Floor Statements

Thank you very much, Mr. Hoyer, for bringing to the country's attention the work left undone.

When I arrived in Congress just a little more than 7 months ago, I brought a pretty strong message from my constituents back in Oregon, and that's that they want us to overcome the gridlock, they want us to get our economy back on track and support policies that create new jobs. Of course, no one expects this to be an easy task, but I was really encouraged by so many people who said, That's why we're here. Let's work together for job creation. Unfortunately, these conversations have now been kicked down the road for another day-- actually, another month--while too many of our constituents back home are facing unemployment, their homes are underwater, their child care costs are rising.

Several of my colleagues have talked about the failure to pass the farm bill. This typically bipartisan legislation became a staging ground for a fight over nutrition assistance to people who are struggling. Now the bipartisan Senate bill has some amendments that were added that will help farmers in my district and across this country. We should be able to vote on that bipartisan bill that passed the Senate.

As others have mentioned, we're going to go back to our districts and face our constituents, who are expecting so much from us. But we did not extend the production tax credit for wind energy. Now, that's a problem in my district. I have companies that are waiting for that. They may now be facing additional layoffs. That policy has long been a bipartisan policy supported by many to develop the wind industry in this country. That's going to be hard for us to explain to our constituents.

So, Mr. Hoyer, thank you. There's so much that we can do and should be doing to get our economy back on track, but Congress is not doing our job. This failure to pass bipartisan, commonsense legislation is something everyone in America should know

about. We should be staying here representing the best interests of our constituents, helping to put this country back to work.

So thank you again, Mr. Hoyer, for yielding and for bringing this important issue to everyone's attention.

Mr. Speaker, during the month of August, I had held several town hall meetings throughout my district in Oregon. In these meetings, I've done a summary of the work that we're doing here in Congress and then opened the floor for questions from and discussions with my constituents.

Without fail, in every town hall meeting at least one person would ask about the partisan rancor and the gridlock that's come to characterize Washington. They would ask me: Can you tell us something that's bipartisan that you've done, something where you've worked together, some achievement that everyone's agreed on.

Now, in responding to them, I've often discussed a piece of legislation that's very important to the debate on budget priorities and the so-called ``fiscal cliff''; that's the Sequestration Transparency Act. This bill passed the Budget Committee by voice vote and was later approved in the House, with only two in opposition. After the Senate passed it with unanimous consent, the President signed it into law. So this was truly a bipartisan effort, a statement by almost every one of us working together that we're concerned about the impact that sequestration might have on our constituents, and an effort to get more information about the true harm that that sequestration will cause.

Now, following the administration's recent report detailing those cuts that would come under sequestration, I am even more concerned than before, and my constituents are concerned. And I know constituents all across this country are concerned as well. Mr. Speaker, there is bipartisan concern about the impact that sequestration might have, and yet we haven't been able to come to a bipartisan consensus to avoid it.

We've identified a problem; now we must identify a solution. This should be a balanced solution, working together, and I look forward to working with all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to arrive at that solution. It's a solution for my district in Oregon, for all of the great State, and, importantly, for all of this great Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor to H.R. 2994, the Marine and Hydrokinetic Renewable Energy Promotion Act. The original sponsor is no longer in Congress.

Madam Speaker, this is an important day for women across this great country. Starting today, all new health insurance plans will include coverage for important preventive health care for women. Many have looked forward to this date since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, and I'm thrilled that it's finally here.

Starting today, women across the country will have access to essential preventive health care without copayments or deductibles. Women who were effectively barred from these services because of the cost will now be able to receive annual visits, testing for diseases like HPV and HIV, breast feeding support and education, domestic violence counseling, and contraceptives.

This is an important step in lowering our country's health care costs and making sure that women have sufficient access to preventive health care.

In my home State of Oregon, there are more than 633,000--and 47 million across the country--who are going to benefit from this change. These are women who had unintended pregnancies because they couldn't access contraceptives. These are women who avoided going to the doctor because they didn't have the money, only to end up in the emergency room. And these are women whose pregnancies were endangered because of lack of prenatal care. Today this changes. Now all women can take control of their health.

This is an important week for the United States as we host the International AIDS Conference for the first time in 22 years.

Decades ago, our country made the shameful decision that no one who is HIV positive could enter our borders. With the President's lifting of that ban and a greater attention to the AIDS crisis, along with the advent of drugs that help those with HIV live longer, we are approaching what we should have always been--a global leader in the fight against AIDS.

Countless Oregonians have been affected by AIDS. I've personally lost friends to AIDS, and as of June 30, more than 5,600 people in Oregon were living with HIV. It's time to eliminate the stigma associated with HIV/AIDS and to focus on prevention, treatment, and care.

The participants of the conference this week show immense dedication to the fight against HIV and AIDS, both in the U.S. and abroad. Congress should have the same dedication. Funding for prevention and treatment programs is crucial, as is funding for medical research and drug development.

We've come a long way, but there is still a lot of work to do. I urge my colleagues to join me. Speak out. Help to end the stigma. Let's work together to fight AIDS.

Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chair, I wish to engage in a colloquy with Chairman Young and Ranking Member Dicks.

Yesterday, the House adopted an amendment I offered with Congresswoman Buerkle directing the National Guard to conduct a capability assessment of the medical equipment in its domestic Humvee ambulances. This will pave the way for the retrofitting of Humvee ambulances that lack adequate cardiac monitoring and resuscitation equipment. As you know, the National Guard's mission includes responding to terrorist attacks, homeland security emergencies, natural disasters, and providing defense support to civil authorities. This equipment will allow the Guard to effectively carry out their mission.

But the retrofitting of currently-owned Humvee ambulances is not enough. To purchase ambulances in the future that lack cardiac monitoring and resuscitation equipment is, frankly, irresponsible. Mr. Chair and Mr. Ranking Member, the adjutant generals in eight different Sates, including Washington, New York, and my home State of Oregon, have indicated that this equipment is necessary to their missions, and could make the difference between life and death in an emergency situation.

Mr. Chair and Mr. Ranking Member, both Congresswoman Buerkle and I appreciate your support for our amendment yesterday and your commitment to all who serve in our Nation's National Guard. Congresswoman Buerkle and I had another amendment to ensure that this important lifesaving equipment would be included in Humvee ambulances purchased for the Guard in the future. In lieu of that amendment, I ask if you will work with Ms. Buerkle and me to ensure that future Humvee ambulances purchased for Guard use contain adequate cardiac monitoring and resuscitation equipment?

I would be happy to yield to the distinguished chairman.

Yes, I will yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member.

I sincerely thank the chairman and the ranking member for their attention, cooperation, and willingness to work on and address this very important issue. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Moran

Thank you, Congressman Van Hollen, for yielding.

I rise in support of the Sequestration Transparency Act.

We have all heard concerns back home about partisan gridlock in our Nation's Capitol. Our constituents continue to ask us: Is there any way to overcome this gridlock to solve the problems facing our country? They ask if it is getting better, if Congress can actually do something. Can we get things done?

With the end of the year approaching and with our country's inching ever closer to the so-called ``fiscal cliff,'' the questions from our constituents take on a new urgency. They want to know what is going to happen if the budget sequestration is allowed to go into effect, and they want to know if Congress can function well enough to avoid the doomsday scenarios that many economists are predicting if sequestration does occur. Up until now, we have not been able to offer them much in the way of positive news, and we've had to tell our constituents that we're not quite sure what sequestration will mean for our communities.

Now, this bill doesn't solve the problems our constituents will face if sequestration actually goes into effect--the lost jobs or the damage to our still struggling economy--but it does give us valuable information about what might happen. It will allow us, the body that brought us here in the first place with the passage of the Budget Control Act, to at least better understand the consequences of our actions. Importantly, it signals a bipartisan action on the part of Congress to ask: How bad will this be?

If there is a silver lining to be found, it is that we have come together on what could have been a contentious piece of legislation, and I thank the Budget Committee chairman and ranking member for their leadership.

Now, the fact that we have to pass a bill to get information on legislation that we have already passed does not speak highly of the process. The sequester was supposed to motivate us to work together and pass a budget that lowers costs while maintaining critical services. It's unfortunate that we have to pass yet another bill to move us closer to accomplishing what should have been done months ago.

But for the sake of better representing our constituents, let's focus on the positive: Let's support a bill that gives us the information we as legislators need in order to make an educated decision.

I hope today's bipartisan action is an indicator of a renewed commitment to tackling the sequester, and I hope it sends a message to our constituents that we can work together to get something done. That's why I supported this bill in the Budget Committee, and that's why I am asking my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on the Sequestration Transparency Act.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the commonsense amendment I am offering for Ms. Buerkle and me to help State National Guard units across the country better perform their missions. This amendment requires the National Guard to complete a capability assessment of the medical equipment its domestic Humvee ambulances should be required to carry in Federal and State missions.

Right now, these ambulances have no requirement to carry cardiac monitoring and resuscitation equipment, limiting their capability to adequately treat a wide range of injuries in emergency situations. MRAP ambulances, used by the Army and National Guard in overseas contingency operations, do, however, carry cardiac monitoring and resuscitation equipment. This capability assessment would determine whether or not Guard Humvee ambulances used domestically should carry cardiac monitoring and resuscitation equipment comparable to MRAP ambulances currently fielded in overseas contingency operations.

The National Guard's missions include responding to terrorist attacks, homeland security emergencies, natural disasters, and providing defense

support to civil authorities. How can the Guard carry out its required missions if it does not have the proper equipment necessary to deal with severe injuries?

As these Humvee ambulances are currently equipped, medical personnel are extremely limited in the available treatment they can provide to an injured person. Essentially, an ambulance in this configuration can only provide very basic care and the simple transportation of a patient from one place to another. For example, I understand that medical personnel would be unable to treat a patient experiencing cardiac arrest. This is a serious problem.

State National Guard units across the country want this equipment and have indicated that it could make the difference between life and death in emergency situations. The Adjutants General in eight different States, including Washington, Montana, North Dakota, Hawaii, New York, Arizona, and my home State of Oregon, have submitted resolutions for the emergency procurement of cardiac monitoring equipment to be used by their individual State Guard units, but because the National Guard Bureau does not view this equipment as ``required,'' it has backed out of a plan to purchase it despite the support of multiple States.

This amendment will require the National Guard Bureau to reexamine whether or not cardiac monitoring and resuscitation equipment is required and necessary for the Guard to fulfill its homeland security, terrorist attack, national disaster response, and defense support to civil authorities responsibilities. Should the capability assessment find that the equipment is necessary, under this amendment, the Army may use funds from this section to retrofit and install the equipment in domestic Humvee ambulances currently in use by the National Guard.

This is a commonsense issue. The Guardsmen and -women who operate ambulances should be provided the best capability available to save lives across this country in the event of an emergency.

I urge my colleagues' support of this bipartisan amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that we are here once again talking about repealing the Affordable Care Act, a bill that passed almost 2 years ago and that, as we all know, was recently upheld by the United States Supreme Court. We should be focusing on jobs and the economy. The repeal bill we are about to vote on isn't going to go anywhere, and we all know that. It won't pass the Senate, and it won't be signed into law. We could be doing real things to help Americans and the economy right now. Yet here we are, for the 31st time, voting on the same thing. So, instead of repeal, let's talk about the benefits to Americans as the Affordable Care Act is implemented.

Because it will result in more people having access to health care, the Affordable Care Act will change the lives of millions of people. It will prevent more of the heart-wrenching stories like those we all hear about with regard to the consequences of a lack of access to health care. I know someone whose life would have been changed by the Affordable Care Act.

Bob, in Oregon, lost his job. Because he lost his job, he lost his health insurance, so he got on to COBRA. He had that expensive option for a while, and at least it gave him coverage, but then his COBRA ran out for him, just as it does for so many other people, and he was forced to live without health insurance. It was quite a risk that he had to take, and it didn't work out so well for him. Like many people without insurance, he had medical troubles, but he put off treatment, hoping for the best. In the end, though, he ended up in the emergency room, which is exactly what the Affordable Care Act is designed to prevent. He had surgery, and was then in the hospital for almost a month. Because of the sky-high medical bills, he almost lost his home.

Fortunately, he is doing okay today, but it was a very close call. This would not have happened under the Affordable Care Act, and it will not happen under the Affordable Care Act. Bob would have had access to affordable health care coverage, and he would not have put off preventative care, which is covered under the Affordable Care Act. He would have seen his doctor at the first sign of a problem, and he would not have ended up in the emergency room, which raises health care costs for everyone--a cost shift that the Affordable Care Act is designed to prevent--and he would not have come so close to losing his home.

The benefits of the Affordable Care Act are undeniable: Already in my home State of Oregon, 43,000 young people have taken advantage of the opportunity to stay on their parents' health plans; children can't be denied insurance because of preexisting conditions; and 54 million Americans now receive free preventative care, and that's just after 2 years.

There are more and more benefits that will be implemented over the next several years: Insurers will no longer be able to discriminate against women; insurance marketplaces, called ``exchanges,'' will be created to make sure that everyone has access to affordable health insurance options; and starting just next month, women will have access to free preventative health care and contraception. All of these will be put into place, and as they are, more people will see how the Affordable Care Act positively affects their health and their wallets.

Repealing the Affordable Care Act has no benefits. In fact, doing so would take away every single benefit I just mentioned and more. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the repeal would increase the deficit--increase the deficit--by $210 billion over the next 10 years. We can all agree that such an increase is unacceptable and fiscally irresponsible. So this will mark the 31st time that the House has voted on some form of repeal of the Affordable Care Act. I hope it's the last so that we can focus more on the things that really matter.

Mr. Chair, I rise to urge my colleagues to work together to pass a comprehensive transportation bill before current law expires at the end of this week. The First District of Oregon is home to some of the country's most innovative thinkers, many of whom work at the technology giant Intel. Unfortunately, one of the biggest challenges of their workday often comes before it even starts, and continues after it ends: it is their commute. The roads leading to the ``Silicon Forest,'' as the technology cluster in Oregon is known, can back up for miles--a good sign for the economy, but bad for our transportation infrastructure.

The City of Hillsboro is home to many innovative tech companies. When the City applied for a TIGER grant to improve mobility and reduce congestion in the Silicon Forest, I supported their application. Infrastructure investments like this make it easier for people to get to work and they facilitate efficient transport of goods to market. This project wasn't selected by the Department of Transportation, but the application highlighted an important point. Investing in our transportation infrastructure is an economic multiplier. Not only do we employ hard-working Americans by building and maintaining infrastructure, we also improve the productivity and vibrancy of the workers who rely on the infrastructure to get to their workplace every morning.

Infrastructure improvements are important for safety as well. The Portland metro area is nationally renowned as a bike-friendly community, and our companies attract highly qualified employees in part because of the safe, multimodal transportation network in our region. Maintaining this infrastructure is critical to continuing to bring new businesses into our communities; investment in infrastructure will help to keep our roads and transportation routes safe.

So now, even though virtually every elected official talks about jobs as a first priority, somehow this transportation bill is stalling. We all agree that passing a surface transportation bill will create jobs. Let's do what is best for our constituents and pass a bill that keeps our construction workers on the job, reduces congestion for our commuters, and supports our struggling economy.

Mr. Chair, I am proud to support the Hirono-Chu-Matsui- Lee-Carnahan Amendment to the Energy and Water appropriations bill. The amendment would maintain our commitment to the successful Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, or ARPA E as it is more commonly known.

In March of this year, Energy Secretary Chu came before the Science, Space, and Technology Committee to discuss the Administration's budget request, which included an additional $75 million for ARPA E. I had the opportunity to speak with him about the importance of ARPA E and the effectiveness of the program as we seek to bring new technologies to market that change the way we generate, store, and use energy.

I take a particular interest in ARPA E because in Oregon we have seen its benefits first hand. As a result of the program, a company by the name of ReVolt Technology actually relocated to our community and brought its amazing research--and jobs as well. In my discussion with Secretary Chu, he highlighted the effectiveness of ARPA E in leveraging private-sector investments stating that a $40 million federal investment has been leveraged to private-sector investments of more than $200 million.

Keeping this in mind, I was dismayed to see that the underlying bill under consideration not only rejects the request for additional ARPA E investment, but seeks to cut $75 million in FY2013.

As a member of the Budget Committee, I understand the need to get our fiscal house in order. But we have a responsibility to do so in a strategic manner to ensure that we do not undermine our future security and competitiveness. It is precisely this recognition that makes the Hirono-Chu-Matsui-Lee-Carnahan Amendment so important.

This amendment addresses the lopsided priorities in the underlying bill in a reasonable and balanced way. It seeks to meet the Administration's request for the fossil fuels research and development, and uses the difference to support ARPA E. This would provide roughly $333 million for ARPA E, a modest increase over FY2012.

This is amendment takes a fair approach, balancing today's energy research needs with the promise of tomorrow's technologies, and the jobs and economic benefits that go along with them.

I commend my colleagues for their work on this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, which is yet another misleading bill that purports to help women, when in reality it takes away their freedom to control their own reproductive health. Mr. Speaker, we should be talking about jobs, but instead we're spending time on this divisive issue.

We can all agree that women should not choose to terminate a pregnancy based solely on gender, but this bill criminalizes a legal procedure and puts doctors in the role of legal and moral arbiter, and could give almost anyone who asserts an interest an effective veto over a woman's intimate personal health care decision.

This bill is another attempt to limit a woman's ability to make her own decisions about her life and her health. It will restrict the rights of women to obtain a completely legal and constitutionally protected medical procedure. If we want to truly and effectively address the issue of gender-selective abortion--a problem much more pervasive in other parts of the world--there are much better ways to do it than making suspects out of women and criminals out of doctors.

Thank you so much for yielding me this time, Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz, and for your leadership in Jewish American Heritage Month. It is great to join you and our other colleagues here this evening.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the contributions that so many Jewish Americans have made to our communities, to our States, to our country. There are many Jewish Americans who could be recognized here this evening and who deserve to be recognized for their contributions here this evening in honor of Jewish American Heritage Month.

I rise to pay tribute to a great Jewish American, an Oregonian, Mr. Harold Schnitzer. Born in 1923, Harold Schnitzer was the fifth of seven children of Russian immigrants.

He was born to Rose and Sam Schnitzer, who took a junk business and turned it into a steel empire.

As a boy, Harold earned 25 cents a week for polishing metal at his father's scrap yard. He told his teachers at Lincoln High School in Portland that his future was in steel. By the age of 16, he came back here to the East and he was studying at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, from which he graduated in 1944. He served in World War II. He dealt scrap metal during his time in the Army, and he was expected to take over the family business, but something happened. He didn't want to compete with his brothers. So he left to start his own real estate company, Harsch Investment Properties.

Throughout his life, Harold, along with his wife Arlene Schnitzer, generously supported education, health care, and cultural and Jewish institutions and organizations not only in Portland, but throughout the State of Oregon. Harold Schnitzer lost his life last year in 2011 at the age of 87. There is no question that he embodied tikkun olam. He made the world a better place.

I want to thank you for this opportunity, Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz, to pay tribute to a great Jewish American, but also to say thank you again for making Jewish American Heritage Month a reality so that others can learn about the contributions of Jewish Americans around this great country.

Thank you again for this opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, it's truly unfortunate that we're here today talking about the possibility of voting against the Violence Against Women Act. This bill was originally passed and has been consistently reauthorized with strong bipartisan support, but it now faces unnecessary hurdles.

There has been a drop in annual rates of domestic violence since the passage of the Violence Against Women Act, but we still have work to do. Alarmingly, one in four women and one in seven men have been victims of domestic violence in their lifetime, but the current bill is not the way to move forward.

Unlike the companion bill that passed in the Senate with strong bipartisan support, this House bill will take us backwards. It eliminates protections for immigrants dependent on and exploited by their spouses, keeping them trapped in violent relationships. It could let perpetrators of sexual violence against Native American women off the hook, and it utterly fails to recognize that anyone can be a victim of domestic abuse, including those in same-sex relationships.

Every time we reauthorize an act of Congress, we have an opportunity to improve. Improvement, not further harming victims, should be our focus with the reauthorization.

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

Mr. Speaker, when the Violence Against Women Act was first passed, it was to prevent and raise awareness of domestic violence, and to create programs that help victims exit dangerous situations. Unfortunately, the bill we are debating today runs counter to these goals. It eliminates critical protections to help immigrant

women and it fails to extend the protections of VAWA to other populations that need them desperately. I support the Senate's bipartisan VAWA reauthorization bill, which builds on past progress by providing battered Native American women with recourse against their abusers and ensures that anyone who experiences domestic abuse has access to VAWA resources, including those in same-sex relationships. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 4970 and ensure that the reauthorization of VAWA helps all victims of domestic abuse.