Lloyd Doggett

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, the world's biggest corporate tax dodgers get the most out of this bill: a 40 percent reduction in the corporate tax rate and the right to bring back those profits they have hidden in Caribbean hideaways for pennies on the dollar. Another loophole will encourage jobs in America to be exported abroad, a long commute to work if the job is in Europe or in Asia. Of course, they have camouflaged this corporate tax giveaway with some changes for individuals. Who gets those? Well, it is a Who's Who of not you: the Trump family, real estate moguls, and their millionaire buddies. Disguised as a middle-class tax relief, this wretched bill targets the middle class with a dime of every dollar that is in the bill. What most Americans will really get is more debt and the coming cuts that these Republicans will insist on making to Medicare, Medicaid, and educational opportunity. Tax fraud is criminal, but passing this fraudulent tax bill apparently is not.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, between tweets, Trump apparently had time to take those calls from his rich friends that kept asking for more. Not even this lapdog Republican Congress initially did enough to satisfy the Trump family and their billionaire buddies. Instead of adjusting the differences between the House and the Senate, Republican conferees, last week, secretly concocted even more benefits for them. Those real estate moguls, like Trump, who had already been granted preferential tax treatment, can now take advantage of an entirely new loophole that was not in either of the previous bills. Just in case their endless loopholes left some donor behind, the Republicans have provided a new, across-the-board tax cut for billionaires. It is working families who will pay to put the platinum tinsel on this Christmas tree for the elite. This is not tax reform. It is a reward for the privileged. It is a Christmas where working people get to keep the gift wrapping, but the wealthy and corporate tax dodgers get the gift.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, more than a bill, this is a lie wrapped in lies, a sneak attack on America ramming through here at warp speed before the truth catches up with the lies. A very thin sugarcoating of tax changes for some in the middle class conceals massive special interest giveaways. But I am convinced that the reckoning will come. Americans will demand accountability for a scheme that showers its benefits overwhelmingly on corporations and those at the top of the economic ladder, including the Trump family personally benefiting. The reckoning will come when students and the sick find out they are paying not less taxes, but more taxes, under this bill. The reckoning will come as Republicans use the huge debt burden that they are deliberately creating by this bill as an excuse to cut Medicare, educational opportunities, and other vital investments.

Mr. DOGGETT. This sham of a bill provides rewards to corporate tax dodgers and creates a giant new loophole for outsourcing American jobs abroad. The only coming together here is the coming together between the master of distraction, the big tweet down the street, who is joined here by the masters of deceit in Congress. They ignore any wrong he commits. He can embrace child molesters; he can attack our law enforcement officers; he can challenge the very basis of the free press in our country, using any means necessary, whatever deception, to try to foist off this sham of a bill on America. It should be rejected.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, the promise of tax reform has degenerated into little more than a scam to aid tax dodgers. While public attention is diverted to the scandal in Alabama, Republicans are rushing through this sham of a bill, developed in the dark with lobbyists, before most Americans realize what is about to hit them in the face. Instead of more jobs at home, Republicans create a giant, new gaping loophole to ship ever more jobs abroad. Even Speaker Ryan's home State Republican Senator Ron Johnson concedes that, under this bill, ``there will be a real incentive to keep manufacturing overseas.'' It is hardly a surprise since President Trump's Wall Streeter designated to run the show has just been identified personally from leaked Bermudan documents as the past executive of not one, but 22 different island tax-paradise shell companies. Meanwhile, another loophole, carried interest, that flows to plutocrats like Donald Trump. That is the very injustice he promised to stop last year. It will keep flowing right into their pocket. As for the deduction for student interest for those who are overwhelmed with college loans, like other middle-class tax provisions, that is part of the $65 billion that is cut out of tax incentives by Republicans in this bill. They are totally dependent upon alternative facts. Today's bill even authorizes those who want to pay absolutely zero in tax to do that by abolishing the alternative minimum tax (AMT). That one change that they make, in one year, would have put $31 million in Donald Trump's pocket. So you can certainly understand why he is coming to the Capitol today, just to say thank you: Thank you for the billion dollars-plus that is estimated to go to the Trump family under this bill. ``When does my tax refund get here?'' he must be saying. Of course, we don't know precisely how much Donald Trump is enriched because these Republicans keep colluding to hide his tax returns. Republicans want to apply a ``dynamic score'' to this bill. I say: create a dynamic workforce, invest in people, and don't overwhelm us with endless debt. Develop a more competitive, healthy workforce that empowers our DREAMers and other immigrants and that gives every American access to education and skill upgrades to achieve their full, God-given potential. As they deny one middle-class deduction after another and impose this new Alzheimer's tax, Republicans claim that they have a patented tax miracle cure for most everything but baldness.

Mr. DOGGETT. We have seen this trickle-down, medicine sideshow before. It didn't work then; it won't work now. All they are doing is grabbing for a political life preserver after 10 months of Republican failures and leave America drowning in debt. This isn't ``tax reform.'' It is a giant giveaway to Washington special interests that must be stopped.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, Republicans are bound and determined to rush through this Congress an immense tax bill before Americans even begin to know what hit them. We need to speak up and inform families about this bill and its many bad parts. I came here to the House a few weeks ago and said: All you need to know about this tax bill is that it is good for Donald Trump and his billionaire buddies. It rewards those multinational companies that have been shipping jobs and profits offshore for so many years and who think they have no responsibility to pay for our national security and other vital public services. Well, I am here today to admit that I was in error. All of those things are true. It is about Donald Trump and his billionaire buddies and all the additional money they will pocket. It is about shipping the jobs offshore by multinationals who get a new incentive, a giant, new loophole in this bill, but I was wrong to say that was all that it is about. It also now begins to impact one family after another across America in their healthcare. It is the same fanaticism that drove Republicans to try to take away healthcare 60-plus different times in the last Congress and the same fanaticism that has caused them to push forward with repeal effort after repeal effort. It is the kind of fanaticism that American citizens stood up to. It was not only the courageous votes of John McCain, Susan Collins, and other Members in the Senate who stopped this wretched healthcare bill that passed through the House, but it was the fact that Americans kept saying: No, don't take the right that my family has to get access to a family physician. Don't take away my neighbors' or my church members' right to get access to protect their family with healthcare. Today, we learn that this new tax bill is being changed to do just that. It is another assault on the Affordable Care Act. In the beginning of the rush to force it through the House long before Thanksgiving, before Americans even get to give it attention, the first step that Republicans took here in the committee that I serve on that considered the tax bill last week was on what we call the Alzheimer's tax. Currently, American citizens have a right that has long existed in our tax law that if you have really serious medical expenses of over 10 percent of your income, such as a family who earns $50,000--which is now, today, a modest income--and they have over $5,000 in medical expenses, they can deduct those from their taxes. It is called the Alzheimer's tax because so many of the families that rely on disability to deduct medical expenses are older people who have a family member with Alzheimer's. They need long-term, special care, or they need someone with home health care to come and help them with this very serious problem. Under the bill that is before us today, they will be denied any right to continue to do that. Under this bill, they will get an opportunity to pay a tax on the dollars they are having to expend for Alzheimer's care. Of course, it is not just Alzheimer's care. It might be a young family that has a child with a serious disability who requires home health aides or physical therapy, or it might be a woman with breast cancer whose medical coverage does not provide all of the treatment that she needs. Under this Republican bill, you will no longer be able to deduct one cent for all those serious, burdensome medical bills. No, they want to tax you on what you paid in excess of medical bills. We have moved today to chapter two. The bill that the House will consider will be merged with a Senate bill. The Senate has declared they will end forever the individual responsibility portions of the Affordable Care Act. Those are the provisions that ensure all Americans will participate so that we will have the largest possible risk pool and that people don't sign up for the Affordable Care Act just after they are sick, after they have a problem. Everyone is there. It is just like you don't sign up for fire insurance after your house is on fire. It is essential for everyone. We must reject this bill as the wrong way for America to go to deny healthcare coverage and impose more taxes on too many Americans.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this wretched Republican tax bill threatens the health of millions. That is why Republicans are rushing this sham through in record pace. They want to pass it before most Americans know what has hit them. It is amazing that, on this Alzheimer's Awareness Month, they celebrate it by imposing a new Alzheimer's tax. Families paying thousands of dollars to care for a loved one would lose the right that they have today to deduct those huge expenses. It is not just a tax on Alzheimer's, but on any substantial healthcare expense. As if that were not bad enough, they pursue with their fanatical zeal the destruction of ObamaCare. Again, they would remove one of the key pillars that will lead to denying coverage for those with preexisting conditions because their insurance premiums will soar. It will mean that millions of Americans will lose their healthcare coverage. Protect your health. Reject this sorry Republican tax bill.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, only 1 minute? Well, one minute is longer than all of the hearings that have been held by Republicans on this sham of a tax bill that is so very broad in impact and so shallow in analysis. Only one minute? That is more than all of the Trump Administration officials who did not have the courage to come and face our committee and be questioned about this lousy proposal. Mr. Speaker, one minute? That is more time than all of the businesses in America and economists were given to explain the nature of these corporate giveaways. Why should a tax bill that is so broad get less time than it takes to microwave popcorn? Haste does make waste. This tax plan, born in the shadows and rammed through here 90-to-nothing will lay waste to family budgets, lay waste to affordable healthcare, and undermine our national debt. This tax scam must be rejected. They want it through here before the American people know what hit them, but if we speak out and remain firm in our resolve, we will defeat this sham of a bill.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, after a treacherous extended game of hide- and-seek, Republicans this week are rushing through this House a wretched tax bill. The future of this sneak attack on America depends upon how quickly the truth can catch up with so many lies. This bill is just a way to curry favor with Washington's special interests, awarding tax windfalls to large multinational corporations and the fortunate few who sit way up atop the economic ladder. ``Don't worry,'' Republicans say. ``What middle class people lose to pay for this unbalanced tax cut, will eventually trickle down. With a little fairy dust magically, it will appear in your pocket, and you will get more than ever.'' This is a massive corporate tax break where the tail is wagging the dog of a corporate tax break. The Republican gimmick that Americans are being asked to swallow is the same experience we have had previously. The middle class will not enjoy the benefits of this bill. Both history and arithmetic tell us that. First, they are borrowing this money--much of it--to finance this tax break from the Chinese and the Saudis, and others whom we have looked to to pay for our immense national debt in the past. Second, we know from experience that tax breaks like this do not create lasting jobs. But it is even worse than all of that because Republicans are creating a special new loophole for outsourcing so many more American jobs. Candidate Trump, last year, made a central theme about protecting American jobs and stopping outsourcing, but he has endorsed a tax bill that does just the opposite. It creates a gaping new loophole to encourage greater outsourcing of our jobs and our profits abroad. Here is how it all works: A multinational investor has a choice to make. Do I invest with new manufacturing in San Antonio, or do I choose Stuttgart or Shanghai? If I invest in America under their proposal, it will be a 20 percent tax on my profits; but if I invest abroad in Shanghai or in Stuttgart, the most I pay is 10 cents on the dollar, and more likely, I don't pay anything because of the way this bill is constructed. The bill will create some new jobs, no doubt, but it is a mighty long commute to Europe or Asia to get one of those jobs. With the help of Washington's special interests, they have rigged up an even more complex international tax-dodging system that pretends to tax foreign investment at half the U.S. rate. In fact, it permits many of these companies to funnel even more of their profits into tax havens where their liability in America will end up being zero, and much of their profit will not be taxed anywhere, by anybody. Whatever happened to making America great? For Republicans, it is not enough to reward future tax dodging. No. They want to go back and reward tax dodging from the past. And we sure have had plenty of that because, for years, large multinational firms have exploited these island tax havens, setting up artificial offices in the Bahamas or the Caymans to get their tax bill down to little or nothing, leaving working families and those American-oriented businesses, small businesses, large domestic-oriented businesses, to pay the bill for our national security that they decline to pay. The recent revelations of the Panama Papers and, more recently, the Paradise Papers, have exposed how these companies use these tax laws. How did the Republicans respond? By granting multinationals with hoards of taxes that they hold in separate accounts they call offshore but sit right there on Wall Street, by letting them pay less than half of what they owe at a rate much lower than most middle-class families pay. It is another Republican myth meant to convince working families to go along with this proposal. Many of these profits come from those companies that claim they are trapped offshore, but it is only the American people who are trapped by this proposal. Goldman Sachs, itself, has said repatriation is likely to have a limited effect because repatriated earnings are already working here for domestic activities. There is nothing patriotic about repatriation. This is a tax bill borne by the middle class to benefit the wealthy few and these multinationals, to reward them for what they have been doing in the past, and it must be rejected.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, the Children's Health Insurance Program began as a truly bipartisan initiative, but now it is being overwhelmed by Republican indifference. So low is it on their priority list that they let the law expire. Three States have already required emergency funding, and 400,000 Texas children are at risk if this program is not continued. In the face of this crisis, their response is: We won't put another new dollar into this program unless we take it from Medicare beneficiaries. Why should we begin calling on those who rely on Medicare to pay for non-Medicare purposes? It is wrong. The second way they propose to fund this bill is by reducing funding for public health and prevention, whether it is for Zika and West Nile virus, where I live down in Texas, or it is for the opioid crisis, which is affecting our State like every other one. Sure, we are glad to hear President Trump do a tweet and give a speech. But he did not add any new dollars to fight this opioid crisis. We need bold action, and it is not by reducing the Prevention and Public Health Fund. It is by supporting our children.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. A zombie of supply-side economics is returning from the dead. We know it didn't work for President Bush. We know it didn't work in the Reagan era. They are bringing it back again, saying, if you just give a little more to those who have so much already, it will benefit everyone else. The data does not show that. This is a tax bill that needs to be rejected because it is so unfair and inequitable to the American people. This is much worse than the healthcare repeal because its ramifications in leading to cutting Medicare and Social Security will be far-reaching. There will not be a family in America that goes untouched. Reject this budget. Reject this awful tax bill.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this bill is truly about one thing and one thing only. It is about lavishing tax breaks on Donald Trump personally, his family, and all of his billionaire buddies. It is about lavishing tax breaks and incentives on the very same giant multinational corporations that have shipped away so many American jobs, that have refused to pay their fair share of our national security by hiding their profits in offshore island tax havens. It is about doing all that and hoping that, at this time of the year, here at Halloween, that they can trick American middle-class families into believing that a little of those tax benefits will trickle down to them. Because if they can do that, if they can pass this bill, they will treat themselves, the billionaires, and the job exporters, to tax benefits of almost astronomical proportions. To suggest that there is anything bipartisan about this bill or anything bipartisan about the tax proposal that Republicans will unveil next week is truly a farce. There is no bipartisanship here. They learned nothing from their failed healthcare repeal efforts. No, they plan to use surprise, jack-in-the-box tactics to pop out a bill at the last minute, force it through this House, through our Ways and Means Committee, and foist it off on the American people. With Halloween coming, there is a simple ``trick or treat'' test that you, as an American family, can use. If you are in the top 1 percent, you get 80 percent of the individual benefits out of this bill. So just look at your income. If you are not up there in the $700,000 or $900,000 range, don't count on getting much benefit out of this bill. In fact, a number of studies show your taxes may actually go up while others see a significant decline in the revenue the richest few are asked to pay to finance our country. And what about the idea of growing jobs? After all, growing our economy is what we should all be about and what is claimed for this bill. Well, I turned to that objective source, Goldman Sachs, the home of the Treasury Secretary and top economic advisers. Goldman Sachs, within the last month, has advised its own investors: Don't expect much out of this tax bill because any momentary growth at the beginning will be offset by the trillions of dollars of additional debt from the same people who have been telling us for years we can't afford another dollar for abused children, and we can't afford dollars for children's healthcare because we are so very worried about the national debt. Well, there is reason to be worried about the national debt and not to explode it by trillions of dollars with this giant unpaid tax bill.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, certainly, my constituents in Texas would like to see the same spirit of togetherness that we have just heard about. How has that been handled in our Ways and Means Committee, and why do I call the claims of bipartisanship here a farce? Well, people in Texas would like to know: What is the effect of being taxed on our payment of property taxes? People in Michigan want to know: What is the effect of putting a cap on how much we can contribute to our retirement savings? Other people were concerned about adding $0.20 and a border adjustment tax to every purchase made from Mexico, or Canada, or elsewhere. Since May, I have been asking for hearings on these matters. I have been asking for one single Trump administration official to have the courage to come in front of our committee and answer questions about their proposal and the great gap between what President Trump says one day, and what they do the next. They have refused every day. We have been here all of September. We have been here all of October. They have refused to have a single hearing with a single Trump official because they plan to jam through-- while they yell ``kumbaya,'' they plan to jam through a gift to the superrich and the multinationals that keep shipping these jobs offshore. And they don't want any accountability for it. They don't want any public involvement either. They want the public to know as little about the details of their sham as possible. That is why they will have it introduced next week, passed in committee the following week, forced onto this floor and into the Senate, and the American people have to understand and speak up and say ``no.''

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, we begin to understand why Trump calls himself ``the king of debt,'' because there is plenty of debt that will be added onto this plan. For Trump and his cohorts, fiscal responsibility is just a political slogan that they use to undermine those education and social service programs they were never for in the first place. The Republican budget is not just numbers. It has a real human cost. By slashing investments in our economic future, it is a recipe for weakness, not strength. I urge my colleagues to side with the middle class, with working folks all over America, and reject this budget.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, Republicans have chosen to lavish huge tax breaks on large multinationals and the top wealthiest few in our country instead of growing our economy by investing in all Americans. Investing in our workforce, in our physical infrastructure, in entrepreneurship, that is the way to really grow the economy; not these retread Republican tax policies that offer all the benefits to the top and hope something will eventually trickle down to everyone else, that only grow the national debt, as has been shown time and time again. Our Republicans today call their budget a vision for our country, and what a grim vision it is for anyone who does not count themselves among the top 1 percent. Republicans would only widen income inequality with massive tax breaks for the few, while slashing trillions from initiatives that give more Americans the chance to get ahead, while, at the same time, strengthening our overall economic future. For seniors, this is a budget that breaks Trump's promise not to cut Medicare to the tune of about half a trillion dollars in cuts, and it would slash an additional $1 trillion for Medicaid, upon which so many seniors rely. For students and families that are struggling to get a college education, the ticket into the middle class, and into economic competitiveness, this budget will make it harder to climb the economic ladder with major cuts to Pell grants and other student assistance programs, and it will limit our investment in education and job training for American workers that are already out there trying to upgrade their skills. What does the Republican budget do with all the money they save from cutting the middle class and working people, seniors, and those who are trying to get ahead? Well, it stuffs the pockets of those at the top and the large multinationals. What President Trump and his Republican cohorts say their plan is, it isn't. You know, only last week, Trump said this about his tax plan: ``I don't benefit. I don't benefit. In fact, very, very strongly, as you see, I think there is very little benefit for people of wealth.'' Well, the analysis of the one tax return that leaked out suggests that President Trump will benefit to the tune of more than $1 billion. Eighty percent of the tax breaks in this proposal go to the top 1 percent. That is people who are making more than $730,000 a year while one in four Americans could actually see a tax increase. That is why you can understand that they say they can't guarantee that taxes won't go up for many people in the middle class. And overall, this is a budget that is dripping in red ink.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership. Mr. Speaker, this bill is all about Republicans refusing to pay for an important public service that they know works. It is about their meager 6 percent solution, where they decline to extend services that empower families, that support young children and their parents, to extend that to the other 94 percent of eligible Americans, despite the fact that there is evidence-based indication that these services perform so well, and in one area, helped to prevent child abuse. It is about their refusal to respond in a fiscally responsible manner to support this program, despite what their own experts say about the effectiveness of the program. So, instead of providing a reliable source of necessary funding for public services, Republicans insist upon being willing to remove life- sustaining resources from some of our country's most vulnerable citizens. It is really a punitive, mean-spirited effort to demonize the poor. Let's look at who will be hurt by this retread proposal, because they tried this a few years ago and it was rejected. SSI, or Supplemental Security Income, is an initiative to help some of our most disadvantaged Americans. The SSI program pays modest cash benefits that can be obtained only by, essentially, showing that you have got nothing--well, not exactly nothing. You can have total assets other than your home of $2,000. You can't have more than $735 a month in income. If you are younger than 65, you must be disabled, perhaps a victim of cancer, chronic heart failure, or blindness. There is strict enforcement of these standards, with over 70 percent of those who apply being denied. What kind of person will they finance this child abuse prevention program from? Well, the 50-year-old man who had an arrest warrant--this is a true case--that had been issued when he failed to show up for court. Why did he do that? Shouldn't he be punished? Well, it turns out he was in a coma at the time that the arrest warrant was issued. He was unable to breathe without a long plastic tube surgically inserted in his throat and connected to an oxygen tank on his wheelchair. By the time his case was resolved before a judge, the medical supply company was taking away the breathing equipment. Or Rosa Martinez, who got confused with another Rosa Martinez, and she had to go to court even though she wasn't the person being accused. Each of these people and so many others, like those suffering from dementia in a nursing home and who may never have been convicted of anything, are the type of people from whom they will take resources in order to fund a necessary program. Republicans on our committee are so motivated by their rigid ideology that they would not even permit a discussion with our staff of how to move forward on this initiative unless we committed to funding every dollar by taking it away from some other vital social service program within our committee's jurisdiction. It ought not be necessary to rob Paula in order to provide valuable services to little Pauline. Even when they know how much is at stake, such as child abuse and disadvantaged children, and even when we have a way to address those problems and prevent that abuse, they won't add a single dollar of additional revenue. Mr. Davis and I offered a variety of different ways to pay for this program and to actually see it serve more than 6 percent of eligible people.

Mr. DOGGETT. You don't have to raise taxes. For one of those different ways, just enforce our current law. If someone receives an alimony payment, require documentation so they will know and the IRS will know that that money is due. That will raise a significant amount of money that would fund much of this reauthorization. But because they are so opposed to adding a dollar to serve even an effective program, they take from the person with dementia at the nursing home. It is wrong. It demonizes people who deserve to be treated fairly. We should reject this bill.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Chair, across our country, there are thousands of children, thousands of families, that have a really big stake in what happens with this bill. I support evidence-based home visiting programs, and I support them not just by talking about them, but by providing them the resources they need to reach more children and make a difference in their lives. This whole program, ``home visiting,'' is a little bit of a misnomer. This is not about going out to pay a social visit, to join a club or something. This is about skilled professionals working with young parents to help them be the parents they want to be. It is about family values. It is about strengthening and protecting families, particularly disadvantaged families. Our home visiting programs give these families the tools that they need. I have seen how successful they have been in San Antonio, in San Marcos, in Austin, and across Texas. A story was shared with me recently when I met with Alaska and Jimmy Martinez from San Antonio. During their first year in college, Alaska became pregnant. She felt she was going to have to drop out of school, and then they met with Susan, with the Nurse-Family Partnership there in San Antonio, and she gave them some referrals and some assistance. They were able to learn more about the development of their child and how they could prepare their family for that child's arrival. Now, Alaska is about to finish her associate's degree. Jimmy is pursuing his business degree, and they are happy to have a beautiful 2- year-old son. That is the way this program is supposed to work so people don't sink into poverty. They are lifted up and so are their children. This is just one of thousands of success stories from across the country--the family that unexpectedly finds they have a child with severe disabilities, or maybe just the more common experience of the family that has a baby who cries all night long, and they don't know what to do about it. Too often, that is the kind of thing that ends up in a slap here, a slap there, and child abuse. Too often, it ends up with that child just being put in front of the television set instead of working with the child to deal with these real-life problems. Some reforms were mentioned, alleged reforms, in this bill. I have served on this subcommittee through a number of terms of Congress. We have had some excellent witnesses, Republican and Democratic, and I have yet to hear a single witness call for a single one of the changes that they are proposing to impose on this program as obstacles to its success. We haven't had an academic expert. We haven't had a stakeholder. We haven't had a single witness come forward and say: Please change this program so it cannot achieve the success that it is having today. This is an evidence-based program. What does that mean? It means it is based on fact, not just on hope or good intention, as a number of our programs are. It means there is peer-reviewed data showing that this program works to reduce child abuse and to solve other problems. The chairman, the advocate for this bill, tells me that they recognize this in the great Republican blueprint, and they want to do more of this. Well, if they want to do more of this, why are they creating one obstacle after another and causing one group after another to oppose those changes? What about the resources to get the job done? As so many of the Republican witnesses before our subcommittee have acknowledged, we are helping a fraction of the children who are eligible for these kind of services. I think you could call this bill the Republican 6 percent solution, because about 94 percent of eligible families in America don't get a penny of assistance out of this program. This program that they say is so good, they want to praise it as an evidence-based program--and well they should, and well they have in the course of the several years I have served on the committee--this program is frozen at the same amount of funds that it had 5 years ago. Though the need has grown, though the fraction of children who are served is minuscule compared with the need, they refuse to provide the resources to help other families like Alaska and Jimmy's. It is clear, we can't just throw money at this problem or any other, but sometimes the only substitute that I hear from my Republican colleagues is to throw words at the problem like we have heard today: caring, soothing, empathetic words, but words that are no substitute for meaningful action. Indeed, it is great to hear about support for an evidence-based program. Where is the evidence for these changes?

Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Chair, where is the evidence today? It couldn't be produced in committee. Where is the evidence for one of these changes? Where is the evidence for freezing this funding? We proposed to fully fund it, and I proposed to do it with a simple tax compliance measure that wouldn't have raised taxes on anyone, but it would have provided the resources for this home visiting program to do its intended purpose. This measure, as proposed, should be rejected, and we ought to support genuine home visiting that reaches more American families and protects them, just as it has for so many families in Texas.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, for our Nation of immigrants, a wall rejects our very history. A wall is not about America leading the world. A wall is about trying to shut off the rest of the world. Ignored today, of course, is the history of how poorly laws have worked to stop desperate people. Most all of those who are coming to America--risking their lives, suffocating in the back of a truck, going over a perilous desert--are not here to cause us harm; they are not here to do wrong and mooch off of our social services. They are trying to escape violence or provide a little hope to their family. And they do it by taking the dirtiest, toughest jobs in our society, as immigrants have done since the very founding of our Nation. A wall only makes their path more perilous without offering us more security. Last year, Trump's most famous and oft repeated claim was that he would build a wall that Mexico would pay for. But, this year, we just have one broken Trump campaign promise after another. Today, we have confirmation that Trump is just putting taxpayers on the hook to pay for another section of a wall--yes, a wall of broken campaign promises. Instead of a wall, we ought to be building opportunity. As Austin Mayor Steve Adler said, ``bridges make money, and walls cost money.'' Building Trump's boondoggle in the desert, at the same time he says we can't afford medical research or educational opportunity or job training, just shows how backward these priorities are. Let's oppose a wall of ignorance, a wall of prejudice, and create a bridge of opportunity. To achieve both true security and economic growth, we need to reject this narrow-minded approach in favor of comprehensive immigration reform.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. It once included the State of Colorado, or part of it. Madam Speaker, I think Republicans are just scared. They are afraid to leave town this week without doing another favor for Wall Street, and this proposal to undermine consumer rights is the next gift that they want to bestow on the big banks. Republicans can never seem to find their voice, no matter how outrageous the latest Trump tweet might be. They cannot pass meaningful legislation on other subjects, but they feel compelled to answer when Wall Street comes ``a calling,'' as it has on this bill. Only last month, Republicans approved a bill to give Trump the power to fire the chief cop on the beat; that would be the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, who Trump could now dump for actually trying to do his job of protecting consumers from abusive financial practices. Of course, we see daily that Trump thinks the White House is just a new venue for the latest sequel of ``The Apprentice,'' with him declaring ``you're fired'' to one person after another, no matter how much damage he does to our national security or to the economic security of families that are struggling to make a go of it all over America. Well, today's Republican gift to Wall Street is about denying any effective remedy to those who are abused by big banks. A bank can rightfully go to court if a consumer abuses it, and that happens every day in courts across America, with good reason, because it is not a one-way street. But in the non-negotiable, deceitful fine print at the back of the contract, the bank can deny the consumer the very same opportunity to go to court if that consumer is abused. It is called arbitration, but what it really means is that if a consumer has been treated wrong, neither a judge nor a jury can ever evaluate the facts and conclude for the consumer. Since usually the arbitrator depends upon the same bank or group of banks to get repeat business, the arbitrator has an incentive to rule against the consumer and for the bank. Often arbitration is little better than going to the bank's own attorney and asking: Do you think your client did anything wrong? And if so, should they do any more than say ``I'm sorry''? Arbitration is the very scheme that Wells Fargo relied upon to obstruct any opportunity for ordinary consumers who tried to hold their bank accountable for creating accounts to which they never gave any consent and charging them for it. Wells Fargo used those arbitration clauses to kick the consumers out of court and to continue its fraud against consumers across America for another 2 years. That is the kind of practice that we will have more of if this legislation is approved. You know, in the Military Lending Act of 2007, Congress showed the good sense to try to protect our servicemembers who are defending our country all over the world in certain of their loan agreements from having a lender impose a mandatory arbitration agreement. And what, today, we should be doing is supporting similar protections for other Americans who can be exposed to the same type of abuse. Today's bill to undermine consumer protection is opposed by The Military Coalition and 29 other servicemember and veterans groups representing millions of people. This sorry bill is also opposed by a number--I think literally hundreds of consumer, civil rights, labor, and community groups. All we are saying in rejecting this bill is to give consumers their day in court, give them the same rights the banks want. In fact, treat consumers as if they were banks because they should be treated with the same dignity and the same rights; and we do that by rejecting this bill and rejecting it soundly.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, as so often happens here, this bill bears a somewhat grander title than its contents. Medicare part B certainly does need improvement. While I support putting into statute what is already administrative practice, extending a demonstration project that appears to be working and the other provisions that my colleagues have worked on in this bill, I think much more should have happened. It is especially ironic that, at the very moment we are considering this bill, the United States Senate across the hall is proposing to eliminate healthcare coverage for millions of Americans. Certainly, this Republican repeal effort does far more harm to far more people than we can collectively undo here in the House with this rather modest piece of legislation. And there is one glaring omission from today's Medicare Improvement Act, one subject that the Republican leadership of the House Ways and Means Committee fears. It fears not only doing something about this problem, it fears about even understanding the extent of the problem, and it certainly fears having any public hearings to explore this subject. That is the menace that is affecting millions of people across this country: pharmaceutical price gouging. This bill fails to address any aspect of soaring pharmaceutical costs of part B medications. For almost a year, a number of us, House Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee, have called on the chairman to at least schedule a hearing about all aspects, all categories of soaring pharmaceutical prices that not only mean financial ruin for too many families, but also burden Medicare and most any type of taxpayer- financed healthcare initiative. Government-approved monopolies for drug manufacturers are being exploited by charging the sick and dying whatever they might pay for a little more life, for a little more comfort at monopoly prices. Under longstanding existing law--it has been there before this Congress ever got together--pharmaceutical companies are at least required to provide average sales price data on part B Medicare drugs. Three years ago, the Office of the Inspector General at the Department of Health and Human Services found that at least one-third of the more than 200 manufacturers of part B drugs had not submitted any of this average sales price data for some of their products, and an additional 45 manufacturers had not been required to report any data. The Inspector General found that inaccuracies in these average sales price filings may affect taxpayer-financed Medicare payments. Last month, the nonpartisan Medicare Payment Advisory Commission came before the House Ways and Means Committee and gave its report on Medicare. It noted that this problem on average sales price data continues, and that it has not been addressed by Congress, as the Inspector General had recommended. The Republican majority has refused to do anything about this problem. It has blocked an amendment that I offered in committee that simply implemented the recommendation of the Inspector General and of MedPAC to get that average sales price data and to ensure that all part B manufacturers report that data or are penalized at a reasonable level. It would simply have ensured compliance with existing law to protect program integrity and to protect the taxpayer interest. And you can be sure that if the Republicans didn't want to know what the prices were, they certainly didn't want to do anything about the soaring prices and the impact on American families. So I support the bill, but this is a missed opportunity that we should have employed to address a critical problem.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, the only sanctuary involved here today is the sanctuary that this sorry bill provides for prejudice. This is the Trump counterpart to the outrageous SB4 that Governor Greg Abbott has been promoting in Texas. It all goes back to the rhetoric of last year about the ``bad hombres'' and the attacks on Mexico and Mexicans. I will tell you, I want the bad hombres off the street no matter where they come from, but I look to my local police chiefs, to my local sheriffs and law enforcement officers to tell me what the best way is to protect our families from crime. They say maintaining the confidence of the immigrant community is vital, and that measures like this, which simply have politicians in Washington interfering with and attempting to intimidate local law enforcement officers, do exactly the opposite of what all these speeches claim that they do. Anti-immigrant hysteria, what a way to leave for July Fourth from a Congress that has accomplished practically nothing but to attack immigrants as we depart instead of standing by and supporting local law enforcement and making our communities safe.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this bill wrongfully endorses political interference with professional law enforcement leaders. With no legal authority, both President Trump and his Texan look-alike, Governor Greg Abbott, want to deny funds and intimidate local governments, who rightfully refuse to place politics above public safety. I will tell my Republican colleague from Georgia, and his colleagues, that the only lawlessness that exists here is the lawlessness of President Trump in trying to do this to such an extent that a Federal court order stopped him. And they will also, I believe, stop Governor Abbott on his outrageous Senate Bill 4. Our police chiefs in San Antonio and in Austin, our courageous Sheriff, Sally Hernandez, like many law enforcement professionals from Texas to New Jersey, they say that maintaining the trust and confidence of the immigrant community to report crime, to be witnesses concerning crime, that this makes us all safer--immigrant and nonimmigrant alike. Any proper arrest warrant presented by ICE will be honored everywhere. Detainers, which are merely a bureaucratic message saying the bureaucracy is suspicious of someone who should be imprisoned based on that suspicion, will not be kept imprisoned--and Federal courts have said they should not be--under the Constitution. I would say that the only sanctuary that this bill provides is a sanctuary for prejudice. It is a sanctuary that defies the reality of the America we have today, particularly in the Southwest. We should reject this bill and affirm welcoming cities, like mine, that are a refuge from anti-immigrant hysteria, but have a strong commitment to safety and to effective law enforcement, and looking to our local law enforcement, not political interference from Washington telling us how to protect our families. This very week, four years ago, an overwhelming bipartisan United States Senate majority approved comprehensive immigration reform. And like the amendments that are being blocked today, these House Republicans were so fearful that that bill might become law that they will not even permit us to even debate it four years later on the floor of this House. Instead of this anti-immigrant hysteria, instead of this sorry piece of legislation, what we need is broad immigration reform, and we need it now.