Lloyd Doggett

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington State, the former chair of this subcommittee, Mr. McDermott.

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 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 thank the gentleman. I think it's clear that this resolution is just not my cup of tea, but I can tell you if we followed the path that was just recommended, Republicans could drive us deeper into recession or even depression. It's as if the Republicans who are here today wanted to start Halloween early because they keep trying to bring back to life, as if it were some zombie, the specter of debt default that has already caused us so many problems. Building on their earlier success in sowing panic and reaping fear in our global financial markets that contributed to the first-ever downgrade of our Nation's credit rating, these professional obstructionists are determined to keep trying to wreak havoc. As families are demanding action on the economy, a response to jobs, the Republicans instead are focusing on pandering to a small group of people for whom reality doesn't seem to make much difference. The problem is reality has a Democratic bias when it comes to this question of the economy and job creation. I think if the Republicans really want to help us close the debt gap, the best way to do that is to get this economy moving. An increase in economic growth will do more than any of the things that he just mentioned--some amendment that might be approved years from now--will do more to help us get the debt under control than most anything else. Of course, how did we end up with the debt that we have today? Much of it is directly related to the policies of the Bush-Cheney years when Republicans were totally ignoring the issue of debt: unpaid wars, tax cuts based on the mythology that they would pay for themselves when they just dug us deeper into debt. And now we face the need to try to get our economy moving again. Their solution? Do less. Jeopardize the full faith and credit of the United States. I think one of the problems that we have here, and it afflicts the Democratic Party to some extent as well as the Republicans, but especially with our Republican colleagues, is that we've just got too many certified smart people here in Washington. They're so smart they know what they know; they just don't know what the American people are experiencing. You don't have very many people advising about this economic recovery. Whoever had to drive a truck for a living? You don't have people who even had to worry about whether they could make their next truck payment. And you sure don't have people advising who've had their house foreclosed and had to move their family into a truck. But that's the plight that too many Americans face today, and we need to be responding to their legitimate concern that what we need to do is focus on the demand side of the equation and help improve demand and get this economy going again. I like the idea of focusing on our roadways, our trucks, our crumbling bridges and the like, building the infrastructure that will help American business as well as the people who would do that construction work.

Mr. DOGGETT. I believe that focusing on our infrastructure, our roads, bridges, our schools, focusing on what is happening inside our schools with so many teachers threatened with dismissal around the country with the cutback in State and local budgets, that's the kind of focus that can help get America moving and address the debt issues at the same time. I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on today's empty political resolution so we can focus on what really makes a difference to working families across this country.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. This Republican ploy is too clever by half. At the very same time Republican Senators are filibustering against bringing up this proposal in the Senate, the House Republicans are insisting on bringing it up here so they can vote it down. While it is imperfect and imbalanced, this Reid proposal protects educational opportunities for college students, it protects retirement security through Medicare and Social Security, and it provides more important resources for public services than the reactionary House Republican budget. With House Republicans still at fault for refusing to seek any type of middle ground, the Reid bill is the least worst alternative to avoid default. As desperate as they were last night to cobble together a handful of votes to pass a partisan Boehner bill, they are even more desperate to defeat this reasonable middle ground because they insist it must have two-thirds of the votes of this body. Let us join Democrats in unity to approve this proposal.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. You know, yesterday when the Speaker failed to secure the votes for his misbegotten deal, I thought all these Republicans would need to get under way today was a professional physical therapist to help heal the twisted arms, the sprains, perhaps even a dislocation as all that pressure was applied by the Speaker to get those final votes; you know, a therapist to kind of fit the slings and apply the splints. But, no, the professional obstructionists among the Republicans have yielded for far less than a deep muscle massage. All they need is a meaningless vote on an amendment that is designed to fail, that they know will never rewrite the United States Constitution the way they would like to rewrite it to enshrine a little Republican dogma into the supreme law of the land. I will admit that, through the years, the balanced budget amendment has gained more interest on my part. It became much more appealing as I saw years of Republicans entering wars without paying for them, insisting upon the mythology--no, indeed, it's really a political theology of Republicans--that you can cut taxes, raise spending, and everything will work out okay. Their approach, even though their experts told them these tax cuts would drive us into deficit, they insisted on the political alchemy that they could take tax cuts and turn them into surpluses, just as if they could turn hay into gold. If there were one vote I could take to do something about the George W. Bush administration dripping in red ink, I would certainly want to take it, but a constitutional amendment is not a solution. It's an excuse for not having a solution, for not grappling with the financial problems we have. And the only reason it's being brought up this weekend is just to delay this crisis nearer and nearer to the precipice to which this Republican irresponsibility has taken us. The credit worthiness and the full faith and the credit of the United States is endangered by the refusal to adopt a balanced approach that would close some tax loopholes and reduce spending all at once. That's what we need. Instead of putting all the burden on the many, demand a little from the few at the top.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, my neighbors in Texas are saying work together to resolve this crisis without jeopardizing Medicare and Social Security. Adopt a balanced approach that balances the budget by closing some tax loopholes at the same time we cut spending. But agreeing has not been possible so far when so many of our House colleagues pride themselves on being disagreeable. Instead of protecting the full faith and credit of these United States in the same manner as our Republican colleagues voted to do seven times for President George W. Bush, today's bill really represents little more than a ransom note from those who are using this critical issue to hold our country hostage. As their price for ensuring our national creditworthiness, they demand that we jeopardize the security for the very young with educational opportunities, and for the old with Social Security and Medicare. Their ransom demands do not share the sacrifice, but they sure do spread the pain--to the young, to the old, to those who are trying to climb up the economic ladder or just not slide backwards. They talk about tightening the belt. The only belt they're really tightening is right around the neck of the hostages that they've taken. I believe now is the time to stand firm for those families and to affirm that America will always pay our bills by rejecting this bill and then moving forward with more reasonable legislation.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Only a year ago, Republicans were using every trick in the book to stop any Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. And you know, they never really stopped. The party of Wall Street bailouts, of Big Bank buddies, remains determined to deny our families basic, effective protection from credit abuses. The lyrics of Grammy Award Winner Steve Earle, who grew up in Schertz, on the edge of San Antonio, ring true for so many families. ``You go to school and learn to read and write, so you can walk into the bank and sign away your life.'' Well, so many families were deceived in taking out mortgages or a credit card or a payday loan on terms in the fine print that only the big lenders understand. Many of these families were counting on a home, on a job, on a retirement plan, or maybe with their credit card, just to put clothes on the kids and food on the family's table. Nobody was there to protect them from the tricks and traps that some creditors used to enrich themselves and to fleece consumers with loans with incredible interest rates. In too many of these transactions what were once known as ``loan sharks'' can today legally ply their trade. If you're mugged on the street, you can lose your wallet. But if you're mugged on Wall Street, you can lose a lifetime of savings. That's why we need this new squad of financial cops whose sole job will be to protect those who borrow from abuse. With foreclosures at near record highs in San Antonio and in Austin, now is not the time for a retreat by consumer law enforcement. Oppose this latest Republican attempt to roll back the power of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and oppose the effort to take cops off the beat when we need them the most.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank both of my colleagues from Texas for using this as an opportunity, not only to herald this important bill, but as well the importance of health care for our veterans in south Texas. As a sponsor myself, through several sessions of this effort to strengthen health care in south Texas, I am pleased we are finally making some progress on it. We need to continue to redouble our efforts, whether it is there or at Audie Murphy, or at the burn center, or at Lackland, or, as with our success last Friday in Austin, Texas, where we broke ground on what will become the largest veterans' outreach clinic to provide outpatient care for our veterans of any place in the entire United States. Of course, what brings us principally here today is the bill that Congressman Cuellar introduced and that I am a sponsor of, the bill to salute the veterans of Schertz, Texas, by renaming this as the Schertz Veterans Post Office. With so many in the Schertz area who have contributed so much to our Nation's freedom, there just aren't enough public buildings in Schertz to name all of them for the individual sacrifice that has occurred, so this bill very practically approaches the heroism and the contribution of so many veterans and their families in Schertz by renaming this building the Veterans Post Office. Schertz' connection to our Armed Forces is a proud and storied history. Most of the community's growth began going back to a general store in the last century, in the 20th century. It began in the twenties and thirties with the Army's construction of what was then called in Hollywood and elsewhere the West Point of the Air, then Randolph Field before the Air Force was even formed. Today, Randolph Field may be called Randolph Air Force Base and Schertz, Texas, may have had since 1990 a tripling of its population, but some things have not changed. One of those, since World War II-- 1946 and the end of that war, as the veterans were returning--has been the chartering and the continuation of the Veterans of Foreign War Post, commanded by Mike Espinola, and it is still a thriving heartbeat of community activities. Families are also still coming to Schertz, Texas. They're coming in droves. Even CNN recognized it as one of the best places to live anywhere in America. So often, rapid change will divide rather than unite, and that could be especially true when you have people coming from, literally, all over the world to a community practically adjacent to a military base and otherwise filled with many commuters. But unlike so many other parts of our country, where folks return to the same street without a sense of neighborhood, the people in Schertz have maintained a community spirit that is reflected at the Schertz Family YWCA, which recently got the Strong Community award; at the many events families attend at Pickrell Park; or at a football game at Samuel Clemens High School. This renamed Veterans Post Office will help maintain that community spirit and will serve as an anchor and as a reminder of where Schertz came from, how it has grown, and the road ahead. A while back, I stood at this very microphone to speak up for the renaming of a post office in south Austin on South Congress, which is the street that once connected San Antonio and Austin, for Sergeant Henry Ybarra, III, who was killed in Iraq. I remember the dedication service that we had there, joined by the Catholic War Veterans, the American GI Forum, LULAC, and The Knights of Columbus Council, in addition to the family and friends of Sergeant Ybarra. It meant a great deal to them, and I believe that the same thing, the same kind of inspiration which they feel every time they go into that hub of community activity, will be realized as well in Schertz, Texas. Our veterans, whether they wore uniforms last week or decades ago, understand a fundamental truth: That our military is the strongest in the world because of the spirit and the bravery of the men and women who put on that uniform. As a grateful Nation, we must continue to honor their service by meeting their health care needs and by taking steps like today in the renaming of the Schertz Veterans Post Office. I think it's a step in the right direction.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Our Republican colleagues have chattered endlessly about making hard choices, but most of the hard choices they make today are hard only on the hungry, hard on hungry children, hard on hungry seniors. They've got tremendous cuts to the Women, Infant, and Children nutritional assistance. It means as many as 350,000 women and infants will be denied assistance, including tens of thousands in my home State of Texas. They made a hard choice. Instead of putting food on the table for those women and infants, they chose to send $147 million to Brazilian cotton farmers. I think that's not just a hard choice; it's a very bad choice. Those young children will never achieve their full God-given potential if they arrive at kindergarten malnourished. Our food banks, are doing a tremendous job. In Texas, they get the support of grocers, of retailers, of private contributors, but they need this emergency food assistance. I've been to those food banks. I've seen some of those rural food banks in times of economic distress that are bare. The cupboard is bare, and the lines are long to get that assistance. Republicans made a hard choice, hard on the hungry. The Republicans have finally found that the only bank they don't want to bail out is the food bank. And the food bank needs that assistance. I say that we should reject this bill that takes the most from those who have the least.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Today's vote represents just one more step in the Republican effort to dismantle Medicare. This contrived procedure, demanding an extraordinary two-thirds vote, right after the Republican majority announces they won't vote for it, is just a gimmick. You don't have to be much of a math whiz to know if you don't have half the votes in this body, you probably are not going to get two-thirds of the vote. But it's not about the vote. It's about Republicans, who are withholding their support of an eventual necessary increase in the limit, by demanding that any agreement on that include a weakening of Medicare by imposing something like the Ryan Republican Medicare voucher plan that they all voted for, or some other scheme, to just let Medicare wither on the vine. Republicans are willing to jeopardize the full faith and credit of the United States of America, exposing us to great potential economic harm. They think the President will once again yield to their ransom demands, as he did last December, by yielding on more tax breaks for billionaires. Don't yield to this maneuver, Mr. President. Say ``no'' to gimmicks and say ``yes'' to Medicare, one of the best programs ever initiated by this Congress to ensure a little retirement security. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. This Republican budget does offer a path to prosperity. Unfortunately, it's China's prosperity. For America, they offer a fast track to mediocrity, a descent into economic insecurity. It's the wrong path to global competitiveness. It's not that the level of our debt or the size of our tax rates is unimportant; it's that when you have such a narrow focus that you talk about little else, you forget America's other competitive strengths, our workforce, the need to invest to ensure the strongest and best- educated workforce anywhere in the world, and our infrastructure that allows American businesses to prosper across our country. It's also about preserving a broad middle class so that more Americans share in the bounty of this country instead of going to some third-world extreme where all the wealth is concentrated at those at the top of the ladder. Today we have to choose. Instead of eliminating $4 billion from early education and student financial assistance so that students can achieve all of their God-given potential, why not ask General Electric to at least pay the level of taxes that the mail clerks that work for it pay? Instead of eliminating $3 billion from our crumbling roads and bridges, why not ask those giant corporations that currently get a $3 billion annual deduction when they borrow money to build a factory overseas without recognizing any of the income from that factory, to begin to pay their fair share. And instead of accepting this Republican nonsense that we have to have more tax breaks for the very wealthy in our country, why not use the same money to ensure a little dignity for our seniors in nursing homes across the country? We need to stop exporting jobs and manufacturing and stop exporting our tax revenues overseas and begin developing a more competitive workforce right here in America.

Mr. DOGGETT. I will yield my time, but I will never yield to those Republicans who don't demand any sacrifice from Wall Street and all those big-bonus recipients but do demand that the rest of us pay for balancing their budget. Oppose this Republican budget.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. This budget is just not my cup of tea. When the Republicans use the terms ``modernize'' or ``reform,'' what they really have in mind is a four letter word: less--less retirement security, less health security, less economic security. This budget does not share the sacrifice. It focuses the pain on the young, on the very old, on those who are trying to climb up the economic ladder, or just barely prevent themselves from slipping backward. ``Fair and balanced,'' that's a most inaccurate media logo, but it's a spot-on description of the budgetary path we ought to be on. Our budget should be balanced, but not unfairly on the backs of those least able to bear it, like our elderly in nursing homes. It's troubling enough that this Republican budget demands even more tax cuts for those at the top and our largest corporations. But what's truly outrageous is that they seek balance by cutting the opportunity for our young people to get all the education they are willing to work for. How can our economy be second to none when Republicans again and again turn to education to cut first? Nor can you fix this budget or make up revenue lost by squeezing so much out of those on fixed incomes. We need to be creating jobs with job training and education and infrastructure investment. The size of our deficit, the level of our taxes, those are important, but they are not the sole lens through which the strength of America should be viewed. We want an America where the young have educational opportunity, where the not so young have the dignity of their old age, and a bigger middle class shares in the success of our country. To secure our long-term future, every American can give a little. But this unfair proposal asks little from those with much, and so much from those who have so little.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. As one who voted for cutting some of President Obama's spending requests last year and who has already voted three times this year to cut spending from the budget, I believe we do need to ferret out every bit of unnecessary spending, to demand greater efficiency and to seek common ground on securing our long-term financial future by addressing our national debt. But this resolution is only a belated companion to the deal that tied a Christmas bow around another tax cut for the wealthiest few in December. It represents another unbalanced approach to achieving balance in our budget. There is no shared sacrifice here. And like that December deal, this concession literally sets up tomorrow's demand for adoption of the House Republican budget--a pathway to less economic, educational, and health care security. Instead of asking for a dime from ExxonMobil or other polluters, this deal makes severe cuts in the budget to assure us clean air and clean water. Instead of asking for a dollar from General Electric or another of these giant corporations that won't pay their fair share of taxes, this places the burden on hundreds of thousands of young Americans who are trying to seek a future job in the United States. Almost one-fourth of the budget is eliminated for YouthBuild, a program that provides vital education and employment skills to young people. In Austin, I have seen up close the difference that our local YouthWorks makes in trails constructed, in homes weatherized, in the vital employment and training skills provided. With every energy efficient home for which a foundation is laid, a foundation is also laid for the future of some enterprising young Texans. Additionally, about another 100,000 young people at universities like Texas State will lose the counseling, academic instruction, tutoring and encouragement from TRIO that helps them achieve academic success.

Mr. DOGGETT. That's not balanced. Fair and balanced? Yes, I know it's a distorted slogan, but I think it could have real meaning for our budget. But this budget is balanced on our young people and our future. We need a budget that's fair. This is not it.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. The next sad chapter in Republican Fantasyland is being written here today. Last month, they couldn't tell the difference between Big Bird and big government. Now they insist that dirty air is really good for us. They live in a fact-free zone when the facts don't support their point of view, insisting that big polluters know best and that good science should be ignored. The Clean Air Act for the last 40 years has improved air quality and saved hundreds of thousands of lives. Unfortunately, my home State of Texas is one of the world's leading carbon polluters, and it is also one of the leaders in condoning lawlessness by those polluters. Foul air fouls lives and especially young lungs. For my three granddaughters and their generation, particularly for the more than 23,000 children in my home county who are suffering from asthma, we need to ensure clean air, and that ought to be a given, not just a goal. Science-based decisions, not ideologically driven nonsense, should guide us. I stand with the American Lung Association and with a large number of scientists across many disciplines who call for this bill's rejection. And in its drive to interfere with our health, this same Republican proposal creates the very type of uncertainty that stands in the way of more job creation throughout Texas, and Texas moving to become the leading wind provider in the country. Those wind turbines could be built in our State. Solar energy could be expanding in our State. But a climate of uncertainty to which this bill adds even more will interfere with the start-ups, with the new ideas that keep us at the forefront of creating clean jobs instead of sending all those jobs over to China and other parts of the world. This is a bad bill for our economy, and it is a bad bill for the future health of our country. I urge its rejection.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. While Republicans insist today that NPR is a four-letter word, the real attack is on KUT and similar public radio across America. Two hundred fifty thousand Texans rely upon KUT's in-depth radio news scrutiny of the Texas legislature and local government. The only ``bias'' of those who begin with Morning Edition is a bias for truth. My constituents tune in to KUT because they want fact-based, not faux-based, not FOX-based coverage. Like their continued assault on PBS, these Republicans just can't tell the difference between Big Government and Big Bird. While they pander to Wall Street, they continue to want to terminate support of Sesame Street. ``All Things Considered,'' their attack really has nothing to do with balancing the budget. It is an ideological crusade against balanced news and educational programing. Cutting access to the power of knowledge decreases our ability to hold our government accountable. Don't weaken our democracy by weakening this vital source of reality-based journalism. Don't cut KUT. Public radio serves the public interest.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman. I voted previously to repeal these 1099 reporting requirements. But for broad Republican opposition, these requirements would have been repealed a long time ago. I was a little amused to hear one of our Republican colleagues actually say this morning that he is bewildered as to why there are all these requirements on small businesses around the country as a result of this provision. I can cure your bewilderment: Get a mirror out and look at the mirror. You will see the Republicans who voted against repealing this provision last year. No, this is not about repealing 1099. It is about shifting the burden onto working families while at the same time protecting insurance monopolies. Despite the vigorous, determined efforts of these Republicans to undermine every aspect of health insurance reform, under current law, working families will receive an opportunity to access health insurance. Each year, the government will match some of what workers pay for their health insurance. The precise amount of the match is determined by how low a worker's salary is. A minimum-wage worker would get a little more assistance than someone who is at a little higher level. This bill ensures that the health insurance companies will get to keep all of that Federal match, but it treats the working families considerably differently. If you have an employee who really shows ability and who may have a fairly menial or mundane job but who does it and does it with pride and does it well and if that employee excels and if the employer rewards him with a bonus and recognizes that that employee is really trying hard and then decides we're going to give you a little promotion and that you'll get a little more pay or, perhaps, as with so many families around this country, that employee decides ``I'll never make it for my family on this. I'm going to moonlight. I'm going to take an extra job,'' then under any of these developments for the enterprising worker, the Republicans today propose a penalty, a tax on success. At the end of that year, after those law-abiding employees have properly estimated their income from those 12 months earlier, if their pay has gone up a dollar over the level, they'll get a steep penalty. They may have to pay literally thousands of dollars back even though they only got a bonus of a few hundred dollars. They would owe the value, perhaps, of the entire credit to the IRS. What type of people are we talking about? If the law had been fully effective, as I wish it had been this year, and if workers who were earning $43,560 got a bonus that took them up to $43,600, they would have owed the full amount of the credit at the end of the year. $1,000 or perhaps $3,000 or $4,000 to a family as a penalty--as a tax on success--is a big amount to that family.

Mr. DOGGETT. Understand the dimensions of how big the burden is that they want to shift to working families: According to their own report on this bill, the total is almost $25 billion over the next decade. We're not talking about a small amount of money. We're talking about a significant amount of money in this Republican penalty on success. Why haven't they been out here responding to this penalty on success? They want to refer to these people as ``cheats.'' These people aren't cheats. They're people who are the best of America, who are striving and working to get ahead, who then get penalized for their success. They have no answer because there is no answer. We should have passed this bill last year and passed it by paying for it by closing international corporate tax loopholes. Naturally they resist that just as they resist any attempt to control insurance monopolies. Vote ``no'' on this penalty for success that would be imposed on our working families. Vote against this piece of legislation.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman. I enter in the record the request of education organizations from all over the State of Texas for this amendment and the statements of the Texas delegation last year and again this year. Governor Perry may have come up here on a book tour for his book ``Fed Up,'' but he's not afraid to ask for second and third helpings of Federal aid even though it takes it away from our schoolchildren. There is a clear path to getting this money. All the Governor needs to do is to sign a three-page application, like the one he signed to get that $3.25 billion of aid he used for purposes other than education. Though this is presented as an attempt to repeal our amendment, it does not repeal it. It is a meaningless gesture, though it does cloud up the possibility that some Federal court may suggest that Texas is not entitled to any money. Let's not shut the door of opportunity to our children. Reject this amendment. June 22, 2010. Hon. Arne Duncan, Secretary, Department of Education, Washington, DC. Hon. Steny Hoyer, Majority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. David Obey, Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Secretary Duncan, Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer, and Chairman Obey: Last year, before the education Stabilization funds were provided to Texas, many of us joined together to urge you to ensure that these funds would increase the funding for Texas schools instead of merely replacing state education funding. Unfortunately, as the legislation was written the State was able to reduce its own obligations to fiscally support public education and supplant those funds with $3.25 billion of federal stablization monies. As the Administration considers additional emergency education funding to save teachers' jobs, we urge you to prevent history from repeating itself and ensure that any funds Texas receives go to help Texas schools, teachers, and students. We support the legislative language that Members of the Texas Delegation have proposed that would guarantee these emergency federal education funds are actually spent on education in Texas. As drafted, this Texas fix has no impact on any other state and would ensure that the law is implemented as Congress and the Administration intended: to save and create teacher jobs. Specifically, this language includes four provisions that we would like to see included in any emergency education jobs bill: Limits the additional requirements to states with Texas- sized rainy day funds; Requires the emergency education jobs funds be distributed to Local Education Agencies within the state according to the Title I-A formula; Prohibits supplanting of state Title I-type funds with these new emergency federal funds for education jobs; and Requires maintenance of state primary and secondary education support in FY11, FY12, and FY13 at the current percentage of revenue provided for FY11. This language does not prohibit cuts to education in Texas's budget, but it does prevent the state from singling out education for more cuts than other budget items due to the influx of funds from the emergency federal monies for education jobs. With Texas facing a serious budget shortfall in the coming biennial budget, the last thing we need to allow is these funds to be diverted to fill non-education gaps in the budget. We hope that you will ensure that Texas school districts do not fall through the legislative cracks this time around. The Texas superintendents and education organizations listed below are in agreement with this letter and have given permission to add their names in support. Texas Superintendents (Total of 38 From Across the State of Texas) Wanda Bamberg, Aldine ISD; Meria Carstarphen, Austin ISD; Jim T. Rumage, Banquete ISD; Jamey Harrision, Bridge City ISD; Brett Springston, Brownsville ISD; Reece Blincoe, Brownwood ISD; Jeff Turner, Coppell ISD; Scott Elliff, Corpus Christi ISD; David Anthony, Cypress-Fairbanks ISD; Michael Hinojosa, Dallas ISD. Leland Williams, Dickinson ISD; Frances Rocha, Edcouch-Elsa ISD; Bob Wells, Edna ISD; Lorenzo Garcia, El Paso ISD; Melody Johnson, Fort Worth ISD; Paul Clore, Gregory-Portland ISD; Jeremy Lyon, Hays CISD; Terry Grier, Houston ISD; Emilia Castro, Kingsville ISD; A. Marcus Nelson, Laredo ISD. Michelle Carroll Smith, Lytle ISD; James Ponce, McAllen ISD; Richard A. Middleton, North East ISD; John M. Folks, Northside ISD; John Kuhn, Perrin-Whitt CISD; Sharron L. Doughty, Port Aransas ISD; Alfonso Obregon, Robstown ISD; Robert J. Duron, San Antonio ISD; Mike Quatrini, San Elizario

Mr. DOGGETT. When Texas received $3.25 billion in education stimulus funds over the objection of every Texas Republican, Governor Perry played a shell game that left Texas schools not a dime better off than if no Federal aid had come in the first place. That is the only reason that, last summer, all 12 Democratic Texas Members--from Chet Edwards to Silvestre Reyes, from Henry Cuellar to Gene Green--united, joined together, in offering our Save Our Schools amendment, which is today Federal law. Tonight's proposal seeks to nullify that protection so that Governor Perry can reach out for another Federal bailout even if it means taking $830 million away from Texas schoolchildren. Defectively written, this amendment fails to repeal anything. The enforcement funds that it would limit are not in this bill. They are already appropriated. Vote ``no'' on a very flawed amendment for a failed purpose. Stop begging Washington for help, Governor. Just sign the application.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Our middle-class families are threatened not only from the challenges of government, but from the big pharmaceutical monopolies that charge our people more than anyplace in the world, from the giant insurance monopolies. And sometimes, sometimes our families need government to come down on our side because otherwise those giant economic forces will take advantage of our families by writing out the very protection that the sick and injured need the most, protection that they write into the fine print of an insurance policy that no ordinary person can understand, where they are told that they are not covered anymore, that they have a preexisting condition, that you have reached your policy limits and cannot get the care that your doctor says is vital to sustain your life, that this policy just doesn't cover sick people or that it can be rescinded. I say we need to provide people genuine protection. That's what we did last year. That's what they want to eliminate this year. Let's be on the side of the people, not the 12 Republican platitudes to benefit insurance monopolies.