Floor Statements

I rise to voice my very strong support of our Nation's maternal and child health programs. And I want to thank my colleague from Illinois, Jan Schakowsky, for getting the idea that we come together around this topic today because of the implications that it has for the beautiful young woman and her child that you're picturing next to you that is a reminder to all of us that these are not numbers when we're talking about sequestration. They really have impacts in people's very lives.

So it's an honor for me to follow our colleague, Rosa DeLauro from Connecticut, and also to have as part of your discussion Gwen Moore, a very eloquent spokesperson from Milwaukee, Wisconsin. So, really, this is very diverse in terms of regions of the country that are going to be impacted should we ever cross this threshold. But most of the public discussion we've had so far on this fiscal cliff, however it's described, that we face, the discussion has been about taxes, about who's going to pay what in taxes.

But what has been so underreported and overlooked, which is why I'm so grateful to you for calling this out today for us, is the impacts that sequestration cuts would have on our economy, but especially on that vital element of our economy which is our most vulnerable in our society--our children.

They're our future. They are not just statistics. They are real little people who cannot wait for services because their bodies will change, their minds will be stunted. They will lose out if we withhold support for them. And I speak from my many years of being a nurse, as you described, and being a nurse in our public sector, in our public schools and a public health nurse. And I've seen firsthand what happens when we cut services to our children. We need to be investing in our children because they are our economic engine for tomorrow and we cannot afford to leave one of them behind.

We, therefore, can't afford to slash the very programs that will give them the kind of healthy start in life. You invest a dollar up front in a child and you recoup that dollar so many times over their lifetime and you prevent a lot of other kinds of dollars from being spent in ways that we don't want to. But sequestration would be devastating for our children.

I focused on my State of California in terms of looking at what this would be like. These cuts, should sequestration come to pass, would be so devastating to the health and well-being of hundreds and thousands of women and children in the State I come from. For example, in the program that we've all been talking about because it's so central to what families need--food security--the Women, Infants and Children's program that helps those who don't have enough for their children to give them that healthy start, over 120,000 women and children would be cut from this essential program just in California if sequestration came to be. And this provides nutrition assistance, vital links to a healthy, thriving brain and body for families that might not have access to healthy food.

For Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grants, nearly 400,000 fewer women and children would be served by these block grants that go to the State to provide the essential services in the local communities. And so the ripple effect down our State and throughout our communities would be so tremendous because these services provide a wide range of health care and they allow the expansion of certain quality health care programs for children, for example, with disabilities.

In California, we would be facing, should sequestration happen, 2,000 fewer women having access to breast and cervical screenings, the preventive services that keep cancer full-blown from occurring in these women's lives, so costly to them personally, to their families, but also taxpayers, and nearly a million dollars--and this is what I want to close by focusing on, because we don't stop and think when we cut a million dollars from the Children's Hospitals Graduate Medical Education Program, in sequestration a million dollars would be cut just for these training programs in California. That program makes sure that we have enough resources necessary to train the next generation of pediatric physicians, people who are there on the front line with families to pull them through what they face in life.

I met the real-life impact of this program when a remarkable young man came to Capitol Hill from California last year, Max Page. Now, you may not remember his name, but you probably remember if you watched the Super Bowl in 2011 little Darth Vader in the ad, the popular Volkswagen Super Bowl commercial. He's a real young child. He's only 7 years old. And I came to meet him here on Capitol Hill last year. He was born with a congenital heart defect--not uncommon. But it has required numerous surgeries during the 7 years of his short life.

He is being treated at Children's Hospital in Los Angeles, which my colleagues from California know very well as an outstanding medical facility serving a wide region in the Southwest.

Last year, when Max came to Washington with his parents and little brother, he came to tell Members of Congress his own story and how important it is that we continue to invest in preparing new doctors to care for our children. I know it's every parent's worst fear what will happen if their child becomes sick, not just a runny nose or a sore throat, but seriously ill with perhaps a life-threatening or a chronic condition that needs lifelong treating. We owe it to every parent in America to do what we can to make sure that every child has access to the best health care available if they need it. We don't want them to be concerned that there is not going to be that trained pediatrician, that hospital to send their sick child to should that happen, and it's because we couldn't get our act together and avoid the sequestration.

So I'm so pleased that you took the time to organize this hour of sharing with the American people the impact of sequestration, that it would have such a profound effect on our lives when we think about ensuring that every child in America gets a healthy start to life. We take it for granted that every small child needs and deserves this right in this country that we are proud to live in, the United States of America.

So we need to come together now on behalf of our Nation's children and their mothers and their families to stop these sequestration cuts, to ensure that we have a balanced approach to reducing our debt, and to continue to support our communities and the frontline services that they provide to our families, because our smallest, our most vulnerable and their families, they're depending on us now in this hour.

So again, I thank you for bringing us together, my colleague from Illinois, and for focusing us on the real-life impact of what we're facing here with the cliff.

Thank you for this opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, we have just a few short weeks left in the 112th Congress, but our work here is far from done.

Sadly, partisan games and gridlock have made this Congress one of the least productive in history; but with the election finally behind us, I hope we will put aside our differences and get back to work.

That means passing a bipartisan farm bill to support our farmers and ranchers. It means extending the production tax credit to create jobs in a growing wind industry and reduce electricity bills for consumers. It means passing the Violence Against Women Act to protect women from abuse. And it means extending tax cuts for middle class families and small businesses now and passing a balanced plan to avert sequestration.

We must address these critical issues, and the only way to do that is by coming together and doing what's right for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, the election is over. It's time to get back to work.

Mr. Speaker, I was not able to be present for the following rollcall vote on November 13, 2012 and would like the Record to reflect that I would have voted as follows: rollcall No. 604, ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 604, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

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

Yes, I am opposed.

Mr. Speaker, there are many times when we come to this floor and engage in heated debate, and we've heard some heated debate on this bill. But my final amendment offers us the opportunity to come together to do something extraordinarily important, and that is to ensure our constituents' hard-earned cash is redirected away from the gas pump and back into their wallets. I want to be clear, the passage of this amendment will not prevent the passage of the underlying bill. If it's adopted, my amendment will be incorporated into the bill and the bill will be immediately voted upon.

Now I make no apologies for opposing this bill. Regardless of how you feel about the bill, my amendment should be something we could all agree on.

My amendment preserves new fuel efficiency standards issued last month if their repeal would mean higher prices at the pump for our constituents or lost jobs for our workers. These new standards raise fuel efficiency to 54.5 miles per gallon. That's roughly twice the mileage our cars are getting today.

By 2025, these standards will save consumers $1.7 trillion at the gas pump, and they will cut our oil imports by 2 million barrels per day. That's one half our current imports for OPEC. They also represent a new chapter for American ingenuity.

Mr. Speaker, if U.S. engineers made it possible for every car to include a computer more powerful than the one that sent a man to the Moon, then surely they can produce cars that go further on a gallon of gas. The good news is they can and they are.

There are now 57 fuel-efficient models available in showrooms today, up from 27 models in 2009. Car makers have retooled some of their most popular models to boost efficiency, and the improvements keep coming.

The first half of this year set the record for highest-ever fuel efficiency for new vehicles. Consumers are rewarding these breakthroughs. Fuel efficiency is the top concern for car buyers by far, and this is according to Consumer Reports.

Consumers support these new standards. Families will save an estimated $8,000 in gasoline costs over the lifetime of their car, and that's equivalent to lowering the price of gasoline by $1 per gallon. These new standards also provide something consumer trends cannot: long-term certainty. And that's why three major automakers--General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler--all support them.

Strong standards tell carmakers exactly what goal they need to reach by when so they can invest in innovation, deploy new technologies, and build cars right here in America. When they do that, they hire more workers. More than 150,000 Americans have jobs making parts for and assembling more efficient cars in America today. Car makers are moving production to our shores also.

One car maker alone, Honda, recently announced plans to move all global Civic hybrid manufacturing to Indiana from Japan, creating 300 jobs by the end of the year.

This onshoring of jobs is because of our commitment to making more efficient cars and components in America. That's why GM's CEO, Dan Akerson, called these standards, ``a win for American manufacturers for the very first time.''

Mr. Speaker, everybody wins when more efficient cars hit the road. American workers win, drivers win, and automakers. These standards demonstrate the best of America, how creating jobs goes hand-in-hand with protecting the environment and health, how drivers can save billions in gasoline costs, how the American auto industry can compete with any country in the world. That's why we must preserve these historic standards and the enormous benefits that come with them by voting for my final amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully ask that all colleagues weigh this simple proposition: Do you want your constituents to pay less at the pump and drive more efficient cars made in America? If your answer is yes, then vote for my amendment. It ensures that our constituents will save thousands of dollars every year at the gas pump, and it makes sure that American workers will find jobs building the cars of the future right here in America.

Today we have the opportunity to speak with one voice, to save these landmark car efficiency standards. It's up to us. Support this final amendment to the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, in the health care profession, we know that children aren't just little adults. They have unique health experiences, treatment needs, and research challenges.

While public and private research has come a long way on pediatric diseases over the years, we also know that we are still far behind on important diagnostics, cures, and treatments for far too many ailing children. That's why I am so pleased to have coauthored the National Pediatric Research Network Act with my colleague and friend, Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers.

This bipartisan bill would improve research and clinical trials on pediatric diseases. It would train future pediatric researchers and disseminate research findings so quickly so that all children may benefit. It does not replace our current pediatric research investments. Instead, it builds upon the work already being done at the NIH and at research centers across the country by creating, as Chairman Upton said, research consortia to form a nationwide network of pediatric researchers. This is important so that we can make sure that we're always working with the most current science and that information is shared and also verified.

It will expand the geographic scope of research, giving sick kids easier access to research programs and clinical trials. Moreover, this bill will help a wider variety of institutions participating in this critical research while providing training grounds for our next generation of pediatric researchers.

Another key feature to this bill is that it will place an added emphasis on researching children's rare diseases, such as the one already described, spinal muscular atrophy, and to develop new treatments to fight them.

The low prevalence of these diseases makes them particularly hard to research, yet these diseases have such a marked impact on the lives of far too many families and communities. The National Pediatric Research Network Act will be an important step forward to help these families and those who may develop these diseases long into the future.

I want to thank again the leadership of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Waxman, Chairman Pitts, and Ranking Member Pallone, for their dedication to this bill; and to the staff, my staff, and especially Ruth Katz, a committee staffer, working to improve the language and to bring this to the floor. I also include my colleague, Congresswoman DeGette, for her leadership on this issue over the years.

And just like Chairman Upton, I would especially like to thank my constituents, dear friends, and a very remarkable family, Bill and Victoria Strong, who are the parents, for their tireless work on behalf of their own daughter, Gwendolyn, who has spinal muscular atrophy as well and just a few weeks ago celebrated an amazing achievement by entering public kindergarten at the age of 5. She's the favorite of all her classmates, and the parents are beside themselves with joy that this remarkable milestone has been achieved. They work day in and day out to make their daughter's world better, and in doing so they have created a very strong community within our larger community of people who care about Gwendolyn, but also care about other children with similar kinds of conditions and what we should be doing as a Nation to stand with them. They have shown how entire communities can come together to fight diseases like SMA.

I urge my colleagues to follow their example. We need to come together now to support this bill, and in doing so we support families like those in Michigan and in Santa Barbara, California, and other places, as well, to do all we can do to make this a law and give them hope and courage for the future.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, the National Pediatric Research Network Act is a very important bill, not just for current and future researchers, but for sick children and their families, today and in the future. It's a bipartisan measure that will really leverage

all the good work that is currently being done on pediatric diseases but that will also fill gaps that make it so hard for progress to be made.

I urge full support for this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, the Taking Essential Steps for Testing Act is a bipartisan, sensible bill which will provide the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services the flexibility it needs in imposing penalties on clinical laboratories that violate certain recertification procedures. While not commonly discussed, the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988, or CLIA, is an important law that ensures all labs operating in the United States can be trusted. Under CLIA, all labs must be certified to prove they are qualified to perform clinical tests while meeting quality and safety standards. We can all agree this is a good thing.

Labs are periodically retested to keep their CLIA certification. To do this, labs are required to perform proficiency tests which measure the quality and competency of a lab's work. Unlike some tests that come to a lab that can be sent out to other labs, proficiency tests must be performed in-house. Currently, if a lab is found to have referred a proficiency test to another lab, the Secretary of HHS must revoke that lab's certificate for at least 1 year. This prevents it from participating in Medicare or Medicaid for that period. In addition, the operator of any lab that has had its certificate revoked is barred from owning or operating any certified labs for 2 years.

However, current law does not allow the Secretary any flexibility in imposing these penalties for labs that improperly refer proficiency tests--even when it's an unintentional referral. This has led to labs that are being shut down across the country, potentially affecting patient care and access, even when their actions are not worthy of such a sanction. This is especially pronounced when the sanction occurs on just one lab that is part of a larger health care system, as the penalties apply to the entire system, even if all the other labs happen to be in compliance.

So this legislation would help address these problems by allowing CMS the flexibility to institute lesser sanctions to really address the problem instead of penalizing an entire system for unintentional proficiency test referrals. The bill does so without changing the accountability within the law or making our labs less reliable. And CMS still will be required and able to hold so-called ``bad actors'' accountable.

This bill is a very commonsense reform to CLIA, and I'm pleased to support it. I urge my colleagues to do so as well.

I reserve the balance of my time.

May I ask the chairman if he has any other speakers?

Mr. Speaker, in closing, the Taking Essential Steps for Testing Act is a straightforward bill with bipartisan support. It will give CMS tools to effectively deal with labs that unintentionally refer out their proficiency tests, maintain sanctions for labs that intentionally flaunt the law, and ensure that certified clinical labs are there for us when we need them.

I urge support for this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, our military men and women are trained to perform at the highest levels in a host of jobs. The individuals who serve our Nation in uniform do so with distinction.

However, there is much more to be done to help our service men and women and their families when they return home to translate those skills and experiences into civilian service. That disconnect is what we are trying to address here today.

Our military men and women receive some of the best technical training in emergency medicine, and every day, on the battlefield, they prove their skills under the very toughest of conditions. However, when they return home, experienced military medics are often required to start over. They must begin at entry-level curricula to receive certification for civilian jobs.

Similarly, military medics with civilian credentials often must let their civilian certifications lapse while they're defending our country. Either way, this keeps our veterans out of the civilian workforce and withholds valuable medical personnel from our communities.

As a nurse, I know the importance of having qualified and capable first responders in each of our communities, and that is why we must do all we can to break down the artificial barriers that obstruct our military medics from civilian opportunities.

So I am pleased to have joined Congressman Kinzinger to introduce H.R. 4124, which is the Veteran Emergency Medical Technician Support Act. This bill is a straightforward, bipartisan approach to help States streamline their certification processes to take military medic training into account for civilian licensure.

It's a small but very important step towards breaking down the barriers that our servicemembers face when transitioning home.

While the bill directs States to undertake these demonstration projects, I believe public and private organizations within the States, like area health education centers, or AHECs, will be important partners in the successful implementation of this initiative. This will help engage and leverage expertise already in our States and communities so that we can do our best by our veterans.

I also want to take a moment to thank the leadership of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Waxman, Chairman Pitts, and Ranking Member Pallone for their dedication to this bill and to the staff for working in a bipartisan manner to bring this to the floor.

Finally, I want to take a second to recognize a former congresswoman, Jane Harman, who spearheaded this issue in the last Congress.

I urge my colleagues' support for this legislation, and I look forward to swift consideration of it in the Senate.

At this point, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I also wish to thank my colleague, Mr. Kinzinger, for his leadership and his experience in the military, which led him to be very interested in this topic as well.

The Veteran Emergency Medical Technician Support Act is a small but very important step toward helping our military medics transition to civilian EMT service, and it is a bipartisan measure. It fills a need both in the veterans' community and also in our health care communities.

I urge full support for this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, last month, our Nation reached a significant milestone in the growth of homegrown renewable energy. The United States surpassed 50 gigawatts of installed wind power capacity, which is enough to power over 13 million American households a year. This is a major accomplishment for an industry predicted to deliver only a quarter of that amount a decade ago.

We should be celebrating this success brought about by innovation, hard work, and smart policies. Sadly, the celebration may be a short one if Congress doesn't act swiftly to continue the bipartisan production tax credit, which is a key factor in wind power's expansion. My constituents who work at companies like Clipper Windpower and Infinity Wind Power have told me that letting the PTC lapse would devastate their industry and eliminate thousands of jobs.

It's time to give these companies certainty by taking up a multiyear extension of the PTC without delay. Our country cannot afford to pull the rug out from under a true American success story. Let's renew the production tax credit now and maintain our leadership in transitioning to cleaner, safer sources of energy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of extending tax cuts for middle class families and small businesses.

I support a plan that allows generous tax cuts for the wealthiest two percent to expire, while also ensuring taxes do not go up on those that can least afford it. This is the plan that passed the Senate last week. And this is the plan that President Obama said he is ready and eager to sign should it pass the House.

Unfortunately, however, this is not the plan being offered by the Majority on the floor here today. The Majority's proposal, H.R. 8, preserves tax cuts for the wealthiest two percent at the expense of middle class families and small businesses.

It gives, on average, an extra $160,000 tax cut to millionaires while raising taxes on 25 million middle class families by an average of $1,000 by restricting or eliminating crucial tax credits that middle class families depend on to pay their bills and send their kids to college, like the Earned Income Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit, and American Opportunity Tax Credit.

This is not the balanced, equitable solution my constituents on the Central Coast and the American people are asking for, which is why I strongly oppose H.R. 8 and will vote against it.

I will instead be voting for the substitute amendment, which is identical to the legislation the Senate passed last week.

It extends for one year the current tax rates on income, capital gains and dividends for taxable income up to $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples. Under this plan, all taxpayers will benefit from the tax breaks on income up to these thresholds, and 98 percent of Americans and 97 percent of small businesses will see no tax increase at all.

This proposal also fixes the Alternative Minimum Tax for 2012 and extends several other important tax provisions that middle class families and small businesses depend on, including marriage penalty relief, expanded child and earned income tax credits, education tax incentives, and small business expensing.

This is a reasonable, responsible plan that should have bipartisan support.

Democrats and Republicans agree on the need to extend the tax cuts for middle class families and small businesses, and this plan does exactly that. The substitute reflects this consensus and gives middle class families certainty that their taxes will not go up next year.

We should move forward with what we already agree on instead of holding hostage those who can least afford it for the benefit of the wealthiest among us.

We simply cannot afford to continue the tax cuts for the richest two percent and leave middle class families with the bill. We have a serious deficit problem that requires a balanced solution to ensure everyone bears a fair share of the burden. Letting tax rates on the richest in our society simply return to where they were in the 1990s, when our economy was booming, is one common sense step in that process.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this balanced approach and voting yes on the substitute.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to mark a key milestone in women's access to affordable health care services. Starting today, and thanks to the health care reform law, women will have guaranteed access to a host of preventive services in new health care plans, without additional costs. These benefits--including annual well-women physicals, birth control coverage, and screenings for domestic violence among them--are a critical step to ensuring that all women get the care they need to stay healthy and treat disease early.

Far too often, women put off needed care because of the cost; but this new coverage benefit makes some of these tough decisions a thing of the past, decisions like whether to pay for treatment or to pay for groceries.

As we celebrate this day, we must also remember that these health care services continue to be politicized and face many attacks. These attacks are not only divisive but an intrusion into women's private health decisions. We must stand up to such partisan attacks and support these important health care benefits and thus ensure that all women and their families have access to affordable preventive care services.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 134 and in support of the greater Denver community in the wake of the Aurora, Colorado tragedy.

Twelve lives have been lost, 58 injured, and countless others affected by the shooting in Aurora, Colorado on July 20, 2012.

This horrible crime reminds us that our time here is short, and that while we cannot always prevent senseless acts of violence, families, friends and neighbors can come together as a community to honor those we have lost, celebrate those who are still with us, and resolve to do all we can to prevent future violence.

The Aurora community has exemplified this spirit of resiliency in the wake of tragedy, and is truly an inspiration for all of us.

While we know not every senseless act of violence can be avoided, we can--and must--work every day to treat each other with decency and genuine respect.

And I hope that this act of violence will not just sit on a page in our history books, but be a catalyst for the important conversations we have avoided all too long.

There is more that we can do to protect our families and communities from gun violence.

There is more that we can do to support our mental health care systems--both to avert future violence and to support those who are touched by it.

And there is more that we can do to create a culture of tolerance and understanding.

We stand together across our nation, knowing we are not grieving alone, and that others share our outrage at violent actions and violent rhetoric.

As the Denver community heals from this senseless tragedy, please know that you are in the thoughts and prayers of all Americans.

I thank my colleague for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, here we are, voting once again to mandate new offshore drilling in areas where it simply isn't wanted. And just like before, this proposal simply ignores the facts, the facts stated by my colleague from New Jersey: the fact that we already make more than 75 percent of the offshore oil and gas resources available for drilling; the fact that domestic oil production is at an 18-year high; and the fact that we have more rigs that are drilling in the United States than in the rest of the world combined.

Instead of addressing the real issues in offshore drilling, like the need to adopt the safety recommendations of the nonpartisan oil spill commission, this bill seeks to compound the problems by mandating new drilling all over the place.

H.R. 6082 also cavalierly dismisses the legitimate concerns raised by the people most affected by this mandated new drilling idea--my constituents. After nearly 100 years of drilling off my coastline, Californians have spoken loud and clear: we've had enough. In fact, a 2010 proposal to allow slant drilling from the shores of a coastal town in my district was opposed by 70 percent--that's right, 70 percent--of the voters.

To protect communities now at risk under this bill, I offered an amendment that would have stopped the mandated new lease sales off southern California--off my district--but the majority refused to allow a debate on this amendment. In addition, this new mandated drilling would happen on platforms that have been in the Santa Barbara Channel since the Everly Brothers were topping the music charts over 50 years ago. It's not a good idea to use these old rigs for expanded drilling-- 20 of them--including platform A, as my colleague referenced, which was the very culprit of the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill.

I offered an amendment to require the Interior Department to certify these platforms were actually capable of handling new drilling before it could start; but thanks to the Rules Committee, we won't be debating that issue either.

What is also true is that the Pentagon doesn't support new drilling off its base on the central coast. The Pentagon told ExxonMobil that the company's proposed drilling plan at Vandenberg Air Force Base would ``present a wide range of significant operational constraints.'' That's why I offered an amendment to protect the national space launch mission at Vandenberg Air Force Base; but again, the House won't be able to debate that issue, and the concerns of the Air Force are left unaddressed.

Mr. Chairman, it's clear that H.R. 6082 is not a well-thought out proposal. It's another heavy-handed, know-it-all approach from Washington, D.C.--rubber-stamping destructive drilling, cutting out environmental reviews, limiting public input. That might be good policy for oil companies; but it's bad policy for my constituents, and it's bad energy policy for our Nation. I urge my colleagues to oppose this reckless offshore drilling bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my congratulations to the city of Morro Bay in my congressional district on the central coast of California.

Last month, the city won the 2012 award for Excellence in Local Governance for coastal and ocean management from NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. This award is for its groundbreaking work with other coastal communities in California, local fishermen, and the Nature Conservancy to preserve historic fishing activity and build long-term economic and environmental resiliency on California's central coast.

Working together, these partners realized that Morro Bay and other small fishing communities--our working waterfronts--needed to respond to the changing conditions of their fisheries. This effort has not been easy, to be sure; but Morro Bay's leaders, who have faced huge obstacles in their efforts to try new approaches to fisheries management, were determined to make this work. So it is great to see this recognition of their courage and their hard work to improve Morro Bay's leading industry.

Again, I congratulate the city of Morro Bay and its innovative partners for earning this acknowledgement.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the memory of Henry A. Schimberg--a talented entrepreneur and distinguished member of the Santa Barbara community. Mr. Schimberg passed away on June 29, 2012 while traveling in Europe with his wife, Marjorie.

Henry Schimberg was born in Chicago in 1933 and went on to attend Beloit College in Wisconsin, where he received his Bachelor of Arts degree in 1954. Henry started his extremely successful career as a truck driver at Royal Crown Bottling Co. in Chicago in 1958. After decades of working in the bottling industry, Henry became the president and COO of Coca-Cola Enterprises in 1990; in 1998 he became the company's CEO. During his tenure, Coca-Cola Enterprises experienced the most financially successful period in its history.

Mr. Schimberg shared a deep passion for ethics with my late husband, Walter. Henry was deeply involved with the Walter H. Capps Center for the Study of Ethics, Religion, and Public Life at the University of California, Santa Barbara and the Center's efforts in developing a strong sense of personal and business ethics among future business and corporate leaders. The Center's annual undergraduate seminar, ``Ethics, Enterprise, and Leadership,'' is an innovative course designed in part by Mr. Schimberg that introduces students to the diverse frameworks of ethical decision-making and teaches them to evaluate actual corporate and business dilemmas from ethical, legal and business perspectives. Henry was a regular speaker at the course and was greatly admired by his students and the faculty at UCSB. I have no doubt that his legacy will be carried on through this wonderful course that upholds values dear to his and my family's hearts.

Henry is survived by his wife, Marjorie; son, Aaron Schimberg and his wife Vanessa; daughter, Alexis Schimberg and her husband Jason Rothenberg; and his siblings, Elsa Dimick, Deedee Gartman and her husband Jerry; and Jake Schimberg and his wife Hollie.

Henry's passing has been felt deeply by the many people who were touched by his life and accomplishments. The Santa Barbara community will miss an invaluable leader and friend. I offer my most heartfelt condolences to Henry's family and friends. Please join me in honoring this exemplary American.