Lloyd Doggett

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman. As a long-time member of the Budget Committee, I certainly think that having a budget resolution is a good idea. I think it is a matter of national importance. I don't see how anyone can really disagree with the resolution, although it seems to have been offered primarily to establish a setting for the Republican response to the State of the Union Address that we all look forward to hearing tonight. It is important to understand what the budget resolution is and what it is not, and what difference it really makes if one hasn't been passed for 1,000 days, 3 or 4 years, or 3 or 4 weeks. The budget resolution is not the appropriations act. It is a statement of our values and of our priorities, and I think that it is important to try to get one passed every year. But the most important practical consequence of passing a budget resolution is to establish the level of discretionary spending, that is, to establish the level of expenditures that can be made by the various Appropriations committees and by this Congress. It provides us a good opportunity to look at what the consequences of that spending are, to try to match it up to revenues, and not to engage in endless deficit spending. But the practical effect of the resolution itself is to say to the Appropriations Committee here in the House and in the Senate how much discretionary spending will the Congress approve this year. So what happens when there is not a budget resolution? The Congress finds other ways to do the very same thing. So, in fact, the Congress did not pass a budget resolution for fiscal year 2003, for fiscal year 2005, for fiscal year 2007; but that did not stop President Bush from signing appropriation bills that added billions of dollars to our national debt--along with his tax cuts for those at the top that also added immensely to our national debt. He signed those appropriation bills. I don't know whether we went a thousand days or a year or two then without a budget resolution. It would have been better if we could have adopted one, but the budget resolution tends to be confused by some people with the appropriations that keep the Federal Government going. This is not the act that Republicans from time to time have threatened to shut down the government. You can't threaten to shut down the government over the passage of a budget resolution. That has happened with some of our appropriation bills. It almost happened with the ceiling on debt for the Federal Government. It is also inaccurate, not only confusing, to mix the two; and it is inaccurate to say that this Congress has not acted to establish some discretionary spending limits, even though a budget resolution, as good as it would be to have one, has not been formally adopted. We did, in fact, adopt last year the Budget Control Act. The Budget Control Act proposes to set discretionary expenditure limits, what this Congress will spend, not just for this year but for a 10-year period in an effort to try to get spending under control and bring us closer to getting our fiscal house in order, which is something we very much need to do. I see today's resolution as restating the obvious, that a budget resolution is a good idea, but not adding really much to our attempt to achieve some balance in our budget. Indeed, the last debate here on the floor about instructing conferees and trying to move forward on the issues of unemployment, the job creation, and the payroll tax extension are much more on target than a resolution of this nature. We do have some serious challenges and deadlines. We still have almost 5 million Americans that would lose their unemployment benefits this year if we don't have an extension. I'd focus on those and working with the President, rather than a resolution that accomplishes little.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. DOGGETT. I may have one additional speaker if the gentlelady makes it in time, but let me close on this note: Mr. Speaker, at this time of year, we have largely a Norman Rockwell picture of American families gathered around the Christmas tables, with their turkeys and their gifts, and their Christmas trees are lit. That is the story of millions of American families, but it's not the story of many as well. I've seen those families firsthand. I see them two doors down from my house in East Austin when they line up on a Saturday morning, in need of help, at the Olivet Baptist Helping Hand. I saw it last Saturday at the recreation center in southeast Austin, in Dove Springs, where parents were lined up for blocks to get their children one toy for Christmas. I've also seen it across the south and west sides of San Antonio--good families, hardworking people caught up in the worst recession since the Great Depression. They face great challenges, and our safety net in this country remains in tatters. My concern is that this bill today does so little to address that tattered safety net, which is increasingly more hole than net. We see the statistics of homelessness for these families: 38 percent growth over 3 years of the recession. We see it in threadbare cupboards and church pantries and in food centers across the country. Yesterday we saw in a report in The New York Times that in 37 States families are worse off in terms of child care. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), to discuss the challenges that are faced by some of our most vulnerable neighbors. I know she shares many of these concerns about the unmet needs of those families who won't be fortunate enough to look like a Norman Rockwell painting this Christmas.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished member of this subcommittee and the full committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott). (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in reluctant support of this measure, asking for its approval, because without approval, Federal funding for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families will expire on New Year's Eve. My reluctance centers on the incomplete nature of this extension. It's incomplete, first, in terms of time. In September, Republicans declined to extend this necessary funding for more than 3 months. Now they extend it only for another 9 months, assuring that during the height of the 2012 campaign season next year they'll have an opportunity to blame the poor for whatever questionable anecdote arises in the meantime. This type of short-term extension at a time of a budgetary crisis in many of our States reduces the ability to plan and to reform. It assures that direct assistance to our most vulnerable neighbors will just barely hang on. It postpones any meaningful action on responding to the Census Bureau report that more Americans were poor in 2010 than at any recent time. In my home county in the capital of the State of Texas, the percentage of children living in poverty grew from 18.3 percent in 2007 to 24.5 in 2010--almost one in every four children, in our area, impoverished. And today's bill is incomplete in terms of coverage. An important part of the 1996 reform of the welfare law, a reform that I personally supported, an important part is omitted today, the TANF supplemental grants. These are funds that are allocated to help those States like Texas that were negatively affected by the Federal formula in place at the time. Without any good explanation or justification, Republicans allowed this initiative to expire last summer, and they continue to do so today. This means that a State government in Texas that is largely indifferent to the needs of its poor citizens has even less capacity to respond to those needs. Because of this deliberate and unjustified omission, Texas loses $500 million; and together with 16 other States, they lose a total of $3 billion over the next decade. This is money that will not be there to assist struggling families and to promote work. Termination of these grants is really a breach of the agreement of 15 years ago as a part of welfare reform. But as we pass this bill, a few points need to be noted that are positive in nature. First is the one my colleague refers to as bipartisan legislation that I have worked on with Chairman Geoff Davis. It is designed to assure that Health and Human Services does have common data points so that we ferret out any waste and abuse among various programs and, at the same time, help eligible Americans to receive the assistance to which they are entitled. This has already been incorporated into the child welfare legislation that was also approved by our subcommittee on a bipartisan basis and has been signed into law. A second provision that is described as ``program integrity'' certainly does sound good in speeches, and it probably does address a problem in Las Vegas and a few other areas that for speech purposes has been described as the so-called ``strip club loophole.'' I'm in favor of closing every loophole that takes public money that needs to go to needy children and diverts it for some other purpose, whether it's at a strip club or it is a pharmaceutical manufacturer who has milked Medicaid and Medicare for millions of dollars. Earlier this week, we heard from TANF administrators across the country, Republicans and Democrats, questioning this provision, and we know that it is also the subject of a study by the Government Accountability Office. I think that we need to ensure no dollars are wasted here, and I certainly wouldn't let this newly added provision slow up a must-pass piece of legislation to assure that the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program is continued to next September. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DOGGETT. While I think it would have been better to await the full report from the Government Accountability Office, I support those program integrity provisions. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. DOGGETT. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would just yield myself such time as I may consume to say that I am pleased that we are moving forward to extend this program, at least until the end of next September. But there remains much work to do. Many of our neighbors are in great need at the present time. Many are supported by churches, community nonprofits, and the like. It is a valuable service at a time of charity at Christmas when we all care about those who are the least among us. But just caring in that fashion is not sufficient, given the extent of the problem. We need a stronger safety net with reference to health care, child care, the support that is offered through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, and to help those--yes, pull them up by their boots; but for those who lack bootstraps, assist them as well. That should be the goal of our vision as we address the needs of the many impoverished people in this country. Unfortunately, poor people have the least voice in this Congress. Their voice is not heard to the extent that some of those who have vested interests here in limousines and lobbyists are heard. But we need to speak up for them. And this is one of those rare opportunities to be able to do so and to say that this Congress has acted; but it's acted in a modest, limited, incomplete, and inadequate way. We would not hold up that little bit of help, but there is so much more that needs to be done. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman. This proposal certainly does represent a visit from the ghost of Christmas past--last Christmas to be specific--when Republicans stood here and said only a lump of coal for the unemployed until you stuff every stocking to overflowing. Well, today's Republican bill would eliminate up to 40 weeks of unemployment coverage with the biggest cuts coming in States like mine, Texas, with high unemployment rates. That means that next year over 3 million unemployed Americans and their families will be shortchanged if this bill is enacted. Long-term unemployment in America today has not been this high, for this long, in 60 years. We have over 6 million fewer jobs now than when the recession began and more than four workers for every job opening. And in 10 States, this bill responds by making it possible to no longer require that unemployment insurance funds are used for unemployment insurance benefits. Under the Democratic alternative that I have introduced, unemployment would be available only to those who are actively searching for a job, getting job training, or who are out there in a temporary layoff situation. Nor is an unemployment check any substitute for a paycheck. As The New York Times editorialized this morning: ``When was the last time any Republican lawmaker tried to live on $289 a week, the amount of the average unemployment benefit?'' And this same measure also offers a lump of coal for Medicare. I believe in seeking efficiencies in Medicare. That's one reason why we voted for the Affordable Care Act, to ensure that billions of dollars were saved. But the billions that are cut from other health care providers in today's bill come on top of across-the-board cuts that are already enacted and will be effective within about the next year.

Mr. DOGGETT. At some point, cuts to hospitals and nursing homes mean that seniors and the disabled will be unable to access the quality care that they need. And this bill's $8 billion cut to preventable chronic disease programs like heart disease and diabetes is shortsighted and will cost us more in the long run than it saves.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I still call you ``Mr. Chairman,'' though the formal leadership of the committee has changed with the change in the majority here in the House. And I guess if you were in fact still the chairman with full authority we would not be here, nor would there be any unemployed individual in the United States among the millions whose benefits would expire next year who would be wondering the night before Christmas what would happen the day after their unemployment coverage expired next year. We face a great challenge, and as you have been pointing out in describing individuals like Jessie, a retired--not voluntarily retired, but retired, removed from the workforce by unemployment in San Antonio, these are very real human beings, not just unemployment statistics. With over 6 million fewer jobs than when the recession began and more than four workers competing for every job opening, too many Americans have nowhere to go. They are like the lyrics from that working man song of the Nitty Gritty Dirt Band: Had me a job until the market fell out; Tried hard to borrow, but there was no help. Now I've got nowhere to go. I need a job for these two hands; I'm a working man with nowhere to go. And if our Republican colleagues continue to insist that unemployment is caused by the unemployed instead of by the troubling economy we have, there will be about another 5 million Americans with nowhere to go, looking as to where they will find the resources to put food on the table, make the car or pick-up truck payment, take care of the kids and meet the other necessities of life if their unemployment insurance expires. While the Republicans continue to have a really factless finger- pointing at the unemployed, I think it is past time for us to lay the facts straight out on the table and respond to some of these myths that they've been promoting. Fact: An unemployment check is not a substitute for a paycheck. People like Jessie know that. An unemployment benefit usually amounts to a fraction of what a worker was making before someone lost his or her job. Fact: Unless you are actively searching for a job, getting job training for a new job, or are on temporary layoff, you're not likely to be entitled to an unemployment check. I'm not for just paying people to be idle; but these are individuals who are either getting training, who are actively involved in a job search, or the few that are in the temporary layoff category. There is little evidence to support the Republican claim, repeated again and again, that unemployment insurance benefits are a significant factor in discouraging folks from going out and looking for work. Fact: to receive extended benefits, an unemployed person is required to accept reasonable offers of employment. Two out of three of the unemployed respondents in the Heldrich Center survey, and 80 percent of those who were receiving unemployment benefits, said they were willing to take a pay cut in order to get a new job, as so many Americans have had to do with the challenges in our economy. Fact: one economist estimates that for every $1 dollar we spend on these unemployment insurance benefits, about a $1.61 in economic activity comes back. In fact, some of the estimates from one group that began its survey back during the Bush administration for the Department of Labor say it's even higher than that in terms of the economic rewards. So I believe that we must create jobs. Certainly, we must do the kinds of things that this Congress has failed totally to do in terms of job creation and promoting economic recovery. But we also must provide a vital lifeline for those folks who are out there actively searching for work and the jobs are just not there for them. The facts are clear. The time for us to extend unemployment coverage is now, not to wait until next year, not to wait until Christmas, and not to wait until these families are faced with the critical situation of not having the unemployment insurance coverage that they should have to meet these basic necessities, but to act right now in the next few days. It's for that reason, as you well know, that we're working together to try to get this unemployment insurance coverage extended, as it has been done often on a bipartisan basis in the past whenever the unemployment rate was at a level near what it is today. So, hopefully, in our sounding the alarm here again tonight, in your telling these stories about individual Americans and what a loss of this coverage means, we can begin to involve and get the support of more of our colleagues to do what we really need to have accomplished just as soon as possible.

Mr. DOGGETT. It is our pledge, because there's just too much at stake here. This Congress has been incredibly unproductive. You might think it had been unemployed for much of the past year. And we need to stay and complete the work. This is work that was done practically on Christmas Eve last year, when this extension was in jeopardy again. And we ought not to go right down to the wire like that again. There's no reason that this could not be done in the coming week, but for this ideological commitment saying that unemployment insurance coverage is not good for the economy. The facts don't bear that out. The individual stories that you're telling us about tonight, those are the individuals, those are the families that have so much at stake. And of course, because of this economic effect, those unemployed families, when they get a dollar of unemployment insurance, they have to spend that dollar. They may be spending it at the grocery store. They may be paying a landlord or a mortgage company. They may be paying on their credit card or their car, just to have the basic necessities of life; and that's why the economic impact on small businesses is so significant from doing what we would need to do in order to support these families engaged in an active job search or getting the retraining and the retooling they need to have an opportunity for a job in the future.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. I voted for a balanced budget. I voted for a balanced budget when I voted against launching an unnecessary war on borrowed money. I voted for a balanced budget when I voted to reject the distorted Republican theology that when the question is taxes, less always means more. It's political alchemy. It's like turning hay into gold. The more the tax cut theology is proven wrong over and over and over again, the more the Republican faithful demand another tax cut to drive us deeper into debt. This is the kind of extremism that causes a stage full of Republican Presidential hopefuls to declare that they would reject any budget agreement that cut spending by $10 if it raised taxes by even $1. A few months ago, such irresponsibility took us to the brink of default and jeopardized our economic recovery. They just could not overcome their ideological restraints. Don't jeopardize our economic future. Don't play games with veterans and retirement security and law enforcement just because Republicans cannot accept the economic reality, as they often cannot except basic science. Reject this misbegotten amendment.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, while this House does sometimes act in ways that border on the insane, applying this constitutional straitjacket is hardly the appropriate treatment. It basically imposes the tyranny of the minority. Two-fifths of the Members of this House can block action. And America has seen how well that works across the Capitol in the United States Senate, where a three-fifths rule already applies, and too often has rendered the Senate largely impotent, unresponsive to public demand for action on key national issues, unable to overcome the threat of a Republican filibuster. Today's proposal would broaden that impotence to both sides of the Capitol. On a critical budget question, if we take a vote in this House and 260 people vote in the majority, and 175 vote in the minority, the minority rules. Democracy loses. Of course, there is a major exception to this proposed new rule, and it is an exception that may well eat the entire rule. So long as a majority of the House determines, probably through the fine print of some huge, voluminous piece of legislation, that the country faces an imminent and serious threat to its national security, well, in that case this purported constitutional amendment is totally nullified. What year, since 9/11, would a majority of this Congress have been unwilling to make such a finding and render the proposal meaningless? A constitutional amendment is not a path to a balanced budget. It is only an excuse for Members of this body failing to cast votes to achieve one.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. As families gather this next week for Thanksgiving, some 6 million Americans will be left wondering whether they will be able to secure a job before their Federal unemployment coverage expires. They are people like Jesse, a retired Navy veteran in San Antonio who has applied for over 300 jobs unsuccessfully. Sadly, some Republicans continue to blame the unemployment problem on the unemployed, even though there are about four people for every job opening in America today. Too many remain jobless, not for lack of wanting to work, but for a lack of work. Let's continue to encourage more job creation. But for those who lack a job, we also must preserve the lifeline of extended unemployment benefits. It's only the turkey that ought to be carved at Thanksgiving, not the unemployed's ability to share in the bounty of America.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote number 822 on H.R. 2112, I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``no'' when I should have voted ``yes.''

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman. We need a new, 21st-century trade policy that encourages more trade without encouraging a race to the bottom in conditions for our workers and in the quality of the air we breathe and the water we drink. Trade agreements should not be measured solely with regard to how many tons of goods move across a border, but they must consider the impact on how our workers are treated, how our environment is treated. And that's the very kind of trade policy that President Obama has said repeatedly he is committed to. Trade Adjustment Assistance is just not a substitute for a new trade policy that recognizes that too often American jobs have been a leading American export. All three of these Bush-Cheney trade agreements are deficient. But this one in particular shows just how far those who think that the only thing that matters in trade policy is the volume of goods from one country to another, to the exclusion of everything else, how that narrow view insists today that we must have totally free trade with the trade union murder capital of the world. Yes, supporters of this free trade agreement have forgotten it's not free, it's not free to those who attempt to represent workers in Colombia. Last year, 49 trade union members were murdered in Colombia. And this year, it's already up to 20. Human Rights Watch has just reported that there is virtually no progress in securing murder convictions. They got six out of 195 union member murders that were actually convicted. In nine of 10 cases, the Colombians haven't even identified a suspect in these murders. You can talk of an action plan, and that's fine; but it's just like talk of a new trade policy. It's just talk and nothing else. This amendment denies any enforcement provision on the Action Plan that would make it actionable. LULAC, the League of United Latin American Citizens, opposes this agreement, quite rightly calling for a new American trade policy that promotes living wages and sustainable jobs, encourages human rights, labor standards, and a healthy environment--not only here, but among each of our trading partners. Instead, today's agreement emplaces the principle that violence against the very people who make the goods being traded will be disregarded, will be overlooked if only we can increase the trade volume of what they make. Reject this misguided agreement.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. While this agreement, based upon the flawed framework of the Bush-Cheney administration, offers no model for the future with regard to workers or environmental protection, I am supporting today's measure because of a successful response to a longstanding concern that I have had, that is, Panama's status as a notorious tax haven, a place where taxpayers who refuse to pay their fair share of the cost of our national security and vital public services could go to hide their assets and dodge taxes. About 2 years ago, Senator Carl Levin and I urged the administration to postpone the approval of this trade agreement until Panama first signed a Tax Information Exchange Agreement, where we could get information about assets hidden there and for Panama to change its laws regarding bank secrecy and other matters to assure that this agreement was meaningful. Panama has now met these conditions. For the first time ever, we can obtain information from the Panamanian Government on U.S. taxpayers who have Panamanian assets or income. Though the Treasury Department should have secured a stronger automatic information exchange similar to the one we have with Canada and 24 other countries--and I would much prefer also to see an actual record of Panamanian compliance--we need to accept this as a victory in the fight against offshore tax cheats. This would not have been possible had it not been for the strong Panamanian desire to get the trade agreement approved. By also agreeing to 12 other exchange agreements on tax information, Panama was recently removed from the OECD gray list of tax havens. Now we must ensure that Panama's newfound openness and transparency does not end with approval of today's agreements. I support this trade agreement, knowing that while it could have been much better, the dangers have been mitigated with an agreement that has a very modest scope.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, the chairman, Mr. Davis, is correct. We have worked on this together. We have participated in hearings and have learned together and cooperated on this very important subject to which we may bring differing perspectives but a common goal of wanting to respond to the needs of America's most vulnerable children. I believe that this bipartisan legislation which I do fully support, is important; however, it is also important to understand what we support and where we have differences and to understand what this legislation accomplishes and what it fails to accomplish. This bill is certainly preferable to allowing two very important laws to expire next week. Each year, over 700,000 children here in America become victims of abuse and neglect, perpetrated by the very people who are supposed to love and care for them. I think most Americans, as do my wife, Libby, and I, when we're back home in Texas and surrounded by Clara, Zayla, and Ella, our three granddaughters, believe it's just almost incomprehensible that parents or grandparents could cause harm to a member of their own families. Yet that is the reality that too many of our children face. One expert came to our committee during the hearing and suggested that, once every 6 hours of every day, a child dies in America as a result of abuse. I agree that both the Child Welfare Services and the Promoting Safe and Stable Families laws should be renewed for another 5 years. I disagree that these programs should be continued at their current baseline funding levels since, with need growing and funding limited, too many of our most vulnerable children cannot access the services that they so desperately need. These are the children whose neglect not only produces problems for them, but will produce more problems for all of American society in the future. They are the children we should be helping today so that we are not incarcerating them after they have done harm to someone tomorrow. Less than half of the children in foster care in America today receive federal assistance to help with the room and board. Today, 40 percent of children who are found to be victims of abuse and neglect don't receive any follow-up or intervention at all. That is a very big gap that will likely only grow over the course of the next 5 years with the legislation that we are renewing. In my home State of Texas, the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Act accounts for a very significant source of funding to help our youngest Texans. According to one of our witnesses in committee, Dr. Jane Burstain of the Center for Public Policy Priorities in Austin, funding from this program accounted for $2 of every $3 supporting child abuse and neglect prevention programs last year. In San Antonio, for example, these programs provide important resources to help vulnerable families through the Bexar County Child Welfare Board. This bill also grants States support for parental substance abuse programs. My friend Darlene Byrne, a district judge in Austin, Texas, who helped establish the Family Treatment Drug Court that was partially funded by dollars from this act that we're renewing, writes that she has seen new babies who are not drug positive, moms and couples reunify with their families, and workers receive their GEDs or high school diplomas and find employment. Those are the people that these programs help. In short, she says that this program has contributed in transforming lives and in helping to stop the cycle of drug abuse, poverty, and violence in Texas. It is important both to those who benefit directly and to all of us who have a stake in having folks participate to the full extent of their God-given potential, not posing dangers to the rest of our society. Today's legislation also includes, as Mr. Davis indicated, some modest policy changes that strengthen the States' abilities to respond to at-risk children. Mr. Speaker, the bill, I believe, leaves too many problems unresolved. I think, though, in this current climate that the renewal of the legislation as it's proposed is the best that we can do for our at-risk children. This bill reauthorizes help to at least some children who become victims of maltreatment. It provides family support and activities to some vulnerable families, and it promotes adoption services for those children who cannot safely return to their biological parents. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DOGGETT. I yield 4 minutes to the former chair of this Subcommittee on Human Resources, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), who has been very active in a Foster Youth Financial Security Act. (Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DOGGETT. I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from California (Ms. Bass), one of the leaders on this subject of foster children, who came and testified to our committee based on her long experience working in the State of California in the assembly on this subject.

Mr. DOGGETT. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, some in this House have suggested earlier in the year that the programs embodied in this legislation, and everything else that opens opportunities through government support from Pell Grants to Title I funding for education to the school lunch program to Head Start, that all of these are ``welfare'' and should be cut. Fortunately, that approach is not being taken here today. We are reauthorizing, in a bipartisan way, these two very important programs that would expire next week. Mr. Speaker, however, it should be noted that, much like somebody might be flatlined, we are flat funding the renewal of these programs, meaning that in 5 years we are authorizing the same amount of money for these programs, if it can be appropriated, that existed last year. That means that there are many needs in our country that will not be fully addressed in this legislation. It means that last year, if less than half of those in foster care received support for food and board, they will be in the same situation over the course of this legislation. It means that the 40 percent of children who are subject to abuse and neglect are unlikely to be able to access services as they were last year. But renewing this legislation remains, despite those deficiencies, an important accomplishment in the current political environment. And, as Mr. Davis and a number of other speakers have noted, we have made some modest improvements. Another of those not touched on yet is our work in this legislation to ensure that children in foster care can stay in the schools that they started in, even though they may be moved between families. That's an important part of adding a little certainty to the lives of children who have been abused or neglected and find themselves with a great deal of uncertainty. It is for the improvements in this act and the recognition of what harm would be done if this act were not adopted here in a bipartisan way that so many child advocacy groups have joined in supporting it-- the Child Welfare League of America, First Focus, Zero to Three--as well as groups of those organizations that are involved in administering some of these funds: the National Conference of State Legislatures, the American Public Human Services Association, and the Conference of State Court Administrators. I believe this legislation is important. It's important to get it adopted promptly. I hope the Senate will respond to our bipartisan approval today, as Mr. Davis has suggested they have already begun to do in the committee process, and move forward to see it fully adopted by next week. I urge all of my colleagues to join in supporting this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the House should approve this important bipartisan legislation today. To fail to approve this modest extension would cause even more people to suffer with the expiration of these programs next week. Mr. Speaker, it may not be in vogue to discuss the problems of poor people in America today, but we need to hear more about it in this House. We need to hear more about it in Washington, DC. Certainly we want to support and encourage the middle class in America--very, very important--but we need to create more opportunity to broaden that middle class. For the many people who struggle and hope that lives will be better for their children and that they will face less obstacles than their parents have faced, we need to provide that temporary assistance to needy families. The current program leaves out too many and forgets too many of those families in their struggle. The omission of TANF supplemental grants, which we renewed four times in the last two Congresses, is not being renewed here, which means that in Texas and in so many high-poverty States, we will not have the support that Governor Rick Perry once called for. We will have a broadened gap and a lack of services. Many of the dollars that we've received in that program in Texas have gone into child protective services to protect abused and neglected children. They will no longer have that assistance. I hope in the course of the legislative process of the renewal of this legislation, we might eventually get TANF supplemental grants into the bill. Today we see so many who are losing the opportunity to share in the American Dream. We have an opportunity to continue at least a minimal level of support to them. We should do that, but we should commit ourselves to doing even more. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DOGGETT. I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, this is a bipartisan bill, which I fully support, but it is important to understand what this bill does and what it does not do. It is important to understand which provisions we agree upon and which ones we accept as only being better than the alternative of allowing this important law and all those who count on it to expire next week. Last week, the Census Bureau reported that more Americans were poor in 2010 than at any time on record. Regrettably, my home State of Texas was leading the way with one of the highest poverty rates anywhere in America. The Texas Center for Public Policy Priorities, a nonpartisan group, recently reported that ``The heart of the American Dream is at risk in Texas.'' For the first time in generations, there are more people falling out of the middle class than joining its ranks. And what a struggle it is for those families trying to hold on. In a neighborhood near downtown San Antonio, Andrew Ramos and his wife, Nina, are struggling just to keep food on the table for themselves and their 2-year-old daughter. Andrew lost his job, and Nina works at a local pizza parlor where she makes about $200 a week. There are so many families just like the Ramos family--almost one in five in poverty in Bexar County. As John Turner at the Capital Area Food Bank concludes: Hunger is a result of lack of income and of a livable wage. It affects too many of our neighbors, he says, under the current Texas economic model. The demands on our food banks, which serve as effective public- private partnerships, are immense. The Capital Area Food Bank, this year, is delivering 50 percent more food to poor people than it did 3 years ago. But I don't really hear anyone facing up to this harsh reality--not our Governor in Texas, not the President of the United States, and certainly not the leadership here in the House. In fact, the Administration has shown little interest and almost no guidance in reforming this legislation. Rather than respond to rising deprivation and declining opportunity, this legislation continues for another 3 months, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Act. This is a program that today provides direct assistance to only one in every five children living in Poverty in America. That's the lowest level of poor children receiving direct assistance since 1965. And of course in Texas it's much worse, where only one in every 20 poor children receive direct assistance from TANF. The bill before us also does not address a program agreed to originally when the Welfare Reform Act was enacted--a bill that I voted for to address the particular needs of high poverty States like Texas and many in the South--called TANF Supplemental Grants. Their name is really a misnomer because they're not a supplement; they're essential to the work of States that have higher poverty rates. Ever since that time of the Welfare Reform Act, Texas and those States have depended on supplemental TANF. It is not included in today's legislation, and that means that Texas will lose about $50 million every year that it relies on to work with child care, with preventing pregnancy, with other issues like school dropouts, programs that rely on these funds today. Allowing these grants to expire is in sharp contrast to what happened in 2001 when Governor Rick Perry wrote to then-Whip Tom DeLay urging the extension of TANF supplemental grants, saying: ``These grants have played an important role in helping hardworking men and women in Texas achieve independence from public assistance. Congress designed the supplemental grants to address the critical program needs of States.'' Those were words of Governor Rick Perry, who is silent on this matter today about how we enable more Texans to move from welfare to work. Mr. Speaker, we cannot allow the funding for TANF to expire next week, and so I join wholeheartedly with this renewal legislation. But we also need to move past doing the very least that we can do and start responding to the mounting challenges that families not just in Texas but across our country face. TANF has not been adequately responsive to the increased level of needs during these bad economic times.