On the recordMay 16, 2019
Let me just make a couple of points. First of all, of course we want navigators to work in areas where there is high unemployment. My district, over the years, has had some of the highest unemployment in the State of Oregon. Then I go down the list of future amendments here, and it is like, oh, we have got another one coming up that ensures rural areas are included in the navigator outreach. Well, that is a good idea. And then there is another one that ensures that State healthcare exchange outreach activities also target our veteran population. Yes, that is a good idea. Why are we having to put all this in statute? Who the heck is running this program, and why is it such a mess that it requires amendment after amendment after amendment? My point is: Where does this stop? Of course we want them to work with veterans. Of course we want them to work with seniors and the young. Are we going to go to age segments here, 18 to 29, 31 to--I mean, come on. Really? We are going to put all this in statute? How do they not have common sense? Who are these navigators that we have to direct them from the floor of the House into statute? Oh, by the way, be sure and work in an unemployed area. Be sure to mention that there are services for mental health and substance abuse. Oh, don't forget this, that, and the other thing. I mean, I think we only ran out of amendments because we ran out of ideas of things to put into the statute, but that is no way to run a program.…





