Lloyd Doggett

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, there is one type of innovation in which these Republicans are truly unexcelled--there is no competition. And that is the innovation in names, in naming these bills. They salute climate deniers and The Flat Earth Society by slashing funding for earth science that is strongly opposed by geophysicists and one academic after another. What do they call it? The ``America COMPETES Act.'' On this measure, its companion, they borrow almost $200 billion from anyone who will lend it to us to give mostly to the largest corporations, largely for doing research that they would be doing, even if they weren't rewarded. And they call that the ``American Research and Competitiveness Act.'' Now, that is true innovation. They don't need a credit; they ought to get a prize for being contortionists when it comes to labeling these measures. This particular bill just digs us deeper and deeper into debt, while adding very little to our research capability. That is truly unfortunate, since America's future competitiveness is in jeopardy. And that is outlined this very day in ``Innovation Lies on Weak Foundation,'' a New York Times economic column. As Eduardo Porter notes, ``Investment in research and development has flatlined over the last several years as a share of the economy . . . other countries are now leaving the United States behind . . . government budgets for basic research, the biggest source of financing for scientific inquiry . . . fell in 2013 to substantially below its level 10 years earlier.'' Indeed, the Republican budget makes significant cuts to research, including hundreds fewer research grants that the President sought at both the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation. I think we need more than another Ice Bucket Challenge to fund research for cures for cancer and diabetes, ALS, AIDS, and the like. We need the resources to tackle problems that are touching every family in this country. Unfortunately, this R&D credit that is being made permanent without reform has required American taxpayers to subsidize the development of electronic cigarettes and other products to addict our children to nicotine, instead of using those dollars to fight those dreaded diseases to which nicotine contributes. Corporate research generally is focused more and more on the next quarter's reports to Wall Street to which excessive corporate compensation is tied, instead of focusing on basic research. Porter concludes in the same article that this particular bill is ``unlikely to help much.'' And he notes the conclusion of the Congressional Research Service, an objective source, that this regularly renewed credit ``delivered, at most, a modest stimulus to domestic business R&D investment from 2000-2010.''

Mr. DOGGETT. I support a permanent research and development credit to incentivize more research. The question is: How do we pay for it, and how do we ensure that it actually encourages more jobs, leads to more research and more economic development, instead of just giving a reward to those who are already doing something in this area to advance their product? Nothing, of course, prevents multinationals from taking the credit and then putting the patent or the copyright in some foreign tax haven and avoiding paying their American taxes, another reform that is necessary. We should reject this proposal in favor of a strong research credit that actually incentivizes necessary research here in America and which is paid for, in part, by comprehensive reform of this very credit. Surely, we don't need any more research today to know that today's bills are the wrong way to go for America.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, there is probably no more critical issue on our national agenda today than this matter with Iran. 151 Members of the House have joined together to encourage the President to ``exhaust every avenue toward a verifiable, enforceable, diplomatic solution in order to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran.'' Mr. Speaker, I would ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record this communication. Congress of the United States, Washington DC, May 7, 2015. The President, The White House, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: As negotiations over Iran's nuclear program continue, we urge you to stay on course, building on the recently announced political framework and continuing to work toward a strong and verifiable agreement between the P5+1 countries and Iran that will prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon. We commend you and your negotiating team, as well as our coalition partners, for the significant progress made thus far. This issue is above politics. The stakes are too great, and the alternatives are too dire. We must exhaust every avenue toward a verifiable, enforceable, diplomatic solution in order to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. If the United States were to abandon negotiations or cause their collapse, not only would we fail to peacefully prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, we would make that outcome more likely. The multilateral sanctions regime that brought Iran to the table would likely collapse, and the Iranian regime would likely decide to accelerate its nuclear program, unrestricted and unmonitored. Such developments could lead us to war. War itself will not make us safe. A U.S. or Israeli military strike may set back Iranian nuclear development by two or three years at best--a significantly shorter timespan than that covered by a P5+1 negotiated agreement. We must pursue diplomatic means to their fullest and allow the negotiations to run their course--especially now that the parties have announced a strong framework--and continue working to craft a robust and verifiable Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action by June 30. We must allow our negotiating team the space and time necessary to build on the progress made in the political framework and turn it into a long-term, verifiable agreement. If we do not succeed, Congress will remain at-the-ready to act and present you with additional options to ensure that Iran is prevented from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Thank you for your resolve in preventing a nuclear-armed Iran. We look forward to continuing our shared work on this important matter. Sincerely, Jan Schakowsky, Member of Congress. Lloyd Doggett, Member of Congress. David E. Price, Member of Congress. Alma S. Adams, Pete Aguilar, Brad Ashford, Karen Bass, Joyce Beatty, Xavier Becerra, Ami Bera, Donald S. Beyer, Jr., Sanford D. Bishop, Earl Blumenauer, Suzanne Bonamici, Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Robert A. Brady, Corrine Brown, Julia Brownley, Cheri Bustos, G. K. Butterfield, Lois Capps, Michael E. Capuano, Tony Cardenas. John C. Carney, Jr., Andre Carson, Matt Cartwright, Kathy Castor, Joaquin Castro, Judy Chu, David N. Cicilline, Katherine M. Clark, Yvette D. Clarke, Wm. Lacy Clay, Emanuel Cleaver, James E. Clyburn, Steve Cohen, Gerald E. Connolly, John Conyers, Jr., Joe Courtney, Elijah E. Cummings, Danny K. Davis, Susan A. Davis, Peter A. DeFazio. Diana DeGette, Rosa L. DeLauro, Suzan K. DelBene, Mark DeSaulnier, Debbie Dingell, Lloyd Doggett, Michael F. Doyle, Tammy Duckworth, Donna F. Edwards, Keith Ellison, Anna G. Eshoo, Elizabeth H. Esty, Sam Farr, Chaka Fattah, Bill Foster, Marcia L. Fudge, Ruben Gallego, John Garamendi, Al Green, Raul M. Grijalva. Luis V. Gutierrez, Janice Hahn, Denny Heck, Brian Higgins, Ruben Hinojosa, Michael M. Honda, Jared Huffman, Sheila Jackson Lee, Hakeem S. Jeffries, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Marcy Kaptur, William R. Keating, Robin L. Kelly, Daniel T. Kildee, Ron Kind, Joseph P. Kennedy, III, Ann M. Kuster, James R. Langevin, Rick Larsen. John B. Larson, Brenda L. Lawrence, Barbara Lee, John Lewis, Ted Lieu, David Loebsack, Zoe Lofgren, Alan S. Lowenthal, Ben Ray Lujan, Michelle Lujan Grisham, Stephen F. Lynch, Sean Patrick Maloney, Doris O. Matsui, Betty McCollum, Jim McDermott, James P. McGovern, Jerry McNerney, Gregory W. Meeks, Gwen Moore, Seth Moulton. Grace F. Napolitano, Richard E. Neal, Richard M. Nolan, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Beto O'Rourke, Donald M. Payne, Jr., Nancy Pelosi, Ed Perlmutter, Pedro R. Pierluisi, Chellie Pingree, Stacey E. Plaskett, Mark Pocan, Jared Polis, David E. Price, Charles B. Rangel, Cedric L. Richmond, Lucille Roybal-Allard, Raul Ruiz, C. A. Dutch Ruppersberger, Bobby L. Rush. Tim Ryan, Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, Linda T. Sanchez, Loretta Sanchez, Janice D. Schakowsky, Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, David Scott, Jose E. Serrano, Terri A. Sewell, Louise McIntosh Slaughter, Adam Smith, Jackie Speier, Eric Swalwell, Mark Takai, Mark Takano, Bennie G. Thompson, Mike Thompson, Paul Tonko, Norma J. Torres, Niki Tsongas. Chris Van Hollen, Marc A. Veasey, Nydia M. Velazquez, Peter J. Visclosky, Timothy J. Walz, Maxine Waters, Bonnie Watson Coleman, Peter Welch, Frederica S. Wilson, John A. Yarmuth.

Mr. DOGGETT. While not signing this particular call for diplomacy, additional colleagues have made clear that they intend to prevent any attempted congressional veto of a strong, verifiable agreement. An agreement not based on trust, not based on liking Iran, but an agreement based on strong verification and intrusive verification. Unfortunately, others here in this body who have embraced the wrongheaded advice of former President Bush's U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, who said that, ``To stop Iran's bomb, bomb Iran.'' These are some of the same Members who rejected the interim nuclear Joint Plan of Action before they had even read it. They are some of the same Members who were so eager to launch an unnecessary war in Iraq that only strengthened Iran and who seem to have learned very little from their previous failure, and they forget that Iran is bigger than Afghanistan and Iraq put together. Another war will not make us safe. Bombing may set back Iranian nuclear development by two or three years at best--a significantly shorter time than that covered by a P5+1 negotiated agreement--but it will make an Iranian nuclear weapon more likely. Bombing will enflame sectarian and regional tensions. It will threaten the security of Israel and of our other allies and ultimately, it will jeopardize the safety of every American family. That does not mean that any agreement with Iran is an acceptable agreement. Iranian hard-liners, like hard-liners elsewhere, may, ultimately, prevent an adequate verification in this agreement, but we must use every diplomatic means available, especially now with the announcement of this strong framework, and continue to work and craft a robust Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. To do otherwise--to withdraw, to fail to support such an agreement--would likely collapse the multilateral sanctions among our allies and some that are not our allies but have joined with us in this regime that brought Iran to the table in the first place and would only accelerate an Iranian nuclear program that would then be unrestricted and unmonitored. Final sanctions--certainly sanctions which I have personally voted on a number of occasions in favor of--cannot be lifted without a vote of Congress, but that would not occur until we have conclusive evidence of Iranian compliance.

Mr. DOGGETT. All of us who do not trust war as the answer must continue working together to support a peaceful resolution and overcome the bellicose voices whose only alternative is the perilous course of war. We want a strong, verifiable arms accord. I favor and will vote for oversight and review today, but President Obama should know that he has the support in this House to fulfill our obligations under a verifiable agreement for a safer world and to avoid war.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. I am concerned about the anticompetitive effects of this bill because, while this money could be used to address the size of our national debt--and that might be an appropriate place for it. Think about the size of $269 billion and what it could do. We know that our infrastructure is crumbling. That would be more than enough to cover, over the next 10 years, the shortfall that has been estimated in dealing with our transportation infrastructure. Think what dollars of that size would do for strengthening of the competitiveness of our workforce from pre-K to postgrad. It is a bad investment to help those who have already got what they have got.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this Brady ``Borrow to Benefit Billionaires Act.'' I don't believe that it is in the interest of our country to borrow another $269 billion from the Chinese, the Saudis, or whomever we can get it from in order to benefit about 5,000 or so of the wealthiest families in this country, and that is precisely what this legislation does. ``If ever our people become so sordid as to feel that all that counts is moneyed prosperity, ignoble well-being, effortless ease and comfort, then this Nation shall perish.'' ``No advantage comes either to the country as a whole or to the individuals inheriting the money by permitting the transmission in their entirety of the enormous fortunes which would be affected by such a tax.'' Those are bold words of a different kind of Republican than we have today. They are the bold words in 1907 of President Teddy Roosevelt when he originally proposed the tax that has been mislabeled today as the ``death tax.'' President Roosevelt thought that it would be the death of our country if we had a permanent leisure class elite of the type that dominated so many European countries. He thought that a reasonable tax on inheritance of the wealthiest, most prosperous members of our country would be in the national interest--indeed essential to the future of the country. I think his approach was right at the beginning of the 19th century, and it remains true in this century because this is really a billionaire protection act. When he introduced this legislation, Mr. Brady said: What kind of government swoops in upon your death and takes nearly half of the nest egg that you've spent your life building? Well, the answer is not the American Government. Our government does not do that and does not touch the estates of any but the smallest, smallest fraction of the wealthiest--about 5,000-plus households in the country.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. I have one speaker on the way. If you are prepared to close and he is not arriving, then we will close. Do you have any other speakers?

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill and yield myself such time as I might consume. The NOTICE Act, as the name suggests, is about giving notice. In this case, it gives notice to patients when they are about to be billed personally, perhaps for many thousands of dollars, because they were characterized as under observation rather than regular inpatient status without them even knowing. I am pleased to have worked on this legislation since last summer with Mr. Young when we originally filed the bill, and I am appreciative of Chairman Ryan's prompt consideration of it in our committee. This is a consumer protection bill designed to provide at least limited protection to health care consumers. Currently, a hospital may either admit a patient as an inpatient or keep them under observation. This categorization might apply to heart murmur, irregular heartbeat, indigestion, or other symptoms that would cause a senior or an individual with a disability who is covered by Medicare to go into the hospital. It probably makes little or no difference in the way the hospital treats the physical condition, but it can make a very big difference in terms of how the patient's pocketbook is cared for. Indeed, the effect of being under observation is that the patient gets stuck with the bill for any skilled nursing home care that is required for rehabilitative services after the stay at the hospital. Medicare will pay for that needed care if a Medicare recipient patient is hospitalized for more than 3 days as an inpatient, but Medicare will not pay for skilled nursing home care if someone is simply under observation. Since Medicare has paid nothing, there is also no gap to be covered by Medigap; and instead of being in a gap, folks like this are really left in just a giant black hole. A Medicare patient that is sucked into this hole will be billed for the entire cost of rehabilitation at the nursing home, which can run into tens of thousands of dollars. This practice is happening more and more across America, though it is largely unknown to most people until they get caught up in it. In 2012, Medicare patients had more than 600,000 observation stays that lasted 3 days or more. According to one study, over a 6-year span, the number of stays under observation has increased by 88 percent. Many Medicare patients are being put under observation for a length of time that exceeds the guidelines that have been set by Medicare. Last year on the NBC Nightly News, Kate Snow profiled Ms. Kelley- Nelum, who discovered that this costly classification had a big impact on her hospitalized husband. After repeated questioning and demanding to know why her husband was under observation, she got the hospital to reclassify him. She later learned that had that not occurred, had she not been persistent in standing up for her ill husband, that they would have faced about $22,000 in out-of-pocket rehabilitation bills. Last year, with so many patients facing insurmountable out-of-pocket costs for skilled nursing care after unknowingly being placed under observation, The New York Times actually ran a piece that was designed to provide guidance to health care consumers about how to get out of this observation category. The first step is knowing you are in it, and this bill provides for that meaningful disclosure. This legislation is endorsed by AARP, by the Alliance for Retired Americans, the Center for Medicare Advocacy, the National Association of Professional Geriatric Care Managers, LeadingAge, American Health Care Association, and the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. I include in the Record letters from two of those groups in support of the legislation.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I also appreciate the help we have received from the Center for Medicare Advocacy. They have had reports, again, from people all over the country being placed in this situation. The hospitals may act in the best interests of a patient's health but not always in the best interest of the patient's pocketbook. The NOTICE Act will equip patients and their loved ones with the knowledge that they need to be effective advocates and avoid crippling financial repercussions. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I concur with the gentleman from Connecticut. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds and will welcome my colleague, Joe Courtney, who has long sought to respond legislatively to protect health care consumers from the financial pain of this observation status. While the passage of the NOTICE Act is an important step, Representative Courtney has an Improving Access to Medicare Coverage Act that would treat observation stays the same as inpatient stays. I support his legislation as he has supported, from the beginning, this initiative, and I appreciate his leadership. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, 50 years ago, in the Central Texas one-room schoolhouse where he had studied, President Lyndon B. Johnson first signed this Federal aid to education act into law. Through its first title, this law addresses inequality in educational opportunity. Title I has played a vital role in helping schools so that economically disadvantaged students can work their way into the middle class. Today, the same reactionary forces that first opposed President Johnson want to undermine this important civil rights law. Today's bill is supported by the same ideologues who have opposed the very concept of any Federal aid to education, who in the past disparaged on this floor public schools as being ``government schools,'' and who have even tried to abolish the Department of Education. Well, this Student Success Act is really a ``Student Regress Act'' or a ``How Little Can We Do in Washington Act.'' For San Antonio ISD, for Austin, and for so many other schools, this bill means less Federal support at a time when our schools are asked to do even more. In States like Texas, where school inequality is severe, the State leadership has demonstrated time and time again that Federal education block grants only lead to blockheaded decisions. ``Block grant'' is an apt term because it is designed to block access to achieve educational excellence in our public schools. Without a firm requirement in Federal law that the States cannot use the Federal dollars to just supplant the deficient funding levels they have, a State like Texas can and has simply used Federal education dollars to fill its budget gaps, with irresponsible officials, like Rick Perry, using the money for corporate tax breaks instead of helping our schoolchildren. So today we look at this bill and we see that, despite extensive research on brain development, on the importance of early, quality education for our youngest Americans, despite bipartisan support across the country, despite the incredible return that it offers on every dollar of public investment, early childhood education is nowhere to be found. It is missing in action in this bill. This bill threatens protections for special education. It fails to address the unique challenges of at-risk students. It ignores the needs of students who need to learn English. It ends the requirement of professional development support that encourages innovative teaching. It is why I say that a grade of F is entirely too high for this piece of legislation. I think a grade of X, Y, or Z might be more appropriate. Reject it until we have a Congress committed to a meaningful Federal role in advancing individual opportunity and ensuring a globally competitive workforce.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, with only hours remaining before Department of Homeland Security funding is terminated, and following a 98-2 Senate vote to restore some sanity here and proceed with consideration of that funding, House Republicans are still engaged in what amounts to a family feud among Republicans that threatens all American families. American shopping malls on heightened alert, arrest of ISIS suspects, and growing global crises--all of them are apparently not enough to spur these House Republicans into action. Mr. Speaker, House inaction is not vigilance. Your fear of immigrants and your disdain for President Obama ought not to come between us and a secure nation. Our enemies are watching. So are the front-line DHS employees and law enforcement operations who could lose. It is long past time to approve the dollars that we need to secure our American families and secure our homeland. It ought to be the top priority. There is no reason why Homeland Security should be the only Department in the entire Federal Government that is not fully funded.

Mr. DOGGETT

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

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, certainty, we are told, is the key factor here--first words from Chairman Ryan in support of this bill. I think the first certainty we have here is the knowledge that this bill is part of a package that, approved through today, is certain to borrow $317.5 billion. That is basically a request to this House and this Congress that we approve the borrowing of $317.5 billion. And when you look at other measures they have approved in the past, they are really on a pathway to borrowing almost $1 trillion to finance these tax cuts. I believe that certainty is important to taxpayers. I think that when someone pays for Medicare and Social Security, they need to be certain that it will be there. They need to be certain that the water that they drink and the air they breathe is not contaminated. They need to be certain that the food that they put on their family's table is safe, that it has been inspected by a meat inspector or another type of health inspector. They need to be sure when they drive home, they need to have the certainty that the bridge that they drive over is not going to fall down, as it did in Minneapolis a few years back. They need to be certain that there is educational opportunity, quality education, for their children. They need to be able to do all this without just having to rely on charity. This bill certainly selects a subset of tax provisions that benefit a few Americans and gives them preference. And I like some of these provisions. In fact, I am a cosponsor of some of these provisions, like the conservation easement. But they are measures that can and should be fully paid for instead of asking for another IOU. And because they are select provisions, they exclude many working and middle class American families. For example, the American Opportunity Tax Credit, which is based on the principle that we want all Americans to be able to get postsecondary education in a college or a trade school, but a choice that they make and get $2,500 directly off of their tax bill to pay for tuition and books; the child tax credit that so many American families claim to help with their children; the earned income tax credit that even President Reagan said was a key factor in getting people out of poverty, those are key provisions that were left over on the side and not selected for borrowing or for anything else. It is certain that many Americans have been left out of this very costly package. Working families do need to depend on more than charity. They need to be able to depend on this Congress to respond to their needs. Now, there is seldom a week that goes by in the area of medical research that there is not a group here on Capitol Hill concerned with Alzheimer's research, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, Parkinson's, cancer, AIDS, or any number of dreaded diseases, basically saying: Find a cure for my family member or my neighbor; find a cure before I get this dreaded disease. There are groups that come here after the tough droughts we had here last year saying the Forest Service and the weather service need more resources in order to deal with the natural disasters associated with climate change. We have been unable to find the funds for our crumbling roads and bridges. We do not have the investment we need from pre-K to postgraduate in education.

Mr. DOGGETT. When you dig another hundreds of billions of dollars--or maybe $1 trillion--into debt, it provides an excuse for many of those who don't believe in those programs to say: Gee, we would love to help you with education for your children, and, yes, it would be good if we had another meat inspector, but we just can't afford to do that. So we get to the point that Mr. Ryan has raised: Why is it we should raise taxes on some in order to maintain and renew some expired tax credits for others? I think there are two reasons. One is that some people are still not paying their fair share. We have got some multinational corporations that don't pay as much as a percent of their income as the people who clean up their offices. The second reason is that it is for the same reason that we say, if we need additional money for our national defense or for our educational and retirement security at home, we have to come up with the revenues to pay for that if we are to maintain any sense of fiscal responsibility. There are some good provisions in this bill, but we need the certainty that we will not be digging ourselves deeper into debt, preventing our ability to meet other vital national needs for our families.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans offer a very clear immigration plan today: Deportation now. Deportation tomorrow. Deportation forever. They don't just want to roll back what the President has recently done with pro-family action; they would roll back previous protection for our DREAMers, young adults brought here as children, who have so much to offer. Republicans would deny them that opportunity, just as they would deny an opportunity for families that pay their taxes, work hard, and pass a criminal background check--they would deny them an opportunity to stay together. Republicans want to deport Pedro. Pedro is a young man who came to America at age three. He excelled in school. He graduated near the top of his class at the University of Texas. And he hopes to work for the district attorney's office, securing our community from crime, or in some other public service. This bill does not just deny opportunity to Pedro; it denies our entire community the opportunity to benefit from his talents. I say let these DREAMers help us build a better and stronger America. Sadly, we have had so many broken promises in this House that the day would come when people of goodwill in both parties could come together and consider broader reform. Yet we are still denied that opportunity. Republican leaders have apparently given up on resolving the broken immigration system. They will stop at nothing to avoid doing anything. This amended bill would deny the right to learn, the right to work. It would deny hope for so many of these young people who pledge allegiance to America, who have so much to offer. Pandering to angry isolationists is not a sound immigration policy. It is not what this country, where the Statue of Liberty stands so tall, is all about.

Mr. DOGGETT. Vote for the dream, Mr. Speaker, and vote ``no'' on this nightmare of an amended bill.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, today is a special day for San Antonio because our San Antonio Spurs are being recognized at the White House for their victorious season. We have, of course, already had many a celebration in San Antonio, but it is good to see this celebration now reaching 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Congratulations to the San Antonio Spurs on this fifth amazing championship ring. Serving here in Congress as a representative for much of San Antonio, including the very place in the Alamo City where the Spurs have scored so many of these victories, I know that nothing defines the Spurs or San Antonio like the teamwork, the determination, and the positive attitude they displayed on this trail to the 2014 championship victory. These values are shown through the Spurs' ``Silver and Black Give Back''; a community and outreach program which has benefited over 250,000 children and coaches in the past couple of decades, all this in a city that is overflowing with Spurs enthusiasm and Spurs fans. I would have to say that all of San Antonio knows that the Spurs are certainly no Mavericks at basketball; they are well-seasoned, team players. They were able to rain down Thunder on all of their 2014 opponents with a regular season record of 62 wins out of 82 games. And that is not all that set the Spurs apart; they are true Trailblazers, hiring the first female assistant coach in the NBA, Becky Hammon. Overall, when it came down to that fifth ring, the Spurs, a team that lives in our Texas temperatures, were able to beat the Heat with a cool 4-1 series blowout. Like San Antonio itself, the Spurs have attracted the best and brightest from all over the world. There never has been, and there never will be, a team quite like the San Antonio Spurs in a city that is like no other. Congratulations to a dynasty. Like so many of my constituents, I am ready for the ``Race for Seis!''

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, to those who have wondered, what would be the top priority of this Republican-controlled Congress? What would they do on day one? Well, now we know. It is deception, what some could even rightly call tax fraud, since this amounts to deliberate misrepresentation of tax data. Republicans are admitting right here on day one that they don't know how to balance the budget. When the budget numbers will not add up, when the arithmetic just doesn't work for them, they change the numbers with magical new math. Where the books won't balance with the numbers that you have got, Republicans say, ``Use the numbers you would like to have.'' All their previous talk about budget discipline and balancing budgets was really about trying to dismantle Democratic efforts to provide an opportunity ladder up for all Americans, to assure dignity in retirement, and to protect families from the risk of illness--that ladder of security and protection that many Republicans were never for in the first place. Now, to free themselves from the hard work of responsible, balanced budgets, Republicans are compelling the House for the first time in American history to rely upon something they call ``dynamic scoring''-- That is just a euphemism for whimsy, speculation, and wishful thinking--the thin veneer for a failed political ideology. One leading Republican expert, former Senate budget staff director Bill Hoagland, has said that instead of this scoring gimmick that they are using today, he would ``rather [they] just simply belly up to the bar'' and ``admit up front that they can't lower rates without adding to the deficit.'' Today's actions remind me of a riddle some attribute to President Abraham Lincoln: ``How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four, because calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.'' And calling a budget ``balanced'' when it doesn't have adequate revenue does not make it so. Passing a budget requires hard work. Republicans would rather use a sleight of hand than offer a helping hand from all to get the job done. Vote no.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this bill puts a big bow on a holiday gift for the Wall Street contributors who get special treatment in the provisions of this bill. Once again, here in the holiday season, it is all about stuffing the silk stockings. These people want to gamble with our money. When these big banks win, they get to keep all the money; but when they lose, they look to the taxpayer to bail them out. It was wrong to do so before, and this bill removes key reforms that are vital to preserving our financial system and our economic security. We ought not yield to the big bank contributors who, at the same time, this same bill frees up additional money for individuals to pour into campaigns and pollute our democracy.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the public lands provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act that we are considering this morning. This is important to the security of all of our country, even if there are some provisions with which I have significant disagreement. I am pleased, while the focus is on our national security--important, especially, to families in San Antonio, whom I represent in what we know as ``Military City''--that with this bill we are joining another aspect that is very important to Bexar County, which is the Alamo part of Bexar County, the Alamo City as well. This bill includes a provision that I passed here in the House on June 3 of last year to expand the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park. San Antonio has a unique collection of Spanish colonial resources, the largest of any place in the United States. Since the House passed this legislation, it has lingered in the Senate; and now, through bipartisan agreement, we have included it in this particular piece of legislation, along with some other parks and natural resource matters. The legislation will now allow us to move forward with our World Heritage status for the Missions, and it will protect our cultural heritage and advance our economic future in San Antonio.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. I am for--and I know the gentleman is for--a pro-growth, pro-job creation set of government policies that focus on workforce development, on having the research in medicine and technology not only to find cures but to produce another round of jobs. If we lack the Federal resources to do that, we certainly don't have the Federal resources today to hand out one bonus after another, as their bill does, to corporations with special interest provisions that will ultimately fail our economy. This bill that we have does everything that they said their tax elixir would not do. It borrows money from many to give money to a few who already have the most. This represents the first installment in new national debt, a big chunk of the more than $1 trillion that these Republicans told us they wouldn't bury us in, but they proposed the first big installment today. They continue a Tax Code that is riddled with special interest tax preferences and giveaways while making a bonus depreciation provision that even failed as a temporary stimulus measure. The only jobs that this bill is really designed to protect--and the reason that it is here right now before they rush to the airport--are the jobs of the Republican Members of this House of Representatives, and they sure do a good job of trying to accomplish that. We ought to reject this package that is motivated solely by a looming election for a Republican majority whose biggest contributions to job creation in America have cost us dearly. They stand steadfast against the proposal that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and one business group after another tells us will grow this economy--that is immigration reform--because they can't overcome the Know Nothings within their party who stand against the reform that we know would grow so many jobs. Of course, their major accomplishment that they can point to right now out of this Congress was when they put the country on Cruz control, and it cost us $24 billion in economic growth. Reject this bill.

Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, House Republicans are shutting down this House early today, and they are shutting it down with the same happy talk and tax cut hocus pocus that they began this Congress with 21 months ago, last January. That is when Speaker Boehner reserved H. Res. 1 for a form of Miracle-Gro. They were going to sprinkle around Miracle-Gro tax cuts-- more special interest tax breaks on everyone--and they would grow money faster than it could grow on trees. They have given us so much talk and so many press conferences about how they would do away with all of these complex special interest provisions that Republicans have spent years writing into law for their buddies--into their Tax Code--and we would all have brighter smiles and, certainly, fatter wallets. All of that joy, all of those wonders, would be accomplished debt free. We wouldn't have to borrow another dime from the Chinese or the Saudis or from whoever would lend it to us. We would get all that and more with their proposal. Unfortunately, their old time medicine show started brightly, but it fizzled out rather quickly. No Democrat stood in the way of their introducing and voting in the Ways and Means Committee on a tax cut Miracle-Gro elixir. There is no reason they couldn't have brought it out here on the floor on any day the Speaker wanted to consider Miracle-Gro. Yet we are here today, closing out, and H. Res. 1 says on the Republican Web site that it is still reserved for the Speaker, as is most attention to any major issue in this country reserved, because these folks don't want to work here in Washington. Instead, we get to this sorry bill today that is before us that provides more debt, more complexity, and more sweetheart deals. When we consider the difficult budget choices, Republicans claim that we just don't have enough money. As much as they would like to provide full funding for Alzheimer's research, for cancer, for multiple sclerosis, for diabetes, for Parkinson's, we just don't have the money. We would like to do more to prevent the many forest fires that are spreading across the country--wildfires of all types--and provide the National Weather Service better funding to deal with the dramatic changes in our climate and our weather, but we just don't have the money to do that. And what about our roads and bridges? We can't figure out a way to fund them, even to this time next year, because we just don't have the money. Yes, we would like each child to be able to accomplish their full, God-given potential, but we just can't afford to fund from pre-K to post grad. But somehow we can afford more Miracle-Gro today--$500 billion taken right out of the debt, added to the debt.