Stephanie Jones

Mrs. JONES of Ohio

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join other members of the Congressional Women's Caucus expressing our disappointment with the gun safety debate of last week. It distresses me both as a mother and as a former County Prosecutor and judge. With the increase in youth violence at schools across America and the countless instances of children killed in gun related accidents, I believe there is a need for increased gun safety. Parents across America are more concerned about their children's safety after the Columbine incident. We send our children to school to get an education and improve their citizenship, not to be threatened by classmates. I recognize the fact that legislation restricting the access children have to guns is not the only answer to this epidemic of cultural values. Parents must take a greater responsibility for ensuring children learn right from wrong and how to resolve their problems with others in a non-violent way. Violence should not be a child's first impulse when life does not go the way they expect. I believe that a combination of greater parental involvement in children's lives coupled with tighter restrictions on access children have to deadly weapons is necessary. As a person matures they learn better control of their emotions, and how to deal with others. Lask week we tried to close the loophole exploited by several known criminals. Unfortunately that initiative was filled with amendments seeking to loosen, not tighten, restrictions on gun purchases. Because of the action taken to weaken the legislation I was unable to support it. I care about our children and families, that is why I took the action I did. Gun shows have become a haven for criminals and underage gun purchasers as well as those collectors seeking to buy guns. The two young men who attacked their classmates at Columbine High School bought some of the weapons used in that tragedy through a gun show. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, the two men convicted of bombing the Oklahoma Federal Building, financed their attack through illegal sales at gun shows. I do not favor closing gun shows. Rather, I think we need to restrict a person's ability to go to a gun show and avoid the background checks on their purchase. A background check is not an assault on a person's Second Amendment rights. We seek to protect innocent people from the risk of gun violence by criminals and children. The law is clear and right, if you do not pass a background check you cannot legally own a gun. An issue raised by gun advocates about background checks was the waiting period. The fact is that the majority of safety checks takes no more than a few hours. About 70 percent of these checks goes through immediately. Law enforcement is concerned about those checks that require more time, the minority of background checks. By limiting the time law enforcement has to check a person's record we allow people who are not supposed to own guns to actually buy weapons. I do not want to prevent law-abiding citizens from seeking a weapon legally for protection, sport, or personal collection from buying a gun. Had we passed the legislation including the amendment offered by Representative Dingell there would have been 17,000 people allowed to purchase guns who would not have been able to under current law. I support maintaining the Brady Law background checks in order to prevent criminals and children from buying guns. It is safe to say that those who do not have access to guns and have the will to strike out against others cannot shoot another person. We need to keep it that way. I am a mother and like all mothers I worry about my son's safety. He should not be at risk from friends who could buy a gun through the loophole in the gun show law. I support true and meaningful gun safety legislation, not taking guns away from law-abiding citizens. Ms. DeLauro. Mr. Speaker, let us protect our children. Gun violence is not a partisan issue. American children deserve no less.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I raised it yesterday, I raise it again today. No one has responded to the fact that local communities are not prepared to provide answers to instant check within 24 hours. No one has responded. And the reality of it is they cannot respond because local communities cannot help law enforcement comply with instant check in 24 hours. I rise in support of the Conyers substitute bill and ask all of my colleagues to get real. Protect children in this country. Vote against this sham of a legislation.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the McCarthy- Conyers-Campbell amendment to plug the loopholes. The realities, I say to my colleagues, are, that in communities throughout this country, State criminal justice systems are not automated. Many criminal records are kept on card files. In 24 hours, that is an insufficient amount of time for law enforcement to do an adequate or thorough check. To say that we can do an instant check in 24 hours is to assume that everyone has computers. Go to the criminal justice office in your community and see if they are not kept on cards. If they are, then you know that instant check will not work. I rise in support of McCarthy-Conyers-Campbell.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of all of us here in this House, I rise in support of the McCarthy-Roukema amendment, and the Conyers-Campbell amendment to take the guns out of the hands of criminals.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), a member of the committee.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), my freshman colleague this evening. I did not want to miss this golden opportunity. See, this is a golden opportunity for the gentleman's side of the aisle to encourage litigation. As we talk about tort reform, as we talk about not lifting the caps to allow people to litigate about tort issues, we want to give people the opportunity to go into court to litigate something that the Supreme Court has already decided. Usually, when we want to go into court and decide an issue, it is an issue that has not already been litigated by the Supreme Court. This is a golden opportunity this evening for us to waste our time instead of getting on to the issues that we ought to be getting on to this evening, which are dealing with gun control, dealing with gun safety. So, Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the motion, because it is a waste of time to discuss the issue. I am a religious person just like anyone else, but I learned about God, Jesus Christ at Bethany Baptist Church, 10518 Hampton Avenue, through the support of my minister and my mother; and every one else can do the same.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. I am raising the question of his right to close with the entire time, Mr. Chairman. We are defending the committee position, so I am raising the parliamentary inquiry as to why he has the opportunity to close.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like to, for the record, make it clear that I have addressed all of my remarks to the Chairman and will continue to do so because I understand decorum on the floor as well. Let me suggest that, under the Bush administration, we did not have the Brady bill. So, surely, they had to do trigger lock. Under the Clinton administration, we have had in fact had the Brady bill, and trigger lock is still operating throughout many of the jurisdictions throughout this United States. It is important again, I say, that if in fact we are making findings, let us make findings that, without guns, people cannot kill. Without the NRA pushing so many of my colleagues on the floor to vote against gun controls, we would not have guns in our streets. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) admits that the Brady Act is working. He cites 400,000 criminals and others who could not get guns, but he says that those 400,000 prohibited persons should have been tried or prosecuted for false statements. I would say to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), this shows that he does not understand Brady's purposes. It is preventive. If 400,000 ex-cons are stopped from getting semiautomatic and other illegal weapons, the law worked. Prosecutions were never the purpose of the Brady Act. First, the amendment notes that with thousands of current Federal and State and local firearms laws in existence, there have been very few prosecutions under those laws. This finding is simply inaccurate. The total number of Federal and State prosecutions is up sharply. About 25 percent more criminals are sent to prison for State and Federal weapons offenses than in 1992. It is a rise from 20,681 to 25,186. This argument also does not acknowledge that the violent crime rates in America have dropped significantly since 1992. The Nation's overall violent crime rate has dropped by nearly 20 percent since 1992. The collaboration between Federal, State and local authorities and community leaders has led to more significant decreases in specific areas. The drops in the violent crime rate extends specifically to crimes involving guns as well. Between 1992 and 1997, violent crimes committed with guns, including homicides, robberies, and aggravated assaults fell by an average of 27 percent. Overall, these statistics show that the government is pursuing actively any violations of the current firearm laws. The argument that the decrease in the number of Federal prosecutions indicates otherwise ignores the cooperation between the several levels of government and members of the community to maximize prosecutorial resources. Second, the amendment notes that programs such as Project Exile, which shifts prosecution of gun offenses from State court to Federal court, have reduced homicide rates. While Project Exile has reduced homicide rates, it is not without its share of criticisms. First, it greatly expands the number of criminal cases handled in the Federal court, which prevents the court from adequately handling other cases that are the proper domain of the court such as civil rights case and multistate civil cases. Further, by requiring the U.S. Attorney to charge the most serious offense possible, it takes away prosecutorial discretion. Finally, encouraging Federal prosecutors to prosecute State court offenses is another example of the Federal Government encroaching on the domain of the States. When I got elected to Congress, Mr. Chairman, I committed to my colleagues, members of the National District Attorneys Association, that if I had an opportunity to stand on the floor of the House to oppose any legislation that will require Federal prosecutors to do our job, I would do that. I stand here today in opposition to this amendment and many of the other amendments that have come to this floor to take away the discretion of State prosecutors. State prosecutors are elected and well endowed with the ability to handle many of the offenses that we are considering here on this floor today. So I rise in opposition to the amendment. Further, Mr. Chairman, I would say, drying up the supply of firearms and building on the success of Brady is what we intend to do. Since 1993, when Brady became law, it meant more than 250,000 felons, fugitives, and other prohibitive purchasers have been denied access to firearms. Let us talk about the purpose of Brady. It was preventive. It meant we do not even let them get to have a gun in order to commit an offense. By considering the amendment that is on the floor today, Mr. Chairman, we deny the importance of Brady and make a suggestion, just by assuming the facts of the amendment of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), that that is going to do something to curb the gun problem in our country. To make statements is not going to curb the problem. The way we curb gun problems in our country is gun control, gun safety, and gun trigger locks. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, so that the other side of the aisle is not confused, no one on this side of the aisle is not encouraging prosecution. The statement that has in fact been made is that the Brady bill's intention was to take guns out of the hands of criminals. Now, it is important that since my colleagues think it is important to set forth findings in the record in this juvenile crime bill with regard to the Richmond case, why not set forth some findings that, in fact, if we had a trigger lock on the gun, people would not be able to kill other people so quickly? Why not set forth a finding that, if, in fact, we had a waiting period on the purchase of a gun, people might not have opportunity to shoot people so quickly? My colleagues talk about common-sense solutions. The common-sense solutions, as I said, Mr. Chairman, would, in fact, set forth the finding that, if, in fact, this Congress would find that gun control and gun safety were important, we would have less homicides and less killings in this country. So when we talk about common-sense solutions, let us get some common sense in the House and pass gun control right here, right now, today. But let us go back to findings as we call common-sense solutions. In fact, prosecutors throughout this country, both Federal and State prosecutors, have done a great job at prosecuting all types of offenses. Crime in this country is down as a result of the prosecution by numerous prosecutors throughout this country. Homicide rates are down as a result of numerous prosecutions by prosecutors, both State and Federal. Mr. Chairman let me state to my colleagues that I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hyde amendment. Just before coming to Congress, I served as the Cuyahoga County prosecutor. It was my responsibility to prosecute cases much similar to what the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) is proposing on this date. I tell my colleagues, as a prosecutor, I would stop and say, huh, what exactly is it he is asking me to prosecute? How can I prosecute such a case as this? I am a mother of a 16-year-old, and I am concerned about him, too. But it is my responsibility, not Congress', to decide what violent material we should be taking from our children and not allowing them to see. So, as a mother and a prosecutor, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to a member of the committee and that that individual be allowed to control the time.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, Penny Chang was the typical American girl. That is what her father said about his daughter after Penny was shot to death on her way to school. She lived in my district, a freshman at Shaker Heights High School. Penny's promising young life was ended by a 21-year-old man as she walked to school one morning. She was shot twice at close range with a semiautomatic pistol. As she lay on the ground dying, she was shot twice more. She loved computers, had done well in school. After this despicable act, this troubled young man turned himself in to police shortly after, admitting to the crime. He had been a patient in a psychiatric unit. He had set Penny Chang's house on fire. How could someone like this get ahold of a gun? How could a person with this kind of record of behavior come into possession of a semiautomatic handgun? Today the House has an opportunity to enact gun legislation, gun safety legislation, gun control legislation. I pray we will act to protect our young girls from this type of behavior so that we can save other Pennys in this Nation.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Madam Speaker, we can no longer ignore the disparities in our school systems and allow young people to suffer in crammed, outdated public school buildings. Daily, Americans are forced to send their children to schools with leaky roofs and unsafe ventilation. With the classroom enrollment rate growing, children must endure overcrowding and dangerous conditions. It is vital that we bring education to the forefront of our deliberations. We will not be able to meet the Nation's educational needs with temporary remedies. We must make this a nonpartisan issue and create permanent solutions. By joining with other Members of Congress and supporting school construction and modernization, we secure the welfare of our children. It is imperative for the survival of this great Nation to prepare students to enter the global market and enable them to become productive members of the community. Reduced classroom size, qualified teachers, and new technology provide the opportunities students need to succeed. Our future depends upon the schooling of the children who sit in American classrooms today. As a Member of the 106th Congress, I am duty-bound to protect the interests of the American people. The steps and directions we choose to take today will decide the future of our Nation. To meet the impending demands of the 21st century, we must do everything in our collective power now to ensure the education of our children.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleagues in the discussion of the high price of prescription drugs for the elderly and in support of H.R. 664, the Prescription Drug Fairness Act for seniors, and I would like to thank the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) for organizing this special order about this very important issue. This is a matter that will affect us all at some point in our lives. In my district, greater Cleveland, Ohio, I am currently conducting a study of the cost of prescription drugs for seniors. We are all aware that seniors need more money for prescription drugs. Many seniors cannot afford the medication their doctors prescribe to maintain their health. We shudder when we learn that they must choose between buying food and buying medication. As Congresspersons, we have an opportunity to do something to ease that burden by supporting H.R. 664. The need is obvious. As we age, our health gets worse. Medical technology has afforded us longer, healthier lives. Our collective longevity places a strain on Medicare, Social Security, health plans and insurance. We know these things. What perhaps we do not know is that seniors are being charged higher prices for medication than are the so-called preferred customers. One would think seniors, consumers of such a high volume of prescriptions, would be preferred customers. This is not the case. The gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) was the first Member to request that the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight conduct a study on the price of prescription drugs to seniors in June of 1998. What the study found is alarming, to say the least. My colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) subsequently did a study in the State of Ohio. Let me go just give a couple of examples. Let us take for instance Micronase, a diabetes medication by Upjohn. Micronase for a preferred customer is $10.05, but to a senior the vital medication costs $44.28. That is right, a difference of 341 percent. That is just an example of a laundry list of differing prices. I believe we need to step in to protect taxpayers from being gouged by drug manufacturers. We must protect our elderly from corporations seeking to profit from their illness. This issue is of particular importance to me because my parents are seniors. In fact, my father, Andrew Tubbs, will be 79 years old tomorrow, 63 years older than my son, Mervin, who turned 16 today. When I ran for Congress last year, throughout my district I received numerous complaints from seniors on this very issue. I promised to work on this issue, and I always try to keep my promise. That is why I rise in support of H.R. 664 and thank the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) and my Democratic colleagues for bringing this issue to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I encourage everyone to support the Prescription Drug Fairness For Seniors Act.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) for this opportunity to be heard. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution with regard to Brown v. Board of Education. In 1954, I was 5 years old, attending the Cleveland public schools. Forty-five years later, I stand here blessed to be able to speak in favor of Brown v. Board of Education. The desegregation order provided many opportunities for African- American people in this country, even though as we stand today in many cities across this country desegregation and busing orders destroyed many of the neighborhood school systems. I had a chance to attend Cleveland public schools and was prepared for what I do now, law school and public office. I celebrate people like Thurgood Marshall, late Justice Thurgood Marshall. I celebrate Dean Charles Houston of the Howard University Law School wherein he taught young African-American lawyers that it was important not to be a parasite on the community but to be a spokesman for justice. I celebrate Nathaniel Jones, retired Sixth Circuit judge who worked on these cases, and James Hardiman, an attorney who represented young people in the Cleveland Board of Education desegregation. As we stand here today, it is important to remember history, as the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) had previously said, and we need to stand here and celebrate the importance of equal rights for all.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a wife, mother, former judge and former prosecutor to urge the Speaker to bring to the floor the debate on the issue of gun safety and gun control before Father's Day. As women, mothers and grandmothers, our goal is to prevent any more gun-related deaths. I joined with other members of the Women's Caucus to send a letter to the Speaker prior to Mother's Day seeking him to set the debate prior to Father's Day. Our children are killing one another with guns at an ever-increasing rate. From 1993 to 1997, the death rate by guns increased 182 percent for children. To stop the death of our children, we urge the Speaker to bring this issue to the floor for debate prior to Father's Day.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in speaking in support of livable community initiatives. I represent Ohio's 11th Congressional District that consists of both urban and suburban areas. Creating areas all citizens can enjoy is important. I believe we must not sacrifice our environment for expansion or destroy that which is already in place when we can utilize our spaces better. I would like to discuss several programs and projects in my district that deal with making our communities livable: The first program is in a small suburb of Cleveland called Woodmere Village. Woodmere is a small, predominantly African American community. Today the main thoroughfare in the village is Chagrin Boulevard, a busy two-lane road. Chagrin Boulevard, or Kinsman Road, as it was originally known, has long been a center for commerce with restaurants and stores, places like Gino's Jewelry and Trophy and Tuscany Gourmet Foods are examples of businesses that draw people from all over the greater Cleveland area. It is really wonderful for the Cleveland area to have such a vital route in it, but a blessing can also create a burden. Chagrin Boulevard daily has traffic of nearly 26,000 vehicles. There are countless turnoffs from the street into private parking lots that cause traffic delays. The lanes of traffic are wide, often meaning that two-lane road turns into a four-lane highway with drivers exceeding the posted 25 miles per hour limit. People regularly drive simply to cross the street. This traffic problem resulted in Woodmere Village applying for a grant from the Transportation and Community and System Preservation Pilot Program. This grant will provide money for studies to be done to best create livable solutions for Chagrin Boulevard. I am happy to say that Woodmere received a grant of $195,000 for the Chagrin Boulevard project. The Transportation and Community Systems Preservation Act was a provision in our TEA-21 legislation, the Surface Transportation Act of last year. This program provides areas like Woodmere funds to improve by considering alternative transportation projects rather than simply constructing a traditional bypass to look at what would happen if more time, thought and resources were available to make a more comprehensive approach to the situation. The plan in Woodmere is not simply to create more lanes and widen the roadway, as was originally recommended. Rather, with some ingenuity the village is planning to create a true small-town thoroughfare. There will be tree-lined medians flanking the boulevard on both sides creating more pedestrian-friendly frontage roads. New sidewalks, crosswalks and traffic signals will be installed. Mr. Speaker, we must give people the option to leave their cars and walk to shops and restaurants. Chagrin Boulevard would be safer for drivers, accessible to people walking or wanting to ride a bike and better for those businesses along its routes should this proposed plan be accepted. This is a perfect example of creating a livable space with what is already available. I look forward to using the new Chagrin Boulevard because I travel it regularly. As the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), the driving force behind many livable initiatives such as this, said on the floor a week ago, it is not about Federal interference but partnership. It is about giving people more choices rather than fewer, and that will end up costing people less money rather than more. I would also like to highlight ParkWorks. This is a program working to reclaim urban parks. In Cleveland, Forest Hills Park, a large park bordered by three municipalities, one such area was rehabilitated by ParkWorks. It is now a thriving area for children and families. ParkWorks plans outdoor activities in these parks, encouraging those of us living in cities to enjoy available natural resources. ParkWorks has also worked with schools and churches in Cleveland funding things like a new running track for a local high school and has planted 50,000 trees and created gardens for neighborhoods. The money for improvements is donated from the Lila Wallace Reader's Digest Fund for the parks and through public-private partnerships for other projects. I would like to commend the involvement of ParkWorks in making urban areas more livable. By increasing green space and making that space available to the greater community they encourage a sense of partnership and camaraderie. Finally, I would like to commend an organization in my district working for affordable housing. The Affordable Housing Tax Credit Coalition is awarding the Cleveland housing network $5,000 for winning the Tax Credit Excellence Award in metropolitan urban category. The Cleveland Housing Network develops affordable housing in Cleveland's neighborhoods on a lease-purchase basis. These affordable options serve families in poverty by providing home ownership opportunities. Participants in the program of the Cleveland Housing Network will own their own homes within 15 years. By promoting home ownership organizations like the Cleveland Housing Network give poor citizens the ability to have a stake in the overall community. This sort of program is also important to livable communities. Mr. Speaker, I commend the Cleveland Housing Network. Without adequate housing we ostracize capable and interested citizens and deny them the ability to enjoy the true feeling of community. I commend the work of the Cleveland Housing Network and congratulate them on their receipt of this award. Specifically I would like to commend and recognize both Rob curry, the Executive Director, and Andrew Clark, the Chairman of the Board for the Cleveland Housing Network.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of our Nation's teachers. I am a graduate of the Cleveland Public School System of Cleveland, Ohio. I can remember all the wonderful teachers that were my teachers. From kindergarten, I can remember Ms. Chapman's name, all the way up to teachers that I had in junior high and high school. In fact, several of my elementary teachers that taught me French were my French teachers in high school. So every chance I have an opportunity to talk about how great teachers are, I am glad to be able to say that. I need to put their names in the Record, Ms. Gilliam and Ms. DiPadova. I speak French as a result of the great work of those wonderful women. As we pause today to celebrate teachers across our country, I wish that every child in these United States could have as memorable a moment in their lifetime as me with the teachers that I had in the public school system. I can even name some of my college and law school teachers that I remember very well. Like the prior speaker, I would encourage all of us to assure our children that are in school today, be they black or white, urban or suburban or rural, that they have teachers who have the opportunity to teach. Many teachers in our school systems today have to be mother, they have to be father, they have to be uncle, grandmother, grandfather, psychologist, disciplinarian, nurse, doctor; and they should not have to be all of those things. They should be able to teach in an environment that is safe. They should be able to teach in a classroom where there are 15 students or less. They should be able to have all of the accoutrements that go with teaching, the books they need at the time they need them, the room should be clean. Mr. Speaker, as we rise in support of teachers today, I just want to add my kudos to all the teachers that I had. I praise the teachers who teach today. May God continue to bless them.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the subject, Social Security, is on the minds of our constituents. Citizens want to know if there will be a system when they need it, and they want to know how the system impacts them as individuals, as family members, and as tax payers. They're asking good questions that require good answers. It is especially encouraging to see the emphasis being given to the concerns of women. Comparing women to men, statistics demonstrate that women live longer, are paid less, and are more likely to depend on Social Security for retirement benefits. All women, whether or not they have been in the workforce, need to know how the system works. I am pleased to join in supporting you on Tuesday May 4th as you discuss ``Women and Social Security/Retirement''. I know that there will be information disseminated that I will be able to share at the 11th District Forum, ``Social Security & You'', which I will host in Cleveland on May 22nd.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 156, to commend, thank and congratulate the Reverend Jesse Jackson and his delegation and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rod Blagojevich) for securing the release of the three American soldiers. There has been great discussion criticizing independent diplomatic efforts as dangerous, out of line and inappropriate. I stand to commend the efforts of this faith-based delegation made up of more than 20 religious leaders as the right move at the right time and in the best interests of the soldiers and this Nation. I am the mother of a 16-year-old man-child named Mervyn Jones, the love of my life. I place myself in the shoes of the mothers of these three American soldiers, experiencing the anxiety, loneliness, regret, love, longing and desperation of not being able to remove my son from the arms of Milosevic. Thanks to the efforts of Reverend Jackson and his delegation, I stand in the shoes of these same mothers exuberant, relieved, happy, proud, grateful and blessed that God allowed the Reverend Jackson to speak for me and my son. In the midst of apprehension, discouragement, criticism and mistrust, this faith-based delegation had the courage and most of all the faith, hope and belief that they could accomplish that which others had been unable to accomplish--the release of three young American soldiers. There comes a time when all criticism should cease and all voices should now be heard in unison, thanking these great Americans for their efforts, thanking these great Americans for their belief, thanking them for their audacity to believe that they could, thanking them for their service. Reverend Jackson, Representative Blagojevich and other members of the delegation, I join with the United States Congress and the American people to laud, commend, congratulate and praise your good work.

Mrs. JONES of Ohio

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to my colleague from the great State of North Carolina (Mrs. Eva Clayton).

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