Emanuel Cleaver

Mr. CLEAVER

Mr. CLEAVER. 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. CLEAVER. That is right.

Mr. CLEAVER. 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

Mr. CLEAVER. 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. CLEAVER. 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.

Mr. CLEAVER. 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. CLEAVER

Mr. CLEAVER. 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. CLEAVER

Mr. CLEAVER. 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. CLEAVER

Mr. CLEAVER. 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. CLEAVER

Mr. CLEAVER. 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.

Mr. CLEAVER

Mr. CLEAVER. 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.

Mr. CLEAVER

Mr. CLEAVER. 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. CLEAVER

Mr. CLEAVER. 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. CLEAVER

Mr. CLEAVER. 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?

Mr. CLEAVER. Yes.

Mr. CLEAVER. 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.

Mr. CLEAVER. 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.

Mr. CLEAVER. I am talking about New Orleans and Mississippi.

Mr. CLEAVER

Mr. CLEAVER. 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.

Mr. CLEAVER

Mr. CLEAVER. 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.

Mr. CLEAVER

Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Speaker, as I began to consider the comments I would make during this debate tonight on the occupation, escalation and gravitation of the U.S. military action in Iraq, I concluded that my visit to this well must somehow echo the threat and frustration of the people who sent me to represent them in the people's House. Tomorrow, the United States of America should begin a massive and voter-mandated salvaging operation in Iraq. Yes, as bad as conditions have gotten, there are important and valuable things that could be salvaged. A tarnished international image clings to a nation like a shadow to a human being. It follows a nation to the next world crisis. It cannot be blamed for faulty intelligence, and it spoils opportunities to influence a world desperate for direction. Henceforth, we must conduct our foreign policy in a manner which salvages our sunken international image. Because of the way we launched a long-range military action in Iraq, our prestige among the community of nations has surely suffered. Nothing deflates as a punctured international image. We can salvage our image not only by de-escalating in Iraq but also by reestablishing desperately needed dialogue with all the sovereign nations in the neighborhood with Iraq. It takes many, many people, and not just one to put a policy together. Now, with regard to peace in the Middle East, it has become crystal clear that the United States cannot whistle a symphony. It will take an orchestra of many international players willing to make music in the same key. The days of the international soloist or a conductor without an orchestra are past. We must salvage our relationship with the family of nations. We must salvage what is left of our Treasury. Mr. Speaker, for most Americans war does not pay, but it must be paid for. And, to date, we have spent billions and billions of dollars that could have been spent for valuable programs to set this Nation on the right course. We must salvage soldiers. Yes, thousands of brave young U.S. soldiers have been killed, and Iraqis are dying weekly by the hundreds. If this conflict continues, there will be only two classes of young people, one half in graves, the other half in hospitals. Some have said this conflict will last for decades. Nevertheless, that kind of policy or lack thereof has caused young Americans to ask: Will we ever see the last of this war, or will it see the last of us? The Kansas City Chiefs is my team. The general manager, Carl Peterson, would never go to the sports editors of the local media and admonish them not to criticize the game plan of Coach Herman Edwards, because to do so would demoralize the players. Such a warning by the general manager would be ludicrous, if not loony. Why? Because the players of the Kansas City Chiefs are professionals who cannot be so easily defamed. And, friends, neither can the men and women who form the fiercest fighting force in the history of this planet. After all the ethnic and sectarian human butchering, after all the billions spent, after all the children of God killed, after all the maimed who have been hospitalized, after all the dissenters who have been heard, after all the purple thumbs that have been raised, the war drum still throbs, the sabers still rattle, and the blood still flows. Yet, we can salvage the soul of the Nation, even though at this hour we seem to have lost our way. Tomorrow, this Congress must adopt House Concurrent Resolution 63 as bold and beckoning to begin salvage operations. Mr. Speaker, as I began to consider the comments I would make during the debate on the occupation, escalation, and gravitation of the U.S. military action in Iraq, I concluded that my visit to this well must somehow echo the fret and frustration of the people who sent me to represent them in The People's House. For more than 132 years, the steamboat Arabia lay beneath the fathoms of the waters of the mighty Missouri River. Not until Bob and Florence Howley committed their life savings to a massive salvaging operation, did the rusting of this once stately riverboat cease. Today, the salvaged cargo of this retrieved vessel is on display in Kansas City's Historic River Market. Since I first walked into the Arabia Steamboat Museum in 1992, I have become a serious supporter of salvage operations. Anything of great value that is lost or damaged is worth salvaging. Tomorrow, the United States of America should begin a massive and voter-mandated salvaging operation in Iraq. Yes, as bad as conditions have gotten, there are important and valuable things that can be salvaged. A tarnished international image clings to a nation like a shadow to a human being. It follows a nation to the next world crisis, it cannot be blamed for faulty intelligence, and it spoils opportunities to influence a world desperate for direction. Henceforth, we must conduct our foreign policy in a manner which salvages our sunken international image. Because of the way we launched a Lone Ranger military action in Iraq, our prestige among the community of nations has surely suffered. Nothing deflates as fast as a punctured international image. We can salvage our image not only by de-escalating in Iraq, but also by re- establishing desperately needed dialogue with all the sovereign nations in the neighborhood of Iraq. With regard to peace in the Middle East, it has become crystal clear that the U.S. cannot whistle a symphony. It will take an orchestra of many international players willing to make music in the same key. The days of the international soloist, or a conductor without an orchestra, are past. We must salvage our relationship with the family of nations. We must salvage what is left of our treasury. Mr. Speaker, for most Americans, war does not pay, but it must be paid for. To date, we have appropriated $380 billion for the armed conflict in Iraq, and the President has requested an additional $142 billion in the FY08 supplemental. With this amount of money, we could have fully funded No Child Left Behind and the COPS program (which places badly needed police on the streets in high crime neighborhoods). We must salvage respect from our noble veterans who, today, are outraged that they are showered with praise when they are in battle but blasted with neglect when they return home. Soon enough, they will discover that the President's recently submitted budget raises fees on veterans for their health costs by $355 million in FY08, $2.3 billion over 5 years, and $4.9 billion over 10 years. Those who serve--deserve! We must salvage soldiers. Yes, thousands of brave young U.S. soldiers have been killed, and Iraqis are dying weekly by the hundreds. If this conflict continues, there will be only two classes of young people: one half in graves and the other half in hospitals. Some have said that this conflict will last for decades. Nevertheless, that kind of policy, or lack thereof, has caused young Americans to ask, ``Will we ever see the last of this war, or will it see the last of us?'' Let me address a part of this debate which has frustrated me because of its defective logic. Over and over again, many of my honorable colleagues have stood behind this distinguished desk and warned that the debate on House Concurrent Resolution 63 will demoralize our troops in Iraq. Nothing could be further from the truth. I will never accept the premise that U.S. troops are demoralized by the debate in a democracy. The President's stated goal in Iraq is to aid in creating a nation where citizens and public officials can debate in a robust democracy. And then to denounce debate in The People's House as demeaning or damaging? My friends, that denigrates the democracy we so proudly extol and that our troops valiantly fight to defend. We cannot lead others to the light while we stand in the dark. The Kansas City Chiefs is my team. The General Manager, Carl Peterson, would never go to the sports editors of the local media and admonish them not to criticize the game plan of Coach Herman Edwards because it will demoralize the players. Such a warning by the General Manager would be ludicrous if not loonie. Why? Because the players of the Kansas City Chiefs are professionals who cannot be so easily defanged. And friends, neither can the men and women who form the fiercest fighting force in the history of Planet Earth. After all the ethnic and sectarian human butchering, after all the billions spent, after all the children of God killed, after all the maimed who have been hospitalized, after all the dissenters who have been heard, after all the purple thumbs have been raised, the war drum is still throbbing, the sabers are still rattling and the blood is still flowing. Yet, we can salvage the soul of the nation even though at this hour we seem to have lost our way. Tomorrow, this Congress must adopt House Concurrent Resolution 63 as a bold beckoning to begin salvage operation.

Mr. CLEAVER

Mr. CLEAVER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Larry Stewart, more affectionately known as ``Secret Santa.'' He passed away January 12 of this year of complications from cancer of the esophagus. For 27 years during the Christmas season, he anonymously gave away more than 1.3 million dollars in cash to those that needed it most. Although he was a resident of Lee's Summit, Missouri in my Fifth Congressional district and was known as ``Secret Santa'' in the Kansas City area, he distributed his ``gifts'' from east coast to west coast and many areas of the country in between. He went to New York during the holiday season of 2001. He distributed $25,000 in $100 bills to the people of New York City who were still feeling the devastation of September 11. In 2002, he distributed cash ``gifts'' in the Virginia area which was reeling from sniper attacks. In 2003, he visited the San Diego area which was being damaged by fires. And in 2004, he went to Florida where Larry gave nearly $30,000 to those who had suffered damage from the hurricane. As can be seen, this man's generosity touched many of my colleagues' Congressional Districts. He also traveled to the Washington, D.C. area, Chicago, Las Vegas, and Mississippi, the state of his birth. Following the gifts in New York City, he appeared on the Oprah Winfrey show where he wore a Santa Claus costume to protect his identity. Only his family, and a handful of local law enforcement and fire officials knew his real identity, hence the name ``Secret Santa.'' Even though I was the Mayor of Kansas City, Missouri for 8 years during his gift giving escapades, I did not know who he was, and there was quite a bit of talk of who really was Secret Santa. As I said before, his ``gifts'' were of cash to the less fortunate. They were gifts from his heart and were never taken as a tax deduction. Much of the money he gave away was to people he saw on the street, at pool halls, pawn shops, and Laundromats--he went where the people were. This last holiday season, Larry came forward to reveal his real identity. For 26 years he was known only as ``Secret Santa,'' but he received word that the tabloids were about to announce who he really was. His final holiday season, he was able to give away $100,000 in memory of his late friend, the legendary ``Buck'' O'Neil, who had passed away in October 2006. This amount was increased by an additional $75,000 from ``elves'' who had come forward to carry on his program. Larry was a member of the Crime Commission Board, the Foundation Board for the St. Luke's Hospital, the Lee's Summit Economic Development Council, the Board of Directors of S.A.F.E., and the Eastern Jackson County Youth Court. Madam Speaker, please join me in expressing our heartfelt sympathy to his adult children, sons Joe, John, and Mark Stewart, as well as daughter Kimberly Stewart, and his many relatives and friends. He was a shining example of humanity and kindness. He gave of himself and asked nothing in return. I urge my colleagues to please join me in conveying our gratitude to his family for sharing this great man with us, and to accept our condolences for their tremendous loss. He was an inspiration to us all.

Mr. CLEAVER

Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Speaker, let me, first of all, say that, for the most part, this discussion has gone on without name calling, although it has happened once today, and so I want to start out by saying, I am coming to this floor to make a point, and not an accusation. It is important for me to say because there are words used here, morality and moral and ethical, and in the last election, in my State, the word religion was used with this discussion because stem cell research was on the ballot. I want to say very clearly, there is no conflict between religion and science. There was a man by the name of Paul who visited Turkey, and while in a city called Ephesus, he learned the people, went back and wrote a letter to them. And he said, ``Now Glory be to God who, by his mighty power at work within us, is able to do far more than we would ever dare to ask or even dream of, infinitely beyond our highest prayers, desires thoughts or hopes.'' Science is but another word for hope. And hope stands on tippy toes looking for healing, looking for cures, searching for the ideal. I will not be a hopeless pessimist. I realize that whenever we are able to use the scientific advancements, that we are not becoming the enemies of faith, but rather it is another way to praise God and his constantly evolving creation. Now, there was a great Baptist clergyman by the name of Harry Emerson Fosdick, and in his book, ``The Modern Use of the Bible,'' he says, ``If there are fresh things to learn concerning the physical universe, let us have them, that we may find deeper meaning when we say `The heavens declare the glory of God.' '' Now, it is my hope that we will not be as troglodytic as our ancestors who refused to peer through the lens of Galileo's telescope; that we are men and women who will do every single thing we can to bring about whatever we can, within our human powers, to cure the beastly diseases that wreak havoc in the lives of Americans and people all over this country. Should science succeed in fulfilling the much vaunted optimism expressed by advocates of stem cell therapy, much of the credit should go to the community of faith. Because I accept the Holy Bible as the inspired and interminable Word of God, I consider myself to be a Christian fundamentalist. I accept, as an inseparable component of my faith, the omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience of God. Therefore, I am baffled by my fellow fundamentalists who seem to be utterly opposed to and terror-stricken by the advancement of science, including stem-cell research. The propagation of knowledge and the dismantling of the boundless awe- inspiring mysteries of God's world are viewed by some in our faith as a foreboding foray toward undermining and diminishing the glory of the Creator. However, the opposite is true. When the human intellect makes strides that sets the world agog, it is God, from whom all knowledge stems, who is honored. Let us keep in mind that scientific advancement is not an enemy of faith, but yet another way to praise God and His constantly evolving creation. Contemporary men and women of faith, as always, stand at the crossroads. In a real sense, religion has always been impelled to wage war in some area or another. The pressing question is shall we march across the battlefields of faith with open arms toward the magnificent revelations of God's great truths, or, do we use our inherent power and influence to signal a retreat from the bright and simmering sunshine of expanding scientific scholarship. The potential life-saving issue of stem cell research is before us. The scepter is in the hands of the enlightened community of believers. Our failure to speak out on the medical need for stem-cell research will allow earnest but erroneous or misguided souls who wish to constrain such study to force us back to a time when the faithful waged its fiery finger of scorn at the irreverence of scientific inquiry. Like the majority of people of faith, I totally reject the notion that today's community of believers are as troglodytic as our ancestors who refused to peer through the lens of Galileo's telescope. Nonetheless, this is a testing time. Doctor Harry Emerson Fosdick, the legendary Baptist clergyman of the first half of the 20th century, profoundly addresses the issue of flowering faith in his wonderfully inspiring book, The Modern Use of the Bible: ``If there are fresh things to learn concerning the physical universe, let us have them, that we may find deeper meaning when we say, `The heavens declare the glory of God.' '' Should science succeed in fulfilling the much vaunted optimism expressed by advocates of stem-cell therapy, much of the credit should go to the community of faith. Every experiment that leads to greater medical breakthroughs is a discernible display of the earthly presence of God and of the presence of particles of His divinity in us.

Mr. CLEAVER

Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Speaker, in 1935, that old wild-eyed liberal, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, put forth a proposal to increase or to establish a minimum wage. It was 25 cents an hour. Mr. Speaker, we are now closing out 2006, and for 9 years, this Congress has failed to increase the minimum wage. Democrats strongly believe that no one in this country who works hard at a full-time job should have to live in poverty, unable to provide for their children. On the current minimum wage they can earn only $10,700 a year. That is shameful. It is close to being sinful. During the past year, we took the message to the American people. On November 7, they responded overwhelmingly by electing the Democratic majority to Congress. Mr. Speaker, the Democratic majority in the next Congress will not let the American people down. Within the first 100 hours of the 110th Congress, we will pass a pay increase for the workers who need it most.

Mr. CLEAVER

Mr. CLEAVER. Madam Speaker, last week, the American people spoke loudly and clearly. They want a change here in Washington, and they want Democrats and Republicans to work together to solve the problems they confront on a daily basis. During the campaign this year, Democrats promised to change the tone of the debate here in Washington, and work cooperatively on behalf of all Americans. Because we will not be the party of anger politics, Democrats will honor our pledge. We will treat the Republicans in the minority in a manner compatible with the interests of the voting public. In the past, Democrats have been shut out of the debate. This is not how a Democratic form of government is supposed to work. But the campaign is over, and we are not going to focus on the past. Democrats pledge, therefore, to preside over the most open and honest Congress in history. We want to pass solid ethics legislation that the public is actually demanding. We are here to represent only our constituents, and we need to make that clear. Madam Speaker, change is coming to Washington.