Scott Peters

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, on March 18, 2015 the House voted on final passage of H.R. 1030 and I intended to vote ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 125. I strongly oppose this bill that undermines the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to use the best science available in carrying out its responsibility to protect public health.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the San Diego Regional Climate Collaborative, which recently won the United States Environmental Protection Agency's Climate Leadership Award for Innovative Partnerships. This award recognizes organizations across the country working on cutting-edge climate initiatives that address greenhouse gas reduction goals, adaptation, and resilience. As a member-based network that supports public agencies in the San Diego region, the Climate Collaborative works to advance comprehensive solutions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and prepare our region for climate impacts. In San Diego, climate change is not a partisan issue. While there is debate in Congress about the science of climate change, there is not debate amongst scientists. As I see every day, San Diegans aren't waiting for Washington to act to address climate change. The collaborative has built partnerships with business, academia, nonprofits, and philanthropic entities to share expertise, leverage resources, and advance actions that benefit San Diego's communities, economy, and natural resources. The San Diego Regional Climate Collaborative serves as a model for other regions as we seek to address the harmful effects of climate change as a nation and as a planet. I congratulate them.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended. Mr. Speaker, let's make this simple. The fundamental role of the Environmental Protection Agency is to protect our Nation's environment and to ensure that we have healthy communities for children and families across the country. The Science Advisory Board is the body that ensures that EPA uses the best scientific research available to protect the environment and public health. To support this mission, we in Congress should be working together to ensure that the best and brightest scientists are on this Board. Instead, today's bill would muddy the waters when they should be crystal clear. Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill moves EPA away from scientific integrity and weakens the independence of the Science Advisory Board. First, the bill requires that all scientific and technical points be balanced among members of the Board. What does the term ``balanced'' mean? Politicians should not be mandating scientific results. Science should be determined by the experts--scientists and scientific researchers--not by those of us in this Chamber. Second, the bill imposes a nonscience-based hiring quota for Advisory Board members based on employment by a State, local, or tribal government without regard to scientific expertise. Finally, the open public comment period in the bill would allow regulatory opponents an endless amount of time to halt, derail, discredit, and slow EPA actions that go against their interests. So instead of limiting review time and providing businesses with more certainty of how EPA regulations will affect their projects, the underlying bill would increase delay and decrease certainty--not what we have been trying to achieve with regulatory reform in this body up until now. Regulatory reform isn't done through obstructing every potential new rule. It is done, in part, by requiring agencies to render their decisions on a schedule so that the market can move forward. This bill would do the opposite. My amendment will not cure all of these defects in the underlying bill, but it makes two obvious and significant changes to promote scientific integrity. It states simply that anyone working for a corporation that has been convicted of a major environmental crime should be prohibited from serving on the Science Advisory Board. It secondly states that any person whose primary source of research comes from these criminal corporate actors should be prohibited from serving on the Science Advisory Board. Mr. Speaker, for too long, we have heard that we have to choose between supporting economic prosperity and a clean environment. The implication is that we can't have both, but that is a false choice and one we can't afford to make. Americans know that we deserve nothing less than both: economic opportunity and clean air and clean water for future generations. My State of California added 498,000 jobs in the last year while, at the same time, we continue to be a global leader in environmental reforms that have provided cleaner air than at any time in the last 50 years. I am from San Diego where scientific research, economic growth, and environmental stewardship are not in conflict, but rather are the subject of ongoing, sustained, bipartisan collaboration. It should be clear to everyone that CEOs from major corporations that are convicted of major environmental crimes have no place serving on the Science Advisory Board and neither should biased scientists. Vote ``yes'' on the motion, and stand with me to maintain the integrity of the independence of the Science Advisory Board. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. PETERS. I am opposed in its current form.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge House Republican leadership to put a clean bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security on the floor for a vote. It is our job to lead this great Nation, and America deserves better than political gamesmanship. The threats facing our country are real. The Department of Homeland Security is on the front lines making sure our communities are safe. They secure our boarders and ports and ensure airports are safe for millions of travelers. If Congress fails to fund DHS, 169,000 Border Patrol agents, Customs and Border Protection officers, TSA aviation and security screeners, and Active Duty Coast Guard military will report to work but will not receive a paycheck. And that is just wrong. I joined several of my colleagues this week to introduce legislation to withhold congressional pay if Homeland Security is shut down. It is simple: if the hardworking men and women in the Department of Homeland Security will continue to go to work but not receive a paycheck, Members of Congress who have failed to do their job should not receive a paycheck either. Let's do the right thing. Cleanly fund our Homeland Security and quit political gamesmanship.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. PETERS. Madam Chair, my amendment is very straightforward and has a singular goal of making sure that we are not making our Active Duty servicemembers more vulnerable to predatory lending. Members of our Armed Services make sacrifices every day to protect our country from harm and to defend our freedoms, and it is our responsibility here in Congress to ensure that these men and women are protected from scams and predatory lenders that seek to exploit their service. Sadly, it has become clear that the nature of military service makes our men and women in uniform the ideal targets for predatory loans that carry exorbitant interest rates. San Diego, part of which I represent, is home to the largest concentration of military forces in the world. More than 100,000 Active Duty servicemembers call the region home. Predatory lending is an acute problem in my district and in the region and continues to hurt too many families. Despite passage of the Military Lending Act of 2007 to eliminate this type of predatory lending, which too often leaves servicemembers and their families with crippling amounts of debt, there are a number of loopholes that these bad-acting lenders have continued to exploit. These reprehensible predators are trapping servicemembers and their families in a cycle of debt that can be extremely difficult to overcome, and it is our responsibility, and we are able to act. A bipartisan and bicameral effort has been made to call on the Department of Defense to issue rules that close the loopholes and ensure our Active Duty personnel do not fall victim to predatory practices that leave them financially strapped. This amendment would keep regulations on predatory lenders so that we are maintaining a watchful eye on those companies that are exploiting those who have sacrificed so much for our safety, even as we move to reform and streamline the regulatory processes on businesses that are playing by the rules. I want to thank Chairman Goodlatte of the Judiciary Committee and Chairman Chabot of the Small Business Committee for working with me over the past few days on this amendment, and for their commitment to working on a bipartisan basis to protect our servicemembers. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this amendment. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERS

Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to highlight San Diegan Brian Fennessy, assistant fire chief of the San Diego Fire-Rescue Department, who is here in D.C. sharing his expertise fighting wildfires so that communities across the country can be better prepared. This morning, Chief Fennessy testified before the House Transportation Committee's Economic Development Subcommittee on ways to speed up disaster recovery and save taxpayer dollars by lessening the harm of disasters. In San Diego, we have learned many lessons from the numerous firestorms of the last decade, including the importance of increasing preparedness and emergency planning, and the need for coordination among various levels of government. As extreme weather becomes more prevalent, sharing information from local experiences on what does work and doesn't work will only become more important. So thank you to Chief Fennessy for sharing your experience, and I thank all of the brave men and women of the San Diego Fire Department.

Mr. PETERS of California

Mr. PETERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise today to support my legislation, H.R. 1378, to designate the Federal Courthouse on West Broadway in downtown San Diego as the James M. Carter and Judith N. Keep United States Courthouse, and to designate the Federal Judicial Center in San Diego as the John Rhoades Federal Judicial Center. In San Diego's collaborative spirit, in order to find a name for the new building, the San Diego legal community reached out to find ideas, and through this process some prominent jurists clearly emerged. These jurists were enthusiastically touted by a bipartisan coalition, including the San Diego County Bar Association, our district's Federal judges, and both Republican and Democratic community leaders across San Diego. Judge Carter was the moving force behind the creation of the Southern District of California. After its creation, he became the first Chief Judge of the District Court, serving in that position until he was appointed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Keep was instrumental in opening up the San Diego legal field to women. She graduated from the University of San Diego School of Law as its valedictorian and went on to become the first female judge for the District Court of the Southern District of California, and later the District Court's first female Chief Judge. This bill also honors Judge John Rhoades, who served as a Federal judge in San Diego for 22 years and was widely respected and beloved throughout the region's legal community. Judges Carter, Keep, and Rhoades all served the public with distinction and reflected the San Diego legal community's shared values of excellence and integrity. I am proud to honor their legacy with this legislation. I want to thank two of my colleagues in particular, Congresswoman Susan Davis, who represented this area before I did and led this effort for the past several years, and Congressman Darrell Issa for his support and great amendments to the bill. It is better because of his work. I am proud to have worked with them both in this Congress to move it forward.

Mr. PETERS of California

Mr. PETERS of California. Mr. Speaker, many laws are intended to ensure efficiency in Federal agencies but often have unintended consequences, preventing agencies from serving the public and costing taxpayer money. Currently, the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Continuum of Care Program spends too much time fulfilling administrative obligations instead of helping individuals and families transition out of homelessness and putting them on a path to independent living. Twice a fiscal year, HUD has to reallocate emergency solutions grant program funds that are unused, returned, or otherwise become available in the program, but because almost no funds are unused or become available under the program, the reallocation of funds takes a lot of time and unwarranted human capital to complete. It is administratively more efficient to reallocate funds only once a year. This frees up HUD employees to provide more human resources toward providing better service to constituents, and we shouldn't saddle HUD with more administrative work that isn't helping anyone. In addition to mandatory fund allocations, HUD also faces a mountain of paperwork when it comes to administering rental assistance. Prior to 2009, private nonprofits could administer rental assistance through HUD's Continuum of Care. The HEARTH Act, however, obfuscated rental assistance laws, and private nonprofits were left off the list of entities allowed to administer rental assistance. Currently, only States, units of general local government, or public housing agencies can dispense housing assistance despite nonprofits' substantial experience and their ability to reach vulnerable populations. Private nonprofits can still execute other homelessness programs, but they have to go through public housing agencies or another layer of bureaucracy to get rental assistance to their clients or the landlord. This creates more bureaucratic burdens when individuals and families really need the help quickly to stay in their homes. H.R. 2790, the Housing Assistance Efficiency Act, would remedy both these problems, would make HUD a more efficient agency and get homelessness assistance to those that need it more quickly. This is important in particular to San Diego. We have the third largest homeless population, and it is widely supported in my district and across the country. I thank the gentleman from New Mexico. In their statement supporting this legislation, the San Diego Housing Federation said this bill removes barriers to helping get important resources to those who need it the most, and that is what it is all about. So I urge my colleagues to help pass this legislation to take substantive action to improve government efficiency and help fight chronic homelessness in our country.

Mr. PETERS of California

Mr. PETERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight the valuable and lifesaving contributions of America's clinical research efforts and to urge my colleagues to support my resolution to make September clinical research innovation month. Innovation and scientific research are critical to ensuring America's future competitiveness. San Diego understands this and has become a hub for innovation and technology. Clinical research organizations are components of our leading innovation sector in San Diego and across the country. They are fundamental to the development of drugs, biologics, and medical devices that are changing the face of health care in America. Mr. Speaker, last year alone, clinical research efforts led to over 85 new drugs approved by the FDA, aiding in the fights against cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, and many other ailments. Clinical research connected to the veterans hospital in San Diego is looking for the best ways to treat our brave men and women as they return home. The lifesaving innovations coming out of clinical research are helping people across the country live longer and healthier lives, and I encourage my colleagues to join me in establishing clinical research innovation month.

Mr. PETERS of California

Mr. PETERS of California. Thank you, Congressman Garamendi, for helping to raise awareness about the pressing need to change the way the Federal Government deals with funding wildfire response and prevention. As you well know, the devastating effect of wildfires in 2003 and 2007--we had massive, massive loss of property and dislocations in Scripps Ranch, Tierrasanta, Rancho Bernardo, and Poway. Right now, as I am speaking--and you mentioned this as well-- firefighters in Yosemite National Park continue to battle a wildfire that has burned more than 2,600 acres and required 120 firefighters and 11 aircraft to combat. It is no secret, in addition, that California is facing a prolonged drought that places us at increased risk for wildfires. So we are in the midst of what is expected to be one of the longest and hardest wildfire seasons in recent memory, certainly in any of our memories. Wildfires are extremely expensive for States and localities to fight. There is an urgent need for Congress to pass a solution that funds firefighting without stealing from prevention, which is a crazy thing to do. I think we all acknowledge that. Earlier this summer, as you mentioned, I led the discharge petition with 196 signers to demand a vote on the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act of 2014. That bill has real bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate--71 Democrats and 60 Republicans have cosponsored in the House--and that is very unusual around here. It was also included by the President in his budget request. So you have both parties in the House and the President of the United States all on the same page on this issue. It seems like an area where we ought be able to make some progress, and we ought to have a vote. The bill allows firefighting agencies to access funds from the natural disaster contingency fund while fighting catastrophic fires, not take money from prevention because, of course, what that does is it makes the following year's fires even more severe and even more costly and dangerous. So it is fiscally responsible to treat wildfires like the natural disasters that they are, like an earthquake, flood, or hurricane. Instead of stealing funds from prevention efforts to pay for immediate responses, we should be adequately funding both. I join my colleagues here tonight to call on the Speaker to bring this truly bipartisan bill to a vote immediately so that fire-prone regions like the two we are dealing with in California--mine in San Diego--don't suffer from Washington's dysfunction. Ladies and gentlemen, we started this fire season this year in May. We are used to having fire seasons. It is natural to have fire seasons in September or October, but the fact that we started in May just underscores what we are up against. We do not want to leave for our October election activities without having dealt with that and exposing these communities to risk. I thank my colleague, Mr. Garamendi, for helping to raise awareness about this. Thank you for your continued commitment and leadership on the issue. We look forward to bringing it home.

Mr. PETERS of California

Mr. PETERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to state my support for this agreement, the Veterans' Access to Care through Choice, Accountability, and Transparency Act of 2014, and thank both Chairman Miller and Ranking Member Michaud for their leadership on bringing this issue to a resolution. Last week, I offered a motion to instruct as a way to spur a bipartisan solution and to ensure that vets on the GI Bill could pay lower instate college tuition. I am happy that that provision has been included. Enacting the measures offered in this plan will go a long way toward improving veterans health care though, as everyone noted, there is much more work to be done. The more than 200,000 veterans who live in San Diego County deserve access to the medical care and benefits America has promised them and they have earned. It is my hope that our action today will give new hope to the many vets who felt despair and disappointment at the way they have been treated by the VA after all they have sacrificed. Today, we send a bipartisan message to them: America keeps its promises to our veterans.

Mr. PETERS of California

Mr. PETERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. PETERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in strong support of the Veterans' Access to Care through Choice, Accountability, and Transparency Act of 2014, which the Senate passed on a bipartisan 93-3 vote last month. It is no secret that the Department of Veterans Affairs is failing to keep our Nation's promise to our veterans and their families. Ensuring that our veterans have access to the medical care and benefits that they have earned is one of the most important jobs of Congress and a top priority of mine, given the more than 200,000 veterans who live in San Diego County. In recent months, failures at the Phoenix VA and other facilities across the country demonstrated a culture of complacency and ineptitude that is unacceptable and must change. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Phoenix, Kyrsten Sinema.

Mr. PETERS of California. I thank my colleague, Ms. Sinema. While San Diego's VA centers have performed better than most, and the backlog of benefits claims has been reduced significantly in my region, we can't ignore the larger structural reforms that the entire VA system clearly needs. In San Diego, my district office staff has been working to help veterans and their families who have experienced the bureaucratic red tape at the VA firsthand. Since coming to Congress last year, we have handled more than 400 veterans' cases and have recovered more than $750,000 in benefits to which these veterans were entitled. I have also focused on ways to make the transition from Active Duty service back to civilian life an easier one for veterans and their families. Last year, I engaged with military commanders, nonprofits, and veterans' advocacy organizations to launch the Military Transition Support Project. This collaborative community effort will provide a central hub of information for servicemembers as they become veterans and search for housing, employment, and benefits. It is on its way to being a national model and doesn't cost the Federal Government or taxpayers a dime. The experience of Dr. Howard and Jean Somers, constituents of mine from Coronado, has only added to my urgency in addressing reform at the VA. The Somers' son Daniel served our country in Operation Iraqi Freedom. As the Somers testified in the House Veterans Affairs Committee 2 weeks ago, their son made several attempts after returning home from combat to seek help and counseling for posttraumatic stress but was ultimately unsuccessful, and eventually he took his own life. The VA system failed Daniel Somers; it failed his parents; and that is unacceptable. Both the Senate and the House have taken action to make real, substantive changes at the VA. I voted for many of these measures in the House, but the Senate's plan is comprehensive, bipartisan, and is the best opportunity for the quick action that our veterans deserve. It will benefit thousands of veterans by increasing their access to care by allowing the VA to lease more facilities, hire doctors and nurses to fill their most pressing staff shortages, and by allowing veterans to see non-VA providers if they have been forced to wait for an appointment or live too far from the closest facility. It would increase accountability on those responsibile for the recent failures by allowing the VA Secretary to fire complacent employees, and through changes to the scheduling, staffing, and administrative processes in each facility. Part of my motion also has to do with ensuring that our veterans and their spouses are able to access a high-quality education after their time of Active Duty has ended. Veterans are advancing themselves at colleges and universities across my district, across San Diego, and across the country. Expanding instate tuition to our veterans, regardless of where they live, would expand their educational opportunities significantly and potentially reduce the financial burden that many of them face. As of today, only 24 States offer instate tuition benefits for veterans who have not yet met the standard residency requirements of that State. My home State of California is one of those that does not offer it. In the University of California system, one of the premier public university systems in the entire world, more than 1,600 veterans are currently enrolled. The instate tuition at a UC school averages $13,200 per year. For nonresidents, it is $36,000. That is a difference of $23,000 that veterans must pay out of pocket. UC San Diego, part of which is in my district, enrolls 324 veterans, and nearby San Diego State has 1,127 veterans. In the California State University system, being a non-California resident costs nearly double the tuition, to the tune of more than $4,000 per year. By forcing veterans who fought not just for one State or for their home State but for the entire United States, to fit into the standard residency requirements, in many instances we are forcing them to delay their education or vocational training they need for career advancement. Instead of making it more difficult to use their earned GI Bill benefits, we should be making it easier and more financially feasible. A recent national investigation called ``Back Home: The Enduring Battle Facing Post-9/11 Veterans,'' noted the example of Marine Corps Corporal veteran Brian Oller, a student at UC San Diego's Scripps Institution of Oceanography, who is paying out of pocket to cover part of the $22,000 tuition, which his GI benefits don't fully pay. Fifteen thousand veterans are discharged in the San Diego region each year, and about half decide to stay in the area to restart their civilian lives. Many of them are not from California, but they should have access immediately to the instate tuition rate. Giving veterans the instate tuition rate is a bipartisan idea that I know our chairman, Mr. Miller, supports. The House passed a bill 390-0 to provide this benefit. The comprehensive Senate bill I want us to vote on also includes that language. Mr. Speaker, I hope we can pass the Veterans Access to Care through Choice, Accountability, and Transparency Act in its entirety and provide the necessary relief and support to our veterans and show the American people that Congress is capable of passing comprehensive reforms to what is clearly a broken system. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this motion to instruct. Let's actually get the needed reforms in place and expand educational opportunities and our support for our veterans. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I am prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In closing, first, I lament the notion that this is motivated entirely by politics; although, I understand that would not be entirely unusual in this body. It was 80 degrees in San Diego today--a beautiful day. I don't fly all the way over here to the 91-degree heat that feels like 100 not to do something, and veterans are a top priority for me. The point of this motion is that we have something right before us that would deal with the culture of complacency that has failed our veterans, and we could pass the bill supported both by Senator Bernie Sanders and Senator John McCain, which was passed by a vote of 93-3--I don't think you could get more bipartisan than that--and it would not raise the issues that Chairman Miller has discussed because, if we wanted to add more money, as Senator Sanders may want, we could take that up later. There are very, very many points of agreement in the Senate bill, and it would incorporate many of the things we did here in the House if we would pass it just like this. So it makes all the sense in the world to go ahead and have that bill before us so that we could pass it. It could be on the President's desk tomorrow, and at least many of the points of agreement, like the instate tuition, for example, would be on their way to helping veterans right away. Last week, I attended part of the stand down for homeless veterans in San Diego. The Veterans Village of San Diego organized the first stand down in 1988, and there are more than 200 similar programs nationwide that help provide a hand up, not a hand out for homeless vets. No one at the event asked me whether I thought the House or the Senate or the President had the best plan for keeping our promise to America's veterans. They want action, and they want it now. They don't want to hear about how the procedural rules of this place are some way to hide behind our lack of action. They fought for our country in the jungles of Vietnam, in the deserts of Iraq, and in the mountains of Afghanistan. The fact that this House can't put aside partisan politics to do the right thing for our veterans is even more messed up than anyone can imagine.

Mr. PETERS of California. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. PETERS of California. Absolutely not, Mr. Chairman. What I am suggesting is that the effect of our inability to vote on this Senate bill, which passed 93-3, sends the message that we just can't get it together.

Mr. PETERS of California. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. PETERS of California. Mr. Miller, I could not argue with you. The only other point I would make is that the provisions of that bill are contained within the Senate bill that I hope we are able to vote on. That is why we could kill two birds with one stone. Mr. Speaker, frankly, if we can't get this kind of thing done, it is no wonder that the approval rating of the body is at 9 percent. It is a shame. I do urge my colleagues to adopt the motion to instruct so that we can get this effort moving and provide our veterans with the educational opportunities that they deserve, with the support they deserve, and with the opportunities that they deserve because they fought so hard and so bravely for us. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERS of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.