Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to the C.R. put forward by my Republican colleagues, and specifically to the defunding of Title X family planning programs authorized under the Public Health Service Act.

Begun in 1970 by President Nixon, Title X funding provides for voluntary family planning projects, and is essential to protecting women's health services. Currently, Title X is our Nation's only program dedicated to providing low-income Americans with family planning and reproductive health services.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are attempting to misconstrue Title X as federal subsidizing of abortion. However, Title X does not provide for abortion services. But it does cover essential health care for millions of families and women. From birth control to cancer screenings, approximately five million Americans rely upon Title X programs every year.

We simply cannot afford to cut lifesaving and preventive care services for those who would not otherwise have access to such care, especially in our current economic climate.

I urge my colleagues to vote against the defunding of these vital health programs contained in Title X by voting against the C.R.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Amendment 64 offered by my friend, Mr. Thompson of California.

This amendment would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, to adopt standards consistent with the Property Assessed Clean Energy Program of the Department of Energy.

In my hometown of Sacramento, our economy is struggling with unacceptably high unemployment, and furloughs of State employees have erased tens of millions of dollars from the economy.

Since July 6 of last year, I have worked diligently with my colleagues, specifically Representatives Thompson, Israel, Perlmutter, and Sarbanes, to restore the promise of the job creation program known as PACE.

The PACE program is an extremely important component in our nation's transition to a clean energy economy. It would upgrade thousands of homes with energy efficiency products, and create thousands of jobs in California alone.

Unfortunately, our efforts to expand and support the PACE program have been extremely difficult because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the Federal Housing Finance Agency, are not holding up their end of the bargain.

I have heard from clean tech and business leaders about the importance of the PACE program for economic growth, achieving energy independence, and reducing our emissions. One company CEO told me that, ``The only thing worse than absence of jobs, is the illusion of jobs.''And that is exactly what has happened as a result of the inaction of Fannie and Freddie Mac, and the ill-advised actions from Federal Housing Finance Agency.

Today's amendment can once again make those jobs a reality.

We have seen the job creation benefits from the PACE programs in Sonoma and Placer County, and I know my hometown of Sacramento is eager to take advantage of the program.

I am pleased to support my colleague's amendment to require the reinstatement of the program as intended.

I will continue to fight for the PACE program, which will reduce energy bills, promote a cleaner environment, and put hard-working Americans back to work. lt is important for Sacramento, and for our economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to vote in support of Amendment 64.

Madam Chair, I rise today in opposition to the CR put forward by my Republican colleagues, and specifically to the amendment offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey and Mr. Mack of Florida, and a separate amendment by Mr. Walberg of Michigan, which would either eliminate or drastically reduce funding for the National Endowment for the Arts.

In tough economic times, funding for the arts may appear to be an easy area to cut. But we cannot forget that the arts industry is an active and crucial part of the American economy.

The non-profit arts industry generates $166.2 billion annually, and supports 5.7 million full-time jobs across the United States. Spending in the arts stimulates local economies, creates attractive communities, and supports tourism. Cultural tourism alone contributes $192 billion annually to our country's economy.

And the federal government is not the lone supporter of these projects, but the federal funding is critical to leveraging local, state and private dollars. The direct grants from the National Endowment for the Arts that reach each and every congressional district around the country are often matched by other resources.

In my hometown of Sacramento, California, NEA funding is helping to support a thriving arts scene that is putting our city on the map. In addition to bringing intellectual diversity to the region, it is helping to support young artists, smaller museums, and cultural programs. NEA funding supports galleries and exhibits that are part an extended classroom for our students.

As a former docent of the Crocker Art Museum, I can tell you firsthand the effect that an individual piece of art, or a trip to a museum, can have on a child. Many children would never have the opportunity otherwise to participate in these inspiring experiences.

And the commitment of federal funding for our local artists and art venues sends a strong signal that we are a nation that thinks art is important, and that symbol's influence cannot be overstated.

We must make tough choices. But the question is where. I do not believe gutting our nation's cultural institutions is the place to do so. We cannot afford to stifle the creativity of our students and our citizens.

I urge my colleagues to vote against these harmful amendments and against this CR.

Mr. Chair, I rise to express my opposition and urge my colleagues to oppose

Amendment 338, which would zero out funding for the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act, also known as ``DERA.''

Studies have shown that diesel emissions are one of the most significant threats to public health. In order to address this problem in a manner that is both responsible to businesses reliant upon diesel engines, and to protect the general public from further exposure to the damaging emission from diesel engines, Congress enacted DERA.

This voluntary program provided federal and state grant funding to retrofit diesel engines to reduce emissions. It has been endorsed by over 500 public health, environmental and industry supporters, including the American Lung Association, Caterpillar, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Retrofitting provides enormous environmental, and therefore health, benefits, but before this program was implemented, there was little economic benefit for vehicle and equipment owners to do so. It is estimated that DERA could reduce particulate matter emissions by 70,000 tons, generate nearly $20 billion in economic benefit, and return $13 of benefit for every one dollar invested.

The incentives provided by DERA support voluntary rather than regulatory efforts to assist states meet air quality standards. Zeroing out funding for this program would effectively kill those efforts. It would hamper the development and demand of ``clean diesel'' technology as well as put a further strain on those workers who manufacture, sell, repair, or retrofit diesel vehicles. This program has great support on both sides of the aisle and should not be eliminated here today.

For those reasons I again urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the C.R. put forward by my Republican colleagues, and specifically to Amendment 450, offered by Mr. Mack of Florida. This amendment and the C.R. would eliminate funding for the Corporation for National and Community Service and all of the programs it supports.

As Americans, we share a common belief that volunteerism and community service make our country stronger. But we cannot be a leader in the world, if we are not leaders in our own communities.

And as we speak, tens of thousands of Americans are involved in service projects across the country through one of several AmeriCorps programs. These volunteers are building houses, helping young people learn to read, collecting food and clothing, and much, much more.

Through programs such as Learn and Serve, VISTA, Teach for America, Experience Corps, Youth Build, Habitat for Humanity, City Year, and Jumpstart, volunteers are using evidence-based research to make a tremendous impact in their communities.

But federal funding for each one of these programs would be shut down if Amendment 450 and this C.R. were to be enacted.

In my district of Sacramento, California--home to the NCCC Pacific Region--300 AmeriCorps*NCCC volunteers would be sent home. Although these volunteers have already committed to a year of service--and they have all already been deployed--this amendment would require the Corporation for National and Community Service to buy their plane tickets home. That process alone would make this a deficient program, and leave the federal government liable for the costs.

Put simply: Amendment 450 and the cuts for AmeriCorps in the C.R. are ill-conceived.

We see an enormous return in our investments in our national service programs. For every volunteer we help to support, we recruit another 10 volunteers. And for every dollar the federal government invests, the organizations are able to leverage a matching dollar through local and private funding.

I rise today in opposition to the CR put forward by my Republican colleagues, and in support of the amendment offered by Ms. Chu of California, which would restore full funding to the Pell Grant program.

H.R. 1 makes severe cuts to student aid programs in a time of tuition increases and tough economic standings. These cuts will impose an even heavier burden on many students and families. Specifically, this bill makes the largest cut the Pell Grant program, more than 15 percent.

The Federal Pell Grant program provides much needed financial support for more than nine million students nationwide and makes. This amendment would specifically maintain the maximum award level for Pell Grants at $5,550.

Pell Grant are solely based on an individual's financial needs and are not required to be paid back. They are an effective mechanism to help students offset the expensive costs of text books, room and board, and school supplies.

For many, this grant makes the difference between attending college or dropping out because they don't have the money to afford tuition or books. Yet we know that access to higher education is critical to our nation's economic competitiveness.

We need to do be more to encourage students to pursue education. Unfortunately, this legislation will only set us backwards.

This funding is crucial for students in my district and these drastic cuts will have an adverse affect on our nation's ability to be an economic leader. Maintaining access to quality and affordable education is a vital priority.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment and against this C.R.

Mr. Speaker, under current law, the Lifeline program provides Americans struggling to climb out of poverty and get back on their feet a choice to receive a landline phone or a mobile phone subsidized by the Universal Service Fund. In my district of Sacramento, we have 25,000, and in the State of California we have approximately 2 million, residents who benefit from this service.

Low income people use Lifeline service to look for a job, call their doctors, reach their child care providers, or contact their family in an emergency.

But Amendment No. 468 would eliminate USF funding for mobile phone service for the poorest Americans, and maintain it only for landline phones, forcing poor people to stay at home waiting for important calls, rather than getting out of their homes to look for a job.

I have heard from many of my constituents in Sacramento who are concerned about the high costs of services, and would be impacted by these cuts to Lifeline services.

I have heard from a woman who is living off a fixed income and is counting her pennies each month to make ends meet. If her bill goes up ``by one cent'', she says she will have to drop her service. The Lifeline program allows her to stay connected in an increasingly connected society.

Another one of my constituents, who is disabled, can't afford in-home broadband services, and is forced to commute miles to the nearest library to access the Internet. But these all day excursions means that he misses important calls, and if something were to happen to him while he was out without a mobile phone, he would have no ability to call a friend, family member, or 911 for help. This Amendment would take that cell phone away.

Moreover, this Amendment would not return any monies to the U.S. Treasury. The Universal Service Fund is supported entirely by telephone users--not taxpayers.

In short, this Amendment picks technological winners and losers. It ignores input from legislators who have expertise on these issues. The House Energy and Commerce Committee plans to hold hearings on the Universal Service Fund this year, and the Federal Communications Commission announced its intention to review the Lifeline program.

Finally, the amendment limits both economic opportunity and discourages employment security. Studies by the Opinion Research Corporation and MIT have found that cell phones are extremely important to an individual's economic productivity and earning power. Having access to a cell phone in order to get a ``call back'' is essential for Americans who are out of work. When the rest of America is cutting their landlines, this amendment is forcing the poorest among us to rely on a dying technology, which the free market has rejected.

We should be expanding the lifeline program to broadband and mobile phones, technologies that are in high demand, and empower consumers to pursue a job, an education, or new career training.

For all of these reasons, I strongly oppose this Amendment, and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express support for Amendment 325, offered by Mr. Blumenauer, to restore funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and I urge my colleagues to vote in support as well.

Recently, I spoke to one of my constituents who expressed his sorrow to me at the prospect of losing public broadcasting services. As he put it, he pays less than two dollars a year in taxes for the service, but it brightens his day every morning that he listens to his favorite public radio shows. To him, it was a simple equation of value for money.

He specifically voiced his support for National Public Radio (NPR) and Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). NPR is a public-private membership media organization that syndicates programming for hundreds of public radio stations across the country. Individual member stations, such as local university stations are required to be non- commercial, and educational in nature, and are not required to broadcast all NPR programming.

And despite what I have heard from my colleagues, the truth is that only about two percent of NPR funding is directly provided by the federal government, under the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which also funds PBS. The reality is that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting receives around .0001% of the annual federal budget. Eliminating that funding would save Americans less than half a cent a day, and in doing so, eliminate a valuable educational, cultural, and community resource.

But the value of the services are unending. As a former board chair of my district's local PBS TV station, I can attest to the value local programming offers to my constituents. I hear from families, seniors, and everyday commuters who use public broadcasting to get local news, to learn something new about the world, and teachers who use its educational programming in their classrooms.

Moreover, public TV and radio stations employ over 17,000 people across the country--jobs that no one can afford to lose--and especially not now.

M. Chair, the number of listeners and viewers speak for themselves. Every month, over 170 million Americans use public media--through 368 public television stations, 934 public radio stations, hundreds of online services, education services, and in-person events and activities. Every month over half of all Americans use public media.

Defunding public broadcasting would be a deep and misguided error, and would lose our country a great resource.

Maintaining support for public, educational, and government channels and networks is necessary to facilitate communication, and I am dedicated to ensuring that citizens have access to tools that inform, educate, and encourage interest in local activities.

I urge my colleagues to vote yes on Amendment 325, and to uphold the legacy of American public broadcasting.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for H. Res. 91, a resolution celebrating and encouraging diversity in Science, Technology, Education and Mathematics (STEM), and recognizing the 40th anniversary of the Association for Women in Science (AWIS).

Science, Technology, Engineering and Math education is vital to our nation's ability to compete in the global marketplace, and ultimately fulfill goals set forth in this Congress and recently outlined by President Obama in his State of the Union Address. In our pursuit to win the future, we must not only ensure that our schools promote math and science, but that all students, especially those from traditionally underrepresented populations, engage in STEM education.

Our nation will continue to require highly educated, well trained professionals to take on the careers of tomorrow, and we must strive to encourage diversity in STEM. America has been at the forefront of the world's technological advances for the last century; contributing to breakthroughs in medicine, engineering, mathematics, chemistry, and numerous other fields. By helping foster a new generation of doctors, nurses, engineers, scientific researchers, and mathematicians, we can continue to contribute to this legacy to the world for generations to come.

Encouraging further investment in STEM education is essential. Over the past year, I have hosted two events that have encouraged women and minorities to consider careers within STEM education. We live in a world of opportunity and America has been at the root of the world's technological and scientific advances for the past century. By helping to foster a new generation of scientists, technologists, engineers and mathematicians, we can continue our legacy for the next hundred years.

The Association for Women in Science has, for 40 years, ensured diversity in STEM, promoting equality for the ever increasing number of women beyond our nation's classrooms; those in the professional STEM workforce. According to the National Science Foundation, in 2006 women accounted for just 23 percent of graduate students in engineering, and made up about 34 percent of the engineering workforce. The Association plays a vital role in inspiring women, ensuring diversity in STEM.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to support this resolution, to further diversity in STEM, and to recognize the Association for Women in Science for its continued contributions to our nation's future.

Mr. Chair, I rise to express strong opposition to Amendment 404, offered by Mr. Walden, and urge my colleagues to vote against it.

The FCC's Open Internet Order brings certainty and clarity to a debate that has raged for almost a decade, allowing Internet service providers as well as edge and content providers to fully focus on broadband investment, innovation, and other pressing business matters. In fact, many broadband providers have expressed support of the rules and have indicated the FCC's achieved a balanced result.

At the end of the day, the FCC's rules simply maintain the status quo principles that most broadband providers have already embraced. The rules preserve a number of existing business models for broadband providers to pursue, as well as pave the way for new, innovative offerings.

Contrary to claims by opponents of the FCC, these high-level ``rules of the road'' do not allow the agency to micro-manage broadband providers. They balance clarity with flexibility. And they do not require broadband providers to seek permission from the Commission before deploying a network management practice.

In fact, the rules specifically recognize the unique network management challenges across different platforms, and afford broadband providers the latitude they need to manage their networks effectively.

Some opponents of the FCC argue that we don't need any rules in this area because antitrust law is sufficient. But antitrust remedies occur after harm occurs. Prophylactic rules, in contrast, allow companies and innovators regulatory certainty--a key component to allow businesses to thrive.

I urge my colleagues to vote no on Amendment 404. It represents both bad process and bad policy, and should be rejected.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to the C.R. put forward by the Republican majority, and specifically to the defunding of Title X family planning programs, authorized under the Public Health Service Act. Started in 1970 by President Nixon, Title X funding provides for voluntary family planning projects, and is essential to protecting women's health services.

Currently, Title X is our nation's only program dedicated to providing low-income Americans with family planning and reproductive health services. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are attempting to misconstrue Title X as federal subsidizing of abortion.

However, Title X does not provide for abortion services. But it does cover essential health care for millions of families and women.

From birth control to cancer screenings, approximately 5 million Americans rely upon Title X programs every year. In my hometown of Sacramento, I hear from women who tell me that if community health centers--like Planned Parenthood--close they would have nowhere else to go.

I also hear from health care providers, who tell me that if the local Planned Parenthood closes, they would not be able to absorb their patients.

For women who are unemployed or underemployed, often times they lack quality health coverage. That means that preventive health measures like cervical cancer screenings are financially unfeasible, so they turn to community health centers that receive Title X funding.

It means that care for pregnant women, who should deserve the best possible pre-natal care for their babies feel like they cannot afford to go to the doctor as often as they need to. So they turn to community health centers that receive Title X funding.

It means that young women, who are scared to talk to their parents about their sexual health, who want to seek out birth control and contraceptive measures, often before they become sexually active, but feel like they can't see their family doctor, turn to community health centers that receive Title X funding.

For all of these women, community health centers are their sole source of medical care. We simply cannot afford to cut the lifesaving and preventive care services for those who would not otherwise have access to such care, especially in our current economic climate.

Study after study shows that preventive care makes a healthier person. Preventive care creates healthier outcomes throughout one's life. And preventive care helps reduce health care costs, and will result in a healthier nation--both fiscally and physically.

Recently, I heard from one of my constituents, a woman named Cathy, who has been a health educator for the past 13 years. She started her teaching career at Planned Parenthood under Title X funded grants. Cathy said, ``Without knowledge and preventative services, we are bound to accrue more expenses in reactive verses pro-active measures . . .'' The House version of the FY11 Continuing Resolution would cut millions of American women off from birth control, cancer screenings, HIV tests, and other lifesaving care.

This outrageous attack would have a devastating impact on the women, men, and teens in our community. For the thousands of women in Sacramento, who depend on the services that community health centers that Title X supports, I urge my colleagues to vote against this harmful amendment. The defending of these vital health programs contained in the C.R. will devastate women's health for generations to come. Increased costs, unintended pregnancies, and spikes in sexually transmitted diseases, would all be consequences of stripping this critical funding.

Millions of young women, all around this country are looking to their leaders in Congress for leadership. It is my hope that this body acts in their interests, and the interests of their families. We must not cut off their only access to medical care.

I once again urge my colleagues to vote against this irresponsible amendment. As a mother and a grandmother, I find it offensive, and shameful.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, we all believe in economic growth and job creation and environmental stability, but this resolution goes in the wrong direction and affects my State and district adversely.

Madam Chair, water in California is never a dull subject. As we try to repair the delta and prepare our water system for the generations to come, it is imperative that we make progress and not take steps backwards. That means achieving a healthy delta and finding a way for water users throughout California to receive their water without harming the delta. The amendments to the continuing resolution that defund and cut funding from the San Joaquin River Restoration, the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund, and the implementation of the biological opinion of the delta smelt and salmon are steps backwards.

The balance that we have been trying to achieve in California is a negotiation that must not be thrown off balance. Decades of work toward a more certain future for California water is only attainable when everyone works toward a solution rather than throw up

roadblocks that cost us precious time. That work started during the Bush administration and continues to this day. I urge you to oppose the language in the continuing resolution and allow the work by key stakeholders in California to continue.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Ronald Reagan, the man who served our country as the 40th President of the United States, and who would have celebrated his 100th birthday this past Sunday.

As a Californian, I have vivid memories of Governor Reagan serving in Sacramento, my district and the capital of our great state. Much has changed in the 30 years since he left the Governor's Mansion, but the mark he left on our state, like the mark he left on our country, is immeasurable.

I am particularly reminded of his boundless optimism, and his belief that California--and America--can do anything it sets its mind to. In his State of the State Address in 1974, then Governor Reagan said, ``No crisis is beyond the capacity of our people to solve; no challenge too great.''

Even as we struggle to overcome a challenging global economic downturn, Reagan's words still offer hope. ``In the long sweep of history, all human progress has been based on a willingness to face the next great challenge, to seek and achieve what was seen as unattainable,'' he continued. ``Our people have done that in California and America, on a scale unmatched anywhere on this globe.''

Here, in our nation's Capital, we are reminded of Ronald Reagan's legacy by visiting the Capitol Rotunda, where he is represented as one of California's two statues, as chosen by the state legislature. The thousands of Californians who visit the nation's Capital are thereby reminded of his service not only to our country, but also to our state.

As we pay tribute to President Reagan, and his love for this country, we also honor Mrs. Reagan, who served our nation as First Lady with dignity and grace. Mrs. Reagan has been a passionate advocate for stem cell research, and her powerful words have helped bridge a partisan divide. Her advocacy has also helped lead to increased research funding; breathing new life into one of the most promising breakthroughs in medical research in decades--and has given hope to millions that our future IS brighter.

On what would be the celebration of Ronald Reagan's 100th birthday, I think it is most appropriate that this body acknowledges the many positive things that are synonymous with his years of service. From nominating the first woman to the Supreme Court--to helping to bring down the Berlin Wall, Ronald Reagan helped people around the world realize that tomorrow can be better than today, and that a free society is a better society. For that, we honor him, and send our best wishes to the entire Reagan family.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to House Resolution 72. This resolution does nothing to actually create jobs and is a distraction from what should be our focus: creating jobs here in this country. Instead of spending time debating and creating legislation that would create jobs and further our economic recovery, we are here debating legislation that basically reiterates what the Energy and Commerce Committee is currently doing.

In contrast, I believe that the American people have been clear. They want this Congress to focus on jobs, and that should be our number one priority. In fact, I recently sent a survey to my constituents asking them what they thought should be the top priorities of this Congress. Not surprisingly, 81 percent responded that creating jobs should be our top priority.

Mr. Speaker, I routinely hold clean energy roundtable forums in Sacramento with CEOs and with other local leaders, including one just last week, and they consistently tell me that they need real incentives and assistance in expanding their manufacturing base and finding new markets abroad for their products and services. In doing so, they recognize that new jobs will be created. They will have additional revenues to purchase new equipment, invest in R&D, and benefit our economy. Perhaps, instead of debating today's resolution, we could instead be focused on debating legislation that would create jobs.

Mr. Speaker, we need to be focussing on moving our economy forward by creating new jobs in different sectors of our economy. Just as the President emphasized in his recent State of the Union address and announced in his Startup America initiative, America must continue to lead the way in innovation in order to both rebuild today's economy and bolster the industries of tomorrow.

The clean energy manufacturing sector is a critical area where most leading economists believe our Nation can

experience the highest job growth potential. In fact, the Department of Energy has found that continued investment in the U.S. clean energy sector could create more than 750,000 jobs over the next decade. However, it is one area where the U.S. is unfortunately falling behind many of its competitors, including China and Germany. Mr. Speaker, we must change that.

America has an historic opportunity to become a leader in clean technology manufacturing and creating new, good-paying jobs in this country. That is why I, along with Congressman John Dingell, recently introduced legislation to bolster the U.S. clean energy and manufacturing industry with the goal of creating jobs and advancing our Nation's standing in the ever growing clean energy economy.

As part of the Make It In America agenda, this legislation, H.R. 502, the Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing and Export Assistance Act of 2011, would help boost U.S. innovation and competitiveness by promoting the manufacturing of clean energy technology at home and supporting its exports abroad. The bill helps strengthen America's domestic clean tech manufacturing industry by directing the Commerce Department to provide specific tools and resources to those companies that need it most: America's small and medium-sized manufacturing businesses.

Mr. Speaker, manufacturing jobs are the fabric of our country that could put millions of Americans back to work. But we must manufacture the products that are in demand and that have an exponential potential to grow, and the clean energy sector is that ever growing industry. But in order to create those jobs, this Congress must pass legislation that will help us do just that.

Mr. Speaker, this bill passed the House last Congress with bipartisan support, and it is my hope that it will be considered again soon during this new Congress so we can move our Nation's clean energy economy forward and create new, good-paying jobs here in this country. Unfortunately, H. Res. 72 fails that test.

I urge my colleagues to vote against the resolution before us.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Robert ``Bob'' Caulk, who has been a dynamic activist and practitioner of quality health care for more than forty-five years; the last twenty of which have been devoted to the Sacramento region. As he retires as the Chief Executive Officer of The Effort, Inc., I ask all of my colleagues to join me in thanking Bob for his endless service to the Sacramento community.

For the better part of five decades, Bob has served a leadership role at a number of health and human service agencies, such as Maryland's Department of Social Services and San Diego's Human Services Department. In 1991, Bob moved to Sacramento where he served as Director of Health and Human Services for Sacramento County. Following his tenure with Sacramento County, Bob served as the Executive Director for the Center for AIDS Research, Education and Services (CARES) and became instrumental in helping almost double CARES' annual budget from $2.8 million to $5.4 million.

In 2001, Bob took over the non-profit Family Services Agency and, in 2005, merged that counseling intervention organization with the primary health care services non-profit, The Effort. Today. The Effort Community Health Center has nine sites and provides primary care services, addiction treatment, mental health treatment, and crisis intervention throughout the Sacramento region. Without his vision and strong leadership, The Effort would not be the multifaceted and well- renowned network of community clinics it is today. Due to Bob's success, he has been able to establish meaningful partnerships with Sutter Health and the UC Davis Health System. For instance, in 2009, Sutter Health issued a two-year, one million dollar grant, to The Effort to help the organization cover costs associated with medical care and mental health care visits in the Sacramento area. In 2010, The Effort was awarded $500,000 in federal funding to cover construction costs of a new primary health care clinic in North Highlands. These are only two of many examples where Bob's hard work has demonstrated how much he and the organization have grown under his tenure.

In addition to serving as director of various health care non- profits, Bob made time to serve on a number of non-profit boards, such as of the American Leadership Forum Board of Directors. Bob's tireless effort to improve access to quality care to the underserved has not gone unnoticed. In 1997, he was named Outstanding Public Administrator by the American Society for Public Administration, Sacramento Chapter.

Mr. Speaker, as Bob, his wife Bette, family, friends and colleagues gather to celebrate his retirement, I ask all my colleagues to join me in saluting this pioneering man for his many years of service to the Sacramento community.