Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Democratic Caucus, I offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Chairman, America is and must continue to be the cradle of invention and innovation. We reward those with big ideas.

I agree we must punish those who troll the waters in search of easy money at the expense of those who harness invention and innovation. But we must attack the abusers soundly and surgically so that we do not destroy in the dragnet the little guy with the big idea.

For this reason, Mr. Chairman, I will be opposing this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall votes 596, 597, and 598. If present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote 596, ``yes'' on rollcall vote 597, and ``yes'' on rollcall vote 598.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

In the past month, 500,000 Americans have secured affordable health insurance. They are people that include folks in my State of California like Erin Kotecki Vest, who said the old plan she had had all sorts of deductibles and out-of-pocket costs. At the end of the day, what does she say after going on Covered California's marketplace exchange? She will be saving $18,900 per year by having shopped on the exchange under the Affordable Care Act.

Paulo Dawud said he passed on an employer-based insurance policy that would have cost him $504 a month. He got on Covered California's Web site. He picked Kaiser. He now qualifies for a plan that charges $176 a month.

Allen Pacela says his wife would not have insurance coverage at all as of January 1. They shopped on the Web site. They are now saving $8,000 a year for, as he says, ``a very much better plan.''

And Andrew Stryker from Los Angeles, California, 34 years old, lives in the city of Los Angeles, had to wait 3 hours to enroll--$6,000 savings.

Let's improve this plan. Let's not destroy it. It is time to move forward and give Americans what they need--health security.

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, November 15, 2013, I was unable to cast my floor vote on rollcall votes. Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote 587.

Personal Explanation

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 100th anniversary of the White Memorial Medical Center. Since its beginnings in 1913, the White Memorial Medical Center has shown a deep commitment to providing health services to the residents of Los Angeles. The Seventh-day Adventist Church founded the hospital with the guiding principles of efficiency, honesty, compassion and respect. The hospital was named after Ellen G. White, a Seventh-day Adventist pioneer, who had the vision of integrating healing, healthy living and whole-person care.

Initial treatments were administered at White Memorial Medical Center's First Street Clinic. Since then, the hospital has seen major growth and expansion. In 1950, the hospital expanded by adding a new wing that doubled the number of beds and added a radiation laboratory, an electroencephalography unit, a psychiatric ward and comprehensive emergency facilities. Recently, the hospital undertook a $250 million project to renovate and modernized its facilities. Funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency for seismic upgrades and $30 million in community support made these renovations possible.

Today, White Memorial Medical Center along with its physicians and community partners provides valuable services to the community of Boyle Heights and the greater County of Los Angeles. The hospital serves over 126,000 patients each year and is staffed by 462 physicians, 86 residents, 1,879 employees and nearly 700 volunteers. Services offered include behavioral medicine, diabetes care, cardiac and vascular care, intensive and general medicine care, oncology, orthopedic care, rehabilitation, specialized and general surgery, stroke care and specialized medical services for women and children.

As a major teaching hospital, White Memorial Medical Center plays a significant role in training physicians, nurses and other medical professionals. Training programs focus on teaching doctors to care for the underserved and deliver culturally competent care to its neighboring communities. The hospital also serves the international community by sponsoring medical mission teams around the world and sending supplies to its adopted sister hospital in Zambia, Africa.

I salute the White Memorial Medical Center on the occasion of its centennial celebration. I wish it continued success in its ongoing effort to serve as a teaching hospital and its work with local community-based organizations to bring health, safety and wellness programs to the residents of Los Angeles. Happy Birthday White Memorial! May the next 10 years be even better and brighter.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Democratic Caucus, I offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 60th anniversary of the Southern California Permanente Medical Group (SCPMG) of Kaiser Permanente.

The origins of the Southern California Permanente Medical Group began in 1942 when industrialist Henry J. Kaiser asked Dr. Sidney Garfield to establish a health care plan for workers at the Kaiser steel mill in Fontana, California. In 1945, the health organization opened enrollment to other residents of the Fontana area. A few years later, at the invitation of the International Longshoremen and Warehousemen unions and the Retail Clerks Union Local 770, services were brought to the Los Angeles Harbor area. In 1953, the Southern California Permanente Medical Group's partnership was officially formed.

The Southern California Permanente Medical Group is an exclusive partner with the Kaiser Permanente health plan. From its modest beginnings more than 60 years ago, the Southern California Permanente Medical Group has grown to meet the changing economy and communities of Southern California. Today, approximately 7,000 SCPMG physicians care for more than 3.6 million Kaiser Permanente members in Southern California. These physicians proudly serve diverse communities speaking over 100 languages with culturally responsive care. SCMPG supports community partners through initiatives that reduce health care disparities and promote healthy eating. SCPMG physicians additionally contribute to the health of area residents through their personal volunteer work in local community clinics.

The Southern California Permanente Medical Group's presence can be noticed throughout Southern California's health care system. SCPMG physicians serve on the faculty of area medical schools and mentor graduate medical residents who train in Kaiser Foundation Hospitals' Graduate Medical Education rotations. The Association of American Medical

Colleges' most recent data revealed that the residency programs supervised by SCPMG physicians trained the second largest number of primary care physicians in the United States from 2006 to 2008. SCPMG physicians contribute to the development and dissemination of medical knowledge through their research and clinical trials. The Kaiser Permanente Southern California Department of Research and Evaluation, where SCPMG physicians carry out much of their research, received over $36 million in research grants in 2011. That research may someday open the door to a cure for cancer or the prevention of birth defects. And, the SCPMG has been a leader in the use of technology, such as adopting electronic health records, to improve care, promote efficiency and prevent medical errors.

I salute the Southern California Permanente Medical Group on the occasion of its 60th anniversary, and I wish it continued success in its ongoing effort to serve the residents of Southern California with high quality, affordable and innovative care.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Democratic Caucus, I offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with my friend and colleague, Sam Johnson, to introduce this bipartisan legislation to protect Americans from identity theft.

I have long been concerned about the problem of identity theft, where all too often the Social Security number, SSN, which is assigned to make sure Americans get their earned Social Security benefits, is the key to committing fraud. For a number of years, Chairman Johnson and I have worked together on a bipartisan basis with other members of our Social Security Subcommittee to find ways to better protect Americans from identity theft.

One of the most troubling forms of identity theft is fraud involving a deceased individual, which victimizes grieving families. Our subcommittee learned about a family that not only lost their young daughter to a terrible cancer--but then was dealt another blow when they found that their child's identity had been stolen and used to collect a fraudulent tax refund.

Our bill aims to stop this fraud in its tracks. It is named in honor of the child whose family asked our Subcommittee to make sure what happened to them did not happen to another family: the ``Alexis Agin Identity Theft Protection Act of 2013.'' No one should have to endure both the loss of a loved one and then the financial stress of dealing with identity theft because a fraudster has appropriated the person's identity.

The Death Master File, DMF, a prime source of SSNs used in identity theft, is a database of death information reported to the Social Security Administration, SSA. However, a lawsuit forced SSA to make this database available to anyone who wants it. SSA needs this information--it is used to make sure earned benefits from the Social Security Trust Fund are only paid to the living. But SSA does not want to make it available to fraudsters, and they should not be required to do so.

Our bill would restrict access to the DMF to legitimate users and release to the general public only death data that is older than three years, at which point it is relatively useless to ID thieves bent on using it for fraud. Over time, our bill also enables the States to take back the responsibility of handling their death data and ends SSA's public release of the DMF for good. The President's budget proposes a similar approach that the Joint Committee on Taxation projects would save $793 million over ten years by reducing the potential for fraudulent tax refunds. The National Taxpayer Advocate and the SSA Inspector General have also called for the public release of the DMF data to end.

I applaud the bipartisan approach we took to resolving this problem for the American people. I hope we can learn from the Agin family's tragic experience and move swiftly to enact this bipartisan, commonsense measure to reduce the harm of identity theft.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 75th anniversary of a place of history and a cornerstone of Los Angeles culture: Chinatown.

Chinatown today is a dynamic neighborhood where the old and new come together harmoniously to create a unique destination point for Angelinos and newcomers alike. It spans 24-city blocks with a bustling commercial district and active residents. When walking down North Broadway, you can see the well-preserved historic architecture and cultural celebrations alongside innovative commercial developments that protect the integrity of the Chinese American community's history in Los Angeles.

Understanding how Los Angeles' Chinatown found a home opens a fascinating window into the quest for dignity and opportunity for Chinese Americans. That journey did not start with the creation of Chinatown in its current location. In fact, it began in 1852 when the first Chinese settled around El Pueblo Plaza. By the 1870s, it had grown to 200 people, mostly male, who made their living as laborers working in laundry, gardening and ranching.

It was during this time of growth that the Chinese community experienced one of the most serious incidents of racial violence in Los Angeles' history, the Massacre of 1871. This horrific event occurred when a mob of over 500 white men entered Chinatown to attack, rob and murder Chinese residents of the city. Despite such severe discrimination, the people of Chinatown persevered and found a way to prosper. Chinatown grew to over 3,000 people, boasting a Chinese Opera theatre, three temples, a newspaper, even a telephone exchange. As the town thrived, residents formed family organizations and church missions.

Even as the Chinese community continued to make significant contributions to Los Angeles and the nation, sadly there was an increase in anti-Chinese sentiment. State laws prohibited the Chinese from owning property and the federal Chinese Exclusion Act barred others in the future from emigrating to the United States. America made life difficult for its people of Chinese heritage.

And it added to the adversity that Old Chinatown in Los Angeles confronted. Starting in 1913, Chinatown faced a continuous threat of relocation as the City of Los Angeles decided that the best location to build Union Station, it's sparkling new railroad station, would be Old Chinatown. After decades of living with the threat of eviction, the Chinese community was forced to relocate in 1931. The residents of Old Chinatown, who had built their lives in this neighborhood, were displaced with no compensation or relocation plans to rebuild their homes and businesses. They were scattered throughout the city.

Hard times were no stranger to the residents of Chinatown. And so, on April 22, 1937, Peter Soohoo brought together a group of 28 prominent Chinese Angelenos for an organizational meeting. They drafted a proposal for a new neighborhood that would combine elements of Chinese design with modern American architecture. This architectural vision would reflect the Chinese American identity that this community had worked so hard to establish.

According to the plan, a private association would wholly manage the project including the financing of it. Thus, the Los Angeles Chinatown Project Association was born. On June 25, 1938, eighteen businesses opened their doors to the public in the New Chinatown, one of the first malls in America and the nation's first modern American ``Chinatown.''

The Chinese American community continued its impressive growth in Los Angeles. The sons and daughters of these pioneers helped build Chinatown from three buildings on North Broadway into a dynamic commercial district and residential area frequented by both tourists and locals. It is one of Los Angeles' cultural treasures that we must nurture and celebrate.

I commend the hardworking citizens of New Chinatown, some of whom are descendants of its original families, for their dedication to advancing the area, while protecting its history and cultural significance. Their contributions are invaluable and must be applauded.

Mr. Speaker, it is with deep pride that I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the ``Diamond Anniversary'' of one of Los Angeles'' great neighborhoods, New Chinatown. We are a better America today because of the visionaries and pioneers who fought to survive the tough times and because of the generations that followed who continue to make our City and our country the home of the American Dream.

Mr. Speaker, ``The Least Productive Congress Ever,'' that's the title of an article in today's Washington Post. Here is how the article begins:

Congress, in case you have been living on another planet

for the last few years, doesn't do all that much these days.

So we are, debating again--for the 38th time--a bill to repeal all or part of our Nation's health security law. We've heard this broken record 37 times before and it sounds the same and it goes nowhere.

But there is more consequence to this partisan agenda than just wasting the American people's time and adding to the record of the least productive Congress ever. Wasting the American people's time 38 times wastes the American taxpayers' money. According to CBS News reports, this obsession to vote over and over and over 38 times on these partisan bills has cost the American taxpayers more than $50 million. That's an expensive ticket for political theater.

So what are the facts on this legislation? The Congressional Budget Office, our country's fiscal watchdog, says this about H.R. 2668: ``Health insurance premiums''--under this legislation--``for individually purchased coverage would be higher under H.R. 2668. In addition, the number of people with health insurance coverage would be reduced.''

Translated, the cost for health insurance and health care for Americans will go up and the number of Americans with insurance coverage will go down under this legislation.

Here is today's New York Times--and it says it all on the front page: ``Many New Yorkers Will See Big Savings on Health Plans Under the Current Law.'' How does it start? The article says:

Individuals buying health insurance on their own will see

their premiums tumble next year in New York State as changes

under the Federal health care law take effect.

The facts: health care insurance costs are going down. But this bill will repeal all or part of the health care security law.

This Congress is the least productive Congress ever, because instead of voting on a jobs agenda and growing our economy, this House is voting for the 38th time to do nothing. This House is out of touch with the American people. It is time this House caught up with the American people and work in bipartisanship to get Americans back to work and provide them more health security, not less.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the gentleman from California in a colloquy, if I may.

I would like to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from California (Mr. Denham), and what I'd like to ask is, in conversations that have taken place between Members on this particular amendment, there is obviously quite a bit of support on this side of the House for legislation that would honor the service of any American, including those Americans who have come to this country through no fault of their own without documentation, have essentially become Americans through their time as youngsters in this country, and then wanted to fulfill service to this Nation by applying to serve in our Armed Forces.

This amendment, however, has some flaws in it that make it very difficult for the very people that the gentleman is trying to help to actually receive the opportunity to serve our country and then be able to adjust their status to lawful permanent residents, and ultimately, we hope, to become United States citizens.

There is also a further flaw in the bill that would prevent any part of this from ever taking effect unless the gentleman were able to find the resources to implement this. As he and I discussed before this amendment was put on the floor, that would be very difficult unless we were prepared to make some substantial changes to the current funding of some very important

mandatory programs, including retirement pay for our soldiers; TRICARE, which is health care services for our military servicemembers; mortgage refinancing for our servicemembers.

So I would ask the gentleman if the gentleman was intent on pursuing this amendment today, or if he was prepared to withdraw and have further conversation to see if these flaws could be corrected.

I would also note that for many of us who have been working for over 20 years to try to reform a broken immigration system, this is certainly one aspect of a broken immigration system that must be fixed. There are any number of hardworking individuals in this country who we believe, through a comprehensive fix of our broken immigration system, would have an opportunity to show all Americans citizens that they have tried to work very hard to earn a chance to become tax-paying American citizens.

So while many of us prefer to be able to deal with all aspects of a broken immigration system, this is certainly one that truly needs to be dealt with and deserves attention. But this amendment has two very substantial flaws, and I would ask the gentleman what his intentions are with regard to pursuing this amendment on the floor this evening?

With the permission of our ranking member, I would ask that Mr. Denham be yielded time to respond.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I appreciate the gentleman from California being willing to withdraw the amendment, and certainly appreciate the work of the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Goodlatte, in proposing that we try to resolve this in this Chamber.

I think we want to make it very clear. As I think every one of my colleagues who has spoken on this amendment has said, this is an important issue because we have a lot of young Americans who are trapped in a situation where they have to live in the shadows. And especially for those who wish to provide service to our country in uniform, I think all of us believe, if you're willing to give that highest calling of service, that we want to be there to be not only appreciative of your service, but recognizing the valor involved.

And so I want to make sure we're very clear. We all support the notion of trying to help these young Americans, who are Americans in everything but legal title, the opportunity to serve this country. This amendment, unfortunately, would not accomplish that if it were to go forward, and that's why I think it's so important, as Mr. Goodlatte, our chairman of the Judiciary Committee pointed out, that we withdraw the amendment and try to make corrections so we can get to the point of dealing with immigration reform.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall votes 188

and 189. If present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall votes 188 and 189.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote 204. If present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote 204.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall votes 207, 208, 209, 210 and 211. If present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall 207, ``no'' on rollcall 208, ``no'' on rollcall 209, ``yea'' on rollcall 210, and ``no'' on rollcall 211.