Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, today I will vote against the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA). While nothing is more important than providing the resources needed to keep America and our men and women in uniform safe, this authorization spends too much while falling short in important areas.

The bill authorizes $690.1 billion for defense programs in FY12. This level of defense spending is almost as much as the rest of the world combined--most of which is done by friendly allies such as NATO (approximately $350 billion). It also includes an additional $118.9 billion in specific funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan without a plan for a full redeployment from the region. I am disappointed that amendments to require a rapid and thoughtful withdrawal from Afghanistan were not approved. For me, this is reason enough not to support this legislation.

The bill continues the misguided affront on civil liberties by further stalling the implementation of ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell,'' and requires that ``marriage'' for any regulation or benefit program at DoD means only a legal union between one man and one woman. This is a step backwards and unacceptable.

It reverses the House victory from earlier this year that finally eliminated the unnecessary alternate engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Similarly, the bill continues to fund the Marine Corps' Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) which has also been cited as uneconomical and unwanted by the Secretary of Defense.

Embarrassingly, this authorization contains two key provisions that continue to tie the President's hands by restricting his ability to transfer detainees to the United States for trial in Federal court and to release detainees to countries willing to take them. It is absurd to think that the United States, which currently has thousands of dangerous criminals locked safely behind bars, is incapable of doing the same for terrorists. These provisions continue the Guantanamo quagmire which is ill-advised and a sign of failure at home and to those observing abroad.

There are many positive elements in the bill, such as new rights and protections for victims of sexual assault in the military and increased access to mental health providers for our Reserves. I am pleased three of my amendments were included in the legislation. One amendment lifts the veil on classified immunity for defense contractors, a practice that exposed 36 of our Oregon National Guardsmen to toxic chemicals in Iraq. The other two will help protect our troops on the battlefield and save billions of dollars through energy efficiency initiatives. Their inclusion, however, does not offset the overall authorization which fails to reflect America's priorities or our national security realities.

At a time when Americans are calling for reform, this bill--despite some positives--continues our operations in Afghanistan with no plan for withdrawal, ramps up spending and discriminates against our service members. I am hopeful that my colleagues in the Senate can remove some of the provisions that do little to make America secure while we continue to spend almost as much on defense as the rest of the world combined.

Mr. Speaker, today I will vote against an extension of the PATRIOT Act because Congress should be refining and narrowing the scope of the Act, not extending it as-is, until 2015.

There are real concerns on both sides of the aisle about granting the federal government too much power with little to no mechanisms for oversight by Congress. We are missing an opportunity in the House for bipartisan reform by rushing this extension to the floor. It's time for a more accountable approach that balances individual privacy with our national defense.

Our intelligence community has the tools necessary to keep us safe without compromising our privacy. This hasty four-year extension is disappointing because the Act could be more effective if it included the auditing requirements for which many in Congress have advocated.

Mr. Speaker, it has been my privilege to work on issues of reduction of greenhouse gases for over 25 years. I was Portland's commissioner of public works when we became the first American city with a comprehensive approach to deal with greenhouse gases. For 4 years I was pleased to serve on Speaker Pelosi's Select Committee on Global Warming and Energy Independence, where we had an opportunity to work with people around the world looking at climate impacts, dealing with dozens of hearings, hundreds of experts concerned with the challenge, the even greater problems that we are facing in the future.

Yet, I would say that in the years that I have been working on this issue, I have never seen a better, more effective statement than what appeared in yesterday's Washington Post, an essay by Bill McKibben entitled ``See no climate change.'' He said, you should not wonder, is this somehow related to the tornado outbreak 3 weeks ago in Tuscaloosa, or the enormous outbreak a couple weeks before with the most active tornado season in America's history. You should not connect in your mind the fires burning across Texas, fires that have burned more of America at this point this year than any wildfires in previous years. Or that the adjoining parts of Oklahoma and New Mexico are drier now than they have ever been, much worse than during the Dust Bowl. You should not wonder whether this year's record snowfalls and rainfalls across the Midwest, resulting in record flooding along the Mississippi, could somehow be related.

There have been tornadoes before. There will be tornadoes again. That's the important thing. Be careful to make sure you don't let yourself wonder while all these record-breaking events are happening in such proximity. Wondering why there have been unprecedented megafloods in Australia, New Zealand, and Pakistan in the last year. Why it's just now that the Arctic has melted for the first time in thousands of years.

He goes on, because if you ask yourself what it meant that the Amazon has just gone through its second hundred-year flood in 5 years, or that the pine forests across the West of this continent have been obliterated by bark beetles, you might have to ask other questions. It's better to join with the U.S. House of Representatives, who voted 240-184 this spring to defeat a resolution saying simply that climate change is occurring, caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for human welfare.

Propose your own physics. Ignore physics altogether. Just don't start asking yourself whether there might be some relationship among last year's failed grain harvest in the Russian heat wave and Queensland's failed grain harvest from its second flood, and Germany and France's current drought-related crop failures. It's important, Bill says, to remain calm. If the worst ever did come to worst, it's reassuring to remember that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce told the Environmental Protection Agency in recent filings that there's no need to worry because populations can acclimate to warmer climates via a range of behavioral, physiological, and technological adaptations. Bill says, I'm sure that's what the residents in Joplin, Missouri, are telling themselves today.

Mr. Speaker, I couldn't agree more. It is important for Americans to think about how these pieces fit together. And Members of Congress should ask themselves two questions. First, even if you don't believe the experts on the danger of climate change, shouldn't we be taking extraordinary steps to stop wasting more energy than anybody in the world and exporting billions of dollars overseas to other countries for our

energy? That's question one. The second question that I hope Members of Congress will ask themselves, what if 99.9 percent of the scientists are right and we are doing it to ourselves?

[From the Washington Post]

See No Climate Change

(By Bill McKibben)

Caution: It is vitally important not to make connections.

When you see pictures of rubble like this week's shots from

Joplin, Mo., you should not wonder: Is this somehow related

to the tornado outbreak three weeks ago in Tuscaloosa, Ala.,

or the enormous outbreak a couple of weeks before that

(which, together, comprised the most active April for

tornadoes in U.S. history). No, that doesn't mean a thing.

It is far better to think of these as isolated,

unpredictable, discrete events. It is not advisable to try to

connect them in your mind with, say, the fires burning across

Texas--fires that have burned more of America at this point

this year than any wildfires have in previous years. Texas,

and adjoining parts of Oklahoma and New Mexico, are drier

than they've ever been--the drought is worse than that of the

Dust Bowl. But do not wonder if they're somehow connected.

If you did wonder, you see, you would also have to wonder

about whether this year's record snowfalls and rainfalls

across the Midwest--resulting in record flooding along the

Mississippi--could somehow be related. And then you might

find your thoughts wandering to, oh, global warming, and to

the fact that climatologists have been predicting for years

that as we flood the atmosphere with carbon we will also

start both drying and flooding the planet, since warm air

holds more water vapor than cold air.

It's far smarter to repeat to yourself the comforting

mantra that no single weather event can ever be directly tied

to climate change. There have been tornadoes before, and

floods--that's the important thing. Just be careful to make

sure you don't let yourself wonder why all these record-

breaking events are happening in such proximity--that is, why

there have been unprecedented megafloods in Australia, New

Zealand and Pakistan in the past year. Why it's just now that

the Arctic has melted for the first time in thousands of

year. No, better to focus on the immediate casualties, watch

the videotape from the store cameras as the shelves are blown

over. Look at the news anchorman standing in his waders in

the rising river as the water approaches his chest.

Because if you asked yourself what it meant that the Amazon

has just come through its second hundred-year drought in the

past five years, or that the pine forests across the western

part of this continent have been obliterated by a beetle in

the past decade--well, you might have to ask other questions.

Such as: Should President Obama really just have opened a

huge swath of Wyoming to new coal mining? Should Secretary of

State Hillary Clinton sign a permit this summer allowing a

huge new pipeline to carry oil from the tar sands of Alberta?

You might also have to ask yourself: Do we have a bigger

problem than $4-a-gallon gasoline?

Better to join with the U.S. House of Representatives,

which voted 240 to 184 this spring to defeat a resolution

saying simply that ``climate change is occurring, is caused

largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for

public health and welfare.'' Propose your own physics; ignore

physics altogether. Just don't start asking yourself whether

there might be some relation among last year's failed grain

harvest from the Russian heat wave, and Queensland's failed

grain harvest from its record flood, and France's and

Germany's current drought-related crop failures, and the

death of the winter wheat crop in Texas, and the inability of

Midwestern farmers to get corn planted in their sodden

fields. Surely the record food prices are just freak

outliers, not signs of anything systemic.

It's very important to stay calm. If you got upset about

any of this, you might forget how important it is not to

disrupt the record profits of our fossil fuel companies. If

worst ever did come to worst, it's reassuring to remember

what the U.S. Chamber of Commerce told the Environmental

Protection Agency in a recent filing: that there's no need to

worry because ``populations can acclimatize to warmer

climates via a range of behavioral, physiological, and

technological adaptations.'' I'm pretty sure that's what

residents are telling themselves in Joplin today.

Mr. Speaker, I was shocked yesterday at the exchange that occurred between our colleague from North Carolina, Patrick McHenry, and Elizabeth Warren, the woman who has been tasked by President Obama to establish the new Consumer Financial Protections Bureau.

You know, to have a woman of impeccable academic credentials, a woman who for years predicted what was going to happen, had a potential solution, and who has been adamant in her support for trying to unwind this mess, to have her being attacked, to have her at one point being accused of somehow doing too much to communicate with Attorneys General who are trying to get a fair shake for homeowners who have been cheated, speaks volumes--not just, sadly, about the Republican chair of the subcommittee, but about the Republican approach.

For heaven sakes, they shouldn't be blocking her nomination. They should be embracing it and working with us to make sure it never happens again.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, as I appreciate the cooperation of the ranking member and the Chair on a couple of items that we've placed in this en bloc amendment.

One of them deals with the necessity of providing energy efficiencies that could save billions of dollars. It requires the Department of Defense to valuate energy efficiency benefits and recommend how to deploy them.

Fuel is carried on expensive supply convoys that often travel through indefensible areas. One out of every 24 fuel convoys represents casualties. We're spending $24 billion a year to protect convoys to forward operating bases in Afghanistan, and 65 percent of all electricity on bases in Afghanistan is for air conditioning and heating leaky tents. Reducing this fuel use is a simple way to reduce fuel convoys, which reduces costs and casualties. And this amendment requiring a report on energy efficiency and onsite renewable generation will expedite energy efficiency deployment across the armed services.

Additionally, there is an amendment that I have cosponsored with my friend, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Schrader), that will deal with what happens with contracts that are issued on defense activities where the Federal Government has provided indemnification. We've been dealing with an issue that involves the Oregon National Guard where we really can't understand exactly what elements were related to this indemnification. We can't get the full information. When the government agrees to shoulder financial responsibility for a contractor's risk, it may be necessary, but ambiguities in the current law do not have, I think, the best interests of our troops or taxpayers in mind in terms of making sure that this is very limited in nature.

This amendment would require the Secretary of Defense to notify Congress within 90 days whenever the Department enters into or modifies an indemnification agreement and explain why such provision is necessary.

Thank you.

The more limited these indemnification provisions can be, the less likely that we're going to have contractors who don't really have the full financial incentive to make sure that they are acting in the best interests of our troops. I've seen examples that really give me pause. The inclusion of this amendment will help make that less likely, and I appreciate it.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1216, which rescinds funding for graduate medical education in qualified teaching health centers. The Affordable Care Act provides funding for the training of medical residents in qualifying health centers, which will strengthen the health care workforce and support an increased number of primary care medical residents trained in community-based settings across the country. This bill undermines that key objective and in so doing, undermines public health efforts, limits access to doctors in communities around the country, and weakens our medical workforce.

Teaching health centers are community-based patient care centers that operate primary care residency programs, such as family medicine, internal medicine, pediatrics, and general and pediatric dentistry. Physicians trained in health centers are more than three times as likely to work in a health center and more than twice as likely to work in an underserved area than are those not trained at health centers.

Oregon's community health centers--29 clinics offer care at more than 150 delivery sites--provide high-quality, comprehensive health care to more than a quarter-million people across my state. Services range from medical and dental care to prescription medications to behavioral health care. Many centers also provide such support services as transportation and translation to ensure that everyone who needs healthcare can access it. This legislation, however, would undermine the ability of these centers to attract doctors and other health professionals so vital to providing community-based care.

The Institute of Medicine reports that already there is a need for more than 16,000 new physicians in currently underserved areas. Unless we invest in medical education that closes this shortfall, it will worsen in future years. The Association of American Medical Colleges estimates that, by 2024, we will need 46,000 additional primary care physicians. This legislation makes it more difficult to close this gap.

A recent study by Dartmouth investigators published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that beneficiaries living in areas with better access to primary care physicians had lower mortality and fewer hospitalizations. By eliminating funding to train doctors in community-based settings, this legislation makes it less likely that patients in underserved areas will be able to see a doctor or to get the care that they need. This legislation will worsen health outcomes in underserved areas.

Rather than making refinements to improve the Affordable Care Act, H.R. 1216 merely eliminates funding. It fails to advance the key objectives of the law to improve healthcare while lowering costs and it fails to offer alternative solutions to meet these important objectives. I oppose this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to introduce the Commuter Relief Act, legislation that will expand the popular transit benefits program to provide commuters with options to avoid high gas prices, make it easier for companies to provide transportation benefits for all employees, and spur public-private partnerships for commuting purposes.

Americans have made it clear that they want transportation options. In a recent study by the Pew Charitable Trusts, 52 percent of Americans support increased funding for bike, pedestrian and public transportation programs. On average, transportation costs are now Americans' second largest expense after housing. As gas prices increase, many Americans are already changing their daily behaviors to decrease fuel costs: taking fewer trips, keeping their cars tuned, even trading in their gas guzzlers for more fuel-efficient models. As we search for solutions to our congested roadways, increasing gas costs and expanding waistlines, it's time for the federal government to become more aggressive in helping to provide choices.

For too long, the federal government has supported commuters who drove to work, but has not helped those who use other methods of transportation. Through the incentives in this bill, the federal government can support consumers who wish to use environmentally friendly, active transportation modes that save them money in the long run, such as public transit, carpooling, biking, walking and telecommuting. This not only makes environmental and public health sense, it makes economic sense: at $4 a gallon gasoline, American families can save $5.6 billion each year on gasoline costs by using transit. Bicycle commuters annually save an average of $1,825 in auto- related costs, conserve 145 gallons of gasoline, and avoid 50 hours of gridlock traffic.

The Commuter Relief Act will provide consumers with commuting choices, and make it easier for companies to implement commuting programs that benefit all employees. It ensures that the federal government is a better partner as we work to provide Americans with transportation choices, reduce congestion and decrease our dependence on foreign oil.

I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation to support businesses in their effort to provide choices for commuting employees.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and the underlying bill. We all understand the desire to do something about high gas prices, and we all sympathize with families in this economy who are struggling with $4 a gallon gasoline.

But these bills will do nothing to provide American families with relief. They could threaten coastal ecosystems and the millions of Americans who rely on them.

It's been a year since we watched the horror in the gulf coast. We found that the agencies who oversee offshore drilling and the oil companies that engage in it were not prepared for the disaster. And Americans will be paying for that failure for years.

The administration has taken a number of steps to prevent future spills. Unfortunately, these bills undermine that process, making drilling less safe.

Instead of pretending as if one of these terrible environmental disasters never happened, Congress should implement the recommendations of the oil spill commission. We should be pursuing legislation that will reduce our dependence on oil by investing in things that give American commuters choices, in terms of more efficient vehicles, transportation alternatives, alternative fuels.

This bill, fortunately, will never be enacted into law. But I'm disappointed that the Rules Committee did not make in order any of the amendments to repeal unnecessary tax subsidies to the oil industry. At a time of record profits, it's adding insult to injury that billions of dollars are going to flow to the largest oil companies and make no difference to the consumer, no difference in the production of oil. It just adds to the bottom line of these international corporations.

I hope that at some point the House will be able to deal with these subsidies, which, even our Republican Speaker recently said, should be examined. And I've had legislation ready and ready to go for months now, and I hope it gets a chance to be voted on on this floor.

Mr. Chair, I voted against H.R. 1214, which would repeal the grants for the construction and expansion of school-based health centers. The Affordable Care Act included funding to expand school-based health programs across America so that we can provide better care for our children. Students who are healthy are ready to learn.

School-based health centers provide our children with quality, comprehensive care that includes mental health services, social services and preventative care. A survey conducted by the National Assembly on School-Based Health Care found that when properly funded, school-based health centers help fill the gap in access to health services, especially for rural and underserved populations.

These centers are accountable to their communities through an advisory board made up of local representatives, family organizations and parents. These programs bring health care to our kids and provide service without concern for whether or not they can afford it.

In my state of Oregon, we are part of the School Mental Health Capacity Building Partnership to examine and improve mental health programs to be used in school-based health centers. As an early-adopter state for these centers, Oregon was selected to be one of four states to lead the way on this research. This important work, focused on tailoring mental health care to better meet our children and youths needs, relies on the school-based health center funding and will be jeopardized by this legislation.

H.R. 1214 would prevent us from investing in our children and driving down future health care costs. At the start of this Congress, the only alternative the Republicans offered to the Affordable Care Act was a repeal-and-do-not-replace approach that is irresponsible at best.

The Affordable Care Act is not perfect, but Congress should be focused on implementing the Act, and refining--not repealing--its provisions. I oppose this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to comment on the passing of a dear friend and Oregon icon, former Congressman Robert Duncan, who died last week at age 90. Bob served his Nation with distinction beginning with his service during World War II in both the merchant marine and the U.S. Navy. After graduating from the University of Michigan Law School, he settled in Medford, Oregon, with his wife Marijane. He was a State legislator from that community. He served two terms as speaker for the first time in Oregon history.

From there, he went to serve in Congress, representing the Fourth Congressional District in southwest Oregon until he was persuaded by President Lyndon Johnson to leave Congress to run for a vacated U.S. Senate seat against Governor Mark Hatfield. In a campaign that defined Oregon politics for over a decade, Bob lost narrowly to Mark Hatfield in, to say the very least, a heated campaign, focusing in large measure over the United States' involvement in the war in Vietnam, which he supported and Mark Hatfield opposed. A significant development was the endorsement of then-Democratic U.S. Senator Wayne Morris of Republican Hatfield, which many experts feel provided the narrow margin of victory for Hatfield. Later, Bob almost won the Democratic primary against Wayne Worse when he ran for reelection 2 years later sending shockwaves that reverberated for a decade.

I first had the opportunity to work with Bob Duncan when I was directing a campaign to lower Oregon's voting age in 1969, and he was a zealous supporter of engaging young people in the political process.

In 1974, Bob again made history by being the first Oregonian to represent 2 different districts in Congress as he was elected to the Third Congressional District, which I am now privileged to represent. He continued for another 6 years of distinguished service, serving on the Appropriations Committee.

After leaving Congress in 1981, Bob returned to private practice as a lawyer in Portland and Washington, D.C., and later served on the Northwest Planning Power Council.

Bob had many passions in his life but none more important than his family. He was married 48 years to Marijane until her death in 1989, and later, he married Kathy Boe and found many years of happiness. Bob had seven children who survive him: Nancy, Angus, David, Jamie, Laurie, Bonnie and Jeanne.

He was by turns a stubborn political animal, generous of spirit, with a legacy for courage strengthened by his convictions. He was a man of great humor, intellect, and conviction. He was also thrifty to an extent that is legendary to family and friends and many of his constituents. Until the end of his life I would still get letters from him with a series of 3-cent stamps and the old congressional return address on the envelope scratched over. But he was very careful with the taxpayer money in his Appropriations Committee to an extent that sometimes drove even his supporters to distraction.

He leaves a legacy for courage, passion for justice, and accomplishment of decades of service, particularly a decade in two very different congressional districts that were united in the admiration of this dedicated public servant. He will be missed, but fondly remembered.

My friend from Michigan said it right. There are no Federal funds for abortion under the terms of the Hyde amendment, except in the case of rape and incest.

What this is about is how families spend their money and small business deals with insurance. It's part of a continuing Republican assault against people with whom they disagree. It continues the sad spectacle of using the Internal Revenue Service--I would say not just the use but the abuse of the IRS--to attack people with whom they disagree.

Remember the spectacle of the Ways and Means hearing where they drug AARP before them and tried to have an investigation because they disagreed with them on health insurance?

Yes, this would put government between doctors and American families. But it's not just about abortion under the Hyde amendment.

Remember, there are some people who are against the rape and incest exemption. There are some people who had a shocking proposal to radically change the very definition of rape.

There is a continuing effort to erode basic fundamental reproductive freedom, and this shows a tactic of using the IRS that I think is very dangerous. It does, in fact, increase the complexity and raises taxes on individuals who may, in fact, need these procedures that may, in fact, be lifesaving. The proponents may not agree with what a woman and her doctor decide but that should be their decision.

This raises the specter of using the Tax Code and the Congressional investigating power in ways that no one should support.

I rise today in honor of the long and productive life of Harold J. Schnitzer.

Harold was a skilled businessman who, together with his wife, Arlene Director Schnitzer, established and later with his son, Jordan, grew one of the largest privately owned real estate companies in the western United States. But this quiet, thoughtful, modest man was a civic leader, a philanthropist for the arts, education, and culture in Oregon.

I personally experienced his kindness to a young man interested in public service. He continued to be generous with his opinions and advice, a story I know was repeated many times. His important contributions to our community will be enjoyed for generations to come.

We honor his life, even as we mourn his passing, and extend our condolences to his wife of 62 years, Arlene, his son, Jordan, his extended family, and countless friends.

Harold Schnitzer Obituary

Schnitzer, Harold J. 87 June 08, 1923 April 27, 2011 Harold

J. Schnitzer, businessman, philanthropist, and civic leader,

passed away early Wednesday morning, April 27, 2011, in

Portland, at age 87, from complications of cancer and

diabetes. He was born June 8, 1923, in Portland, growing up

in S.W. Portland where he attended Shattuck Elementary School

and Lincoln High School. He earned a Bachelor of Science in

metallurgy from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in

1944 and, immediately thereafter, served in the U.S. Army

until his discharge in 1947. Upon returning to Portland he

joined his brothers in the family scrap and steel business,

working alongside them until 1950, at which time he left and

founded Harsch Investment Properties, a leading diversified

owner and operator of industrial, office, retail and multi-

family properties in five Western states. He served as

President and Chairman of the Board for two decades before

being joined by his son Jordan in 1970, who now serves as

President. Together they grew the company into one of the

largest, privately held real estate companies in the Western

United States. Throughout his life he focused on three

things: family, the business and his community. Harold

learned early on from his parents, Sam and Rose Schnitzer,

who immigrated to the United States in the early 1900s, the

responsibility of making a difference with his life. They

taught him and his siblings, Manuel, Morris, Mollie, Edith,

Gilbert and Leonard, the importance of giving back to your

community. In 1949 he met and married Arlene Director,

daughter of family friends, Simon and Helen Director. Married

for 62 years, they were lifelong partners in business, the

arts and philanthropy. Their son, Jordan, was born in 1951.

Over a career of 60 years there have been hundreds of

organizations and causes that have benefited from his

leadership and financial support. Harold served on the board

of Lewis & Clark College for 16 years, a Life Trustee since

1995. His service to the Portland Art Museum spanned 21

years, ultimately as Chairman of the Board from 1997 to 2001,

during which time a major expansion resulted in the opening

of the Mark Building. He and Arlene are especially proud of

establishing the Center for Northwest Art, and a curatorial

and awards program. They also were major collectors of Han

and pre-Han ceramics that led to establishing the Arlene and

Harold Schnitzer Collection of Early Chinese Art. They gifted

a number of works from the collection to the Portland Art

Museum along with endowing the position of Curator of Asian

Art. Harold and Arlene have also been strong supporters of

arts and cultural institutions in both the Bay Area and Palm

Springs, where they have residences. More recently Harold

provided the lead gift establishing the Harold Schnitzer

Diabetes Health Center at OHSU in 2007, one of only ten

centers in the nation treating children and adults, and the

only one on the West Coast. A diabetic since his early 40s,

he valued good health care and appreciated its connection to

the quality and longevity of life. The Center is his

expression of helping others in their struggle with diabetes.

Harold valued family and philanthropy that extended to

Portland, the State of Oregon and the Pacific Northwest. He

served as chairman of multiple capital and building campaigns

for Portland's Jewish Community that led to the establishment

of the Mittleman Jewish Community Center, and facilities for

Congregation Shaarie Torah and Congregation Beth Israel, both

of which he remained as a member until his death. Harold was

always interested in ensuring that young people have the same

educational opportunities that he had. He believed that with

education comes greater appreciation of one another's

differences and increased tolerance. He had a lifelong

interest in funding scholarships and educational grants, and

that ultimately led to him establishing Judaic studies

programs at both the University of Oregon and Portland State

University. Harold served the City of Portland on a variety

of projects including the development of the Portland Center

for the Performing Arts. Because of his leadership and

philanthropy, the city named its symphony hall, the Arlene

Schnitzer Concert Hall, in honor of his wife, Arlene. He has

been honored by numerous civic organizations regionally and

nationally in partnership with his wife Arlene including the

following: Doctor of Humane Letters, Portland State

University, 2004; Distinguished Service Award, University of

Oregon, 2001; Aubrey Watzek Award, Lewis & Clark College,

2000; Arts Breakfast of Champions Honoree, NW Business for

Culture and the Arts, 1997; Portland First Citizen Award,

Portland Metropolitan Association of Realtors, 1995; SAFECO

Art Leadership Award, ArtFair/Seattle, 1994; Distinguished

Service Award, United Jewish Appeal, 1966-1967; and the

Outstanding Philanthropist Award, National Society of

Fundraising Executives, 1996. He is this year's honoree of

the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation to be celebrated

Saturday, April 30, 2011. Also in April, the faculty of the

Pacific Northwest College of Art voted to award honorary

doctorate degrees to both Harold and Arlene. Harold is

survived by his wife, Arlene; son, Jordan; granddaughters,

Arielle and Audria; brother, Gilbert of the Bay Area, Calif.;

sister Mollie of Beverly Hills, Calif.; and numerous nieces

and nephews. Even during the last days of his life he was

still working and planning on how to make life better for

everyone else around him. Therefore, in lieu of flowers and

to honor his memory, the family suggests that contributions

maybe made to the Harold Schnitzer Diabetes Health Center at

OHSU; the Portland Art Museum; at either of two Judaic

studies programs at the University of Oregon or Portland

State University, or to the charity of your choice. A

memorial service will be at 4 p.m. Wednesday, May 11, 2011,

at Congregation Beth Israel, 1972 N.W. Flanders St.,

Portland, with a reception to follow at 5:30 p.m. at the

Portland Art Museum, Mark Building, 1219 S.W. Park Ave.,

Portland.

Mr. Speaker, it was my great privilege to spend a major portion of the weekend watching young constitutional scholars from Portland's Grant High School compete in the national Constitution competition here in our Nation's Capital.

It was an amazing experience watching these young men and women debating the fine points of our Constitution. While I had a personal interest with one of the students there, it became clear, watching the competition, that everybody was a winner.

As I was watching the finals, where they were one of the top 10 teams in the Nation, it was fascinating to contemplate what was going on in the much broader context in terms of what this represented. Everybody was a winner--the student constitutional scholars, their dedicated coaches and teachers. Most important, America was winning.

They were part of tens of thousands of students across the country who dove into the intricacies of the Constitution over the past year. They

delved into its antecedents like the Magna Carta and the Articles of Confederation. They deal with the Civil War and the challenges to our constitutional ideals and the practicality of governance in a time of war. They pondered the struggle to give all Americans the promises embedded in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. They explored the conflict between the rule of law and its too often flawed implementation.

It was really heartwarming to be able to witness the discussion between the judges, who were all skilled professionals--professors, lawyers, judges volunteering their time--and these terrific young citizens. Indeed, some of the exchanges were riveting. I found myself reflecting on how much easier would be our job in Congress if there were more Americans who were part of this extraordinary experience.

These young people have been part of a program making a difference for a quarter century now. We've got data that show its effectiveness. These young people score a third higher than adult citizens on their knowledge of the Constitution and civic affairs. And good news for America: looking at this experience over a quarter century, they are five times more likely to run for public office.

The bad news is that thousands of young people in every State, the District of Columbia, and some of the territories will lose as a result of the inability of Congress to figure out how to finance a small portion of the participation that comes from Federal money. They are a casualty this year of the inability of Congress to figure out how to provide that support. I find that ironic because these young people could give Congress lessons about the congressional power of the purse, the separations of power, to give us a roadmap to make sure that these programs are not sacrificed.

It's particularly important because the flawed ``No Child Left Behind'' bill that's up for reauthorization doesn't place a premium on civic education. I see my good friend, Congresswoman Woolsey, a senior member of that committee, who has fought for years to redirect it.

Well, the least we can do is to restore the money lost this year as we deal with the budget for the next year. Any Member of Congress who takes the time to meet with the outstanding young men and women from their State who are in our Nation's Capital today in the aftermath of that contest would be hard-pressed to explain to them why they wouldn't and, indeed, should be inspired to do all they could to make sure this outstanding program continues.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1213, which repeals grant programs established in the Affordable Care Act to support State efforts to set up health insurance marketplaces. The Affordable Care Act calls for these ``exchanges'' to be established by January 1, 2014. Under H.R. 1213, fewer States will have the resources necessary to create these marketplaces, and in the wake of this legislation, fewer people will get help buying insurance. As a result, 500,000 more people will be uninsured in 2015.

These exchanges are designed to allow Americans to compare prices and health insurance plans and decide which option is right for them. These grants are critical to help States develop and begin operation of exchanges able to perform these functions. In fact, nearly all States have already received grant funding to begin establishing their own marketplaces, including my State of Oregon, which will receive $48 million. The Affordable Care Act establishes these exchanges to negotiate prices for a large volume of individuals, securing the kind of group discounts that large employers now enjoy. In addition to providing consumer protections, the exchanges actually provide for a robust private insurance market. This price competition plays a critical role in reducing health care costs.

Rather than making refinements to improve the law, H.R. 1213 simply proposes to eliminate funding. It would not advance the key objectives of the Affordable Care Act or offer alternative solutions for meeting these important objectives, and this legislation makes it more difficult to achieve better and more affordable care.

Many of the ill-founded criticisms of the Affordable Care Act stem from concerns about the country's burden of public debt. While I share many of these concerns about our public debt, I cannot condone this approach to balancing the nation's books. The Congressional Budget Office finds that the vast majority of the bill's $14 billion in savings results from reduced spending on premium and cost-sharing for low-income people to buy insurance, not from the elimination of the $1.9 billion in grants to help set up the exchanges. This legislation continues the Republican effort to balance our nation's books on the backs of the poor and I oppose this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to introduce the Personalize Your Care Act of 2011.

Advances in healthcare have led to increasingly complex health care decisions and more treatment options than we have ever before had the benefit--or the burden--of choosing between. Both Democrats and Republicans agree that individuals should be fully involved in decisions related to their own health care and should be able to make informed decisions about that care reflecting their values and their needs. We also agree that when people have expressed their wishes, particularly in a formal and legally binding manner, those wishes should be known and respected.

While there is widespread agreement regarding these principles, too often this is not the reality. Most adults have not completed an advance directive; if documents are completed, they are not regularly revisited and can be difficult to locate. Because these issues are difficult to discuss, surrogates often feel ill-prepared to interpret their loved ones' written wishes.

These shortcomings can leave families and healthcare proxies faced with the burden of determining their loved ones' wishes in the midst of crisis, sometimes with little or no information about how best to direct care. This adds not only stress and anxiety to an already difficult situation, but studies show that lack of advance care planning actually prolongs the grieving process after losing a loved one.

One of the greatest misconceptions about advance care planning is that it is a one-time event. Attempting to plan for all possibilities in a single document or within a single conversation is overwhelming and, quite likely, impossible. Where possible, this should be an ongoing conversation. Careful, early advance care planning is important because a person's ability to make decisions may diminish over time and he or she may suddenly lose the capability to participate in his or her health care decisions.

Successful advance care planning is less about legal documentation and more about facilitating ongoing communication about future care wishes among individuals, their health care providers, and surrogates. This approach recognizes that advance care documents like advance directives are not the ``ends,'' but the ``means''--they are the tools for documenting care preferences based on informed decisions that incorporate an individual's values, personal goals, and current circumstances.

This process not only provides higher quality care, but personalized care.

The Personalize Your Care Act aims to support advance care planning by providing Medicare andMedicaid coverage for voluntary consultations about advance care planning every 5 years or in the event of a change in health status. This periodic revisiting of advance care documents and goals of care recognizes that an individual's preferences can change over time. It also recognizes that the advance care plan should be updated if an individual develops a serious or chronic illness, if additional curative and palliative treatment options become available, and to consistently reflect the individual's current circumstances and preferences.

Honoring the expressed wishes of individuals must also be a priority. For this to occur, advance care planning documents must be accessible wherever care is provided. The legislation ensures that an individual's electronic health record is able to display his or her current advance directive and/or physician orders for life sustaining treatment (POLST), so that his or her wishes are easily accessible and respected. Furthermore, under the legislation, advance directives would be portable, ensuring that advance directives completed in one state are honored in another state, in the event care needed to be provided there.

The legislation also provides grants to states to establish or expand physician orders for life sustaining treatment programs. These programs have a track record of promoting patient autonomy through documenting and coordinating a person's treatment preferences, clarifying treatment intentions and minimizing confusion, reducing repetitive activities in complying with the Patient Self Determination Act, and facilitating appropriate treatment by emergency personnel.

These investments in advance care planning will reinforce patient- centered care--engaging individuals in planning and decision-making about their future care and ensuring that those preferences are documented, accessible, and can be honored in any state and in any care setting.

I am proud to introduce the Personalize Your Care Act with the support of patient advocates, physicians, nurses, and the faith community who see every day how advance care planning improves individuals' and families' peace of mind and the quality of their care.