Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I have been the pastor of the St. James United Methodist Church for 33 years. The bishop gives me the authority to bring pastors onto our staff, and I discriminate. I have five pastors. All of them are Methodists, and they are paid with Methodist dollars. Each one of them. They are paid out of the stewardship of the church, and I have the right to do that. But I don't have the right to accept Federal dollars and discriminate.

Minorities have come to Washington over the years because this was the seat of power and it was believed that if you could get close to the seat of power, freedom would be more available. The same thing holds true with dollars. People go to work for the Federal Government, and if they see dollars going to a Head Start program, they believe automatically that there will be no discrimination. And we should not, we should not, turn it around now.

Mr. Speaker, I missed the following votes due to an evacuation of the Longworth House Office Building which was conducted during the votes.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present for rollcall vote 248, providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 362) to authorize science scholarships for educating mathematics and science teachers, and for other purposes, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, had I been present for rollcall vote 249, providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 363) to authorize appropriations for basic research and research infrastructure in science and engineering, and for support of graduate fellowships, and for other purposes, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, had I been present for rollcall vote 250, expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Congress should increase public awareness of child abuse and neglect and should continue to work with the States to reduce the incidence of child abuse and neglect through such programs as the Child Welfare Services and Promoting Safe and Stable Families program, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, had I been present for rollcall vote 251, expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with respect to raising awareness and encouraging prevention of sexual assault in the United States and supporting the goals and ideals of National Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, had I been present for rollcall vote 252, Supporting the mission and goals of National Crime Victims' Rights Week in order to increase public awareness of the rights, needs, and concerns of victims and survivors of crime in the United States during such week and throughout the year, I would have voted ``yea.''

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor SGT James A. Reeds and the ``Monuments Men'' of World War II, as Members of Congress from across the country prepare to celebrate our country's artistic legacy through hosting the Congressional Art Contest: A Voyage of Artistic Discovery. A native Kansas Citian, Sergeant Reeds was a hero to preserving our cultural heritage during World War II and I am pleased to honor him at the Fifth District's 2007 Congressional Art Contest.

Throughout our great Nation, my colleagues are preparing for their districts' art competitions. Aspiring high school artists will compete to send their masterpiece to our Nation's Capitol. Like previous generations of artists, these young creative students are developing their skills, while gaining respect for the great masters who came before them. These masters have blessed our world with artistic treasures that have been enjoyed by past generations and will continue to be enjoyed for generations to come.

During World War II, Nazi dictator Adolph Hitler had a plan to secure art from every region he occupied. As the Nazi regime conquered Europe, Hitler ordered covert reconnaissance missions to locate priceless works of art throughout each newly occupied region. These missions were all done as part of Hitler's plan to build the world's premier museum, the Fuehrer Museum, in his home town of Linz, Austria. Hitler was bitter that Vienna's schools of art would not accept him into their programs.

Throughout Europe, as nations anticipated invasion, they took drastic measures to hide their invaluable works of art. The resistance found various methods to conceal their artistic treasures. Works were hidden in caves, mines, castles, chateaux, and in some cases, the masterpieces, like the Mona Lisa, were constantly on the move from one safe location to another. Unfortunately, many pieces were taken, many destroyed, and thousands of pieces of art are still missing to this day.

During the war, a special unit was formed to protect the cultural treasures of Europe from Hitler's raid. Comprised of Allied soldiers, the unit was started by President Franklin D. Roosevelt under the War Department's Monuments, Fine Arts & Archives section. The group's charge was to find, catalogue, and return art to its rightful owners. They were christened the Monuments Men.

Today, Missouri's Fifth Congressional District is honored to have a ``Monument Man,'' and a native, living in our midst. Born in Westport, SGT James A. Reeds attended college at the University of Iowa and planned to major in chemistry. During his sophomore year, Sergeant Reeds was drafted into the Army. After specialized training at Stanford, he was sent to France to serve as a chemical lab technician. One fateful day, Sergeant Reeds met CAPT Bancel LaFarge, who was an officer in the Monuments Men. Captain LaFarge needed someone who could speak German. Since Sergeant Reeds studied German and could type, Captain LaFarge recruited Sergeant Reeds as a Monument Man. Now as part of that historical team, Sergeant Reeds documented the location of art officers in the field, transcribed notes made by art historians, noted the transfer of recovered art to warehouses, and documented the artworks' return to the rightful owner.

An ancient adage in war is that to the victor go the spoils and this includes its cultural works of art. However, it was the United States and the Allied forces that agreed that the works of art from defeated nations would be returned to their place of origin after the war. Thus, the rich culture for the countries of Europe was preserved. Originally, Americans were unfortunately paying a pittance for masterworks to send art that belonged to Germany home to be sold. In essence, Allied troops were doing exactly what the Germans had done. Consequently, the Monuments Men initiated and President Truman agreed to the Wiesbaden Manifesto which stated that all German art had to be returned, thereby preserving and protecting its place in history.

Upon his return, Sergeant Reeds returned to college on the GI bill for a degree in German at the University of Iowa. He then went on to receive a master's degree and later a doctorate in linguistics from the University of Michigan. Later, he returned to Kansas City and taught at University of Missouri--Kansas City for 21 years.

Madam Speaker, please join me in expressing our heartfelt gratitude to SGT James A. Reeds and his fellow Monuments Men for their relentless efforts to preserve Europe's great artistic treasures. I urge my colleagues to please join me in expressing our appreciation to Sergeant Reeds and his fellow soldiers for their service to this great Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to stand here on this floor.

The subject of this special hour will be a debate between myself and the gentlewoman from West Virginia, Mrs. Capito. But before we begin our debate, which is aimed primarily at demonstrating to our colleagues that we can speak passionately about a matter and still avoid name calling or irreverence or incivility, before we get into our debate on tort reform, I would like to yield to the gentlewoman from West Virginia for some special comments unrelated to our debate.

In Memory of Juanita Millender-McDonald and the Victims of the Virginia

Tech Tragedy

Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the comments of the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito). I too would like to express sympathy to Ms. Millender-McDonald's family and to the families of those young people whose lives were senselessly taken at Virginia Tech.

The issue surfaces from time to time that there is a desperate need for us to do something major legislatively for tort reform, that these greedy trial lawyers are out damaging if not destroying the Nation, running people out of the medical profession, creating economic problems for oil companies. I take a different view of that. Obviously, there are inappropriate lawsuits, and I think the courts usually deal with those.

But trial lawyers work to provide somewhat of a level playing field for most Americans, small Americans, so they can hold even the most powerful corporations accountable for their actions when they cause injury or death.

Today drug companies and oil companies, big insurance companies and large corporations too often dominate our political process and they begin to ask legislators to restrict access to the courts. When corporations and CEOs act irresponsibly by refusing or delaying to pay insurance claims, producing unsafe products, polluting our environment or swindling their employees or shareholders, the last resort for Americans, and this is our system, is to hold them accountable in our courts of law. By holding them accountable, trial lawyers and their families are able to feel that this is a safer America.

From automobile fuel tanks that explode in rear-end collisions to bulletproof vests that fail to stop bullets aimed at police officers, we have to realize that there must be some corporation, some individual held accountable. And these cases that I mentioned earlier were actual cases and they brought to light deceptive practices and cover-ups by manufacturers that resulted in serious injury and even death.

The civil justice system helps provide compensation to those that are injured and helps prevent other needless injury from occurring.

I will now yield to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

I think there are perhaps some legitimate concerns by small business owners, but I don't think that the trouble is with the litigation. I think the problem is with insurance companies. Now, the gentlewoman and I both serve on the Financial Services Committee; and one of the concerns we have been grappling with, particularly in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on the gulf coast, is that insurance companies that are not regulated by the United States Federal Government from time to time are the culprits, and I will get back to that in just a minute. But I wanted to say that the tort filings in State courts have declined by 10 percent since 1994. And automobile filings which make up the majority of tort claims have fallen 14 percent.

So what you are finding is that more and more cases are not finding their way into the courts. But what troubles me and I think will trouble Americans when they find out more about it is the fact that the insurance companies end up really being the beneficiaries in the debate that occurs from time to time in this country on the subject of tort reform. The reason I say that is that there was a study done that showed that even in States where tort reform occurred, insurance premiums never dropped, and in some instances they actually increased.

So we have a problem with the small businesses that I agree exists, but I am suggesting that one of the ways in which we deal with this problem is not trying to restrict the courts from dealing with the claims that people bring before them, but rather for the insurance companies.

Let me give one example, Mr. Speaker. A month after passing malpractice caps, South Carolina's two largest insurers increased rates by as much as 22 percent after increasing their rates by 27 percent the year before.

And after Texas passed rate caps in 2003, the Joint Underwriters Association requested a 35 percent premium increase for physicians and 68 percent for hospitals. This is after tort reform, after things were supposed to have been reformed so that people are protected. So the winner ends up being the insurance companies.

May I inquire of the gentlewoman from West Virginia, the white States are what?

I think, to some degree, that helps my position, not with West Virginia because I am not familiar with West Virginia, but you are absolutely right about my home State of Missouri. But it all relates back to my earlier comments about insurance companies.

A national study conducted in 2005 by former Missouri Insurance Commissioner Jay Angoff found that insurance companies have been price- gouging doctors by dramatically and drastically raising their insurance premiums, even though claims for payments have been flat or decreasing. According to the annual statements of 15 large insurance companies, the 15th largest in fact, the amount malpractice insurers collected in premiums increased by 120.2 percent between 2000 and 2004, while claim payouts rose by only 5.7 percent.

I think if you look at the report from Jay Angoff from the Missouri Insurance Commission, you find that clearly the insurance companies are the ones doing enormous damage to this country.

The other issue is that I think the insurance companies have gouged so much that many of the people in the country, probably even in my home State, operate under the assumption that malpractice costs run physicians away from their profession.

The truth of the matter is that, according to the American Medical Association, the number of physicians in the United States of America increased by 40 percent since 1990, 40 percent. And so more and more men and women are going into the profession, even as the insurance companies are creating this crisis, and they are the ones that seem to be held harmless. They are rarely the center of the debate. It is usually the lawyers and the physicians.

I take the position that neither of them are actually the villains here. It is the insurance companies that continue to increase the rates. They pay out less money in the payments and then they are getting fatter and fatter.

One last comment on this. According to the Bush administration's Justice Department, if I can find their study, the Justice Department actually says that we are dropping in the number of cases that are being brought forward in the courts, and so I think what we end up doing, I think, is fighting a ghost, because the insurance companies have become ghostly in that they can become invisible during the debate because they do not have to get in it because they have not been portrayed as either the victim or the villain. So I would suggest that our positions may not be dramatically different except that I see the problem more in the hands of the insurance companies.

That is right.

The gentlewoman from West Virginia makes a good point. I do, however, think that this may cause her to join me. That is, according to the Bush administration, this is what I was looking for earlier, this is from the Justice Department of the Bush administration, their researchers found that the median inflated adjusted award in 2001 was just $28,000. And most of the discussion, you hear people talking about, millions, maybe even billions, but the average median inflated adjusted award in 2001 was $28,000. And even in medical malpractice cases in which the injuries tend to be far, far more serious than the average torte case, the median award was only $170,000, which is far from the multibillion dollar lottery torte reformers have often brought before us.

The other issue that I would like to bring forth is that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, malpractice costs amount to less than 2 percent of the overall medical cost. And so when we start talking about the cost of medicine and how it is skyrocketing, and it is, but when you think about the fact that the cost for malpractice or the cost for the insurance, which supercedes the cost really paid out, it accounts for only 2 percent of the overall medical costs in the United States, which is Herculean; but 2 percent is almost nonexistent.

And I think what has happened is that we have created a mountain out of a mole hill. That is not to say that there are not problems, but judges will quite often tell a lawyer that the case submitted is simply frivolous, and that case will never come to court, and then of course summary judgments can also prevent cases from ever coming to court. So judges have the option of looking at a case and deciding whether or not it is worthy of taking up the time and resources of the court.

And then the other part of it is that in an overwhelming majority of these cases, the amount or the award of the judgment is set by a jury, which are everyday people. And this is not to say that there should not be something done. I just think putting artificial caps would be the wrong thing to do. And that is generally one of the proposals that comes up. I'm not sure if the gentlewoman from West Virginia is supporting caps or not, but I think that if that is one of the solutions, I think a one-size-fits-all kind of solution is unfair to people who may suffer a very, very debilitating injury in the same category of someone who has a fender bender.

I yield back to the gentlewoman.

The meritless cases, however, rarely ever win in the first place. I was offended when I first heard that somebody sued McDonald's because they ordered a cup of hot coffee and were burned by the hot coffee that they ordered. I was offended by that as well, and I think most Americans are. But in reality, the meritless cases rarely ever win in the first place, and that is contrary to the allegations that generally come forth, particularly from the major corporations.

They would have us believe that the frivolous lawsuits are just automatically finding their way to the courtroom and that they are meritless, but they win. And the truth of the matter is that our intricate system, with the law and juries and judges and even independent reviewers, will pretty much weed out the frivolous lawsuits. And they are filed to no one's benefit, except a lawyer, who I think we can find one in any profession who is going to try to take advantage of their system. And it has nothing to do with having gone to law school. It has something to do with human nature.

But I think that the way that this whole issue has been played out ends up actually protecting the one entity that I think is the most culpable, and that is the insurance companies that are not regulated.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

I would yield to the gentlelady from West Virginia for closing remarks on the debate with regard to torte reform, and then I think we would like to express some concerns about civility, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there are people all around this country who look at C-SPAN on a daily basis and who look listen to radio talk shows, look at television news programs, and they see Members of Congress, both House and Senate, screaming at each other. They see from time to time the animated debates that take place on these shows, and even here in this great hall.

Many, many great patriots have stepped into the well of the House of Representatives to wax eloquent, because this is the place where the great orators stood and presented their cases to each other and to the American public. But in the past decade or so, we have seen a dramatic drop in the civility exercised by Members of this body, and we have seen it from both sides of the aisle.

Let me share something with you that I read the other day by William Penn, the founder of Pennsylvania. He said this: ``I know of no religion that destroys courtesy, civility or kindness.'' That is the kind of statement that the Members of this great body ought to keep in mind when we step into the well.

I came to Washington and to the Congress with this desire in my heart, to do what I could to make this a more civil place. With the intensity and intention of debate, sometimes it is difficult to restrain ourselves. But restraint is something that we can do and feel better about having done it on the morrow. It is delayed satisfaction. We might get some immediate joy from being nasty, but the greater joy is restraint and receiving greater joy later, that you actually had the discipline to control your tongue.

I have opinions that are very, very strong. I feel strong about tort reform, not because I am an attorney. I have four children. None of them are attorneys. But I personally feel strongly about it because of some personal things that happened in my own family that could have gone to court, that we did not take to court for a lot of reasons. One of the things that we felt strongly about was our own integrity, so we didn't go to court.

But my challenge is to state whatever strong feelings I have in a tone that raises the level of the conversation and honors those who disagree with me.

When you look at the roots of the word ``civility,'' to be civil is to be a citizen, a respected part of the community. So to be uncivil is to fracture the community, locally, nationally and internationally, and that is something that none of us can afford to do.

Not long ago President Gerald Ford died, and I was reminded of a story of his days here in this House. He held regular debates here in Washington with his Democratic counterpart Congressman Thomas Hale Boggs. They would debate at the National Press Club. At Congressman Gerald Ford's suggestion, they would ride over from the Capitol to the National Press Club and agree on the topic of the debate. Can you imagine that happening in 2007? Then, after the debate, they would go out and have lunch.

Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of House I think we need to demand as a part of what takes place in this city called Washington, D.C. I hope, I even pray, that the men and women of this great body will learn to exercise restraint, because what we do and say here in this hallowed place actually reverberates and ends up traveling all across the length and breadth of this Nation, and the words we say will impact the people around this country.

I say again, there are few Members of this Congress, if any, who would say to their children, watch C-SPAN and watch the leaders of this Nation debate, so that they can show you how to act around people with whom you have a disagreement.

We can do better, and I think we will. I believe that because Mrs. Capito is interested in doing this, the road towards civility is now under construction, and I enjoy serving with the gentlelady from West Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members

may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on the Special Order of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 328, I move that the House do now adjourn in memory of the late Honorable Juanita Millender-McDonald.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 40 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, April 24, 2007, at 10:30 a.m., for morning hour debate, as a further mark of respect to the memory of the late Honorable Juanita Millender-McDonald of California.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize one of my constituents, the Honorary Consul for the Slovak Republic, Mr.

Ross P. Marine, for his tireless efforts to bring an important exhibition, focused on the fate of Slovak Jews during World War II, to the Kansas City area. Mr. Marine is a dynamic member of the Consular Corps of Greater Kansas City. And for this reason, the Greater Kansas City Metropolitan Area is very fortunate to have the vital and active Consular Corps of Greater Kansas City, which has been instrumental in fostering cultural exchanges while building economic partnerships between our area and other countries. Time and time again, Mr. Ross P. Marine has proven himself to be one of our most active and dedicated Honorary Consuls in our region.

Years ago, while working for the Truman Medical Center East, Ross became involved in a health partnership program in the Republic of Slovakia, whose mission was to work with abused women and people addicted to drugs and alcohol. In the 3 years that followed, Ross became acquainted with the people and culture. He made many friends and in February 2001, he was honored with the title of Honorary Consul, for the four-state region of Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, and Iowa. Currently, Ross Marine continues to be one of our metropolitan area's most important links to Eastern Europe. He has brought exhibits, business opportunities and international relationships with the Embassy of the Slovak Republic to the people of Missouri's Fifth District. At Ross Marine's request, the Slovak Ambassador to the United States made an official visit to Kansas City for the re-dedication of the Liberty Memorial in 2006, the only national World War I monument in the United States.

Ross's latest endeavor was to spearhead efforts to bring the exhibition ``The Tragedy of Slovak Jews'' to Kansas City. This important exhibit is the first exhibition to illustrate the betrayal and atrocities committed towards Slovak Jews during World War II. Prepared and presented in cooperation with the National Czech and Slovak Museum and Library in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, this important exhibit was brought to the Kansas City area with the further assistance of the Czech and Slovak Club of Kansas City, the Jewish Community Center of Greater Kansas City, and the Midwest Center for Holocaust Education.

Madam Speaker, please join me in expressing our heartfelt gratitude to Mr. Ross P. Marine for his relentless efforts in extending goodwill, not only within the areas surrounding the Fifth Congressional District of Missouri, but to the global community. I urge my colleagues to please join me in expressing our appreciation to Mr. Marine and his endless commitment to the Slovak community. He is a true role model, not just to the Slovak-American community in Missouri, but to our entire society.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, as military leaders were on the Hill explaining how well things were moving in Iraq, news outlets were reporting that 171 human beings were killed at a Baghdad market. The carnage seems to have no end, even as we see endless U.S. troops shipped into an Iraqi shooting gallery.

This Congress has approved a supplemental bill which provides everything the President requested and more. In fact, the bill provides plentifully, but appropriately, for the wounded who return home every month.

The hope is that the President will sign the supplemental as the American public desires. Every opinion poll shows that the American public wants this war to end. Sign the supplemental.

Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of H.R. 1257, the Shareholder Vote on Executive Compensation Act. I think that it has been going on far too long where shareholders and, frankly, the American people, have had to pay for services not rendered and jobs not performed well.

The chairman of our committee, Chairman Frank, has already spoken about Mr. Nardelli. There are others, Pfizer's Henry McKinnell, and he also received a $200 million, $200 million exit package in spite of the fact that his performance was poor. KB Home, former CEO, Bruce Karatz, could collect $175 million despite his involvement in backdating stock options at the company. Some CEOs were, in fact, undeserving of compensation packages they received. This is not fair.

The one that I think troubles most Americans the most is Lee Raymond, former CEO of ExxonMobil. During our committee hearing, I raised this issue with our panel to ask if they had any problems with the compensation package for Mr. Raymond. He received a $400 million pay and retirement deal as the prices of gasoline soared and millions of hardworking Americans going to the pump every single day are paying more and more money for gas.

Twelve years ago, when Mr. Raymond became the CEO of Exxon, the average price of gasoline was $1.02 a gallon. In June, 2006, when he retired, the price, the average price of gasoline was $2.96 a gallon. Yet he received $400 million in retirement. The people who are watching this debate, the overwhelming majority, will say to themselves, that is not right.

Now, during the same period of time that the CEO of ExxonMobil was building up for this great exit package, real wages for the average American worker actually declined. While I believe deeply in, and that prosperity is as American as apple pie, I don't believe that we should reward CEOs for doing a poor job.

So I want to thank committee Chairman Frank and our ranking member, Spencer Bachus, and the members of the Financial Services Committee for bringing this bill forward to the floor today. I cosponsored this legislation, I voted for it in committee, and I will be voting for it when it comes to the floor.

Now, the sad thing about this legislation is that many hardworking Americans get up each day and go to work. If they perform poorly, they lose their job, and they certainly will not get an exit package that will take care of them and most of the people in their cities for life, $400 million.

I would ask the people watching this program, do you have a problem with that? The answer, I think, is echoing all around this country. Yes, I have a problem with that.

This bill enables shareholders to express their views on their company's executive compensation practices without setting up caps on the size and nature of executive pay. This legislation requires only, only, that public companies include on their proxy statements to shareholders, an annual nonbinding, nonbinding, nonbinding advisory shareholder vote on the company's executive compensation disclosures, which are already required by the SEC, and an additional nonbinding advisory vote if the company awards a new, not already disclosed, golden parachute while negotiating the purchase or sale of the company. The nonbinding advisory vote will give shareholders an opportunity, an opportunity to express themselves.

They can say ``yes'' or ``no'' to the proposed executive compensation without diminishing, reducing, interfering with the board's legal authority.

Ultimately, if a CEO is doing a good job, I am sure that that CEO will receive the support of that company's shareholders and the appropriate compensation package. That is the way America operates. But what is going on now is an abomination that we will allow people to run a company into the ground and then walk away set, not only for life for themselves but five or six generations to come.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 477, the Stroke Treatment and Ongoing Prevention Act and to honor the American Stroke Foundation (ASF). Founded in 1997 in the Kansas City Metropolitan Area, the ASF supports stroke survivors, their families, caregivers and friends by providing resources, services, education and infom1ation that improves their quality of life.

Every forty-five seconds, someone suffers from a stroke. Blood supply to the brain is interrupted, causing a loss of brain function and possibly brain damage. Every three minutes, someone dies from a stroke.

Stroke is the number one cause of adult disability and the third leading cause of death in the United States. About 700,000 Americans suffer a stroke each year. Four out of five people in the U.S. either have had a stroke or know someone who has. My family, like the vast majority of American families, has been touched by stroke. I am proud to come before you today not only to express my commitment to doing all that is necessary to stop strokes, but to vote for an important step to ending this tragic disease.

House Resolution 477, the Stroke Treatment and Ongoing Prevention Act, establishes a national grant program and public awareness program to help each state ensure that patients have access to quality stroke prevention, treatment and rehabilitation services. I was proud to cosponsor and vote for this legislation in previous Congresses, and I am proud do so again this week.

I would like America to know about a hometown hero, who has devoted her time, energy and amazing spirit to helping those disabled by stroke. After her husband Stan's stroke, Shirley Rose realized, as I did when stroke struck my family, that resources for recovering stroke survivors and their caregivers were painfully inadequate. Shirley did not dwell on the need and simply retreat in dismay. No, instead, Shirley founded the American Stroke Foundation and from their two locations in Kansas and Missouri, ASF has worked to improve the lives of stroke survivors by providing extended rehabilitation efforts, creating community programs, and educating the public about strokes. Shirley turned her desire for the best care for her husband and her personal need for a support network into an organization that helps thousands of Americans each year cope and recover from this often- debilitating disease.

In 2002, thanks to efforts like those of the ASF, the United States had one of the lowest death rates for stroke. My home state of Missouri is fortunate to have one of the lowest fatality rates in the country. Regardless, I hope to see both of these numbers decrease as these essential programs are supported.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to honor the American Stroke Foundation and vote for this life-saving legislation, and I ask my colleagues to join me today in paying tribute to this life-saving and life-improving organization.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mrs. Rebecca Dolores Jaramillo, a remarkable and compassionate

leader of the Hispanic community in Kansas City, Missouri, in my District. Born on October 23, 1939, Mrs. Jaramillo, also more affectionately known as ``Becky'', set forth on the long journey of advocacy of equal rights and equal opportunities for minorities and women before passing on May 13, 2005. Her passing has created a deep loss felt by her family, the greater Kansas City area, and most assuredly, the thousands of lives she touched throughout our great Nation.

Rebecca Jaramillo, as the fifth of twelve children, entered the world curious for knowledge and eager to stir up excitement. She lived a joyous life until the rigors of racism and discrimination entered her life and inspired her to proactively work for equality. After marrying her husband, Joe, and settling down in Kansas City, they soon encountered discrimination when they were repeatedly denied the privilege of restaurant service. The couple became active in fighting the issue when they joined the NAACP and Kansas City, Missouri's People for Public Accommodations drive, which sought the passage of a bill requiring public businesses to provide service to all persons regardless of race, national or ethnic origin, and skin color.

In 1981, Becky received community service awards from the HUD Kansas City Area Office, the Hispanic Chamber of Greater Kansas City and the Guadalupe Centers, for her role as the HUD office coordinator in the application process for Posada del Sol: a senior citizen's high-rise apartment complex in Kansas City's West Side. That same year, Becky, together with her fellow HUD employee Jose Gonzalez, and Ninfa Garza, program coordinator for the Guadalupe Centers Senior Citizens program, founded the Greater Kansas City National Hispanic Heritage Committee and created the Fiesta Hispana, to annually commemorate National Hispanic Heritage Month.

For many years Becky actively continued her advocacy by serving on boards of local and national community agencies such as: Model Cities; the U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity; the American G.I. Forum, the League of United Latin American Women; the Panel of American Women; the Incorporated Mexican American Government Employees (IMAGE)--1979 to 1982 as national chairwoman of the IMAGE Women's Action Committee with headquarters in Washington, DC; the Federally Employed Women; the United Nations Women's Commission; the Women's Political Caucus; the Guadalupe Centers, Inc.; the Mexican American Women's National Association (MANA); the Heart of American United Way; the Salvation Army and several others.

While serving as national secretary for the Panel of American Women, Becky was part of a select group of panelists invited to the White House on April 27, 1979, for a special reception hosted by President Jimmy Carter in their honor for their many years of work in the area of human relations.

Becky also received distinguished awards from the Federal Executive Board of Greater Kansas City, the U.S. Department of Defense, the Panel of American Women, the Mexican American Women's National Association, and the Salvation Army. In 1981, The Central Exchange of Kansas City honored Becky by naming her its second Woman of the Year.

In 2002, the Guadalupe Centers awarded Becky its coveted I. Pat Rios Award for outstanding contributions to the Community, recognizing her for her role in the historical completion of Posada del Sol and the first West Side neighborhood fountain. The fountain was formally dedicated on September 15, 2000 by the Kansas City, Missouri Parks and Recreation Department.

On March 4, 2005, Becky received the YWCA Hearts of Gold Award for Economic Empowerment for her service 30 years before as a United Nations delegate on a commission studying the status of women in the world.

Madam Speaker, please join me in honoring the life of Mrs. Rebecca Dolores Jaramillo and expressing our heartfelt sympathy to her husband, Joe Jaramillo, her children, Romulo Joseph, Cynthia and James, and her many relatives and friends. I urge my colleagues to please join me in conveying our gratitude to her family for sharing this great woman with us, and to accept our condolences for their tremendous loss. She was an inspiration to us all.

Mr. Chairman, I want to first express appreciation to the ranking member and the maker of this motion for spending time down in New Orleans with the committee at Dillard University and then going over into Mississippi. I think it was very important for the people of Mississippi to see Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle coming into that devastated region, expressing concern and interested in putting forth legislation to help them out of something that has devastated their lives, yet they are not responsible for.

I have got to oppose the gentleman from Texas' amendment. Let me just say that there are good and decent people who are poor. That is about the only thing good I can say about poverty.

I know it personally. We are on a first-name basis. I grew up with poverty. I know it well. And so I had a clear picture of what happened after Katrina and Rita.

Only one in six New Orleanians owns an automobile. One in six. That means that this city is a city of poverty. And when you think about the individuals at the Dome begging for help, probably 95 to 98 percent of them had no automobiles.

My son was in New Orleans when the flood hit, a student at Dillard University. He had an automobile, and even with an automobile, he had difficulty getting out of New Orleans, ended up spending the night on a Wal-Mart parking lot. But he had a car, and he was able to get out.

This is a very, very poor city. We are told that the poor shall be with us always, but then there is a transition word: ``unless.'' And the ``unless'' is something that I think this bill addresses. Unless men and women are willing to do what is necessary to enable people who are in poverty to escape.

One of the things that this amendment does not take into account, for example, is 202 housing. I know the program well. I served as mayor of Kansas City. We did about 10 section 202 projects during my administration.

Section 202 projects are designed to accommodate the elderly. In some instances HUD has allowed for 202 housing to be used by people who suffer from extremely difficult ailments, physical problems. So the people who live in 202 are either elderly, certified already as elderly with low income or no income, or they suffer from some malady, some physical, maybe even mental, malady. If this amendment is approved, it would mean that the people who are elderly and poor who were displaced from their 202 housing and are now living with a relative someplace or in some temporary housing, they end up being punished again because this means that there would be no opportunity for them to even return to the conditions under which they lived.

These are not people who are somehow refusing to work or people who somehow don't want to find permanent housing. This was, in fact, permanent housing. Section 202 housing is permanent housing. And if you look at the HUD statistics, you will find that people who leave 202 housing generally leave it for the funeral home. They die in 202 housing. These are the elderly, and this Congress should exercise all the care we can conjure to take care of the poor and the elderly, particularly those living in section 202 housing.

Now, my hope is that the gentleman from Texas would consider in his amendment, even though I would still oppose it for other reasons, at least eliminating 202 elderly housing.

Additionally, HUD has a program, 811 housing, for the disabled. The same thing would apply for the disabled. These are people who lost housing because of Katrina and Rita, and then they end up being told, if this amendment were to pass, that they still will not be helped even to return to the conditions under which they lived prior to the flood, even if those conditions were not at the highest living standard. The disabled are all just saying, we want to return to where we lived. And, yes, it is permanent housing. It is not temporary. It was designed by HUD and approved by Congress as permanent housing. Sections 811 and 202 are permanent housing projects. We cannot do additional damage to the elderly and the poor.

Now, I think one of the things that we need to consider here as well is that this amendment would strike 1,200 vouchers to families who actually need them. And during our committee debate, I think the gentleman and the ranking member will remember that there was a discussion about substitute language, a compromise, if you will, using the word ``sunset.'' And if we had used the word ``sunset,'' and if it had been placed in the language of the bill, perhaps that would have satisfied Members on the other side who have difficulty with the term ``disappearing vouchers.'' But that is exactly what would happen. That would be a sunset on the vouchers when they are no longer needed.

Striking 1,200 vouchers from families who need them is very, very wrong. It certainly is unintentional in terms of wreaking havoc on those families, but that is exactly what would happen if this amendment is approved. Its impact would only hurt families who need the housing assistance.

Now, the one thing I would like to leave in terms of what I hope can happen from this discussion today is that if we are unwilling or unable to continue assistance for previously, previously federally assisted individuals and families in public housing section 8, 202 or 811 projects for the disabled, we are going to do immense damage and hurt families who don't deserve to be hurt further.

If you can imagine living in a 202 housing project and realizing that you are never going to live in your dream home. There is no such thing as sitting down one day with an architect and designing your dream home. It won't happen. If you live in a 202 or an 811 HUD project, you are already in nirvana. That is as far as you are going to go. And we cannot tell those residents that they cannot return to those living conditions.

The point I am trying to make, and perhaps poorly, is that we are hurting people who would have no other way of living. And if you are opposed to permanent housing, you are opposed to the 202 program not only in New Orleans, but all around this country. In every major city in the country there is at least one, and perhaps several, 202 project, and in every community there is at least one 811 project. And if it is wrong in New Orleans, it is wrong anywhere and everywhere.

My hope, to the gentleman who has proposed the amendment, is that you withdraw the amendment and express appreciation for the debate, acknowledge that you were trying desperately to make sure that we don't overspend any taxpayer money that we don't have to expend. And I will lead a delegation from this side to congratulate the maker of this amendment for a valiant effort to do the right thing that is

not quite as right as, in his heart, he would like for it to be.

Mr. Chairman, may I just inquire of the gentleman from Texas whether or not there is data available that would suggest the need for this amendment. I don't like to just oppose amendments just because. Is there data available that would suggest a need for this?

Yes.

I am talking about New Orleans and Mississippi.

Thank you. The problem with that, and I appreciate your interest in this issue, and I am sure you probably are not aware of the fact that in New Orleans there are 36,000 participants in TANF. All but 5,000 are children; all but 5,000 are children. This legislation is saying we want children to volunteer 20 hours a week in order to receive assistance.

In addition to that, we are spending about $5 billion a week in Iraq, and we are building housing, but we are not requiring Iraqis to volunteer in order to be the recipients of the largesse of the American taxpayers.

The assumption here is that the people don't need to work and so they somehow have to be coerced into working. As a former resident of public housing, there is a new issue arising, and that is that many of the people in public housing are elderly.

The point I was trying to make earlier was that, actually, the fact that this is not a welfare reform bill, this is about aiding people in a distressed area.

If we are talking about TANF recipients, it is important to understand that in the State of Louisiana, 5,000 TANF recipients are adults, and the bulk of them are children. In Mississippi, 8 percent of them are adults, and the rest of the 32,270 are children. And I think that we have gone awry converting a bill aimed at providing relief for people who are hurting down in the deepest parts of who they are and trying to impose a welfare rights bill on them when we have not done it in any other crisis in the history of this Republic. It is not the right thing to do to say to people that, in the midst of your struggle, in the midst of you trying to rebuild your home, rekindle your belief in the Nation, that we are going to now require that you volunteer.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. Elson Floyd, President of the four-campus University of Missouri System. He was selected to run the system November 11, 2002. He is leaving to become the tenth President of Washington State University on June 1, 2007.

During his tenure as President of the System, he has brought about many innovative strategies which have benefited the Universities. He developed a System-wide Strategic Plan with measurable performance objectives. He established a system-wide fundraising goal of one billion dollars, of which 900 million dollars in documented gifts have been received to date toward this goal. Total enrollment increased 7,000 since his hiring to a record high of more than 63,000 students. Minority student enrollment has increased on all four campuses. He has leveraged private support to generate 266 need-based scholarships to enhance student access.

Although there have been lean budget years in the University system, Dr. Floyd has effectively managed them by implementing a plan to reduce System-wide administrative expenditures by 20 million dollars, far exceeding the 10 percent goal of 12.4 million dollars, reinvesting resources of this initiative into scholarships and financial aid, student services and faculty recruitment. He also developed a tuition guideline that holds tuition increases to the rate of inflation, provided that state support also keeps pace with inflation. This allows students and families a certain degree of predictability of college costs.

Dr. Floyd is the 2004 recipient of the James C. Kirkpatrick Award for public service given by the Northwest Missouri Press Association. He is also the 2004 recipient of the Distinguished Alumnus Award from the University of

North Carolina at Chapel Hill. In 2006, students at the University of Missouri-St. Louis established a scholarship in his name, the ``President Elson S. Floyd Endowed Scholarship.''

Madam Speaker, please join me in expressing our heartfelt appreciation to Dr. Elson Floyd for his leadership as President of the University of Missouri System. I urge my colleagues to please join me in conveying our gratitude to Dr. Floyd for his contributions to Missouri, and to wish him well in his new endeavor.

Madam Speaker, at a time when the savings rate of hard working American families is in red, negative for the first time since the Great Depression, it is incumbent that this Congress provide a new direction for the working men and women who hold credit cards.

Credit card usage by consumers play a critical role in the home finances of millions of Americans, particularly those in the working middle class. The overwhelming majority of Americans who use credit cards do so in a responsible manner, however, they are far too often at the mercy of credit card companies, even when they pay their bills on time.

Credit card companies have engaged in dubious patterns of behavior such as using hidden fees, penalty interest charges, and other unfair practices to siphon money away from the households of working families. The terms and conditions set fourth by credit card companies too often lack clarity and snare unsuspecting working men and women into a negative cycle of debt and adverse credit worthiness. Outrageous fees, improper billing practices and highly complex credit card agreement terms should not be the norm for the credit card industry nor should they be a burden to working Americans. Quite simply put, families should not have to hire a CPA or an attorney to decipher their credit card agreement terms and billing statements.

I want the Record to reflect my original co-sponsorship of the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2007, offered by my colleague Congressman Mark Udall. I commend his vision and efforts to help provide relief to untold numbers of working families who have been victimized by a lack of transparency. It is my hope that in addition to the efforts of this Congress, the credit card companies and financial sector advocates work with us to address this issue and provide fairness to the American consumer.

I thank Congressman Udall for his efforts.