Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank our colleague from Dallas, Texas (Mr. Johnson) for his leadership on this matter.

This spring in another part of Texas in San Antonio, with the committed leadership of Katy Flato, we had our first-ever Bexar County edition of the Texas Book Festival. Among the many authors who were celebrated there, an active presence to make this book festival a success, was our United States Senator and New York Times best-selling author, Kay Bailey Hutchison, who presented her new book, ``Unflinching Courage: Pioneering Women Who Shaped Texas.''

In this book, she takes a look at other women who have made Texas and this Nation what it is today. She tells some incredible stories from Jane Long, who's often called the Mother of Texas, and her delivery of her own baby on a beach, to the tale of Margaret Houston, the wife of the hero of Texas, Sam Houston, who reportedly had an operation to remove a tumor, bit on a silver coin, survived and had six more children.

Senator Hutchison was a pioneer in her own right. She graduated, as my colleague said, from the University of Texas School of Law in 1967 when the number of women in the graduating class was in single digits.

As the first Republican woman to be elected to the Texas House of Representatives, she served there and in the Texas Constitutional Convention where I had an opportunity to get to know her as another member of that convention, as well as her husband, Ray Hutchison, who served with distinction in the House of Representatives. She is to date our only woman to have represented Texas in the United States Senate.

We're grateful for her long service, her willingness to work with Members of both parties, and in San Antonio we're particularly grateful, as well, for her service as it relates to the San Antonio River and the expansion of the River Walk.

When she first came to the Senate in 1993, she began working on legislation to help women take charge of their own futures, and one part of that is the Spousal IRA. The bill was the product of her own personal experience. When she married Ray, she learned that she could no longer contribute $2,000 to her retirement annually, but was limited to $250.

Early on, she approached Senator Barbara Mikulski about becoming the Democratic lead sponsor on the Spousal IRA bill. Together, Senator Hutchison, working in a bipartisan manner with Senator Mikulski, got the legislation approved as a part of the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996.

The Spousal IRA that became law is an important tax benefit for stay- at-home spouses. It allows the stay-at-home spouse to make a full IRA contribution to the stay-at-home spouse's own IRA, even if a husband or wife has made a full contribution to the working spouse's IRA.

At a time when too many people are not saving enough to provide a secure requirement, this measure helps many contribute to ensure that they have a full retirement. Under the rules in place before, that limitation would have been a very nominal $250. Under Senator Hutchison's legislation, the contribution can now go up to $5,500, a big contribution, each year.

So I think it's very appropriate that we honor Senator Hutchison here with the naming that is proposed.

I reserve the balance of my time at this point.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, to close briefly, last fall Senator Cornyn hosted a memorable bipartisan dinner honoring Senator Hutchison appropriately in the LBJ Room here in the Capitol, where all of us who are gathered here today, and a number of our colleagues, joined in honoring Senator Hutchison. At about the same time, Senator Mikulski introduced a resolution in the Senate to accomplish the same objection as this resolution. I hope the Senate will act promptly to approve this legislation. It has strong bipartisan support because this is an important measure to ensure more retirement security provided by a Texas leader of which those of us of both parties can take pride.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Forty-five years ago, in a now famous film, Edward R. Murrow, for CBS, produced a program called ``Hunger in America.'' It described 100,000 residents of San Antonio--mostly Latino--who were ``hungry all the time'' and the indifference of some local leaders to their plight. This spring, with the inspirational leadership of Rod and Patti Radle, we re-watched that film, discussed the progress, and outlined the remaining challenges.

In one west side ZIP code, we still have 40 percent of the population in poverty and over one-third relying on SNAP. We cannot snap our fingers and snap away that poverty. But if we make these cuts five times larger than what the United States Senate approved, we will snap away food security from many needy families--people like Daniela, who lost her job and relies on SNAP to feed her young daughter.

In San Antonio and Austin, a public-private partnership, across this Nation, involves responsible corporate citizens, like HEB, working together with local entities to see that there's food security. But without SNAP, they cannot do their job.

This bill has very little to do with reform and everything to do with denying a vital lifeline to school children and to poor Americans across this country.

Let us reject it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am pleased to join the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert) in support of the International Child Support Recovery Improvement Act.

We tried to do this just about a year ago. In the last Congress, I coauthored very similar legislation that was bipartisan here on the floor. Though we acted here, the Senate was slow to act, and we are hopeful that now, with the leadership of Chairman Reichert and, again, with broad bipartisan support, we can get this measure passed not only here in the House but see prompt action in the Senate.

International borders should never be barriers to children receiving the financial support that their parents are obligated to provide nor should a parent be able to shirk his responsibility to his child by just leaving America, but the complexity and difficulty in enforcing child support obligations when a child and the noncustodial parent live in one country and when the other parent lives in another sometimes lets a parent off the hook.

The bill before us today would reduce many of the challenges in collecting child support across international borders by fully implementing The Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support. The Senate adopted that Hague Convention as a treaty in 2010, and this legislation will bring us into full compliance and will encourage the State child support agencies to have uniform methods for processing international child support orders.

Here in the United States, many of our State child support agencies already recognize and enforce foreign child support obligations. Whether or not the United States has a reciprocal agreement, this just ensures that all 50 States do. Many foreign nations are not enforcing a U.S. child support order in the absence of a treaty or other agreement. While our Nation does have reciprocal child support agreements with some countries, it does not have arrangements with many of those around the globe, hence the need for this single treaty that establishes a uniform, efficient, and accessible procedure for processing international child support cases.

Some desperate families are today asking for help through the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement, and that office is not able to provide the help. We have an estimated 160,000 international child support cases that currently involve children or parents here in the United States, and with the very nature of our global economy--with more goods and services and people moving across national boundaries-- this number is likely to only grow.

As with other effective child support measures, it's taxpayers who benefit by not being saddled with the costs of supporting children when a parent should be doing that. The Congressional Budget Office concludes that this bill would result in some modest debt savings to the child support program.

In addition to improving the international collection of child support, the legislation includes a provision that is new, under Mr. Reichert's leadership, concerning data standardization within the child support enforcement system. We've worked diligently to incorporate the same requirement into other human resources programs to improve the ability to share data--a step that will make them more efficient, less susceptible to fraud, and better able to reach those who really need assistance.

Finally, this measure would also allow certain researchers access to wage information in a child support database, known as the National Directory of New Hires, in order to determine the effectiveness of employment-related programs.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is truly bipartisan, and it doesn't cost taxpayers money. In fact, it will save taxpayers money. Most importantly, it will help more children get the financial help that they deserve. The House passed nearly identical legislation last year at about this time. After we pass the bill today, I urge my Senate colleagues to act promptly to ensure that leaving the country doesn't mean leaving your child support obligation behind.

I thank the gentleman from Washington for his leadership, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of young DREAMers: young people brought as children without proper documentation to this country; young people willing to work hard to share in the American Dream; young people who have so much to offer America.

Today, 220 House Republicans said ``no'' to their dream by voting to terminate the program that allows them to stay legally. These Republicans, by their votes, said ``no'' to an essential element of comprehensive immigration reform at the very time the Senate is about to take up that measure.

To those Republicans who say, ``No, we can't,'' we need more and more Americans who insist, ``Yes, we can.'' When we harness the energy of these youth, when we reform our immigration laws in a comprehensive way, we will create an America as good as their dream.

Thank you to my colleague from California, who has ties directly to San Antonio and appreciates the importance of this legislation.

I do rise in support of the San Antonio Missions National Historic Park Boundary Expansion Act, a measure that has enjoyed the support of all of the members of the Texas delegation who represent a part of Bexar County. The bill does expand the park by 137 acres.

The Spanish Missions in San Antonio are truly a unique treasure--for us as Texans, and for all Americans. The Missions National Historic Park preserves the largest collection of Spanish colonial resources anywhere in the United States. It's an educational, historical, and cultural resource that each year is bringing over a million people to enjoy and learn from it.

The park is important to the understanding of Texas and the development of the United States and, of course, it has a significant impact on San Antonio and Bexar County economically.

In his famous ``San Antonio Rose,'' Bob Wills sung of the Alamo and ``old San Antone.'' And most people do associate San Antonio with the Alamo, a landmark of Texas independence. But in addition to the Alamo, there are five remaining Spanish Missions in San Antonio.

The Alamo lies just north of these four missions that compose the Missions National Historical Park. All of them date back to the 1600s, 1700s, the oldest one to 1690, and they were built when the first of six flags flew over Texas, as Spanish colonialists settled San Antonio, then on the frontier with the Comanches and Apaches.

The missions reached out to a number of local Native American tribes, teaching them trades and crafts. The missions do reflect the original ``old San Antone.''

Thanks to the leadership of Bexar County Judge Nelson Wolff, there's now a great new Mission Reach Trail that connects from near the Alamo to all four missions within the park. It's possible to walk or cycle that trail along the San Antonio River, from the excitement of downtown, first to Mission Concepcion.

Next up is the larger Mission San Jose, site of so many gatherings. Recently, I joined Father Tony Posadas, Andrew Anguiano, Neighborhood Association President Armando Cortez and thousands of people who gathered there for the annual Mission Fest.

Nearby is Mission San Juan Capistrano, a very narrow white stucco building, beautiful with its simplicity. Archbishop Gustavo Garcia- Siller, Father David Garcia and Father Jim Galvin recently reopened that mission after an impressive and complex restoration effort. Each of these missions is a working parish church, relying on their parishioners, and fully restored thanks to the leadership of Father Garcia.

Working closely with him is a group called Los Compadres, a group of committed citizens who've raised over $1 million for the continued restoration and preservation of the missions, led by Pamela Bain and Executive Director Susan Chandoha. Their annual Music Under the Stars concert at Mission San Jose is a great way to experience the park.

And thanks to the leadership of State Representative Joe Farias, park visitors also benefit now from a newly dedicated Veterans Memorial Bridge in the historic Bergs Mill area.

The last of the missions, or the first when it comes to our colleague, Congressman Gallego, is Mission Espada, and he'll have more to say about it, a very important part of the park.

Among the many community partners who've joined with us in the delegation for park expansion are Susan Snow, the World Heritage coordinator of the National Park Service; Suzanne Dixon, with the National Parks Conservation Association; Bexar County Commissioners Tommy Adkisson and Chico Rodriguez; Shannon Miller, with the city's Historic Preservation Office; Suzanne Scott, with the River Authority; and Marco Barros, with the San Antonio Tourism Council. They're making the missions even more accessible and enjoyable for both neighbors and tourists.

One economic study has recently concluded that the park is already supporting almost $100 million in annual economic activity and over 1,100 jobs. With the completion of initiatives associated with this park expansion, the missions can more than double their economic impact in San Antonio.

In addition to the bill that we have here today, it is very important that we achieve our Quest for World Heritage Status for the missions. About a year ago this week, then-Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar announced that the Department of the Interior had officially authorized the Spanish Missions for nomination to the UNESCO World Heritage List.

Another economic study has found that that World Heritage status for this expanded park could yield over $500 million for the San Antonio area within a decade of the World Heritage status.

Unfortunately, because the United States is not paying its dues to UNESCO, which funds the World Heritage Committee, our application could be hampered. I hope that obstacle can be overcome by the time next year that there's a formal submission of this application.

I'm hopeful that by passing this bill relatively early in this Congress that the Senate will finally be able to move it and have ample time to consider it.

Frankly, as my colleague Mrs. Napolitano pointed out, I would have liked to have achieved more today. There are other lands in Bexar and Wilson County with historic ties to the mission that should really be a part of this park. I know the Wilson County part is of particular importance to Congressman Cuellar. But after so many years of failed attempts to secure this legislation, it's better to move forward together and achieve what is possible today.

So together, I believe we are taking constructive steps forward to enhance a national treasure. Our action is not only about preserving culture but about promoting jobs. This park expansion provides another good reason for family vacations and national conventions to take the ``road to San Antone.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Patients' Rights Repeal Act. Like a broken record repeating the same old, scratchy, sad verse, these Republicans cannot stop repeating their record of indifference to the health care crisis. They've given up on ``repeal and replace'' because all they ever cared about was the repeal part. As the Party of No, this year they have not advanced a single health care proposal as an alternative.

I only wish that the Affordable Care Act were as good as they think it is bad. But to the millions who have received refunds from insurance company monopolies for overcharging, to the millions who are no longer denied coverage by the fine print in an insurance policy they didn't write, to the seniors who are getting some help on their prescription drugs and preventive care, to the millions more who will be able to finally apply in October for coverage they do not have now, and for the small businesses who will receive assistance in supplying their employees with the coverage they have been unable to afford in the past, you know, this ObamaCare works pretty well.

Together, we could make it better. We could make it more accessible for more individuals--like the many people in Texas who will be denied by Governor Perry's decision to refuse 100 percent of the cost of Medicaid protection. Together, we could provide more cost-effective care and do something more about spiraling health care costs. But really, the only true Republican alternative to ObamaCare is ``nothing care.''

Mr. Speaker, as we continue very important efforts to strengthen the middle class in America, I think it's important to recognize that there are millions of Americans who would like to be part of it, who are struggling at the bottom rungs of the economic ladder hoping to work their way into the middle class. I think

that's where our focus should be, because in recent decades, we've seen growing economic inequality in this country where a few have so much and many have so very little.

One of the goals of the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, or TANF, initiative back in 1996 was to help those who wanted to climb the economic ladder. In hopes of accomplishing that, and valuing personally the importance of work, I voted for welfare reform. And if you evaluate it based on how many poor people it's denied assistance to, it's a great success. If, on the other hand, you evaluate it based on how many poor people it has helped to secure good, livable wages in long-term jobs, its success, at best, is very spotty.

Today's debate ought to be about how do we strengthen the effectiveness of TANF and related programs to assist more people in working their way into the middle class. But instead of focusing on lifting people up, like the previous temporary extension of TANF, this Republican effort is really about putting them down. It's about suggesting that the stereotype of the welfare Cadillac, of the aimless and the shiftless who don't want to work is real. Instead of a vision about an effective, long-term reauthorization of welfare to work, this bill represents the third time that Republicans have insisted on just a temporary, short-term extension of the same old programs.

The last time that we did this, Republicans included a firm prohibition and strong rhetoric about denying anyone using their electronic benefits at strip clubs or casinos. Who could object to that? But it's hardly central to how we advance these individuals who want to work.

This time it's the leftover Presidential campaign ploy arguing that the administration wanted to encourage more welfare loafing and idleness by weakening work requirements. Neither this bill nor its predecessors were truly about helping more people to secure jobs. They're about reinforcing the prejudice that many poor people are takers, not makers; that they're just eager to take somebody else's tax money and loaf.

Well, I believe that today's attempt to restrict State authority to strengthen welfare-to-work initiatives also totally contradicts what is happening at this very moment with a blockheaded Republican budget that would block-grant almost unbridled authority to the States to weaken health care. Because of the way that the TANF program is currently structured, whether this rule and this bill are approved is largely irrelevant to 99 percent of the working-age poor people in America today who are not currently participating in any of the TANF work activities.

I think we should do better by these folks. They want to become part of the middle class, but they find themselves in no job or a dead-end job. Instead of focusing on denying assistance to as many people as possible, we ought to be engaging in constructive, bipartisan discussion about what are the best ways to make the program effective to lift people up. Instead of focusing on waivers and simply waving good-bye to the many people in America who are economically disadvantaged and want a better opportunity, who want some hope to get out of poverty, let's try to do more to assist those people in more productive, long-term programs.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I believe in the value of work. That's one of the reasons that I voted for the 1996 welfare reform law, because I wanted to see more people move from welfare to work. Our laws need to encourage job opportunities, but in the effort that we have before us

today, it seems to me that this legislation as proposed is less malevolent and more irrelevant to those poor people.

Because of the way the TANF program is currently structured, only about 1 percent of working-aged adults across America who are poor are participating in TANF work activities at any particular time. So, this afternoon, for 99 percent of the poor Americans who are not participating in TANF work activities, this bill is not all that significant. These are people who are struggling to get up the economic ladder at about the first rung. What happens and whether there are waivers or there are not waivers, I think they basically just feel that we've waved good-bye to their plight and are not responding to it in a constructive way.

It also is important to remember that we have a higher proportion of our population living near the bottom of the economic ladder today than when welfare reform was first enacted. In 2011, about 46 million American neighbors lived in poverty. About 350,000 of those lived in the San Antonio area. Amidst this poverty, amidst this growing inequality in resources in our country, we have the lowest level of poor children receiving direct cash assistance from TANF in almost 50 years. In my home State of Texas, one in every 20 poor children receives TANF assistance directly, and when children get assistance, they don't get very much.

As we look at the whole question of extending the TANF law, what we've had are only short-term extensions, not long-term reform. And each of these has provided some convenient political opportunities to reenforce the old welfare Cadillac stereotypes that just blame the poor for being poor. A previous extension we had out here focused on whether we would prohibit poor people from withdrawing any of their TANF benefits at a strip club or at a casino. It's not an unreasonable restriction, but it's hardly going to the core issue of how to get more Americans out of poverty and into the workplace, and I don't think today's bill helps in that regard either.

I believe that poverty should be viewed as a major national problem that needs a resolution by our working together and not viewed as a weapon to just score political points out of the last Presidential campaign.

I think the real poverty at stake today is the poverty of cooperation, that of seeking a bipartisan response to poverty, a poverty of balance that contributes to the many children and their parents who are out there and who are seeing so little progress.

If you evaluate the TANF program and how it has operated over the last decade and a half, based upon the number of poor people who have been denied assistance, it has been a tremendous success; but if you evaluate it based on how many poor people have moved out of welfare and into the workforce--into a job with a living wage that they're still in--I think the progress has been very spotty, at best.

The responsibility for those failures is shared broadly here in Washington and in the States, many of which just used the TANF resources to replace other things they were doing in the social service area. I believe that today's attempt to restrict State authority to strengthen welfare to work initiatives is totally contradictory with what's going on right now in the Budget Committee on block granting health assistance.

So, Mr. Speaker, rather than arguing over whether the States have all the flexibility they need, our goal ought to be: For the taxpayer and for poor Americans, how can we get more people into the workforce? And today's bill contributes little to that process.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Johnson for his leadership on this, and I concur fully with the remarks he made.

In 2008, I filed this piece of legislation with Chairman Johnson's help. At that time, we worked together and passed it through the House, and the Senate failed to act.

And since that time, whether it was under a Republican or Democratic administration, there has not been sufficient priority placed on this by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to address this question of privacy. It is a serious matter. It clearly requires legislation, and this time, hopefully, the Senate will respond to our bipartisan initiative and get it passed into law.

There are, indeed, about 48 million Americans, seniors, individuals with disabilities, who are carrying in their wallet or purse today something that makes them vulnerable to identity theft, and that something is their Medicare card.

Apart from the Social Security card itself, the Medicare card is the most frequently issued government document that displays a Social Security number, and that practice invites foul play.

It was back in 2007 when the Bush administration, recognizing this danger

by the overuse of Social Security numbers, sent out a directive to Federal agencies to eliminate the use of Social Security numbers and explore alternative identifiers. Despite this directive, Medicare has not yet taken appropriate steps to remove the numbers from Medicare cards.

Although we have bipartisan agreement on the severity of the problem, we also have had bipartisan administrative inaction when it comes to addressing it. Clearly, we need congressional action.

To protect both the savings and the peace of mind of Medicare beneficiaries, this bipartisan legislation would require Medicare to take steps that private companies, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Veterans Affairs have already taken to protect the identities of those that they serve.

Every time that a senior or an individual with disabilities hands over their Medicare card to a health care provider or elsewhere, they are handing over the keys to their financial security. With increasing sophistication by identity thieves, inaction again here is simply unacceptable.

Seniors who have saved, who have built a lifetime of financial security and their reputations are all at stake. Their savings and their credit should not be put needlessly at risk if someone steals a Medicare card or it gets misplaced or left with a provider by mistake.

Medicare should make sure that it does no harm to the financial security and credit rating of those that it serves with health care security. This act will help to ensure that the government better protects our seniors, denying thieves access to this critical data. Inaction would jeopardize in a continuing way the safety of so many.

This legislation, when we previously introduced it, was supported by Consumers Union, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, the Silver Haired Legislature, nationally and in Texas, as well as the Elder Justice Coalition.

Seniors confront many threats to retirement security these days, but this bill will be directed toward one that we can do something about immediately, and that's those who would swindle our seniors.

I urge adoption of the measure, and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, one addition to this bill from 2008 deals with the question of Medicare fraud. I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), the cosponsor of legislation dealing with that and a member of the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, to discuss this important addition.

I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the Health Subcommittee on the Commerce Committee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas, my colleague, Chairman Johnson, and I hope the Senate will respond this time to our action.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

My thanks to Chairman Camp and Chairman Paulsen, whose leadership has facilitated our consideration of this bill today and the crafting of it into the piece of legislation that it is.

I rise in support of the Protect Our Kids Act, which represents an improved version over legislation that I introduced about a year ago.

We are reminded, as Chairman Camp indicated, by the tragedy in Connecticut, each family touched by the damage, the deaths of these youngest Americans. In contrast, as with so many families, in our family we share the joy of three little girls. As difficult as it is to conceive of the wrong, the evil that occurred in Connecticut so recently, it is similarly difficult to conceive of how many of our youngest Americans are the subject of abuse and even death.

We, through the Protect Our Kids Act, are seeking to have thoughtful consideration of what steps we can take to protect these most vulnerable children. We're not interested in another commission that just prepares another report that gets filed somewhere; we're interested in action coming from this commission.

The original legislation, which was filed in a way that provided for its consideration in a number of committees, has been, in terms of jurisdiction, narrowed somewhat, but the objectives of the legislation remain as broad as they ever were--to explore every aspect of child abuse leading to child fatalities and to find more bipartisan solutions to addressing that serious matter.

I reflect on the testimony of a witness from Dallas, Madeline McClure, the executive director of the Texas Association for the Protection of Children, who testified before our committee very recently that the estimate of 753,000 children being abused and neglected in America is a conservative one, but that to put it in context, if you filled the Alamodome, the Darrell K. Royal Stadium in Austin, the Hubert Humphrey Metro Dome in Minneapolis, Yankee Stadium, the stadium in Georgia, in Tennessee, Tiger Stadium in Louisiana, the Rose Bowl, the Century Link Fields in Washington State, you would fill those and still not cover all of the children who are subject to abuse and neglect each year in this country. Almost half of those children that are abused are age 4 or under.

Our bill provides an opportunity to take an important step forward in developing a national strategy to protect our most vulnerable children. The commission, appointed by the President and Congress, would develop recommendations to reduce the number of children who die from abuse and neglect.

The commission would bring together a group of experts from around the country in a wide variety of professions to identify prevention efforts. So little of the resources that we focus on abused and neglected children in America today goes to prevention, and that should be an important focus in a broad sense, as well as the collection of good data so that we can adequately compare what's happening and can also understand the best practices that are already underway in many communities across America.

As we listened to experts both in our recent hearing in front of the Subcommittee on Human Resources and last year when we held a hearing, we note the need for what one called an ``accessible blueprint'' for the States to implement better child abuse prevention strategy. That's a blueprint that this commission can provide.

In my home State of Texas, there are groups like Voices for Children San Antonio, CASA, Children's Shelters in San Antonio, Austin and other communities, and TexProtects, that are serving as a voice for the voiceless and trying to prevent child abuse. There are local leaders like Texas State Senator Carlos Uresti, who was the moving force behind the Texas Blue Ribbon Task Force and the Bexar County Task Force on Child Abuse.

The important work that these folks are doing has been a great benefit; but despite it, the fatalities that are stemming from child abuse continue to grow, and they are almost at epidemic proportions in Texas, and in San Antonio in particular. Last year, there were almost 6,000 confirmed cases of child abuse in the San Antonio area in Bexar County, the highest number in Texas, higher than even Houston and Harris County, which has about twice the population.

In the last decade, Texas had over 2,000 children who were killed-- who

died--as a result of abuse and neglect. Last year, we had a total in Texas of nearly 66,000 confirmed cases. That's just too much. There is more that we can do and that we must do to protect these youngest Americans.

Child abuse and neglect are not isolated. The children don't just ``bounce back.'' The consequences of abuse and neglect are felt throughout the lifetime and, indeed, often from one generation to another. These conditions can linger for a very long time. The data are clear: among those adults who have experienced the highest level of childhood trauma, these individuals were five times more likely to suffer from alcoholism, nine times more likely to be involved in drug abuse, three times more likely to be clinically depressed, and four times more likely to be addicted to nicotine. Additional research shows a relationship between childhood abuse and the presence of a range of adult diseases.

In the past, this Congress' adoption of expert advice has provided progress in dealing with the issue of child neglect and abuse. We have made some positive changes to the way children are placed into foster care and have elevated child safety as a primary welfare goal for the States. But as evidenced by the statistics, there are gaps in policy. There is much more work to be done to reduce the number of children who die each year in the hands of someone who is supposed to be caring for them.

The Protect Our Kids Act is a significant step in the right direction, and I urge its approval.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California, who is the cochair of the Foster Youth Caucus and who has actively participated in coming to the hearings in our committee because of her great interest in preventing child abuse, Ms. Bass.

I would yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, as Texas District Judge Darlene Byrne, a leader in establishing child protection courts has said:

Childhood should be a time of innocence and freedom, but it

is a sad fact that many children are vulnerable to injury and

abuse. Our Nation's children need good leaders to stand up

and find creative ways to protect them from harm. The

creation of the National Commission to End Child Fatalities

is an important step in that direction.

At a hearing, Mr. Speaker, of our Ways and Means Human Resources Subcommittee that we held over a year ago, I expressed hope that we would be able to come together in a bipartisan response. Today, we are doing just that.

As we take this step toward reducing child neglect and abuse, I would like to thank the many children's protection groups that have been so instrumental in providing input and support for this legislation, including the members of the National Coalition to End Child Abuse Deaths; particularly the National Association of Social Workers; the National Center for the Review and Prevention of Child Deaths; the National Children's Alliance; Every Child Matters Education Fund; and, of course, the National District Attorneys Association, as well as individuals like Michael Petit, Teresa Huizar, who testified before our committee, Kim Day, Teri Covington and Joan Zlotnick.

We have a real chance to see this bipartisan legislation become law this very year in the few days that remain. There is similar, bipartisan legislation that was introduced last year at the same time I originally filed the bill that is authored by Senators Kerry and Collins.

I'm hopeful that the Senate will see the bipartisan action that we have here today and the commitment we have and will move forward with this improved version of the legislation quickly.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time and give my thanks to Chairman Paulsen.

Mr. Speaker, as one who believes in the value of work, I voted for the 1996 law to transform welfare to workfare. Now as the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee overseeing this law, I want to strengthen reform and assure that every able-bodied American who can work is working, you know, people like Mitt Romney's father, who long ago was on a form of welfare himself before he became wealthy. Those are the kind of people that should be working.

Unfortunately, Republicans talk work for everyone else, but when it comes to doing the work here in Congress, well, they don't quite measure up to it.

It's just like the expired Federal education law. They have been in power here for over 20 months, and we wouldn't need any changes or waivers in the law if they'd done their job to renew workfare.

The real question here is not whether we emphasize work but how, how we achieve the most effective ways to get more people working.

This administration has simply responded to Republican Governors and some Democrats who are seeking more flexibility and less bureaucratic paperwork, who sought better ways to get more people working.

Even the Republican staff director who wrote the original 1996 reform law and who recently surveyed 42 State TANF directors says that these Republican attacks are ``exaggerated.''

So, why in the world would Republicans be here today, when there is so much other work that this Congress has failed to do, presenting what is really an antiwork resolution masquerading as prowork?

Well, I think it's because particularly during this week, such a very difficult and troubling week for Mitt Romney, they're a little desperate. They think they can hoodwink enough Americans to turn on their neighbors by falsely dividing us--dividing us between makers and takers, between manufacturers and moochers, between producers and parasites. That is not America.

Whenever they bump into an inconvenient fact like what actually is involved in this legislation, they just ignore it. They have made this Congress largely a fact-free zone.

When confronted with reality, they hold up those signs that say ``believe.'' They left a word off. It really should say ``make believe,'' because that's what's at stake here, the fantasy that they bring us on all aspects of this measure. Fantasy is a mighty poor way to govern America.

Reviewing this Republican bill before us, I found that there were many of its findings and purposes with which I fully agree. ``The Tax Code is unfair.'' . . . ``The Tax Code violates fundamental principles of equal justice.'' . . . ``Exclusions, deductions, credits, and special rules make up tax expenditures that amount to over $1 trillion per year. . . .''

And then I reflected on who has been in charge of this Tax Code for 14 of the last 18 years, and it is the very people who offer us this bill today. And of the other 4 years, in 2 of those, President Bush was ``the decider.'' So they've had ample opportunity to correct these deficiencies in our Tax Code. But the problem is that rarely over the course of the last couple of decades have they met a lobbyist peddling a loophole to whom they could say ``no.''

They talk to us about a fast track. Well, that would, indeed, be a new track for them because they've had almost two decades to put in place a Tax Code that would resolve the problems about which they complain today, and they've been inactive through that period.

Oh, yes, there was a time when Republicans controlled essentially all three branches of the American Government, and they flirted with a flat tax. It had great appeal to the Flat Earth Society that dominates the Republican caucus on most issues, but they couldn't make it work.

Then they said they wanted a Fair Tax, and a fair tax sounded like something all of us could support. The only problem was that it would hike the cost of just about everything we buy--from food to a car to a home--by over 20 percent. And when you really get into the details, it wasn't all that fair, except to those at the top who have already benefited so much from the existing Tax Code.

So Republicans have been in charge now for another year and a half in this Congress. They've had an opportunity to come forward not with a pathway to something they would do after the election but with a specific plan of how they would reform our Tax Code. And instead of that specific plan for this Tax Code that has grown by hundreds, if not thousands, of pages under Republican rule of complexity and with exceptions for those lobbyists who were powerful enough to have their voice heard and acted upon in this Capitol. Instead, they come forward with this flimsy little bill, principles with which most Americans could agree; it's just the action that counts. And they say, We want to go on a fast track, but we'd rather wait until after the election to start the track. Well, haven't we heard that story before when they were talking ``fair,'' when they were talking ``flat''? Today they're just talking about what they might do in the future.

So we have to look for clues within this flimsy little bill of what, in fact, they would do if they were in the majority with President Romney, heaven forbid. And we got clue number one yesterday when they approved a bill to extend all of the tax breaks that President Bush approved for the very most privileged people in our society. And the effect of what they proposed and the approach they took was that those who were sitting comfortably on top of the economic ladder, they would gain. If they were a millionaire, they'd gain by more in their tax break than a police officer or a nurse or a small business owner in San Marcos or Schertz or New Braunfels or Lockhart--more than they make in a whole year, these privileged few would get for themselves in lower taxes.

But the marine corporal, the single mom who is trying to get her daughter or son through college, they would actually see their taxes go up under this simplified fast-track Republican approach.

So those who are trying to get their toehold, their foothold into the first or second rung of that economic ladder, they end up having to pay for more tax breaks for those at the top.

And now today, through this bill, we see that what Mitt Romney was a part of in exporting jobs abroad, he was really just getting started because what they propose is a ``territorial'' tax system. What is that? A territorial tax system is when you create jobs in somebody else's territory.

Here's how it works. Here's the plan that they're talking about: you are a manufacturer, and you are trying to decide, where will I create my new plant and locate it? I could locate it in San Antonio, Texas. I could locate it in Shanghai. Under their territorial plan, if you locate it in Shanghai, it's tax free.

Guess where the incentive is under their plan to create new jobs? It's not in Texas. It's not in America. It's someplace else. That's what the territorial tax system is all about. But of course with all the loopholes that their lobbyists have been able to get through the decades, many, many corporations aren't paying the 35 percent statutory tax rate.

Many of our largest corporations, like General Electric, they're not only paying a lower tax rate than the hardware store in Lockhart or in Austin that's selling their products, but they're paying a lower tax rate than the cleaning crew that cleaned up the board room at General Electric. Because they found all these loopholes, we have hundreds of large no-tax corporations that are paying next to nothing in terms of their taxes already. They would simply expand that with great inequity.

Now is not the time to let the Republicans raise taxes on thousands of Texas families in order to provide more tax breaks for a privileged few. Republicans would hike the taxes by almost $500 for a married marine corporal with 4 years of service and two children living in Schertz.

That's wrong. Nor is this the time for Republicans to tax opportunity. A single mom, working as a nurse, helping a daughter attend the Alamo Colleges or Texas State or ACC, would be denied the $2,500 higher education tax credit that I authored, all of this, in the very same bill that would give a Republican who earns $1 million a tax cut that is larger than that marine or that nurse will earn in an entire year.

If there were an Olympic medal out there for protecting those sitting atop the economic ladder at the expense of those trying to get a foothold on one of the first rungs, these Republicans would have no competition for going for the gold.

Nor has this trickle-down Republican approach grown our jobs and our economy. Extending tax breaks for those at the very top, it was done in 2010, over my objection; it hasn't grown jobs in the past year anymore than it helped to avoid the Bush/Cheney recession.

And as for this much ballyhooed Ernst & Young report, it was bought and paid for by the same millionaires that would get a tax break bigger than what the nurse or the marine earns all of next year, along with a few large corporations who paid for the report. It is not credible.

It is not just to see many Americans pay higher taxes in order to help the few gain even more tax breaks.

``I have lived through a terminal illness while struggling to get well and struggling to get and keep my insurance. I have been denied insurance because of a preexisting condition. I have lived this. It is very real for me. Today I breathe a little better. Life is good because now I have hope.''

That was the reaction of my constituent, Erin Foster, to the approval of the Affordable Health Care Act by the Supreme Court. And today's legislation ought to be called the Take Away Erin Foster Hope Act, because that's what it is, replacing the Affordable Health Care Act with only tax breaks for Tylenol.

In a few days, thousands of Texans will be receiving checks of almost $200 each, of almost $200 million in rebates from private insurance companies that overcharged and abused them. This bill should be called the Return to Sender Act, because it says those abusive health insurance companies get their money back if this act became law.

There are seniors today who are trying to make use of the flawed Republican prescription drug act that is now law. They left a giant gap--sometimes referred to as a ``doughnut hole''--in the coverage of that act.

Our seniors, as a result of the Affordable Health Care Act, have seen their prescription costs go down, some of that doughnut hole plugged, eventually to fill it all, and provide them the protection that they have earned.

This bill, if enacted, would double the cost of prescription drugs for those in the doughnut hole. About 2,250,000 Texas seniors would also no longer receive free preventive services. This act should be called the Charge Seniors More for Their Prescription Act, because that's what it does.

You see, the problem is that in their near fanatic determination to see that President Obama fails on everything, Erin Foster and that senior and that individual that is counting on one of those rebate checks, they are just collateral damage to these Republicans.

I thank the gentlewoman.

Madam Speaker, I rise to focus attention upon one provision in this legislation, perhaps a few rose petals hidden in a very unnecessary thicket of painful thorns that are the center of this legislation.

Recently nominated as a World Heritage Site, the Spanish missions in San Antonio are a unique treasure for parishioners, for tourists, and for Texans everywhere. In 2010, our able former colleague, Ciro Rodriguez, introduced bipartisan legislation, both to expand the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park by about 151 acres and to require a study by the Secretary of the Interior about even further expansion of this important park.

In 2010, this very House approved the Rodriguez legislation. Though a companion bill was offered by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, and she got it out of the Senate committee, the full Senate failed to act on the Rodriguez bill.

During this Congress, I have been one of five Members who joined Representative Canseco in re-introducing the Rodriguez bill. Instead of approving our bipartisan measure, the Resources Committee has merged only a fraction of that bill into a totally unrelated piece of legislation that is little more than a giant giveaway and exploitation of public property and which will endanger irreplaceable natural resources from the seashore in North Carolina to the Tongass wilderness in Alaska.

While Senator Hutchison continues to work on a bipartisan basis, this particular measure really includes little of the protection that our missions deserve. Now any purchase of additional land for this park, an original purpose of the bill, that's prohibited, and even a mere study of the possibility of additional park expansion, that's denied in this bill.

Now, the only way that the park can be expanded is if a private or public owner donates land to the park. In other words, it makes future expansion and protection of these San Antonio missions dependent entirely upon charity.

No matter how public-minded some private property owners may be, some are likely to be unable to afford to donate the land.

So some property owners will be unable to donate their land. Instead of continuing the previous bipartisan commitment to the missions, this bill reflects the same ideological extreme so evident in our larger public policy debates, like that over the future of our national transportation system. Yes, our Republican House colleagues are all for good transportation. It's just paying for that transportation that they're opposed to.

And so today we hear about private property rights. Well, what about the private property right of an individual landowner to sell their property for a legitimate public purpose such as expanding this vital national park? That is denied in today's bill.

This bill will not grow the park in the way necessary to fully enhance the missions that are so very significant to San Antonio and to the culture and history of our Nation. The better approach is to wait and follow Senator Hutchison's lead and to approve a freestanding, bipartisan bill and give these missions the protection they deserve.