Doris Matsui

Ms. MATSUI

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

Ms. MATSUI. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 839, the HAMP Termination Act, that calls on mortgage lenders to continue to publicly report basic home loan modification information. Because of an amendment I offered to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act which passed the house unanimously last Congress, mortgage lenders and services participating in the Home Affordable Modification Program are required to report basic loan modification information to the Department of the Treasury. Due to the enactment of my amendment, we now know that 2.5 million Americans have applied to participate in the Home Affordable Modification Program, and well over 600,000 of those applicants began permanent modifications. In the Sacramento region, over 9,000 of the nearly 12,000 homeowners who have applied for permanent modifications have been approved, providing assistance to thousands of homeowners in my district. This information is crucial to accountability and transparency and for this Congress to measure the performance of the mortgage industry. The amendment I offer today requires the same basic home loan modification reporting to continue, such as the number of applications they receive, the number of applications processed, or the number of modifications they approve or deny. In its current form, H.R. 839 would eliminate HAMP, and, as a result, financial institutions who received HAMP taxpayer funds would no longer be obligated to continue reporting such basic information to the public. Mr. Chairman, the foreclosure crisis was the root cause of the dire economic situation. It led to the near collapse of our financial system, increased unemployment, and caused the housing and credit crisis. Sadly, there are still millions of American homeowners facing foreclosure, and my home district of Sacramento, California, has been hit especially hard by this crisis. During the last few years, I have been to foreclosure workshops in my district where I have met with constituents who are facing losing their home. I was recently contacted by Joan, a constituent of mine who would have lost her house without assistance from HAMP. Joan paid her bills on time and was current on her mortgage when her son was diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder that rendered him unable to work. When her adult son moved in with her shortly after, Joan was no longer able to provide for him and make her mortgage payments at the same time and sought assistance. With proper assistance, Joan received a low interest rate HAMP loan and now is able once again to make her mortgage payments on time. Joan shared with me that her home was saved due to the HAMP program and that her son would have been homeless without it. She said, ``I have no words to express my feelings of gratitude for my loan modification.'' Mr. Chairman, I've heard a significant number of similar stories in Sacramento. It is essential that we require lenders to continue to report their loan modification activities. We need to know how many Joans are out there struggling but seeking assistance. We need to know whether lenders are doing all they can. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will ensure a level of transparency and accountability continue. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense transparency amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MATSUI. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that these basic reporting requirements are not new. It's about HAMP. Every financial institution receiving HAMP funds from the TARP program is currently required to report this information today. The current industry reporting requirements have played a significant role in providing a sense of transparency and accountability, and that's what we're talking about, transparency and accountability in our efforts to help homeowners and stabilize our housing market. Requiring basic information to be reported will provide this Congress with the information to make future decisions on loan modification programs as well as monitor the performance of the mortgage industry. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this important amendment to bring clarity and transparency to the mortgage industry. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 1076. I can't believe what I am hearing from the other side of the aisle. It's not a lefty-type organization. This bill would prohibit public radio stations from using Federal funds to buy popular programs like ``Morning Edition,'' ``All Things Considered,'' and ``This American Life.'' Mr. Speaker, this would be a huge disruption to our Nation's public radio system, economy, and most importantly, the intellectual content and news that so many Americans rely upon. According to a recent study, NPR's overall audience grew last year to over 27 million weekly listeners, up 60 percent overall since 2000. And this is when most other media outlets are struggling. And as a former board chair of Sacramento's local PBS TV station, I can attest to the value that national public broadcasting programming offers to my constituents. Mr. Speaker, thousands of my constituents rely on local NPR stations to get their news, and this is a very diverse group. In fact, since this bill was introduced, I have received a significant number of calls from them voicing very strong support for NPR and very, very strong opposition to this legislation. One of my constituents told me that listening to NPR makes him a more informed, more engaged citizen. Moreover, this bill will not produce any savings for the taxpayer and will not reduce the deficit. For my constituents, it's a simple equation of value for money. And also, this is about jobs. We need to talk about jobs. Public radio stations employ over 9,000 workers across the country, including 40 in Sacramento. Mr. Speaker, these are jobs we cannot lose. I urge my colleagues to vote against this harmful legislation.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Access Sacramento, Sacramento's public access station, as they celebrate the station's 25th anniversary. It is a great pleasure to recognize the station's dedication to giving a voice to individuals, events and opinions that are often not seen on television. As Access Sacramento's supporters gather to celebrate this milestone, I ask all my colleagues to join me in honoring their leadership in community reporting. The Sacramento area was one of the last urban areas to be wired for cable television, and it was not until December 1983 that public access television came to Sacramento. Known then as Sacramento Cable, the station developed a system that would provide funding, channel space, and equipment for a wide variety of local programming. These resources were divided among a number of organizations, one of which was Access Sacramento. Over the last 25 years, Access Sacramento has overcome each challenge it has faced, and has adapted to meet the demand of a growing and ethnically diverse community. The station has earned an international reputation for success and has welcomed visitors from Europe, Africa, and Asia to see how the organization operates. Furthermore, Access Sacramento has been recognized for their quality programs, receiving many awards, including the prestigious ``Best Public Access Television in the Nation'', which it has won twice. Access Sacramento's success, however, is not simply measured in awards, but in their ability to provide viewers with an opportunity to hear and see important ideas and thoughts that often cannot be found on television. The organization prides itself on the thousands of unique and locally produced programs that are seen and made available through the station each year. As of this year, their annual budget has grown to exceed $650,000 with a staff of ten individuals and over 750 volunteers. The station reaches 265,000 Sacramento residents and distributes more than 5,000 videos annually. It is clear that Access Sacramento is making a difference one voice at a time. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to pay tribute to Access Sacramento, and their continuous commitment to providing the Sacramento community with access to information that they would not have received from other media outlets. The past 25 years have been tremendously successful and I am sure they will continue to enjoy success in the future. While Access Sacramento's staff, supporters, and listeners gather together to celebrate the organization's 25th anniversary, I ask all my colleagues to join me in honoring their outstanding work in providing the community with local television and radio programming.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. 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.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. 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.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. 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.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. 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.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. 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.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. 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.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. 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.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. 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.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. 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.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. 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.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. 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.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. 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.

Ms. MATSUI. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. 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.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. 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.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. 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.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the bill before us. This bill would cost the American small business owner dearly. In Sacramento, over 88,000 small businesses are eligible to take advantage of the tax credits provided under the current law to help offer and afford meaningful health insurance coverage. Gordon, the owner of a communications firm in midtown Sacramento, covers 100 percent of his 13 employees' health insurance premiums. This is the firm's second highest expense next to payroll. As a result of the tax credits in the Affordable Care Act, Gordon's company is expecting to save roughly 25 percent in employee premiums. This frees up much-needed capital so Gordon's business can prosper and expand. Another small business that will grow as a result of the tax credits is a small cafe owned by Pat and Kim in downtown Sacramento. They currently employ four full-time employees who receive full benefits and 25 part-time employees. With the savings they are planning to see from the tax credits, Pat and Kim will be able to hire another full-time employee. This is the type of job creation that we need to help repair our economy and see small businesses thrive again. That is why repeal is so dangerous and why the Affordable Care Act is so critical to small businesses in Sacramento and throughout our country. For these small businesses, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, this Monday our Nation celebrated the life of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Together we honored Dr. King's legacy with a national day of service. Dr. King taught us many important lessons during his life--the greatest of all being that violence and hatred will get us nowhere, but love, service, and kindness for our fellow man can guide our Nation to overcome its most considerable struggles. While Dr. King was motivated by a period of division in our Nation's history, we know today that his lessons transcend all challenges. In this spirit, we pay tribute to the life and works of Dr. King, through participation in community service on the third Monday of January, each year. Mr. Speaker, I submit to the record the following piece by Ambassador of Service for the Corporation for National and Community Service MLK Day, my colleague from Georgia, the Honorable John Lewis, and CEO of the Corporation for National and Community Service, Patrick Corvington, on the importance of national service. Ever since former Sen. Harris Wofford and I introduced legislation in the Congress that transformed the King Holiday into a National Day of Service, one question periodically arises: Do Americans view the King Holiday primarily as a day on or a day off? Are they commemorating the legacy of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. with their extra time or simply getting extra sleep? Clearly, there are kids who will joyfully spend their day in front of their Xboxes, and shoppers who will rush to a department store sale on the holiday. But as the life of Dr. King and the movement that he led demonstrate, ordinary people with extraordinary vision working in the corners of their communities can have an impact that reverberates throughout America. These tiny ripples of human compassion can build into waves that cleanse and heal the wounds of a Nation. The Corporation for National and Community Service is the Federal agency that engages more than 5 million Americans in service to solve community problems. In partnership with the King Center and community groups nationwide, the agency responds to a mandate provided in the legislation to organize the King holiday National Day of Service. Since the service day legislation was passed, we have seen interest grow from a handful of local events to well over 13,000 projects taking place this year in all 50 States. Right here in Atlanta, we will be joining thousands of volunteers who will be packing food boxes for the hungry, rebuilding homes for the homeless, beautifying schools and serving in many other ways to commemorate the legacy of Dr. King. In doing so, people are following in King's footsteps, taking nonviolent action into their own hands to heal and mend the problems in our communities. That is what the National Day of Service is all about, engaging Americans in the joy of giving and inspiring them to see this holiday differently, not as a time to rest, but as an opportunity to share in the healing work of love. Last year, in the midst of the Great Recession, 63.4 million Americans volunteered in some way in their communities. They decided that they wanted to make service a meaningful part of their everyday lives. And their efforts are making a difference. They are expanding economic opportunity, helping to fix our education system, protecting our environment, responding to the needs of our veterans and assisting in the wake of natural disasters. To mark the 25th anniversary of the King holiday, we are issuing the ``MLK 25 Challenge.'' We are calling on all Americans to honor Dr. King by pledging to take at least 25 actions during 2011 to make a difference for others. The recent violence in Tucson is a sobering reminder that we as a nation have not yet fulfilled King's dream for our society, the building of a ``Beloved Community,'' defined as a society based on simple justice that values the worth and dignity of every human being. As the victims, families and our Nation struggle to recover from this tragedy, it is fitting that we look to the words of a nonviolent warrior who met aggression and hostility with the power of peace. ``Darkness cannot drive out darkness,'' King once said, ``only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.''

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Stein Buer for his leadership as the Executive Director of the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency, SAFCA. Stein recently departed SAFCA after six successful years to return to the California Department of Water Resources, where he will serve as Assistant Chief of the Division of Flood Management. I ask all my colleagues to join me in honoring Stein for is dedication to protecting the people of Sacramento from flooding. Over the past six years I have worked with Stein to improve Sacramento's flood defenses and I have always found him to be a man of intelligence, integrity and vision. Under his leadership, SAFCA was instrumental in repairing some of Sacramento's most vulnerable levees, he worked with the California legislature to implement better flood management policies, and led by aggressively moving forward on both the Folsom Dam Joint Federal Project and the Natomas Levee Improvement Project. Since Stein's tenure began at SAFCA in 2004 he has worked to finish ongoing levee projects and quickly start new ones. Some of Stein's most successful projects include working to certify the levees along some of Sacramento's urban creeks, and along both the American and Sacramento Rivers. These certifications were instrumental in improving public safety and removing tens of thousands of homeowners from the 100-year floodplain. Under his watch, SAFCA has also started over 40 miles of levee improvements in the Natomas Basin. From Folsom Dam to South Sacramento, Stein's imprint can be seen throughout the Sacramento Region. Shortly after arriving at SAFCA, Stein and his colleagues from a number of government agencies had to rapidly redesign a series of modifications to the Folsom Dam in the wake of potential cost overruns. Through this refined project, a second spillway will be added to the Folsom Dam which will significantly improve the management of larger flood events. Thanks in large part to his efforts, this project is on time and on budget. An advocate for both public safety and environmental conservation, Stein was a driving force behind the Levee Vegetation Science Conference and the California Levees Roundtable. During these discussions, he brought the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the California Department of Water Resources, and other key stakeholders together to discuss the impacts of removing trees and other vegetation from levees. Through these discussions, Stein was able to spearhead a comprehensive framework that included key stakeholders in levee improvement decisions that reduced flood risks, while maintaining both vegetation and levee integrity. After a great deal of success and more than six years as the Executive Director, Stein has decided to return to the California Department of Water Resources as the Assistant Chief of the Division of Flood Management. In this role, Stein will assist in the design and implementation of the State's FloodSafe Program, an undertaking that will significantly benefit from his experience and comprehensive approach to flood protection. Mr. Speaker, I stand today to recognize and honor the exceptional leadership of Stein Buer. His ability to address the concerns of many and work towards common goals has been truly remarkable. I ask all my colleagues to join me in thanking Stein for his service as the Executive Director of the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency. I would also like to take a moment and thank Stein's wife Noelle and their three children, who have shared Stein with the wider Sacramento community for the last six years. I wish Stein and his family continued happiness and success.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the victims of the Tucson shooting, including our colleague and friend, Gabby Giffords. I have seen Gabby's commitment and dedication to her constituents firsthand. I have had the pleasure to work with her as we promoted efforts to restore our Nation's competitiveness and specifically to help create clean energy jobs. Gabby is smart, courageous, disciplined, and effective. And as we have all seen over the last few days, her strength is unwavering. Last Saturday, Gabby organized an event to talk to her constituents about their priorities, about their concerns and their hopes. It is heartbreaking and a tragedy that six innocent people lost their lives and an additional 13 have been critically wounded, all while trying to participate in and strengthen our democracy. We are all now reflecting on what brought our country to this point and how to move forward. As everyone in this Chamber can attest, being a Representative is more than a job title. It is what we do, and it is who we are. We meet with our constituents. We listen to them. We advocate for their best interests. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to take a moment to honor the other victims of this horrific tragedy: 9-year-old beautiful Christina Taylor Green, recently elected to the student council; Gabe Zimmerman, a dedicated staffer who was just on the cusp of his own life, recently engaged; Federal Judge John Roll, a highly respected jurist who just came by to thank Gabby for her support of the judiciary; Phyllis Schneck, who was a tireless volunteer at her local church; Dorwan Stoddard who shielded his dear wife; and Dorothy Morris who was married to her husband a long time who was also there but who survived. My thoughts and prayers remain with Gabby and with each victim and their families.