Maxine Waters

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank Chairman Lamar Smith for his support for H.R. 2800, the Missing Alzheimer's Disease Patient Alert Program Reauthorization Act. This bill reauthorizes a small, but effective, program that assists local law enforcement and protects vulnerable people with Alzheimer's disease. I appreciate the chairman's willingness to work with me and move this bill forward. Alzheimer's disease currently affects an estimated 5.3 million Americans, and that number will multiply in the coming decades as our population grows. The Alzheimer's Association estimates that 7.7 million Americans will have Alzheimer's by the year 2030, and 11 to 16 million Americans will have the disease by the year 2050. One great risk for Alzheimer's patients is wandering away from home. According to the Alzheimer's Association, more than 60 percent of Alzheimer's patients are likely to wander. Wanderers are vulnerable to dehydration, weather conditions, traffic hazards, and individuals who prey on vulnerable seniors. Up to 50 percent of Alzheimer's patients who wander will become seriously injured or die if they are not found within 24 hours of their departure from home. Wanderers often cannot remember who they are or where they live and cannot assist law enforcement officials and other first responders who try to help them. The Missing Alzheimer's Disease Patient Alert Program is a Department of Justice program that provides competitive grants to nonprofit organizations to assist in paying for the cost of planning, designing, establishing, and operating programs to protect and locate missing patients with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. These grants help local communities and public safety agencies quickly identify persons with Alzheimer's disease who wander or who are missing and reunite them with their families. The program was originally authorized in 1996, but has been operating under an expired authorization since 1998. H.R. 2800 reauthorizes the program and authorizations $1 million per year in appropriations for fiscal years 2013 through 2017. This authorization level will allow the program to operate at the funding year 2012 funding level for the next 5 years. This program is extremely cost effective. An annual appropriation of simply $1 million would easily result in millions more in savings for the Federal Government by allowing more Alzheimer's patients to remain at home with their families, thereby reducing nursing-home utilization and saving Medicare and Medicaid expenses. H.R. 2800 is cosponsored by 18 Members of Congress, including Congressman Chris Smith and Congressman Ed Markey, the cochairs of the Bipartisan Congressional Task Force on Alzheimer's Disease. The bill is also supported by both the Alzheimer's Association and the Alzheimer's Foundation of America. This program saves law enforcement officials valuable time and allows them to focus on other security concerns. It also reduces unintentional injuries and deaths among Alzheimer's patients, brings peace of mind to their families, and thus allows more patients to remain at home with people who love them. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. In closing, this bill adds duplicative new rules. SEC is already held to account on cost-benefit analysis. Proxy access was overturned. The bill opened CFTC up to new industry lawsuits. I would ask for an ``aye'' vote on my amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, my amendment also addresses title VII of the bill, which relates to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The CFTC is the cop on the beat that we tasked to regulate much of the derivatives market under the Wall Street Reform Act. And the CFTC is the agency that cracked down on Barclays when they manipulated a key interest rate benchmark, the Libor, in order to benefit their derivatives trade. This bill also imposes new cost-benefit requirements on the CFTC. While the requirements on this agency aren't as onerous as the ones imposed on the SEC, I think it is inappropriate to spread the CFTC any thinner when Republicans have proposed to cut the CFTC's funding by 12 percent relative to last year and 40 percent relative to what the Senate provided. As CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler said last month, the result of proposed House funding cuts ``is to effectively put the interests of Wall Street ahead of those of the American public by significantly underfunding the agency Congress tasked to oversee derivatives--the same complex financial instruments that helped contribute to the most significant economic downturn since the Great Depression.'' Finally, I disagree with the claim that more cost-benefit analyses can solve every regulatory question we face. In fact, I think that these economic analyses often offer a false sense of precision and fail to capture things that aren't easily quantifiable, things like avoiding the next financial crisis and protecting overall market integrity. I would urge my colleagues to support my amendment, which makes compliance with the new requirements under the underlying bill contingent on them receiving sufficient appropriations to carry out these functions. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, my amendment authorizes such appropriations as may be necessary to allow our financial regulators to carry out the activities required under title VI and VII of this legislation. The purpose of the amendment is that if we're having our regulators undertake new and perhaps even duplicative economic analysis functions, we should provide them with the resources to do so. Madam Chairman, we know that the majority has tried to shortchange our Federal regulators in terms of appropriations, particularly when we contrast their funding with the new responsibility entrusted to them after the financial crisis. Let's consider the SEC, one of the cops on the beat for Wall Street. This agency is tasked with enforcing our securities laws. They protect investors and make sure firms are held to account when they create toxic financial instruments. The fiscal year 2013 Republican budget proposal calls for funding the SEC at almost $200 million less than what the President has requested and what the Senate Appropriations Committee has provided in their funding bill. This is just another part of an onslaught of cuts to the SEC's budget that Republicans have proposed and that we've been fighting against over the last few years. The SEC's funding has been erratic. After significant increases in the early half of the decade, the agency was forced to reduce staff. During this period of inconsistent funding, trading volume more than doubled. Since 2003, the number of investment advisers has grown by roughly 50 percent and funds that they manage have increased nearly 55 percent. The SEC's 3,800 employees currently oversee approximately 35,000 entities, including thousands of investment advisers, mutual funds, broker/dealers, and public companies. With all this responsibility, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to spread the commission even thinner with new duplicative cost-benefit requirements that open the agency up to constant litigation, and they want to do this while at the same time refusing to devote additional resources to the agency. The result is that the SEC would be forced to divert resources away from other key functions of the commission, including, perhaps, prosecuting wrongdoers who violate our security laws. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. I have an amendment at the desk that is made in order under the rule.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, during the vote for H.R. 459, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act, I voted ``yes'' for this legislation. This was not my intent. I intended to vote ``no.'' I strongly believe that the Federal Reserve should remain an independent central bank that is free from political influence; therefore, I would like the record to reflect that my vote in favor of this legislation was in error, and that I would have voted against it.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for the time. I rise to oppose H.R. 6079, the Republicans 31st attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act. This bill is ridiculous. It is as ridiculous as the previous 30 votes to repeal health care reform. It is ridiculous because this bill is going nowhere. It will not be taken up by the Senate, and even if it were to pass the Senate, the President would veto it. Every day people die from preventable and treatable diseases. Every day almost 50 people die of HIV/AIDS, more than 1,600 people die of heart disease and more than 5,000 people are newly diagnosed with diabetes. Yet the Republicans are trying for the 31st time to deny Americans access to preventable health services and treatment for these conditions. Because of the Affordable Care Act, more than 6 million young adults under the age of 26 now have health insurance through their parents' plan. Many of these young people just graduated from college. They are worried about finding jobs and paying off their student loans. Yet the Republicans are trying for the 31st time to take away their right to insurance coverage. Because of the Affordable Care Act, up to 17 million children with preexisting conditions can no longer be denied coverage by their insurers. Yet Republicans are trying for the 31st time to return to the days when these children could not get health insurance. The bill on the floor today is a political charade. It is not going anywhere, and it is wasting our time when we should be focusing on jobs and our economy. I urge the Republicans to stop this charade, withdraw this bill, and move on to the pressing issues facing this country. As a matter of fact, Republicans are forever talking about saving the taxpayers' money. You are wasting the taxpayers' money. Look at the energy costs, look at all the man-hours and the personnel time that's being spent on this floor. Look at all these young people who should be home with their families. Look at the costs that you are incurring with this charade. Stop it. It is ridiculous. It is not going anywhere. Mr. Lungren said you had made a few attempts. No, let me remind you again: 31 attempts. It is ridiculous, it is outrageous, it's a charade and you should stop it.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I'm pleased that we could work in a bipartisan fashion to not only extend our expiring transportation and student loan interest rate programs, but to also reform the Federal flood insurance program. I'd like to thank Representative Judy Biggert for her leadership and commitment to reforming flood insurance. Representative Biggert and I both worked together to meet the needs of our respective caucuses, and the result is a bill that puts the flood insurance program on a solid footing. The flood insurance program provides insurance for over 5 million Americans. However, due to massive losses from Hurricane Katrina and an inefficient mapping system, the flood insurance program has faced challenges in serving homeowners and taxpayers. The Biggert-Waters bill will reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program for 5 years and make critical improvements to the flood insurance program. The reforms in this bill will make flood insurance more affordable, give communities more input into flood maps, and strengthen the financial position of the flood insurance program. With that, I would urge an ``aye'' vote.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman and Members, I rise in opposition to this underlying bill, the Republican Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill for the coming fiscal year, commonly referred to as THUD. This bill drastically underfunds critical transportation, infrastructure, and housing programs. First, on transportation, the American Society of Civil Engineers' 2009 report for America's infrastructure estimated that there is a $549.5 billion shortfall in investments in roads and bridges, and an additional $190.1 billion shortfall in investments in transit. Yet this bill provides no funds for the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery program, better known as TIGER. Now, TIGER would finance a wide variety of innovative highway, bridge, and transit projects in urban and rural communities across the country, provided there is sufficient funding. One such project is the Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor in Los Angeles County, a light-rail project that will run through my district. TIGER grants could be used to finance stations along this corridor in the communities of Leimert Park and Westchester, thereby ensuring that these communities have access to light-rail. Last week, I introduced H.R. 5976, the TIGER Grants for Job Creation Act, which would provide a supplemental emergency appropriation of $1 billion over the next 2 years for the TIGER program, and 48 of my colleagues have already cosponsored the bill. Last night, I offered an amendment to fully fund TIGER at the requested level, without cutting funding for other programs. Representatives Betty McCollum, Barbara Lee, Emanuel Cleaver, Karen Bass, Laura Richardson, Bobby Rush, and Doris Matsui joined me in offering this amendment. The Republicans objected to this amendment to their appropriations bill because it was not in order under their rule. So this bill has no funding for this critical program to create jobs by rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. Why did we have so much support on this legislation? Why do we have so many people who are signing on to basically beg for TIGER funding? It is because TIGER funding will create millions of jobs. It's because jobs are needed so desperately in this economy. It is because not only will we create millions of jobs, our infrastructure is in great disrepair. We have bridges that have been designated as unsafe. We have roads, we have water projects, we have all kinds of infrastructure needs that are unmet. This is the least that the American public could expect. This transportation bill has been waited on in many communities across this country. People thought when we passed this bill that we truly were going to expand job opportunities, that we truly were going to repair the infrastructure, but we find that this bill does not do this. But in addition to the disappointment that we are all experiencing because of the objection to repair of the infrastructure and job creation, we find that the same thing is happening in housing. We bemoan the fact that our veterans are homeless and they are on the streets, and that our shelters are all full, and that when we go into many of these communities--not only in our inner cities, but in our rural areas also--we find that people are not only sleeping on the streets, but under these bridges that are in great disrepair. This legislation cuts money from the homeless program. This will cut $231 million in homeless assistance grants compared to the President's budget request. At this level, HUD would be unable to fund all renewals of existing grants, jeopardizing assistance to approximately 25,000 of our most vulnerable citizens. This bill provides less than $2 billion for the Public Housing Capital Fund, despite a $30 million backlog of needed repairs. This is a huge cut, even when compared to funding during the Bush administration. In fact, in fiscal year 2008, the capital account received $2.4 billion in funding. This underfunding means that we will continue to lose public housing units as they fall into disrepair and long-term capital needs are neglected. The people who are serviced by this account are vulnerable, and so I would simply ask that this be given some real consideration and yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. In the limited time that we have to speak on these important issues, I have tried to point out the high unemployment in this country and how we can put Americans to work repairing crumbling roads and building transit facilities across our great country. I don't see any need to have to expand on this anymore. I think the point is perfectly clear that we need to fund this TIGER grant. With the economy still struggling to recover from the recession and millions of Americans looking for work, we should not be arguing about offsets. TIGER has always been funded through the appropriations process. TIGER was first created----

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on the point of order.

Ms. WATERS. A point of order has been raised because there is no offset. And I agree there is no offset. But I make the point that we have such a critical need for jobs and investment in our infrastructure and this economy that we should not stop this from going forward simply because of the offset. We can afford to fund investment in this country. That's my opposition to the point of order.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I thank my colleagues Betty McCollum, Barbara Lee, Emanuel Cleaver, Karen Bass, Laura Richardson, Bobby Rush, and Doris Matsui all for cosponsoring this amendment. Our amendment will provide $500 million for the TIGER program, which creates jobs through investments in transportation infrastructure. The economy is struggling to recover from the recession. The unemployment rate has remained above 8 percent nationally for 40 straight months and is even higher in minority communities and in many areas of the country. Meanwhile, the American Society of Civil Engineers' ``2009 Report Card for America's Infrastructure'' estimated that there is a $549.5 billion shortfall in investments in roads and bridges and an additional $190.1 billion shortfall in investments in transit. TIGER, formally known as Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery, is a nationwide competitive grant program that creates jobs by funding investments in transportation infrastructure by States, local governments, and transit agencies. TIGER funds projects that will have a significant impact on our Nation's highway and transit infrastructure. TIGER could finance a wide variety of innovative highway, bridge, and transit projects in urban and rural communities all across this country, provided there is sufficient funding. One such project is the Crenshaw/LAX transit corridor in Los Angeles County, a light-rail project that will run through my district. TIGER grants could be used to finance stations along this corridor in the communities of Leimert Park and Westchester, thereby ensuring that these communities have access to light rail. According to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood: These are innovative 21st-century projects that will change the U.S. transportation landscape by strengthening the economy and creating jobs, reducing gridlock and providing safe, affordable, and environmentally sustainable transportation choices. TIGER received an appropriation of $500 million in fiscal year 2012, and the President requested $500 million for the program in funding year 2013. Unfortunately, THUD does not include any funding for TIGER. Our amendment would create jobs by funding TIGER at the requested level without cutting funding for other programs. Last week, I introduced H.R. 5976, the TIGER Grants for Job Creation Act, which would provide a supplemental emergency appropriation of $1 billion over the next 2 years for the TIGER program; and 44 of my colleagues have already cosponsored this bill. So I would ask my colleagues to take a look at what is happening in our economy. I think we can all agree this economy needs stimulating. And certainly I'm not talking about stimulating just for stimulating's sake. I'm talking about stimulating for job creation and for the repair of the infrastructure of this country. We have too many bridges that have been rated unsafe. We saw what happened in Minnesota just a couple of years ago when the bridge fell; and I want to tell you, when the bridges start to fall and the infrastructure simply disintegrates, we're all going to sit around and scratch our heads and say how sorry we are. We're going to go to our constituents and tell them, We will never let it happen again. We have the opportunity to get in the forefront of providing this stimulus to our economy and creating jobs. Our constituents want to work. They want jobs. So I would urge my colleagues to support the TIGER amendment, invest in our crumbling infrastructure, and create good jobs in communities across the United States. I would yield the balance of my time to the gentlelady from Ohio.

Ms. WATERS. I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to submit my remarks in opposition to the Republican bill that weakens protections for violence against women and in support of the bipartisan Senate bill.

Ms. WATERS. Today, I stand with my Democratic colleagues and victims of domestic violence across our Nation in strong opposition to the H.R. 4970, the House Republican alternative to Violence Against Women Reauthorization bill. This bill severely undermines vital protections available to victims of violence and places these victims in danger of continued abuse. Since its enactment in 1994, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) has a long history of uniting lawmakers with the common purpose of protecting survivors of domestic violence. Each year across this Nation, thousands of women, children, and men who fall victim to domestic violence, human trafficking, sexual assault, dating violence and stalking no longer have to live in fear because of important victim protections under this law. This Republican alternative bill threatens to dismantle this progress by deliberately placing domestic violence victims from LGBT, immigrant, tribal and other marginalized communities in harm's way. While my Republican colleagues may think many of these discarded provisions are unnecessary, there is ample proof that they are sadly mistaken. Just last year, cases of LGBT domestic violence had increased by 38 percent. Of those who sought help, 44 percent of LGBT victims were turned away from traditional shelters. As for Tribal victims, Native American women face the highest rate of domestic violence in the U.S.--three and a half times higher than the national average. Proposed changes to current VAWA protections for immigrant survivors create an even larger obstacle for immigrant victims seeking to report crimes and increase the danger to immigrant victims by eliminating important confidentiality protections. These changes threaten to undermine current anti-fraud protections in place while rolling back decades of Congress's progress and commitments towards the protection of vulnerable immigrant victims. Let's be clear, VAWA should not be used as a vehicle to pass immigration policy measures that are not germane to its purpose. VAWA has always been focused on protecting victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking and trafficking and this should not change. In just one day, over 5,363 victims and their children receive services at domestic violence programs in California. On that same day, however, over 924 requests for services go unmet, largely due to lack of resources. This alone is proof that we need to expand the VAWA's programs and services and not eliminate them.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. I'd like to thank Representative Scott for his leadership on this issue. I'd like to thank Chairman Bachus for his support for all of the work that has gone into flood insurance reform. I rise today in support of H.R. 5740, the National Flood Insurance Program Extension Act of 2012. But more than anybody, I'd like to thank Representative Biggert for her hard work on this bill and flood insurance reform, and I'm pleased to cosponsor this legislation. While this bill, by no means, is a substitute for the comprehensive set of reforms included in H.R. 1309, the Flood Insurance Reform Act, a bipartisan bill which passed the House last year, I believe that we must act to pass this bill so that the flood insurance program does not lapse. The flood insurance program provides valuable protection for approximately 5.5 million homeowners. Unfortunately, the lack of a long-term authorization has placed the program at risk. The program lapsed three times in 2010. These lapses meant FEMA was not able to write new policies, renew expiring policies, or increase coverage limits. Given the current crisis in the housing market, this instability in the flood insurance program is hampering that market's recovery and must be addressed. The current authorization for the flood insurance program expires on May 31. The next day, hurricane season begins. It is irresponsible to have our Nation's homeowners vulnerable to flooding at any time, but to allow such a lapse during hurricane season is especially troubling. Even though this bill only extends the program for 30 days, I hope that this brief window will give our counterparts in the Senate enough time to pass their flood insurance reform bill so that this program has all of the resources it needs to fully serve homeowners and the communities in which they live. I strongly urge an ``aye'' vote on this bill in the hope that the next flood insurance bill we vote on is a comprehensive reauthorization bill.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, today I stand with my Democratic colleagues and victims of domestic violence across our Nation in strong opposition to H.R. 4970, the House Republican alternative to the Violence Against Women Reauthorization bill. This bill severely undermines vital protections available to victims of violence and places those victims in danger of continued abuse. Since its enactment in 1994, the Violence Against Women Act, known as VAWA, has a long history of uniting lawmakers with the common purpose of protecting survivors of domestic violence. Each year across the Nation, thousands of women, children, and men who fall victim to domestic violence, human trafficking, sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking no longer have to live in fear because of important victim protections under this law. This Republican alternative bill threatens to dismantle this progress by deliberately placing domestic violence victims from LGBT, immigrant, tribal, and other marginalized communities in harm's way.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment to H.R. 5326 would fully fund the Department of Justice's financial and mortgage fraud enforcement activities as well as the new Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Working Group. In announcing this initiative during the State of the Union, President Obama said that the new unit will ``hold accountable those who broke the law, speed assistance to homeowners, and help turn the page on an era of recklessness that hurt so many Americans.'' President Obama recognized that additional resources were needed to prosecute crimes against homeowners and mortgage investors. Since the start of the financial crisis of 2008, there have been 3.5 million foreclosures. While it's clear that there was extensive fraud in the origination and securitization of mortgage loans, these cases were complicated and time consuming. Without a coordinated task force with significant resources, the greatest crime in the history of our housing market will go unpunished. However, so far, the RMBS Working Group is off to a slow start. The RMBS Working Group cochair, New York Attorney General Schneidermann, all but affirmed my concerns when he essentially admitted to the Congressional Progressive Caucus during a special public forum that the RMBS Working Group does not yet have the resources it needs to establish a robust infrastructure commensurate with the charge of investigating the 2008 financial crisis. To fund this effort, the President requested a $55 million increase in the budget for the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force to help facilitate an increase in staffing for the RMBS Working Group. However, as noted in the Minority Views, H.R. 5326 only provides a small portion of the increase that's needed. So I have worked to find additional funds from within the NASA appropriations that I don't anticipate will endanger any program. Considering the retirement of the space shuttle program and a shift in NASA's priorities, I believe we should use the funds in these accounts to help bring justice to defrauded investors, homeowners, and consumers. My amendment pulls from NASA Aeronautics' budget of $569.9 million in appropriations--a fair target since NASA only requested $551.5 million. I am making up the other portion of the funds needed to neutralize the impact on budgetary outlays by pulling $38 million from NASA's Space Operations' $3.9 billion in appropriations. In subtracting from these accounts, my amendment would increase the FBI's budgets by $9 million, increase DOJ's legal activities appropriation by $13.5 million, and increase the appropriations for U.S. Attorneys by $21.5 million, all in efforts to fully comply with the Obama administration's $55 million request. The FBI needs the funding to increase its capacity to investigate financial and mortgage fraud schemes. The requested 40 new agents and four forensic accountants will create two hybrid squads to target the most significant, complex financial crimes, and remaining resources will be allocated to FBI field offices to increase financial and mortgage fraud efforts. The criminal division within DOJ needs additional resources to prosecute the most significant financial crimes--including mortgage fraud, corporate fraud, and sophisticated investment fraud--coordinate multi-district financial crime cases, and assist U.S. Attorneys offices in financial crime cases with significant money-laundering and asset- forfeiture components. The civil division within DOJ needs funding to expand civil enforcement efforts to continue to obtain recoveries from individuals and companies who have defrauded the government by violating the terms of Federal contracts, grants, loans, and subsidies. The Civil Rights Division within DOJ needs funding to expand civil enforcement efforts, including investigations of predatory lending, pricing discrimination, matters involving allegations of potentially fraudulent behavior. And lastly, the U.S. Attorneys need additional resources to expand criminal investigations and prosecutions of mortgage fraud. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Korean American Day, I would like to recognize the 109th anniversary of the first Korean immigrants to arrive in the United States and the achievements of the Korean-American responsible for bringing both this day and the importance of the contributions of Korean-Americans to light, Dr. Byung Wook Yoon. In 2003, Dr. Yoon, then President of the Southern California Centennial Committee of Korean Immigration to the United States, began the campaign to establish a national Korean American Day. In 2004, when Dr. Yoon became president of the Korean-American Foundation, he formed the National Committee of Korean American Day. Under his leadership in 2005, the committee claimed victory when the U.S. Senate (S. 283) and U.S. House of Representatives (H.R. 487) passed resolutions supporting the goals and ideals of Korean American Day and establishing an annual celebration recognizing the many contributions of Americans of Korean descent to the life and cultural fabric of the United States. Aside from spearheading the campaign to establish Korean American Day, Dr. Yoon has accomplished a great deal in his lifetime. He is the recipient of the Presidential Award from the Republic of Korea, the Grand Award for World Korean Day from the World Korean Interchange and Cooperation Association, and the Grand Award for Korean American Day from the Korean-American Foundation. Dr. Yoon was also selected as one of the one hundred honorable Korean immigrants to the United States by the Korean-American History Museum. All his life, Dr. Yoon has demonstrated his leadership and dedication to the Korean-American community through his support of non-profit and service organizations. For example, he is responsible for community oriented service projects such as Korean-American Respect for the Environment, KARE, and has served as the Honorary National Chairman of the Korean-American Foundation USA. He has also served three times as Chairman of the Korean Institute of Southern California. On behalf of all of my colleagues within the U.S. House of Representatives I would like to honor Dr. Byung Wook Yoon for his outstanding work in raising awareness to the many contributions Korean- Americans have made in every facet of American society. In honor of Dr. Yoon's work, I introduced H.Res. 599. The resolution honors him for his outstanding service on behalf of the Korean American community. The resolution reads: Whereas on January 13, 2012, the Korean American community in the United States celebrated Korean American Day initiated by Dr. Yoon. Whereas this year marks the 109th anniversary of the first Korean immigrants to arrive in the United States. Whereas in 2003, Dr. Yoon, then President of the Southern California Centennial Committee of Korean Immigration to the United States, began the campaign to establish a national Korean American Day. Whereas in 2003, the Korean American Foundation was founded as the successor of the Centennial Committee of Korean Immigration with the goals of fostering pride in Korean cultural heritage and traditions as well as establishing Korean American Day. Whereas in 2004, Dr. Yoon became president of the Korean American Foundation, forming the National Committee of Korean American Day, successfully campaigning for the passage of legislation recognizing Korean American Day on the Federal, State, and local levels. Whereas on October 20, 2005, the U.S. Senate passed S. Res. 283, ``Recognizing the contributions of Korean Americans to the United States and encouraging the celebration of Korean American Day'.' Whereas on December 13, 2005, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H. Res. 487 ``Supporting the goals and ideals of Korean American Day'', recognizing the many contributions of Americans of Korean descent to the life and cultural fabric of the United States. Whereas Dr. Yoon is the recipient of the Presidential Award from the Republic of Korea. Whereas Dr. Yoon received the first Grand Award for World Korean Day from the World Korean Interchange and Cooperation Association. Whereas Dr. Yoon was honored with the first Grand Award for Korean American Day from the Korean American Foundation. Whereas Dr. Yoon was selected as one of a group of 100 honorable Korean immigrants to the United States by the Korean American History Museum. Whereas Dr. Yoon obtained a Bachelor of Arts in Political and Diplomacy Science from Korea University and a Master of Arts in Journalism and Communication from Brigham Young University. Whereas Dr. Yoon received honorary doctorates from Yuin University and the World Mission University. Whereas Dr. Yoon's professional career has included serving as a correspondent to the United States for the Seoul Kyunghyang Daily Newspaper as well as a Founding Director of Business and Trade for Wilshire State Bank in Los Angeles, California, and has also served three times as Chairman of the Korean Institute of Southern California. Whereas Dr. Yoon authored the ``Korean American Legacies: Challenges and Responses'', a source of inspiration for current and future generations of Korean Americans. Whereas over many years, Dr. Yoon has demonstrated his leadership and dedication to the Korean American community through his work and support of numerous nonprofit and service organizations, including creating KARE (Korean American Respect for the Environment), and serving as the Honorary National Chairman of the Korean American Foundation

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Korean American Day. I would like to recognize the 109th anniversary of the first Korean immigrants to arrive in the United States and the achievements of the Korean American responsible for bringing both this day and the importance of the contributions of Korean Americans to light, Dr. Byung Wook Yoon. In 2003, Dr. Yoon, then-president of the Southern California Centennial Committee of Korean Immigration to the United States, began the campaign to establish a National Korean American Day. In 2004, when Dr. Yoon became president of the Korean American Foundation, he formed the National Committee of Korean American Day. Under his leadership in 2005, the committee claimed victory when the United States Senate and U.S. House of Representatives passed resolutions supporting the goals and ideals of Korean American Day and established an annual celebration recognizing the many contributions of Americans of Korean descent to the life and cultural fabric of the United States. Aside from spearheading the campaign to establish Korean American Day, Dr. Yoon has accomplished a great deal in his lifetime. He is the recipient of the Presidential Award from the Republic of Korea, the Grand Award for World Korean Day from the World Korean Interchange and Corporation Association, and the Grand Award for Korean American Day from the Korean American Foundation.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Conyers, former chair of the Judiciary Committee, ranking member, and a gentleman who has provided superb leadership in opposition to H.R. 5. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5, poorly titled Protecting Access to Healthcare, the so-called PATH Act, an unconstitutional, Big Government bill that violates the 10th Amendment and states' rights. At the very start of the 112th Congress, my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle declared that all business conducted in the House would be consistent with the Constitution. Yet if you read the constitutional authority statement attached to H.R. 5, the Republican sponsors seem to believe that the Commerce Clause magically creates a path for Congress to mandate nationwide caps on punitive damages in all medical malpractice lawsuits. The Republicans are telling all Americans, no matter how severe the injury or egregious the mistake by the doctor, hospital or drug manufacturer, that their losses are going to be capped at $250,000. And with all due respect to the gentleman from Georgia, Representative Gingrey, who introduced H.R. 5, even his own State supreme court has found caps on punitive damages to be unconstitutional. In 2010, the Georgia supreme court unanimously struck down limits on jury awards in medical malpractice cases. The Georgia court determined that a $350,000 cap on noneconomic damages violates the right to a jury trial as guaranteed under the Georgia Constitution. Section 110(a) of H.R. 5 would impose an even lower cap on damages in Georgia, effectively overturning the court's decision by an act of Congress. The section reads: The provisions governing health care lawsuits set forth in this Act preempt, subject to subsections (b) and (c), State law to the extent that State law prevents the application of any provisions of law established by or under this Act. In addition to Georgia, other States like Arizona, Pennsylvania, Wyoming and Kentucky whose State constitutions specifically prohibit damage limitations will have their constitutions overruled by Congress. For Members who have for years now questioned the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, you need but take a look at H.R. 5. H.R. 5 goes far beyond anything passed by the Democratic majority. If you don't believe me, just listen to Tea Party Nation founder Judson Phillips. In slamming H.R. 5 he wrote: Whether you think tort reform is a good idea or not, it is an issue that belongs to the States, not to the Federal Government. Tort law has always been governed by the States. Now, I didn't say that, Mr. Conyers didn't say that, and Ms. Jackson Lee didn't say that. None of those who have been over here this evening opposing H.R. 5 and laying out the facts and the consequences of H.R. 5 said this. Let me repeat. I am quoting Tea Party Nation founder Judson Phillips: Whether you think tort reform is a good idea or not, it is an issue that belongs to the States, not to the Federal Government. Tort law has always been governed by the States. Even some of my Republican colleagues on the Judiciary Committee have expressed concerns. Congressman Poe, Republican from Texas said: I believe that each individual State should allow the people of that State to decide--not the Federal Government. If the people of a particular State don't want liability caps, that's their prerogative under the 10th Amendment. Well, let's listen to what Congressman Louie Gohmert, Republican of Texas, said: The right of the States for self-determination is enshrined in the 10th Amendment. I am reticent to support Congress imposing its will on the States by dictating new State law in their own State courts. To my conservative colleagues in this Chamber, don't be tricked. Don't be fooled. H.R. 5, simply and clearly put, violates states' rights. Reject this unconstitutional piece of legislation, protect States' constitutional rights to set tort law and just vote ``no'' on H.R. 5. Now, let me just wrap this up by saying that the gentleman from Georgia referred over and over again, constantly, this evening about frivolous Californians. And he talked about these juries who didn't take into consideration the facts on these negligence cases, but rather looked at the insurance and said, oh, just give them whatever, they didn't care. Well, I came to defend California and to tell you the difference between what happened in tort reform in California and what you have been told by the gentleman from Georgia. Supporters of H.R. 5 claim that it is the same as MICRA, a medical malpractice liability law passed in California in 1975. H.R. 5 is far different from MICRA, except that neither law delivered on lower insurance premiums. The differences are clear: H.R. 5 applies damage caps in all ``health care lawsuits,'' including cases against drug companies, nursing homes, insurance companies and HMOs. MICRA only applies to malpractice cases against a doctor or a hospital. Punitive damages are reserved for only the most egregious medical malpractice; they are meant to deter future dangerous conduct. H.R. 5 limits punitive damages. MICRA does not cap punitive damages. H.R. 5 gives total immunity from punitive damages to drug and device manufacturers if their products have been approved by the FDA or are ``generally recognized as safe and effective.'' MICRA does not provide this kind of sweeping immunity for the drug industry. H.R. 5 caps noneconomic damages at $250,000 in the aggregate, no matter how many parties have been damaged by medical malpractice, even when an injury results in loss of a marital relationship. California law recognizes a separate claim for loss of consortium--claims brought by the spouse of an injured patient. MICRA does not limit these claims. Joint and several liability, which my leader asked you about, Mr. Gingrey, enables an individual to bring one claim against any of the parties involved in a medical malpractice injury and ensures that injured victims are fully compensated. H.R. 5 completely eliminates joint liability for both economic and noneconomic losses. California law only limits joint liability for noneconomic damages. H.R. 5 and MICRA are alike in one main respect--by themselves, neither law can deliver on lower medical malpractice insurance premiums. H.R. 5 includes unprecedented legal protections for the insurance industry, but no guarantee that any future savings will be passed onto doctors or patients. Following the passage of MICRA, insurance premiums for doctors increased in California by 450 percent over the next 13 years. Premiums only decreased after California enacted Proposition 103, a ballot initiative that mandated a 20 percent rollback in premium rates. I was in the California legislature when that happened. H.R. 5 does not guarantee lower premium rates for doctors. In fact, the bill only mentions insurance companies when giving them protection from liability. So, again, I say, don't be fooled, don't be tricked. I don't really mean to imply, Mr. Gingrey, that you are trying to fool or trick anybody, but you're simply wrong. We have given our opposition in more ways than one this evening to H.R. 5. But since you alluded to or talked about or pointed directly to California and all of these people who simply have frivolous lawsuits and these poor juries who sit and don't take into consideration the facts and simply look at how much insurance is available and just award these tremendous amounts, I had to add to my testimony this evening a defense and an explanation and show the difference between MICRA and H.R. 5. I think I have done that, and I think I have done that with the facts that exist. I am very pleased that I have been able to join with my colleagues this evening to not only reveal what H.R. 5 is and is not, but I think we have made the case. I think that we have put the facts forward in such a way that we're going to win on this issue. I ask you to oppose H.R. 5.