity to spread the wealth, to allow those who are unable to afford that high cost to participate as well. The gentlewoman was talking about the studies that were done in the State of Florida. We did a study in my congressional district; and there was one drug, that I wish I could remember the name as I stand here right now, that seniors were paying 1,000 over the cost if they were in a favored status plan.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. At all.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. And if the drug they need is not at the status of being a generic drug, then these people are really in a dilemma.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, over 13 million Medicare beneficiaries have no drug coverage. Over three out of five beneficiaries have undependable drug coverage. Right.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. I did, Mr. Speaker.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) in Lorain took two or three busloads of seniors up to Canada because they were able to purchase their prescriptions at a significantly lower cost than they were able to have purchased them in the United States.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues, we wish to discuss the whole issue of health care this evening. Particularly we are going to be discussing the issue of prescription drugs. We anticipate that, over the next few years, prescription drug use will increase with age along with the prevalence of chronic and acute health problems. Over 13 million Medicare beneficiaries have no drug coverage whatsoever, and over three in five beneficiaries have undependable drug coverage. The Federal Health Insurance Program that covers 40 million elderly and disabled Americans does not cover outpatient prescription drugs. Ten million Medicare beneficiaries have no drug coverage at all. According to HCFA, the national spending on drugs has tripled in the last decade, and it is expected to more than double between 2000 and 2010 from an estimated $172 billion to $366 billion. Medicare beneficiaries account for 14 percent of the United States population, but 43 percent of the Nation's total drug expenditures. Medicaid provides drug coverage for 12 percent of the Medicaid population, generally those with very low income. Only half of all the Medicare beneficiaries with incomes below the Federal poverty line are covered by Medicaid. In 1998, Medicaid spent on average $893 per elderly beneficiary for pharmaceuticals. Medicare HMOs assisted 15 percent of all beneficiaries with their drug costs in 1998, although the share dropped to about 10 percent in 2001. Virtually all Medicare beneficiaries use pharmaceuticals on a regular basis and fill an average of 22 prescriptions per year. In 2001, the average annual out-of-pocket spending for drugs among Medicare beneficiaries is estimated to be about $858, with 27 percent of beneficiaries expected to spend more than $1,000. Medigap provides prescription drug benefits to approximately only 10 percent of all the Medicare beneficiaries. I listed all of these prescription drugs statistics particularly to focus in on the fact that, across this country, there are senior citizens and others who are in a dilemma without having any type of prescription drug benefit. Mr. Speaker, I would like to kind of engage in a colloquy with the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman), who has been very active in the forefront on the issue of prescription drug benefits. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman) to discuss what she has been seeing that has occurred in the State of Florida on this issue.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to congratulate my congressional page, Narvell L. Arnold. This is the first time I have had an opportunity to nominate a congressional page. I am very pleased. Narvell attends John F. Kennedy High School in my congressional district. In fact, just this week I was at John F. Kennedy High School speaking with his principal and counselor. I am so pleased that Narvell, who is captain of the football team, the captain of the basketball team, had an opportunity to be a part of a number of community programs: the Urban League Career Beginnings and another program called Look Up to Cleveland. Narvell, you have made me very, very proud. Mr. Speaker, I trust that Narvell's future years as a student and politician will be great. And to all of the rest of the congressional pages, it has been wonderful having them. I know they will enjoy their summer.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in protest of the gag rule and in support of the amendment of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) that would incorporate into the Global Democracy Promotion Act her amendment that came out of committee on a bipartisan vote of 26 to 22, that added to the Department of State authorization bill allowing discussions with regard to family planning. This is a strong signal that our colleagues on both sides of the aisle realize that the gag rule is wrong-headed. If the gag rule was introduced in our country, it would unconstitutionally restrict free speech and limit the ability of men and women to plan their family. The Hyde-Barcia-Smith-Oberstar amendment would impose on other countries what would be illegal here. I urge my colleagues to vote no next week on this issue. Mr. Chairman, the global gag rule places unjust restrictions on the way organizations outside the United States use their own money, effectively hampering their ability to provide information on family planning. Mr. Chairman, I request the rest of my remarks be added into the Record. We know that this policy of the Reagan, Bush, and now the second Bush administration has cost many lives and is a travesty that actually increases unintended pregnancies, illegal abortion, death, and disability. The Bush administration has claimed that the gag rule prevents taxpayer money from supporting abortions abroad. Don't be fooled. These activities have not been eligible for U.S. funds for decades. What has suffered are programs that provide women, men and young people with the information and services they need to reduce unplanned pregnancies and control their own lives. Programs such as HIV prevention, informational materials and medical referrals, condoms, emergency contraception, telephone hotlines, as well as career advice, skills training, Internet sites on reproductive health, and self esteem training to encourage abstinence. It is a principal position of policies of family planning groups such as the International Planned Parenthood Federation, that abortion is not a method of family planning. These groups are committed to reducing the numbers of abortions worldwide by ensuring that contraception is widely and safely available. The Bush administration reinstated the gag rule this year to pay back its pro-life campaign supporters. As reflected in its other policies, this is hypocrisy masquerading as compassion. Real compassion means that we should not impose restrictions on women and men in other countries that disempower and undermine their efforts to extricate themselves from poverty. We know that the economic stability, and thus, the political stability of countries around the world increases when women and men are able to effectively plan their families. Let's show real compassion and real concern. Let's keep the Global Democracy Promotion Act and reject the Hyde amendment.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, May 8, the voters of the City of Cleveland did a great thing. They voted overwhelmingly to pass issue 14, a bond issue needed to fix our crumbling school buildings. This was our T-shirt. It said ``Safe schools for Cleveland's children. The cause is right. The time is now.'' The voters of the City of Cleveland said that the cause was right, and they realized that the time was now. It is a day of celebration for the children, for the teachers, for the schools, for the administrators, for the maintenance workers, for the custodians, for labor, for the neighborhoods, for property owners, for businesses, and for our country. The bond issue was a bond issue for $338 million. We are very excited about it. Particularly because it made us eligible for a $500 million match from the State of Ohio to fix the crumbling school buildings of the City of Cleveland. The voters looked past mismanagement, failure on the part of prior school boards to the needs of the children of the City of Cleveland and the need for safe schools. I want to congratulate a number of people who participated in this great bond issue yesterday: Mayor Michael R. White, who is the mayor of the City of Cleveland, the first mayor to take over the responsibility for oversight over the Cleveland public school system. I want to celebrate our new, CEO, Barbara Byrd Bennett. For the past 2\1/2\ years, she has brought hope, energy, and optimism to the City of Cleveland at Cleveland schools. I want to congratulate the school board chair, Reverend Hilton Smith; his vice chair is Miggie Hopkins; and other members of the school board; the president of the Cleveland Teachers Union, Richard DeColibus; his vice chair is Merle Johnson and Michael Churney; the athletic chair, Leonard Jackson; campaign chair, Arnold Pinkney, who has forever, it seems, run campaigns in the City of Cleveland and been quite successful; to his senior advisor on the campaign, Steve Rusniak; and the media manager, Alan Seiffulah. My co-chairs for the campaign, and I should say that I had the privilege to cochair the campaign for the bond issue. My co-chairs were the Reverend ET Caviness of Greater Abyssinia Baptist Church and John Ryan, the head of the AFL-CIO. I want to congratulate other organizations that supported Cleveland in this great effort, the Black Elected Democrats of Cleveland, Ohio; the 11th Congressional District Caucus for the New Millennium; the NAACP; Urban League; Growth Association; Bishop Pilla, the head of the Catholic Diocese; the Baptist Ministers Conference; the Southern Christian Leadership Conference; the New Future Outlook League; and an organization called BUILD, Black United In Labor and Democracy. Finally, I want to congratulate all of the elected officials and organizations who I did not mention in this statement who were willing to sign on to this important issue. I have to say that, as we debate the budget here in Congress and as we talk about the importance of education and a lack of Federal funding for school construction, I am so happy and even more proud that I come from the City of Cleveland, Ohio where we stepped up to the plate yesterday and voted to fund school improvement in our area. I want to thank God. I want to thank Cleveland for hearing and responding to the needs of Cleveland's children. The time is right. The time is now.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the City of Cleveland issued a $338 million bond for Cleveland school children; $500 million matched by the State of Ohio. We talked about what about the children? We passed it 60 to 40, by the way. Our theme was, what about the children? Remember when we were children; if it was not for those who loved us and those who cared enough to show us, where would we be today? With this budget, what about the children? Elementary and secondary education reauthorization, what about the children? School construction, what about the children? Smaller classes, more teachers, what about the children? Low-income programs, temporary assistance to needed families, what about the children? Social service block grant, what about the children? Section 8 vouchers, what about the children? Drug elimination programs, what about the children? Remember when we were children; if it was not for those who loved us and those who cared enough to show us, where would we be today?

Mrs. JONES of Ohio

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) for the underlying bill. I am on record supporting the underlying bill, but I rise in support of the Democratic substitute because I think it addresses an area that is not addressed by the underlying bill. Since I came to Congress, a lot of people say, what are you going to be remembered for when you leave Congress. One of the things that I want to be remembered for is helping my constituents and people across the country develop economic wealth, because I believe economic empowerment is the tool that is the equalizer for all people in this country. If we can give them economic sufficiency, then they can live in wonderful homes where they can raise their families. If we can give them economic sufficiency, they can afford to pay the taxes to support their school systems and feel good about themselves and make a decent wage and take a vacation once in awhile. One of the keys to economic wealth development is the ability to purchase a home. The home becomes the wealth that one generation passes to the next in a low- or moderate-income family. Another way is a savings account, and one of the ways that we begin to look at or deal with low-income families who have attempted to begin the process of saving is through IDAs, where we match the income, that match the dollars that they save through saving programs. In Ohio right now, we have a wonderful program called Cleveland Saves that is being funded by the Ford Foundation to encourage low- and moderate-income families to save. The third way is a retirement plan. It is my belief that the retirement plan under H.R. 10 does not focus in on the low- and moderate-income worker, and that the tax cut that is being proposed or is on the table does not truly benefit the low- and moderate-income worker. The only way we can assist them in creating their own retirement plan is through the adoption of the substitute bill that is being offered by my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal). It is very, very important that we start now to benefit families in low- and moderate-income areas to build retirement plans so they understand, as time goes along, they will have something in addition to Social Security to support their families. Mr. Speaker, again I say to my colleagues, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), thank you for offering this legislation, but step a little bit to the left or a little bit to the right, whichever way you choose to express it, and adopt the Democratic substitute on top of this underlying bill, and then all Americans in this country will be able to benefit from your proposal.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I originally voted ``yes'' on rollcall 88. I then walked to the well thinking I was voting on 89 and I voted ``no''. Therefore, my vote on 88 was changed to ``no'' and I was not recorded on 89. I intended to vote ``no'' on rollcall 89.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, most of the Members of the House remember that I served as a prosecutor and a judge before I came to Congress. In fact, I served as a prosecutor with the acting Speaker this afternoon in the State of Ohio. I hear the cry for legislation to deal with a situation that none of us want to happen, a situation where harm comes to a woman while she is pregnant. I hear the cry under the veil that we as Members of Congress have to stand up for pregnant women, and we have to do things so nothing happens to pregnant women. But legislation is not the only answer to help pregnant women who are harmed. There are other ways in which we can help them. In fact, the Violence Against Women Act legislation could have helped women in this circumstance. But be that as it may, as we are debating legislation, one of the jobs of a good legislator is to make sure that when we pass the legislation that we know it will stand up to judicial scrutiny. For those who are the proponents of this legislation, if they only look to it, they will recognize that it has problems to the extent that a judiciary would send this back. As a prosecutor, I tried my darnedest to never take a case into court if I knew the law had a problem, because how could I explain to the victim that I prosecuted the case with the knowledge that the law had a problem that would not stand appellate scrutiny? Let us look at why this legislation has some dilemmas. The provision or key phrase ``child who is in utero'' is vague. It makes it difficult to get before an appellate court and explain the vagueness of that phrase. The legislation lacks a mens rea requirement, that one did not know or have reason to know that the woman who is the victim of the crime was pregnant. And then even more importantly, the legislation lacks a predicate for the offense, that the crime against the woman be first established. Now, to my colleagues who want to push for women who are harmed while they are pregnant, we offer them an alternative. We offer them an alternative that we as good legislators believe will withstand the scrutiny of an appellate court. We offer them an alternative that provides for the same penalty, that we believe is consistent with current law, regardless of what is happening in the other States. As has previously been said, let us try and be 435 strong in favor of pregnant women who are harmed. Let us step up to the plate and say that this Congress, on a bipartisan basis, regardless of our view on choice, regardless of our view on many other issues, and we have not agreed on much since we have been here in this 107th Congress, but let us choose this legislation to agree on; that regardless of our position, we will support the Lofgren alternative.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) for yielding me time. President Bush's 100 days, first 100 days. The President has hit that traditional landmark of his first 100 days. These 100 days have seen a charm offensive from the White House. He is able to pay lip service to the people, organizations and ideas. He can create a classic photo opportunity as evidenced with his recent appearance at the Boys and Girls Clubs in Wilmington, Delaware and other clubs throughout the country while a candidate. But as he posed with those children at these clubs, he took a red pen to their funding in the budget and completely eliminated Federal aid for the Boys and Girls Clubs. He bragged throughout the campaign about both his wife's and his support for reading and libraries, and then he snatched 70 percent of Reading Is Fundamental's budget. Is this compassionate? It is surely conservative. And, it highlights the hypocrisy of compassionate conservatism hidden behind a smirk screen. President Bush has assembled a cabinet of special interests. The average personal worth of the members of the cabinet is $11 million. He spent his first 100 days bowing to the special interests and corporations in America that financed his run for the White House. According to Democracy 21, President Bush received $35 million from 103 soft money donors during the election. He is paying those people back with ambassadorships and placements to Federal posts and ignoring the working people of America. As President Bush pushes his huge tax cut for the wealthiest Americans, he is cutting social programs that people rely upon on a daily basis. The other body limited the tax cut at about the same time the Texas State Legislature was lobbying Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson for aid because of the shortfall caused by the tax cut Governor Bush gave to the people of Texas. We say ``no, thanks'' to the shortfalls and deficits and demand funding for programs that make our families and children safer, smarter and healthier. Bush's budget cuts also cuts the unemployment administration and benefit coverage at a time when both the general unemployment rate and the unemployment rate of workers eligible for unemployment insurance are expected to grow from 2001 to 2002. He cuts work force training and employment programs 9.5 percent, or $541 million, in training and employment services. He cuts Section 8 housing assistance vouchers by more than half, supported only 33,700 new vouchers across the country. The proposal also cuts tenant protection by $62 million and completely cuts tenant protection vouchers provided to disabled persons displaced from public housing designated for the elderly. The public housing construction and repairs are cut by $700 million, or 23 percent, after HUD found $22.5 billion in unmet capital repair needs in public housing. Let us get back to that again. Mr. Speaker, $22.5 million in unmet capital repair needs, and that program was cut by $700 million, or 23 percent. The Public Housing Drug Elimination Program, which funds antidrug and anticrime law enforcement and security in public housing. In 2001, this program was funded at $309 million. Specifically in the 11th Congressional District, I had a conversation with the head of the Public Housing Authority and she said to me, the elimination of the drug-elimination program funds from her budget was like eliminating the entire Police Department from the Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority budget. He went on to cut the Digital Divide Program of the Commerce Department, which provides computers and Internet connections to low- income and underserved areas by 65 percent. He froze the Ryan White AIDS program at the 2001 level at a time when the drug cocktail and therapies has the number of people seeking AIDS treatment more than doubling since 1996. He cut the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention by $109 million, or 2.6 percent below the 2001 freeze level. Areas specifically cut are chronic disease and health promotion activities, such as diabetes, cancer and arthritis. He cut health professional training programs by $123 million, or 60.3 percent. He cut Community Oriented Policing Services, the COPS program, which has placed over 100,000 new police officers in communities, by $172 million. He cut the small business budget by 43 percent. Mr. Speaker, let me go on to just talk about a few other things that he cut. He closed the AIDS office. He closed the Race Relations office. He closed the Women's Bureau office. He provided for more arsenic in water. He went on to talk about maybe salmonella in hamburger in school systems is okay, and came back around and changed his mind. He changed the Kyoto Treaty, where all countries across America had agreed to CO2 levels. Then add to all of that naming some of the, in my opinion, most unqualified people to head some of the departments within the United States Government, those who are not sensitive to the issues affecting all Americans. So what I say is do not let the Bush smirk screen fool us. He eagerly reverses programs that will keep our communities and families safe and does it with a smile and a quip. We will have increasingly dangerous streets without the safety programs the President has cut, more people looking for housing assistance, a decreased ability to count on our drinking water, and other environmental programs. He likes to disarm his opponents with charm and allow his hatchet men to do the dirty work, but we know who is sending those hatchet men and whose work they are doing. Mr. Speaker, do not be fooled by the Bush smirk screen.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member, for all the work he has done in this particular area. I want to continue to respond. The prior speaker prior to my colleague said he wanted to help the American family. Which American family? I am talking about working families. Do Shad and Michelle Hallihan know that they are getting no help for affordable housing? Do they know they are getting no help for child care? Do they know they are getting no help for health care? Do they know their parents will not be able to get a prescription drug benefit? Do they know how many schools we can fix with $24 billion? Do they know how many lives we can change with $24 billion if they only wait on a tax cut on the marriage tax penalty? What else are Shad and Michelle Hallihan getting? They are teachers. They work for a school system. They get health care. What about all those other families out there who do not get health care, who do not have an opportunity to have a vacation and take their children somewhere? This benefit may deal with a marriage tax penalty; but it deals with none of the other things like housing, child care, health care, prescription drug benefit, or Social Security. Wake up America. We do not want this.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in opposition to the Republican budget. Let me focus for a moment on the whole issue of small business. Small business had been funded at a level of $900 million. Under the Republican proposal, it will be reduced to $539 million. Let me tell my colleagues what they are going to get rid of. They are going to reduce funding in programs that previously had provided access for small businesses in our country that are going to require them to pay up-front fees to get into some of the programs. It is a claim that they are going to reduce redundant programs. The redundant programs that they are going to reduce are the new market venture capitalists and the new market initiatives that were proposed under the past administration, programs to go into areas that are disadvantaged and unfunded previously. I say to the Republican administration and to the President, you claim to be a President for the business folk. The real business folk in our country are those who run small businesses. If you reduce those dollars, you kill small business.