Alan Lowenthal

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, close cooperation between Taiwan and the United States has been of critical importance since the Taiwan Relations Act was signed on April 10, 1979--35 years ago next month. With the TRA, the United States has been able to forge a strong and mutually beneficial economic, cultural, and security relationship with Taiwan while ensuring peace in the Taiwan Strait. Taiwan remains a true friend of the United States and a partner in democracy, trade, and human rights. This anniversary is an opportunity to reflect on this successful partnership and to further strengthen the ties between our two governments. Since the TRA was signed in 1979, Taiwan has grown into a bustling free-market economy and vital trading and investment partner to the United States. But our work is far from over. On the 35th anniversary of the TRA, I urge my fellow colleagues to join me in honoring the deep partnership and friendship between Taiwan and the United States. It is in this spirit that we should recognize the departure of Representative King Pu-tsung who has fostered greater ties between the U.S. and Taiwan for the last 18 months as Taiwan's chief envoy to the United States. I have enjoyed the opportunity to work with Representative King and wish him all the best as he returns to Taiwan. I also look forward to working with his successor to continue to strengthen our unique relationship with Taiwan.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. In listening to this discussion and to your presentation about the bill to basically give government back to the people, listening to Congressman O'Rourke talking about what it is like to go door to door and talk to people, and then you are asking what are people saying, I think what I am hearing as I go out is that we have lost, in many ways--what has happened because of money in politics--the ability to talk to people. It is not necessary anymore. The thing is, when you talk to people, this is what they say: I want to have a voice. I want to participate. I want to be part of this great democracy. Less and less does that make any difference. You can win office without talking to people. You don't have to talk to people anymore. You just have to raise large amounts of money and let that money spread a message. What we are saying is, that is not only bad for the institution, that is horrible for the democracy that we live in. It is time to give back this democracy to our communities. It is time to recreate a sense of community. It is time to do what Congressman O'Rourke has said, which is to create competitiveness, to create a sense that people can listen and they can participate. They can if they are not part of the purchasing of this House, and that is what it has been now--the purchasing of this House. Rather than having the selection of people being due to your being able to convince people that you are listening to them and what you are proposing is in their best interest, it is really what is in the best interest of those that are contributing. That is what it is all about. This takes us another step closer. When I talk to people, first, they are very grateful that I am even talking to them now. They are thankful that I am coming out to talk to them about this. Not enough people are talking because we don't have the time to talk to people because too much time is spent raising money.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. I really want to thank the fine gentleman from Maryland, who has worked so long and tirelessly on ensuring that unlimited campaign spending does not drown out the voice of the people. I want to thank him for putting together a bill that gives the public a chance to be heard over big money interests. A little bit, Mr. Speaker, about my own experience, when I first ran many years ago for city council and then I went on to the State and came here to Congress--when I first ran for city council, it was a very difficult time in my district. It was a time where we actually had a period of where--when I first was elected, where we had martial law because we had rioting because of--after the Rodney King decision in southern California. I walked my district, and I heard from everyone that their voices weren't being heard, that the city at the time was not listening to them; so I felt, as important as any piece of legislation, was to give people a chance to come together to create something to have their voices heard. I spent that first year, when I was elected, working with my community in groups, and we decided that campaign reform limiting the size of contributions would enable our city to move forward again and would bring people together, and they wanted to be able to have a chance to participate. We did it, and we put it on the ballot, and it overwhelmingly passed. I realized, as I went forward, first to the State legislature and now, here, to Congress, that the best way to fight against unlimited campaign spending by outside individual action committees and individuals who are capable of spending unlimited amounts of money-- short of amending the Constitution to repeal Citizens United--is to do exactly what Congressman Sarbanes has done, give a voice to ordinary citizens. That is what we should be doing. Congressman Sarbanes' bill, H.R. 20, the Government by the People Act, is a comprehensive reform package, designed to combat the influence of Big Money politics. As equally important, it is to raise civic engagement, and it really is to amplify the voice of ordinary Americans. That is what we should be hearing. That is what we are hearing every day in our districts. The bill would magnify the impact of small donations from average citizens, allowing Congressional candidates who only take small donations to be competitive with candidates who are backed by outside groups, who are capable of raising and spending large amounts of money. For example, if this bill becomes law, individuals will be given a $25 refundable ``my voice'' tax credit per year to help incentivize and spur small-dollar donations to candidates for Congressional office. People would be feeling that the government is asking them to contribute and to participate. Candidates now who forego contributions from super-PACs and only accept donations of under $1,000 would be eligible to a 6 to 1 match by small donors--that is people who are donating under $150--from a newly established freedom from influence fund. Do you know what this will mean to the average American who says: If I contribute a small amount, it doesn't mean anything? All of a sudden, we are saying: you count, your contribution means something. According to the Federal Election Commission, in 2012, individual small donors were outspent 3 to 1 by outside groups. We need to figure out how to empower average citizens whose voices are drowned out by outside money from shadowy organizations. We have to shift this balance of power away from wealthy interests to ordinary Americans, to people who are asking that their government be responsive to them. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 20, the Government by the People Act, and I urge the Speaker of this House to bring this vital bill to the floor of the House of Representatives. Give us the opportunity to vote for democracy, to vote for the people of this country.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. I agree completely. People decide to run frequently--or want to run--maybe even better than decide, they don't decide--they want to run because they believe that they can be the voice for those that do not have a voice, for people in their community who feel disenfranchised, people like themselves who just want to participate and feel that they have no voice. Then they get involved in this process, or they think about it, and they realize that that doesn't matter. It doesn't matter who you are listening to. It doesn't matter who you are accountable to. It doesn't matter that you really care about creating a sense of community and involvement and that people have a responsibility to participate themselves. All that matters is how much large money you can raise, and that is what the rules are. I think that that balance between funding elections and listening to people has gotten way out of whack. That has discouraged so many people from wanting to run because they are now confronted with the reality. It makes no difference that you are tied to a community and you give voice to people in that community. The only thing that makes a difference is how much money you can raise from large interests. I think that does a tremendous disservice to this institution and to all institutions that depend upon public support.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. On many different levels. Thank you, Congressman. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that, today, people say that government--the House of Representatives and the Senate--is dysfunctional. Yet, as you pointed out in that quote, Senator Dole saw a long time ago, when at least some things were getting done and more things were getting done, that we were beginning to go down the wrong path, that the influence of money was stopping us from really looking at the critical policies that affect the Nation and from debating those and listening to ordinary citizens here. As we talked about, when ordinary citizens are cut out and when the only people who get to visit and to talk to us are those who contribute large amounts of money to our campaigns, it is they who have special access. Theirs are the bills that get brought up. They are the ones we listen to because everyone stops being beholden to the policies that brought them here--what they want to do to form good government--and they are beholden to what will get them reelected and to the large amounts of money that come in. So I agree. It is interesting that Senator Dole said that. That is now over 30 years ago when we did not heed the warning of listening to citizens of creating a system that not only would decrease the role of large, outside interests but would, as you have done, increase the role of ordinary citizens to actually be listened to and be able to bring their thoughts to bear because we would become accountable to them. I think that is where we are today as that accountability is not there.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. I thank the gentlewoman from Illinois for yielding and for being a steadfast leader on this issue. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply confirms what world's scientists already know: that greenhouse gases contribute to long-lasting changes in our climate that can have a range of harmful effects. Disinformation by entities with conflicts of interest have fueled reports of scientific disagreement. However, the scientific community is not divided because there is no compelling scientific evidence denying human's role in climate change, period. Case closed. Every minute we waste on the myth of disagreement is a minute longer we wait to take concrete action, making our inevitable energy transition even more expensive. Mr. Chairman, we will be judged by our children for what we do here today. I urge an ``aye ``vote.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, climate change is real and is happening now. To reduce the harmful effects of human-caused greenhouse gas pollution, this Nation and the world must transition to clean energy sources. That is why I am here today to support wind power and for extending the renewable electricity production tax credit. My home State of California has been a leader in deploying this key technology, and it has paid dividends. Wind powers over 2.1 million California homes, and California is the home to 21 wind manufacturing facilities which have helped to stimulate capital investments of over $11 billion. The California wind industry also supports over 7,000 jobs, ranking California as the second-highest wind-related job incubator in the Nation. Wind power is part of the energy portfolio of the future. Let's make that future happen now and support the production tax credit.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, inaction on climate change will be more costly in the long run than an investment in curbing emissions now. The nonpartisan Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently urged policymakers--that is us in Congress--to take immediate action on climate change to avoid not only costly damages to our planet but, really, the costly impact to our economy. The report indicates that if strong action to curb greenhouse gas emissions does not take place in the next 15 years, our last resort to avoid catastrophic global changes will be to rely on expensive technologies to remove harmful greenhouse gases, and that would be unbelievably expensive. The report also estimates that the longer we wait, the cost goes up, and the impact on the economy is more devastating. If we wait until 2030, we reduce our ability to produce goods and services by up to 4 percent. If we wait until 2050, it is up to 6 percent; and if we wait until 2100, it is up to a 12 percent loss of goods and services. The time to act is now.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Madam Speaker, instead of talking about jobs, or the economy, or the unemployed who have lost their benefits because of our inaction, we are here talking about legislation that strips women of their fundamental right to make their own medical decisions. If H.R. 7 passes, millions of women who work for small businesses, or who will be buying insurance on the exchanges, will lose access to comprehensive health care. H.R. 7 is a radical bill that places restrictions on how women can spend their private dollars to purchase their private insurance. It would also make the Hyde amendment permanent, which will cause detrimental and devastating effects to all women, especially low-income women. We must stand by women and vote ``no'' on H.R. 7.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you for that leadership.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise too in support of the 1.3 million Americans who have lost or will be losing their benefits by the callous efforts of this Congress not to extend unemployment benefits, especially for the long-term unemployed. As you pointed out, Congressman Pocan, as of December 28, over 1.3 million Americans have been kicked off unemployment insurance. We are talking about--and I am going to speak in a few minutes about the personal impacts of this--we are talking about family members, we are talking about friends, we are talking about people in each and every community of every Member, regardless of political affiliation in this Congress. In my own community in the State of California, if we continue this callous effort not to extend unemployment benefits, we are looking at over 325,000 Californians losing their benefits in the next 6 months. Let's talk about jobs. People say that people should be working. If we do not extend unemployment insurance in my State, we are talking about the impact of the loss of over 240,000 jobs. This is a tragedy for our country. We are just coming out of the holiday season. It is really interesting, in the holiday season, at Christmastime, that there was a lack of compassion by the majority party in the House, which did not put up a bill to extend unemployment insurance. Congressman Pocan and I have looked at this. Coming up, the President of the United States is going to be talking about the state of the Union. There is nothing more important in the Union than having people be able to buy their food, to be able to feed their children, to be able to hold their heads up with dignity. So, last year, the House Democrats invited as their one guest people who were victims of gun violence. This year, Congressman, I applaud you for taking the lead, and I am so pleased to have joined you in a letter to ask Republicans and Democrats to use their one additional seat in order to bring them to Congress to let the President and the rest of the Nation hear about the stories and then put faces to those people who have lost their unemployment insurance, to see that these are people like our neighbors. That is who we are talking about. I urge all Members of Congress to bring a person who doesn't normally have a chance to impact our government, a person who has lost his unemployment insurance. I want to talk a little bit about some of the people in my community--letters, people I have met, people I have gone and talked to. I will just give two examples: I have a constituent who recently spoke to me about being 76 years of age and widowed. Her daughter is 52 and is a civil engineer, who has worked for many years at good jobs in the construction industry, building water treatment plants around the State of California. She was laid off 3 years ago and has not been able to find work since, even for jobs that pay much less; and she would be willing to take jobs that pay up to less than a third of her previous salary. After her unemployment checks ran out, she moved in with her mother, who wrote to me and spoke to me. She says: Luckily, when she and I were both employed, we bought this small house, and we worked diligently to pay it off. She--her daughter--has pretty much given up hope for another job, and I am somewhat crippled now. Between my Social Security and my savings, we survive. My point is that I am writing to you not to help us. She did not ask for any help. She said they are doing okay, but she knows that so many people in her community are not doing well, who are going through the same thing that she and her daughter have gone through, but they now don't have insurance to do that. She asked me-- she pleaded with me--to extend the benefits and to extend their unemployment checks; Another constituent wrote to me recently and said: I am 58 years of age. I am a telecommunication analyst. I was laid off in January of 2013. I have worked for over 30 years in this field. Now I need the government to help me through this rough time, and you and your peers are letting me down. I am running out of savings. I am soon to be homeless by the end of March if you don't do something. I am at a point that I would take any job available, but all I hear is either I am overqualified or I don't fit well into the job. I think we have to really hear this. This person pleaded: I am not a lazy person. I am out there, trying every single day to find a job. I would give up one of my fingers for a job just to take care of my family. Please keep fighting to help us out. Both of these stories tell us how we have a responsibility to help the women and the men and the families in our communities who are the foundations of our society and who are raising the next generation, who really are saying, I have worked hard. Please, at this tough time, don't abandon me. If we cannot provide adequate support for our families to make it through difficult times, they are asking us, if you are not here to help us, why are you in Congress? When we extend unemployment insurance, UI, the U.S. economy goes up, poverty goes down, and working families are protected. Now is not the time to turn our backs on the most vulnerable in our society.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my newly introduced resolution, which honors today as the 65th anniversary of Human Rights Day and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. My resolution will shed much-needed light on the importance and protection of human rights in our global society so we can prevent acts of suppression against people like Nguyen Tien Trung of Vietnam, who has been unfairly jailed for democratic activism. The Congress and the world must recognize that those that are denied basic human rights, such as freedom of speech, religion, or political expression are, therefore, denied an opportunity to be treated with respect and with dignity. Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of my resolution, and I urge all Americans to observe the 65th anniversary of Human Rights Day.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, climate scientists like Dr. Rob Dunbar of Stanford are warning us that if we continue down this path of inaction, global sea levels will rise, on the average, anywhere from 1 to 7 feet by the end of this century. Let's just take a 4-foot rise in global sea level, for example. That would devastate coastal communities and jeopardize, in my State, hundreds of thousands of Californians' properties, causing billions of dollars' worth of damage. As someone who represents a coastal port, this rise in sea level will cause us tremendous amount of infrastructure needs. It is our responsibility to take action now to help cut greenhouse emissions so that we can start to curb some of the deepest harm caused by rising sea levels. If we do not act, we are turning our back on every coastal community not only in California, but on this entire planet.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 605 on the Tonko (NY) amendment on H.R. 1900, the Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act, I am not recorded because I was absent due to official business in my district. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on the amendment. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 606 on the Castor (FL) amendment on H.R. 1900, the Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act, I am not recorded because I was absent due to official business. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on the amendment. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 607 on the Speier (CA) amendment on H.R. 1900, the Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act, I am not recorded because I was absent due to official business. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on the amendment. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 608 on the Jackson-Lee (TX) amendment on H.R. 1900, the Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act, I am not recorded because I was absent due to official business. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on the amendment. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 609 on the Dingell (MI) amendment on H.R. 1900, the Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act, I am not recorded because I was absent due to official business. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on the amendment. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 610 on the Motion to Recommit H.R. 1900, the Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act, I am not recorded because I was absent due to official business. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on the amendment. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 611 on Final Passage of H.R. 1900, the Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act, I am not recorded because I was absent due to official business. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

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

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended. Mr. Speaker, transparency and public disclosure are critical ingredients to successful public policy and, I would dare say so, to successful democracy. My amendment would provide just that-- transparency and public disclosure of the hydraulic fracturing operations that are now prolific in so many States. Right now, our communities do not have access to reliable or complete information about fracking operations. Colleagues, our communities have a right to know. If the public has a right to know what ingredients are in their food, don't our communities have a right to know what chemicals the oil and gas industry is going to pump past their drinking water? If the public has a right to know where Superfund pollution sites are, don't our communities have a right to know where the oil and gas industry is going to store these millions of gallons of unknown chemicals and contaminated slurry? If the public has a right to know about major land-use changes, don't our communities have a right to know when the oil and gas industry is going to start a fracking operation next-door--with its accompanying air emissions? its truck traffic? its noise? and its derricks? I would hope that encouraging transparency and public disclosure would be a bipartisan issue. I certainly hear about transparency from the majority when this Chamber is talking about other Federal programs. We should be consistent and make sure the people in our communities also have a right to know about fracking chemicals injected below their backyards, their schools, their farms, and their parks. And to those who would resist providing the community a right to know about fracking operations, I would warn that you prevent transparency at the oil and gas industry's own peril. To develop our resources responsibly and to harness the benefits of the shale gas boom, we need the public's trust, and industry will not earn it if they hide the facts. When the oil and gas industry refuses to disclose the facts, it is natural for the public to ask then: Why won't industry tell us what chemicals they are using? What are they hiding? When the oil and gas industry hides the facts, it erodes the public's trust and breeds suspicion. Hiding the facts prevents first responders and health workers from understanding how to appropriately treat exposed individuals after a fracking accident. Hiding the facts prevents emergency officials from understanding how to properly contain and clean up a chemical spill after a fracking accident. Hiding the facts prevents the public from knowing which chemicals to test for in their drinking water before, during, and after fracking. Hiding the facts prevents researchers who conduct chemical transport studies from understanding the prevalence, the movement, and the longevity of fracking chemicals in the subsurface environment. Hiding the facts prevents the public from verifying the oil and gas industry's assertion that hydraulic fracturing is safe. Don't hide the facts. Our communities have a right to know. Vote ``yes'' on the motion to recommit. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. I am opposed in its current form.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The amendment I offer today maintains the Interior Department's ability to review oil and gas activities for significant impacts on public health and safety, among other extraordinary circumstances. While predictable, it is unfortunate that the majority again and again is willing to throw out basic health and safety protections in order to speed up oil and gas extractions for industry. Whether it is in this oil and gas industry bill today, in last week's mining industry bill, or in tomorrow's natural gas industry bill, the majority's common theme is that of getting rid of transparency and protections for public health and safety and of threatening our environment in the name of increased profits for industry. This is not okay with me. This is not why I came to Washington. The oil and gas industry is the most profitable in the world, and the rates of domestic extraction have increased under the Obama administration. ExxonMobil reported a net income of over $44 billion in 2012. I know it and Wall Street knows it, and their balance sheets prove it. These companies are doing fine. So why are we stripping our oversight agencies and the ability of the public to ensure that extraction is done responsibly and not at the expense of the welfare of this and future generations? I think it is shortsighted; I think it is irresponsible; and I think it is wrong. H.R. 1965, as it is currently written, would prevent the Interior Department from reviewing oil and gas activities that would otherwise qualify for skipping the National Environmental Policy Act for extraordinary circumstances. Section 390 of the Energy and Policy Act of 2005 allows certain qualifying oil and gas activities to potentially skip a full NEPA process through a categorical exclusion. Title 43 of section 46.205 of the Code of Federal Regulations requires that the Interior Department test for extraordinary circumstances in which a normally excluded action may have a significant environmental effect and require additional analysis and action. Title 43 of section 46.215 of the Code of Federal Regulations goes on to list the types of extraordinary circumstances to be tested before proceeding with a categorical exclusion for the oil and gas activity. Thus, before the Interior Department bypasses NEPA, this is what it currently checks for: Are there significant impacts upon public health or safety? Are there violations of Federal, State, local, or tribal law? Are there limits to access and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites? Is there the introduction, continued existence, or spread of noxious weeds or of nonnative invasive species? It also lists eight other potential significant problems. This is what the existing law and regulation does. It helps to protect the public and the environment during oil and gas activities. Simply speaking, H.R. 1965 eliminates these protections. My amendment would simply preserve them, and I urge a ``yes'' vote. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Washington is saying that, if we remove the extraordinary circumstances part of seeing whether, in fact, we grant a categorical exemption--what my amendment does by saying ``no'' is that the public must have an opportunity, if we are going to grant an exemption, which we think is fine, but what is wrong with finding out whether there is going to be a significant impact on health and safety? What is wrong with finding out if there is going to be a violation of State, Federal, local, or tribal law? What is wrong with understanding what are the limits to access to ceremonial use of sacred sites? He says that by asking these questions before we give an exemption, that this imposes regulatory red tape that is exactly the opposite of what the Nation needs, it is more bureaucracy. It is just the opposite. This protects the Nation. This allows us to understand, when we are given a categorical exemption, that we are protecting the public health of the Nation. I urge an ``aye'' vote on my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, the recent opening of the $340-million Gov. George Deukmejian Courthouse in Long Beach is the culmination of nearly a decade of work. Part of the Los Angeles County Superior Court System, the new 531,000-square-foot glass-and-concrete structure replaces the current 55-year-old Long Beach courthouse that is the most outdated in the state and has been deemed seismically unfit. The new Deukmejian Courthouse is 65 percent larger than the old courthouse, with 24 courtrooms and room to expand to 30. It is equipped with wireless Internet access throughout and space for five retail vendors to service the courthouse traffic. For me, the road to the new Courthouse began nearly a decade ago in conversations between Los Angeles County Supervisor Don Knabe, Long Beach Mayors Beverly O'Neill and Bob Foster, myself and the then- presiding judge of the Long Beach courthouse, Brad Andrews. Judge Andrew's vision of a new courthouse for Long Beach was the driving force behind the building of a coalition of supporters for the project. This coalition would eventually grow to include a vast number of supporters including members of the public, the private sector and government. I am proud to count myself among the early members of this group. Those early discussions about a new courthouse revolved around the understanding that under the existing state funding and procurement system, it would be 15-20 years before a new Long Beach courthouse could be built. As this core group grew, it became clear that a public private partnership would be necessary to fund the project as the state could not expend the hundreds of millions of dollars needed to build the courthouse. With support primarily from Assemblymember Hector De La Torre, and California State Senators Joe Dunn, Dick Ackerman and Don Perata, I introduced in the California State Budget Act of 2007, Senate Bill 77 which granted the authority for the Judicial Council and Administrative Office of the Courts to investigate the use of a public-private partnership in the development of the Long Beach project. The Long Beach courthouse is the first to be built as a public- private funding partnership, with the developer, Long Beach Judicial Partners, paying for the upfront construction costs. The new building is an example of what can be accomplished when the state, county and local governments work together to accomplish something that the whole community can be proud of. Our new courthouse is beautiful. It will act as a magnet for further development in the area for years to come while serving as a shining example of cooperation and innovation.

Mr. LOWENTHAL

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, the healthcare.gov Web site glitches are truly unacceptable, and they must be fixed as quickly as possible. However, the majority party is not talking about fixing the Web site. They are fixated on criticizing the Affordable Care Act instead of helping the American public understand the act and receive the benefits of true affordable care. Countless hours in committees, over 40 votes to repeal and delay, and millions of taxpayer dollars have been spent on delaying, defunding and undermining this law. Throwing sticks into the spokes of the law will not help to make it better. I urge my colleagues to stop the obstruction and to be part of the solution.